Connect with us

Business

Column: The Hoover Institution says all recent California job growth has been in government jobs. That's completely wrong

Published

on

Column: The Hoover Institution says all recent California job growth has been in government jobs. That's completely wrong

Back when most sensible Californians were concerning themselves with Thanksgiving preparations, the California-bashing right wing went hog wild over a stunning report that almost all private job growth in the state collapsed from January 2022 to June 2024 and almost all growth — 96.5% — was in government jobs.

“California’s Businesses Stop Hiring,” was the headline on the report published by the conservative Hoover Institution. Its main claim was that from January 2022 to June 2024, private employers in the state added only 5,400 jobs.

You can imagine how California bashers, including some within the state, greeted the news that government was propping up the state’s economy.

“This is what a failing state looks like,” Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who badly lost a bid to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom in the 2021 recall election, tweeted. Others who gleefully tweeted about the Hoover claim included Rep. Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield), and venture investor Steve Jurvetson. Right-wingers outside California also joined the choir.

The Hoover article was what we in the news biz often pigeonhole as “interesting, if true.”

Advertisement

But it’s not true.

The original article, by UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian, a Hoover Institution senior fellow, asserted that California added only 156,000 nonfarm jobs in the January 2022-June 2024 period. Since government statistics also showed that government employment in the state rose by 150,500, that left (after rounding) only about 5,400 new jobs created outside the government sector.

The picture painted was one in which private employers are shutting down and only government hiring is keeping the California economy afloat. The opposite is true, however.

(The Hoover Institution has retracted the original article and removed it from its website. An archived version of the original can be found here.)

Here’s the main problem with the Hoover analysis: During the sample period, California actually added 672,300 nonfarm jobs, not 156,000. Consequently, the 150,500 new government jobs accounted for only about 22.4% of the total, not 96.5%. The accurate figures show that not only did California’s businesses not stop hiring, but continued to hire fairly robustly from January 2022 to June 2024.

Advertisement

How did this calculation go so awry? The answer is simple. Ohanian conflated the two separate monthly employment surveys issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: One is its so-called household survey, which asks a national sample of about 60,000 households how many people in the household are employed. The other is its establishment or “payroll” survey, which asks about 629,000 workplaces how many people they employ.

Generally, the household survey yields a higher number of employed persons than the establishment survey. That’s because it counts the self-employed (including gig workers) and farmworkers, among others who are excluded from the payroll statistics. But that relationship breaks down when you’re counting only payroll workers, slicing and dicing the statistics into industry sectors.

Mixing together the BLS household data and the BLS establishment data is “a cardinal sin of BLS data analysis,” observes the pseudonymous economics commentator Invictus on The Big Picture blog of Ritholtz Wealth Management, in an indispensable deconstruction of Ohanian’s original post.

In that post, Ohanian subtracted the government jobs figure reported in the establishment survey from the nonfarm employment figure in the household survey. That effectively overstated the government jobs percentage of California employment growth. The proper approach, Invictus notes, would have been to use the establishment survey for both measures.

Ohanian acknowledged in an email that he had erroneously considered the household and establishment figures similar enough to treat them as effectively equivalent. “If I had seen the differences in the two series,” he says, “I would have written the piece differently. Mea culpa.”

Advertisement

In a corrective article posted Tuesday on the Hoover website, Ohanian makes public his mea culpa but also reiterates a point he made in the original article, which is that California’s job growth is weakening. That’s echoed by other studies, including a recent warning from the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Yet there’s much more to be said about Ohanian’s original article, as well as the glee with which conservatives seized on its headline claim as the basis for largely groundless attacks on California’s economic policies. First, it’s proper to note that the original piece was published Aug. 7, which is why its analysis covers only the period that ended in June.

The government issues two distinct sets of employment statistics — the payroll or establishment survey (in orange) and the household survey (in red). It also adjusts the household survey to confirm more with the payroll survey. The adjusted figure is in blue. The two major surveys measure different things and shouldn’t be mixed.

(Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Advertisement

Why it got resurrected and shot around the right-wing echo chamber last week is a mystery. Ohanian himself seemed uncertain when I asked him about it. Kiley, Fong and Jurvetson haven’t responded to my requests for comment.

That brings us to the statistics themselves. Employment data bristle with pitfalls for the unwary, even among experienced economists such as Ohanian. Indeed, in April, Ohanian posted an analysis on the Hoover website that purported to show a loss of 10,000 fast-food jobs in California from September 2023, when Newsom signed a minimum wage increase for that sector, through January this year — even before the increase went into effect.

As I reported, Ohanian based his post on a Wall Street Journal article that used employment figures that weren’t seasonally adjusted. That’s a crucial error when tracking jobs in seasonal industries such as restaurants.

The Journal’s article, and consequently Ohanian’s, mistook a seasonal decline in restaurant employment that occurs from September to January every single year for the one-time consequences of the minimum wage increase. Fast-food jobs, seasonally adjusted, actually rose by 6,300 in the period being reported. Ohanian told me at the time that he had been unaware that the Journal used nonseasonally adjusted figures.

BLS employment figures may be especially confusing because the bureau’s two surveys superficially seem to measure the same thing, but are very different — so much so that the bureau itself has issued a detailed explainer about the distinction. It notes that the establishment survey is “a highly reliable gauge of monthly change in nonfarm payroll employment.” The household survey is oriented more toward demographics and is best known as the source of the national unemployment rate.

Advertisement

Ohanian used his misconstruction of employment figures as the basis for a wide-ranging critique of California economic policy, mostly citing how the high cost of living drives people out of the state.

“Part of California’s job weakness,” he wrote, “reflects the number of people and businesses leaving the state.” California’s population fell by about 75,000 from 2022 and 2023 (the latest data available), he wrote, adding that companies such as Tesla, Oracle, and Chevron have moved or are moving their headquarters elsewhere.

“Population loss naturally leads to job loss,” Ohanian told me by email. “It is challenging to see how California could be gaining jobs as portrayed in the Establishment Survey, given a smaller population.”

That may well be true over the longer term and with larger numbers. But the 75,000 departed residents in 2022-23 represent less than two hundredths of a percent of the state’s population. Even the larger population decline of about 538,000 since 2020 represents about 1.4% of the state’s population.

The key question would be: Who’s leaving? Many emigrants may be retirees, who don’t have occupational reasons to stay in the high-cost state and may have sizable equity in their homes to pocket for a move to a cheaper location; about 7.5 million of California’s residents today are older than 65. The pandemic also drove the population down — COVID-related deaths numbered at least 60,000 in 2020 and 2021.

Advertisement

As for the emigration of corporate headquarters, California still leads the nation in headquarters of Fortune 500 companies, with 57. New York and Texas were runners up with 52 each. California remains a national leader in business creation, with nearly 560,000 new business applications filed with the state in 2023. When new technologies emerge with the potential to aid economic expansion, they tend to start in California.

One other subtext of the debate over California job growth needs to be mentioned. That’s the picture that conservatives paint about government jobs. The tweeted hand-wringings about the purported explosion in government jobs, which implies that the government workers are an army of faceless bureaucrats engaged in writing anti-business regulations.

The idea that the Musk/Ramaswamy Department of Government Efficiency can cashier them without affecting your daily life is a fantasy. In fact, the federal government employs only about 3 million workers, about half of whom are in the military, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security; the overall figure has remained fairly stable since the 1960s.

An additional 20 million are state and local employees, the majority of whom are teachers, along with police and fire fighters. Which of these workers should we fire?

Any discussion of California’s economy limited to periods of a year or two needs to be viewed in relation to the big picture, which is that California’s economy is by far the biggest in the country — indeed, it would rank in the top five or six countries if it were a sovereign state. At an estimated $4.08 trillion in gross domestic product, its economy is more than half again as large as the runner-up among U.S. states, Texas ($2.7 trillion).

Advertisement

Ohanian is right to argue that there’s reason for concern about where the state goes from here. But to suggest that there’s something fundamentally faulty about policies that still undergird the most powerful state economy in the nation or that California is a “failing state” — that’s “interesting, if true” … but, again, not true.

Business

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Published

on

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.

Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.

The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.

“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”

xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Its chatbot posted an apology.

“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”

The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.

Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.

“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.

Advertisement

Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.

In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.

In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.

Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.

The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.

Advertisement

xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.

Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.

The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.

xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.

However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

Published

on

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

John and Theresa Anderson meandered through the sprawling Ralph Lauren clothing store on Rodeo Drive, shopping for holiday gifts.

They emerged carrying boxy blue bags. John scored quarter-zip sweaters for himself and his father-in-law, and his wife splurged on a tweed jacket for Christmas Day.

“I’m going for quality over quantity this year,” said John, an apparel company executive and Palos Verdes Estates resident.

They strolled through the world-famous Beverly Hills shopping mecca, where there was little evidence of any big sales.

John Anderson holds his shopping bags from Ralph Lauren and Gucci at Rodeo Drive.

Advertisement

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

One mile away, shoppers at a Ralphs grocery store in West Hollywood were hunting for bargains. The chain’s website has been advertising discounts on a wide variety of products, including wine and wrapping paper.

Massi Gharibian was there looking for cream cheese and ways to save money.

“I’m buying less this year,” she said. “Everything is expensive.”

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

The tale of two Ralphs shows how Americans are experiencing radically different realities this holiday season. It represents the country’s K-shaped economy — the growing divide between those who are affluent and those trying to stretch their budgets.

Some Los Angeles residents are tightening their belts and prioritizing necessities such as groceries. Others are frequenting pricey stores such as Ralph Lauren, where doormen hand out hot chocolate and a cashmere-silk necktie sells for $250.

Advertisement
People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the K-shaped economy, high-income households sit on the upward arm of the “K,” benefiting from rising pay as well as the value of their stock and property holdings. At the same time, lower-income families occupy the downward stroke, squeezed by inflation and lackluster income gains.

The model captures the country’s contradictions. Growth looks healthy on paper, yet hiring has slowed and unemployment is edging higher. Investment is booming in artificial intelligence data centers, while factories cut jobs and home sales stall.

The divide is most visible in affordability. Inflation remains a far heavier burden for households lower on the income distribution, a frustration that has spilled into politics. Voters are angry about expensive rents, groceries and imported goods.

Advertisement

“People in lower incomes are becoming more and more conservative in their spending patterns, and people in the upper incomes are actually driving spending and spending more,” said Kevin Klowden, an executive director at the Milken Institute, an economic think tank.

“Inflationary pressures have been much higher on lower- and middle-income people, and that has been adding up,” he said.

According to a Bank of America report released this month, higher-income employees saw their after-tax wages grow 4% from last year, while lower-income groups saw a jump of just 1.4%. Higher-income households also increased their spending year over year by 2.6%, while lower-income groups increased spending by 0.6%.

The executives at the companies behind the two Ralphs say they are seeing the trend nationwide.

Ralph Lauren reported better-than-expected quarterly sales last month and raised its forecasts, while Kroger, the grocery giant that owns Ralphs and Food 4 Less, said it sometimes struggles to attract cash-strapped customers.

Advertisement

“We’re seeing a split across income groups,” interim Kroger Chief Executive Ron Sargent said on a company earnings call early this month. “Middle-income customers are feeling increased pressure. They’re making smaller, more frequent trips to manage budgets, and they’re cutting back on discretionary purchases.”

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Kroger lowered the top end of its full-year sales forecast after reporting mixed third-quarter earnings this month.

On a Ralph Lauren earnings call last month, CEO Patrice Louvet said its brand has benefited from targeting wealthy customers and avoiding discounts.

Advertisement

“Demand remains healthy, and our core consumer is resilient,” Louvet said, “especially as we continue … to shift our recruiting towards more full-price, less price-sensitive, higher-basket-size new customers.”

Investors have noticed the split as well.

The stock charts of the companies behind the two Ralphs also resemble a K. Shares of Ralph Lauren have jumped 37% in the last six months, while Kroger shares have fallen 13%.

To attract increasingly discerning consumers, Kroger has offered a precooked holiday meal for eight of turkey or ham, stuffing, green bean casserole, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, cranberry and gravy for about $11 a person.

“Stretch your holiday dollars!” said the company’s weekly newspaper advertisement.

Advertisement
Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the Ralph Lauren on Rodeo Drive, sunglasses and polo shirts were displayed without discounts. Twinkling lights adorned trees in the store’s entryway and employees offered shoppers free cookies for the holidays.

Ralph Lauren and other luxury stores are taking the opposite approach to retailers selling basics to the middle class.

They are boosting profits from sales of full-priced items. Stores that cater to high-end customers don’t offer promotions as frequently, Klowden of the Milken Institute said.

Advertisement

“When the luxury stores are having sales, that’s usually a larger structural symptom of how they’re doing,” he said. “They don’t need to be having sales right now.”

Jerry Nickelsburg, faculty director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said upper-income earners are less affected by inflation that has driven up the price of everyday goods, and are less likely to hunt for bargains.

“The low end of the income distribution is being squeezed by inflation and is consuming less,” he said. “The upper end of the income distribution has increasing wealth and increasing income, and so they are less affected, if affected at all.”

The Andersons on Rodeo Drive also picked up presents at Gucci and Dior.

“We’re spending around the same as last year,” John Anderson said.

Advertisement

At Ralphs, Beverly Grove resident Mel, who didn’t want to share her last name, said the grocery store needs to go further for its consumers.

“I am 100% trying to spend less this year,” she said.

Continue Reading

Business

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Published

on

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Instacart will stop using artificial intelligence to experiment with product pricing after a report showed that customers on the platform were paying different prices for the same items.

The report, published this month by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, found that Instacart sometimes offered as many as five different prices for the same item at the same store and on the same day.

In a blog post Monday, Instacart said it was ending the practice effective immediately.

“We understand that the tests we ran with a small number of retail partners that resulted in different prices for the same item at the same store missed the mark for some customers,” the company said. “At a time when families are working exceptionally hard to stretch every grocery dollar, those tests raised concerns.”

Shoppers purchasing the same items from the same store on the same day will now see identical prices, the blog post said.

Advertisement

Instacart’s retail partners will still set product prices and may charge different prices across stores.

The report, which followed more than 400 shoppers in four cities, found that the average difference between the highest and lowest prices for the same item was 13%. Some participants in the study saw prices that were 23% higher than those offered to other shoppers.

At a Safeway supermarket in Washington, D.C., a dozen Lucerne eggs sold for $3.99, $4.28, $4.59, $4.69 and $4.79 on Instacart, depending on the shopper, the study showed.

At a Safeway in Seattle, a box of 10 Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars sold for $19.43, $19.99 and $21.99 on Instacart.

The study found that an individual shopper on Instacart could theoretically spend up to $1,200 more on groceries in one year if they had to deal with the price differences observed in the pricing experiments.

Advertisement

The price experimentation was part of a program that Instacart advertised to retailers as a way to maximize revenue.

Instacart probably began adjusting prices in 2022, when the platform acquired the artificial intelligence company Eversight, whose software powers the experiments.

Instacart claimed that the Eversight experimentation would be negligible to consumers but could increase store revenue by up to 3%.

“Advances in AI enable experiments to be automatically designed, deployed, and evaluated, making it possible to rapidly test and analyze millions of price permutations across your physical and digital store network,” Instacart marketing materials said online.

The company said the price chranges were not dynamic pricing, the practice used by airlines and ride-hailing services to charge more when demand surges.
The price changes also were not based on shoppers’ personal information such as income, the company said.

Advertisement

“American grocery shoppers aren’t guinea pigs, and they should be able to expect a fair price when they’re shopping,” Lindsey Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, said in an interview this month.

Shares of Instacart fell 2% on Monday, closing at $45.02.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending