The amusing thing about Krugman's "borrowing" of his chart from DeLong is that DeLong's point seems to be that projections are, in his words "running 1.07 million behind the pace" in the month they were released. The CEA forecast projects payroll jobs growth of 2.9 percent, resulting in 3.8 million more payroll jobs in December 04 than in December 03. Why DeLong seem to think this jobs growth must follow a precisely straight line over the course of the year is a mystery to me, except that that's the only way his dubious argument makes sense.

Three objectives of economic policy are:

1. achievement of growth
2. control of unemployment
3. control of inflation

Job growth is not one of the major objectives of economic policy. It is a means, which is replaceable by efficiency, of achieving the first objective of economic policy. As far as the three objectives are getting achieved, slow job growth is not a fundamental problem. When we clearly understand it, we can crack it.

Economic growth depends on aggregate demand on the ?needs met? side. It depends, on ?necessities provided? side, job growth and labor efficiency growth. Being not an economist, President Bush once said job equals economy. It is true if efficiency remains the same. Growth can be achieved by job growth alone, efficiency growth alone, or both. Most of the time, growth used to be achieved by both. Now, too, it?s being achieved by both. The difference that shocks old economists is that efficiency growth is contributing more than they understand to economic growth while job growth is contributing minimal.

If job growth, instead of the larger objective of economic growth, is a real concern, there are two methods to consider. One is to make a new demand ? like exploring VEGA constellation. However, this way of demand creation will result in high debt and high inflation. In some parts of the world, Keynesian multiplier used to be misunderstood to mean it is OK to create demand that way, resulting in debt and inflation in the event.

The other method to consider is preparing for 4-day week era. Currently, would-be young labor force members are investing in themselves instead of getting jobs. When they get jobs years later than their elder siblings did, the efficiency growth will accelerate. Globalization (involving outsourcing) trend and robotic engineering will eventually bring forth 4-day week era sooner or later.

Job growth depends on population of 16 years or older, civilian work force participation rate, and unemployment rate. Slow job growth due to slow population growth is not a problem. If the population grows slow, aggregate demand grows slow, too. Slow job growth due to slow labor force growth is not a problem as far as the economy is growing. It was explained above.

Slow job growth due to high unemployment rate would be a real problem, but it is not the case today. Youngsters do not get into labor force because their household income can support them for now. What?s exactly happening is that this country is adapting to the new era ? globalization on one hand and high efficiency on another hand. If a family of ten members who used to lived on 5 of them working now lives on 4 of them working, it is the time to think of how to let 5 of them working less than before. A truly sad thing is that old economists always fail to find the same rule in a household and in a nation. They do not understand real life, and they do not see what is really going on beneath the numbers on the desk.

Crynolep's point is a longwinded restatement of what economists call the backward bending supply curve of labor. At some point a wealth effect kicks in and workers supply less labor even as wages rise. But that is why Buch never talks of more jobs per se. Instead he says quite reasonably, for a non-economist, that the objective is for anyone who WANTS a job to find a job.