The official announcement:
The Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award for 2010 is presented to Felix Salmon for his body of work, which exemplifies the highest standards of scientific reporting. His insightful use of statistics as a tool to understanding the world of business and economics, areas that are critical in today’s economy, sets a new standard in statistical investigative reporting.
Here are some examples:
How the government fudges job statistics
This one is important to me. The idea is that “statistical reporting” is not just traditional science reporting (journalist talks with scientists and tries to understand the consensus) or science popularization or silly feature stories about the lottery. Salmon is doing investigative reporting using statistical thinking.
Also, from a political angle, Salmon’s smart and quantitatively sophisticated work (as well as that of others such as Nate Silver) is an important counterweight to the high-tech mystification that surrounds so many topics in economics.
I can understand you approving of the concept of the award, but I'm surprised you can link uncritically to those articles, specifically the last one which is easily and obviously pulled apart by the commenters. Surely it's blindingly obvious that any useful measure of job creation has to consider their duration.
That "government fudges job statistics" article is ridiculous.
Salmon says stimulus package jobs cost an average of 200,000 dollars each, which he says is no bargain. And I agree; 200K does sound like a lot! But then some congressman complains that No, the jobs only cost 60K/year…and Salmon says "who said anything about "per year." He says that quoting a yearly figure is misleading, and says that "only in DC" would you say you have "created a job" when you hire a guy for a year.
Salmon is wacky in a couple of ways here. Actually probably more than a couple. First, he's wrong when he says it's misleading to quote a yearly cost and associate it with "creating" a job. I, at least, have always assumed that when the government says they expect spending N dollars this year to "create" J jobs, they mean that J more people will be employed THIS YEAR. I think most people understand this. And not "only in DC." In fact, Salmon's own 200K number has to be interpreted the same way, or his initial complaint doesn't make any sense: if a ONE-TIME expense of 200K would really create a permanent job then this would be a great deal! Unbelievable! Spend 200K and get someone to build roads and bridges FOREVER! No, no, Salmon couldn't possibly think that a one-time cost of 200K creates a permanent government job. Saying "the government creates a job for every 60K it spends" is correctly interpreted by most people. It's not misleading.
Second, Salmon doesn't even mention the "multiplier": hire somebody for a year and you have given them work for a year…and also contributed to other jobs based on this employee's spending. Often, when people estimate jobs created by spending, they include the multiplier effect: each job (or, to be technical, job-year) that is directly funded also creates M additional jobs. Nobody really knows what M is, but it sure as hell isn't 0. Salmon should have at least mentioned this principle. HE is the one being misleading!
His other work might be fine, maybe even excellent, but that particular one is an embarrassment.