> They do not "create statistical jobs that do not exists."
But then you go on to say
> So the establishment survey undercounts employment in the early stages of recovery and overcounts at the onset of slowdowns or recessions. Since there's a good chance we're early in a slowdown, if not an outright recession, that's a real issue now. About 80% of the new jobs in the establishment survey so far this year have come from the b/d model. It's quite possible that those jobs don't really exist.
If 'It's quite possible that those jobs don't really exist', then haven't they in fact "created statistical jobs that do not exist." You seem to be agreeing with the criticism of the b/d model, that you usually defend (btw, I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion,: I would just like to understand the issue better).
One more point (again, this is not a polemic: I'm trying to learn as much as possible) -- how can a well-known economics professor at NYU (formerly at Yale) be wrong on so basic an issue as
> 'employment is a lagging indicator of the economy'
Thanks for your comments.