With Rick Perry now officially in the presidential race, there’s a spate of coverage and commentary about how much credit the governor of the Lone Star State can claim for the purported “Texas miracle”—the fact that during the dismal recovery of the last two years, the state has accounted for somewhere between 30 and 50 percent of total job growth in the United States. Tuesday’s New York Times featured a front-page story that was skeptical of Perry’s role, while Paul Krugman’s Monday column rejected the idea that there’s a “miracle” to take credit for. Both are recommended reading, as is Kevin Williamson’s biting response to Krugman in National Review, and further thoughts from Felix Salmon and Tyler Cowen.
But there’s an important fact about Texas’s economic record that isn’t really emphasized in any of those articles or blog posts, though it has been flagged in some other sharp coverage lately. Which is: while Perry’s economic vision is undoubtedly conservative, public-sector jobs have played a key role in supporting the Texas labor market.
As he ramps up his presidential campaign, Perry likes to outline an economic strategy that depends on low spending, predictable regulation, and constraints on litigation. It’s an outlook that, at least rhetorically, privileges private-sector work over government jobs.
But as The Wall Street Journal reported last month, during Perry’s decade-long stint as governor, more than 300,000 government jobs have been created in Texas. That’s nearly 30 percent of the state’s overall job growth during that time, and about one-fifth of all new public-sector jobs nationwide.
For much of that decade, the unemployment rate in Texas was actually higher than the rest of the country’s; it didn’t dip below the national average until the beginning of 2007. And that improvement came as the public sector accounted for an even higher share of total job growth. Government employees are about one-sixth of Texas workers, but from early 2007 to the end of 2010, the public sector accounted for 47 percent of new jobs in the state, according to the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based think tank. Factor out federal government jobs, and state and local government were still responsible for over 40 percent of the gains.
The picture has changed a little in the wake of the recession. But government work accounted for about 12 percent of all job growth in Texas over the past two years, according to an article last month in the Austin American-Statesman. (Yahoo!’s Zach Roth, also on this beat Tuesday, put the figure at 13 percent.) Since the start of 2009, The Fiscal Times reported last week, state and local governments in Texas have added 66,000 employees. And to focus on the even more recent past, state and local employment grew by half a percentage point in Texas from spring 2010 to spring 2011, according to a recent report by the Rockefeller Institute.
That last figure doesn’t sound like much—until you see data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that, nationwide, the state and local workforce fell by nearly 1.5 percent over that period. This shrinking public sector is, to a considerable extent, why the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high, even though the economy is technically in a recovery. After the mass layoffs of 2008 and 2009, private-sector employment has been growing modestly since early 2010. But strapped state and local governments continue to shed jobs, and the decline is only accelerating as federal stimulus aid runs out. The fact that Texas has moved against this tide means the state has avoided a powerful drag on its job market.
- 1
- 2
Dumb.
By your own accounting, Texas' jobs miracle is either 70% or 88% private sector jobs. Texas added teachers in the public sector (and that's about it) because its population is exploding. Texas government spending has tracked closely to population growth plus inflation.
Texas also added nearly 4 times more private sector jobs than all other job-adding states put together since June 2006 (78% of all new private sector jobs, to be exact). http://texanomics.blogspot.com/2011/08/texas-accounts-for-nearly-4-out-of.html
A booming private sector economy allows government to add those teaching jobs. Take out teaching jobs, and how many government jobs have been created in Texas? Far fewer.
#1 Posted by Texas Fact Checker, CJR on Wed 17 Aug 2011 at 12:50 PM
I dealt with texas:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/don_barlett.php#comment-47184
So did Krugman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html
Don't make me keep doing it.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 17 Aug 2011 at 01:20 PM
I am glad to see CJR look into this. I know from my own experience that half of all the cold calls I get from headhunters are for positions in Texas.
@ Thimbles
Well, if former Enron advisor Paul Krugman said it .... by the way, how is he preparing for that UFO invasion?
#3 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 17 Aug 2011 at 02:29 PM
I get it: Perry is a scarcely principled opportunist who probably will say anything to get elected. Bravo for going after another easy establishment target. But what else is new in the world of status quo politics? Is it really breaking ground to say Slick Rick Perry is engaging in disingenuous demagoguery? Was it toil to gather all those nationalist, leftist, FedGov sources and convert them to hyperlinks?
No offense, but the real elephant in the room is Ron Paul's uncanny ability to convert politically disparate voters to his "fringe" campaign, with his message and his unsurpassed, grassroots support base. The Obama–Romney status quo is threatened by the only solidly principled, free-market, anti-war candidate in the race — so much that the lib v con MSM blatantly shaft him. Where is CJR on that? Even the anti-Paul Roger Simon finally stood up and protested: politico.com/news/stories/0811/61412.html. So, CJR surely would find it newsworthy that Ron Paul earned a virtual tie with Michelle Bachmann and thoroughly dominated Perry, Pawlenty, Romney, and other establishment suits. No?
Maybe his close 2nd place in the Iowa straw poll simply means — as usual, duh! — that the poll means nothing. Or maybe he deserved to be snubbed by a "strong press"; maybe CJR joins all the other establishment dupes in casting Paul off to the "fringe" and "unelectable" bin. But even the historically hyper-statist, anti-Paul AP finally came around to the suggestion that such labels are old-hat and wrong: npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=139626210. Wow! So, shouldn't we at least give recognition to those precious, ethical few who temporarily break from the group-thinking MSM pack?
Of course, CJR may not need to post one word on this topic, so long as CJR allows me to continue agitating in its comments section. For which I am grateful.
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 17 Aug 2011 at 06:42 PM
Puh-leeze do not cite former Enron advisor Paul Krugman as any kind of an authoritative source. You may have gotten away with such specious citations in the past but WE DON"T BELIEVE YOU ANY MORE! You've hidden behind the brush-pile of our good manners long enough and we are calling BS on all of your left wing smear tactics!
#5 Posted by ConservaDad, CJR on Wed 17 Aug 2011 at 09:22 PM
Sorry to throw rotten eggs at those who are all in a dither over who won the straw poll this past weekend. How/Why: The "straw Poll" was won by nobody. The "winner" purchased SIX THOUSAND VOTES and gave them to folks. They run thirty bucks a pop, so basically the one who "bought the vote" and "winner" was, of course, Michelle Bachman (sp). Second biggest purchaser of bulk tickets....Ron Paul.
So basically all the ink and pixels wasted on who won is a total waste of "reporting" (or non-reporting as it appears only a microscopic number of reporters bothered to report how the FUND RAISER, which it is, actually works.
Money and organization (getting those with the free tickets to vote as you want them to do).
#6 Posted by Curtis L Walker, CJR on Wed 17 Aug 2011 at 09:49 PM
"Puh-leeze do not cite former Enron advisor Paul Krugman"
"Well, if former Enron advisor Paul Krugman said it"
Guys, you realize Rick Perry is from Texas, right? You might want to lay off the "connections to Enron discredit EVERYTHING YOU SAY" line of argument.
http://info.tpj.org/Lobby_Watch/enron.html
just sayin'.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 18 Aug 2011 at 01:48 AM
Just jumping in here to address Dan A.'s comment about Paul. There is little reason to believe Paul is a serious contender for the nomination, the straw poll results don't give us any more reason to take him seriously as a contender, and the AP story flagged above is too credulous on that score. Steve Kornacki, who's always worth reading, explains why here.
At the same time, I think there's a good argument to cover Paul, made here by Jason Linkins and Tyler Kingkade. Basically, it's that Paul offers a perspective that really is very different on important issues, and he's attracting support from a sizable and growing minority within the GOP. I made a similar argument a little while back about Herman Cain, who's also not a real contender. I don't think it makes sense to cover someone like Paul or Cain in the same way you'd cover Mitt Romney, but as long as they're attracting meaningful support (a standard I'm not sure applies to Cain anymore) I do think they should be covered.
#8 Posted by Greg Marx, CJR on Thu 18 Aug 2011 at 02:40 PM
Greg,
Thanks for addressing my protest.
Your hyperlinks are broken, but your argument makes sense thus: Ron Paul is unlikely to get the nomination because he is unlikely to get kingmaker-type media coverage.
It's a sort of paradox. You say Paul shouldn't get so much coverage as Romney et al., because he won't contend; yet, as is the case for any other candidate, his perceived ability to contend is largely contingent upon the quantity and nature of mega-media coverage. (An out-of-nowhere and allegedly radical Obama was in a similar boat four years ago until the MSM, Oprah, and droves of now-disenchanted progressives crowned him the next coming of FDR and the like.)
That being the case, your realist argument wins by way of self-fulfilling prophecy because, as Glenn Greenwald and others say, Ron Paul's message represents the greatest threat to the MIC-MSM-FED-GOP-DEM status quo. Perhaps the only threat.
In any case, here's hoping you and CJR will at least do some peer-reviewing of Ron Paul coverage as he continues to make the empty-suit authoritarians sweat.
Regards,
#9 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 18 Aug 2011 at 07:29 PM
In other news:
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/chart-day-deleveraging-and-texas-miracle
"But how big a role did this play? Debt overhang is a big factor in our protracted economic downturn: when overleveraged consumers cut back on spending, this reduces demand for goods and services and gives businesses no reason to expand production. So economic growth stagnates and unemployment stays high. Today, Mike Konczal updates his look at deleveraging across the country, and the chart below quantifies this story of deleveraging and unemployment. Texas didn't have a housing boom thanks to its strict mortgage regulation, its debt overhang has therefore stayed low, and its unemployment rate, far from being exceptional, is right where you'd expect it to be...
But one thing that is exportable is tighter government regulation of the mortgage market. It works! Even though Texas is a fast-growing, warm-weather state, it avoided most of the housing madness. But that's the one thing you'll probably never hear from Rick Perry."
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 18 Aug 2011 at 11:25 PM
What a miracle it was. You can always expect GSM Texas to do these sorta things. Great work guys!
#11 Posted by Kelly, CJR on Mon 16 Jan 2012 at 01:45 PM