A famous fallacy
Apologies for the lack of posting. I am currently in the process of finalising forecasts at my workplace – which of course involve traveling to the farthest reaches of New Zealand and battling mythical animals. In many ways its similar to the labours of Hercules – and as a result gives me little chance to post.
However, I do plan to write on the welfare reforms at some point, as its an issue I like to have an opinion on. This means I have to quickly point out that a lot of commentators and politicians are making a simple error – and they should stop – they are committing the lump of labour fallacy.
Sorry but the government doesn’t actually create jobs per see, outsourcing doesn’t “reduce the stock of jobs” here, and jobs are not the be all and end all of the universe. What matters is income, living standards, and subjective happiness – issues jobs are related too. However, the focus on work helps us to miss the point, and convinces politicians to introduce dumb policies that make many, if not all, of us worse off.
Now, time to get back to the Waikato to make battle with their ridiculously strong quarterly retail result.
“Sorry but the government doesn’t actually create jobs”
ah, so I take it from this I wasn’t the only person swearing at the radio yesterday….
Seeing what was coming I decided to avoid the radio yesterday … I spent most of my time just swearing at articles on Stuff in any case.
Forecasts? Come on! Graph plots up a little, graph plots down a little. Done, lets go fishing!
^^^^^^^^Subtle Chestertons Gate reference.
The graphs and numbers are fine. But what really matters is the narrative, the story, the tone, the interpretive dance. Making sure we use the “forecasting” to actually inform people about what is going on now and what the risks are – given that is what they pay us for.
Hence why it is important for me to hunt mythical beasts that represent these underlying elements of “the economy” that these beasts represent. I suspect I’ve been drinking too much caffeine …
What would be fun would be for you to provide a rational economic explanation for the policy on parents who have a subsequent child while receiving a benefit, and not other parents, and then for us to see if it is the actual explanation.