Poor journalism, v. XXLVDCI

Being of the jaded and cynical mold, it really takes a lot to chagrin the staff of NP. This article regarding US unemployment = EU unemployment by Floyd Norris ranks right up there in terms of truly poor journalism:

For many years, unemployment in the United States was lower than in Western Europe, a fact often cited by people who argued that the flexibility inherent in the American system — it is easier to both hire and fire workers than in many European countries — produced more jobs.

That is no longer the case. Unemployment in the United States has risen to European averages, and seems likely to pass them when international data for April is calculated.

The article (and the underlying report which serves as the copy) attempts to equate the current US unemployment rate as some sort of fait accompli which is ever-lasting, never-ending and growing at even greater rates of percentage in perpetuity when compared to the current EU15 unemployment rate, all without the "benefit" of the much vaunted European social-safety net which is portrayed as a job-saver vs. the job-killer it truly has long since become. (Yes, that was indeed a mouthful)

The article is poor on many fronts:

1) It fails to mention long-term (ie. structural unemployment) within the very same EU15 of 8.63 percent versus 4.98 percent in the US;

2) It goes to great lengths to differentiate slices of the European Union to compare against in toto US metrics in an attempt to say, "See, the US citizen is even worse off than those crazy socialists yet do not even get the benefit of cradle-to-grave 'care' by the government". The European Union is either a Union in terms of socio-economic comparisons -or- it is not. The only possible current comparisons are some combination of EU27, Eurozone and US, that is it. In for a penny, in for a pound;

3) It cites most information from the benignly noted, "Center for Economic and Policy Research, a research organization in Washington". Sounds official, objective and as pure as the driven snow. If one bases officaldom, objectivity and pure snowism upon an organisation which receives funding from Barbara Streisand;

4) It cribs most information from a CEPR report which claims the following with a straight-face:

"But even when limited to differences in unemployment, the case for the U.S. model was overstated. From the 1990s on, the United States did have lower unemployment rates than several large European economies, such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, but many smaller European economies with large welfare states and high levels of labor-market regulation regularly did as well or better on unemployment than the United States."

So, excluding France, Germany, Italy and Spain, which collectively make up 56.8 percent of EU27 GDP, makes for a rational and legitimate economic comparison? Other than the shooting Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

So what are legitimate comparisons (even including non-EU) countries per the CEPR:

"In 2000, for example, at the peak of the late 1990s economic boom, when the U.S. unemployment rate stood at 4.0 percent, Austria (3.7 percent), the Netherlands (2.8 percent), Norway (3.4 percent), and Switzerland (2.6 percent) all had lower unemployment rates than the United States; and rates in Denmark (4.3 percent) and Ireland (4.2 percent) were not far behind."

Shall we even compare GDPs? Populations? Relevancy?

The purpose to this particular NP rant is not that of EU vs. US economic systems. That particular debate and discussion is indeed an enjoyable experience through which both sides can learn from the other, given a complete and honest discussion of the issues involved. What this NP rant is about is shoddy journalism and dubious research cloaked with the false imprimatur of académie, which instead of illuminating and adding to the debate merely opens up wide and vomits squarely in the face of those truly interested in EU-US issues.

Then again, the purpose of such agenda-driven journalism and research isn't exactly designed to enlighten and inform ....