But am I reading the figures right if:

1. Actual Change in Jobs is SMALLER than the estimate of Jobs created in the public section?
   
2. Does that imply that if it wasn't for the jobs in the public sector, there would be a decrease in the net jobs?

The boom in private residential construction (and assiciated trades) have matched increase in percentage of population owning (actually having bought) their housing as well as rapid increase in residential construction costs.

The boom in governmental jobs can be associated with at first a DoD budget increases ("get well") and then 9/11 with associated wars that increase expenditure of defense articles.

The falling sectors include information (burning excesses of "Y2K" and telecom boom) and manufacturing (poorly performing fields include autos and forestry). The big deal here is that manufacturing losses are now biting also durable goods while job losses have been concentrated on non-durable goods in earlier recessions.

The Great American Job Creation Machine(c) has been badly sputtering throughout the 21st century mostly because of nature of shallow recession. Job growth is essentially tied to business investments and during this recession the business investments have been postponed due (excessive?) capacity buildup in 1990's. This is closely related to lack of expected (domestic) demand due weak wage growth and debt load.  That is why the job growth in sectors that serve general public has been so slow. On the other hand, the growth in sectors aimed towards serving well-to-do are doing just fine. This is made possible by very large concentration of wealth to people who form the latter part of comsumer. However, the number of jobs needed to serve one Will Wealthy is essentially smaller than what is needed to server hundred Al Averages.

The irony (and tragedy) of US is that the two-tiered economy allows you to have both boom (in high street) and bust (in main street) at the same time...

The US is turning into a war economy as far as production is concerned while, at the same time, trying at all costs to prevent the war from impacting "the consumer". This is probably a reflection of where Americans were psychologically before 9/11. If 9/11 happened now, I don't think the government would feel the need to tell people to "go out and shop" but could be quite confident of being able to make people accept that the war is going to impact their consumption. When private debt is no longer able to maintain consumption, we might see a similar, spontaneous realignment.

As anecdotal evidence, a close friend of my girlfriend's claims to have no choice now but to become a recruiter for the military, even though they are less than enthusiastic about Bush' s war.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

I think it was Jerome? who produced a similar analysis for the UK (compared to France) which showed Gordon Brown has presided over a similar situation.

Perhaps Drew or someone can correct me, but to some degree this is sensible Keynsian type stuff at work? Smoothing the employment valley with government spending?

But at the same time, it's important in my view to emphasise that:

1. Perhaps things could have been organised better? (e.g. are bombs really the most productive use of these government created jobs? Could the stimulus have been more effective if directed using different policy instruments?)

2. All the voluminous hot air about what makes job creation happen (and why the US/UK approach is better than others) needs a seriously critical eye placed on it. This is evidence, it needs to be used to improve the models that people bandy about.
   

Could you please provide a link

Thanks.


joe