Quantcast

Letter: Fact-checking Malloy’s employment numbers

To the Editor

In his recent Budget Speech Gov. Malloy stated that more than 40,000 new private sector jobs have grown over the past three years. Senator Duff made a similar statement recently in a public mailing.

Let’s see what the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has to say. The CT labor force and employment maxed out in May 2010 at 1.915 and 1.738 million, respectively. By the time Gov. Malloy took office the CT labor force and employment had declined by 24,000 and 6,000, respectively, to 1.891 and 1.734 million, respectively. Over the next three years (Gov. Malloy’s term of office — Dec. 2010 to Dec. 2013) — the CT labor force and employment further declined by 43,000 and 22,000 respectively to 1.848 and 1.712 million, respectively.

In other words much the largest reduction in CT’s labor force and employment since the end of the Great Recession (June, 2009) took place under Gov. Malloy’s stewardship. No other state can match that dismal record. Nor should this sharp decline be surprising. Gov. Malloy’s signature budget plan upon taking office was imposing the largest tax hike in the state’s history while maintaining public union employment and salaries, hoping for large savings that never materialized.

No other state ever imposed a record-setting tax hike just after a major recession. We now know the results. Despite the Governor’s claims (and Democrat legislators), the sharp decline in CT’s employment under his stewardship is not only unmatched but clear evidence of utterly misguided fiscal policies.

Peter I Berman

 

 

 

Comments

7 responses to “Letter: Fact-checking Malloy’s employment numbers”

  1. EveT

    The claim of 40,000 new private sector jobs and the decline of labor force and employment are not mutually exclusive. Some jobs go away, new jobs are created. Gov. Malloy and Sen. Duff did not claim that CT had a net gain of 40,000 jobs.

    Many would disagree that the Great Recession ended in 2009. For most of us, we are still in a recession. Increasing taxes on the well-to-do is what we need to protect our most vulnerable citizens from going hungry and freezing in their homes.

  2. the donut hole

    Great idea EveT. It has worked so well in Bridgeport, let’s make sure the rest of the state follows. CT could put Detroit to shame if we try hard enough.

  3. anonymous

    One man’s well-to-do is another man’s middle class. Generous social services like here in CT are paid for by the middle class since all the really rich are better able to avoid our awful tax burdens.

  4. Piberman

    Eve

    The documentation for 40,000 new private jobs is unknown to me. The inference of vigorous job creation by citing this questionable figure against US Dept of Labor documented employment and labor force declines some 5 years into the national economic expansion is political sleaze designed to obfuscate and redirect attention from economic and fiscal policy failure virtually without precedent in post War America. The BLS declines speak for themselves.

    1. Mark Chapman

      Here’s a link to a CT Mirror story from September that speaks to the situation, and why the administration and many economists tout 40,000 new jobs while Republicans and yet other economists say there are more people unemployed. The real explanation begins just below the graph. http://ctmirror.org/ct-jobs-numbers-dont-lie-they-just-confuse

  5. Piberman

    Sorry Mark but professional and academic business economists and the US Dept of Labor BLS have long discussed labor market developments in terms of labor force, employment and unemployment. The term “new private jobs” is meaningless unless coupled with “lost private jobs”. An honest Administration not anxious to hoodwink the public would stick to traditional reporting. Declining labor force and employment obviously means lost private jobs are overpowering new private jobs. But the Malloy Administration hopes citizens and reporters won’t make the obvious inference.

    1. Mark Chapman

      @PiBerman

      Don’t apologize to me. I was just sharing additional information, not taking sides.

Leave a Reply


Recent Comments