(Update and big deletion and purge, December 2, 3009.) After discussions with the person who created the chart, I’ve decided to take it down and the rest of my commentary as well. He tells me that he has had a chance to re-think the whole thing, and thinks it was a big mistake to try and quantify with a graph things – in this case, what constitutes private sector experience- that are inherently subjective. I raised that question a number of times in commenting on the chart, as did numbers of commenters. In addition, numbers of commenters made that same point, that this is trying to quantify subjectivity. He tells me that he thinks the qualitative observation is reasonable, though subject to disagreement and interpretation, but that it is unsuited for graphing as though it were objective in that way.
It was my offer and decision to take down the graph, and here’s why I offered to do so. I do regard blogging as something more than just shouting mindlessly, but it is also something less than a full on academically thought out and justified piece. I regard it, myself anyway, as inherently rough and first draft, and subject to revision. This chart, in its original setting, has a number of qualifications that, among other things, make it clear that while there is a serious point at issue, it is also a bit of whimsy, and constructed as such. This doesn’t really come across in the graph alone, and very few people, apparently, go on to read the full piece. So I both think it not actually representative of the full piece, and not representative of the author’s current thinking.
Ordinarily I would just post an update like this, and leave it at that – but in the case of jpeg charts, they achieve a life of their own in the web. I don’t think that’s accurate or fair to the author. So I’ve decided to take it down instead. But of course I do not want the MSM “memory hole” effect, either, so I am leaving up this comment to let people know that I amended this, on my own decision. And also, I suppose I’ll add, one of the problems of Google is that nothing is ever gone or forgotten. That’s an extraordinarily good thing for some things, but not for others. The graph does not reflect the creator’s re-thinking of this, but it takes on a circulatory web life of its own. I don’t think that’s a good idea or a fair one. So if you type in “Private sector experience cabinet secretaries” I’d prefer that you wind up here, reading this. Not a perfect solution, I’m sure, but what I’m opting for in this case. I’m leaving comments up but closed, as I wouldn’t want anyone to think that the many people who thought I should never have put it up in the first place, even with all my questions and doubts about how much weight to put on it, have been banished to Anti-Alpha-Memory.
David McCourt says:
Maybe this explains why this government thought it was just fine to have a huge “stimulus” plan that consists almost entirely of hand outs to governments and government workers, with virtually nothing to spur growth, investment and employment in the private economy. What private economy?
November 25, 2009, 7:35 pmLN says:
I’m greatly encouraged by how Obama has avoided the well-known problem of regulatory capture. Kudos to the Administration.
November 25, 2009, 7:39 pmHarryEagar says:
It wouldn’t have been a whole lot more trouble to have graded the performance of the secretaries and then separated them into private sheep and public goats.
Then we might have seen some more interesting — rather than knee-jerk — comparisons. The first two I thought of were James Watt and Harry Hopkins.
Neither had private sector experience in the sense that, say, David Packard had.
I will bet that many people will think that one of that pair was an excellent secretary and the other was among the worst, although there might not be perfect agreement which was which.
More generally, this kind of ‘analysis’ reminds me of Lenny Bruce’s challenge to racists: which do you want to take to bed, a white woman or a black woman? Let’s get specific, Kate Smith or Lena Horne?
November 25, 2009, 7:47 pmLN says:
I wasn’t aware that Cabinet secretaries also served in Congress. What other radical changes has Obama implemented?
November 25, 2009, 7:59 pmtrotsky says:
How important are Cabinet secretaries these days? I follow the news fairly closely, or so I think, and outside of State, Defense and Treasury, I simply have no idea who those people might be, offhand. HUD? Energy? (OK, Steven Chu.) Interior?
To what extent have these folks put their stamp on policy? Has this changed over the years? I recall knowing who the secretary of commerce was, once upon a time.
November 25, 2009, 8:09 pmBT says:
I realize that this is a bit off topic, but it would also be interesting to see how many cabinet members each president had Roosevelt to Taft, etc., what their posts were and how many federal employees under each cabinet member. Obviously the growth of our beloved federal government has exploded. Sad to say I don’t think we will ever be able to put that cat back in the bag.
November 25, 2009, 8:45 pmCornellian says:
Do we really want Defense Secretaries selected from among the ranks of defense contractors and who, presumably, expect to return to the ranks of defense contractors after their term expires? Do we really want to make agency capture that easy?
November 25, 2009, 8:51 pmanon says:
Ken,
November 25, 2009, 8:59 pmIt must be useful to have your priors so nicely confirmed by a chart that, without the underlying data, is about as verifiable as the creation story.
Ricardo says:
I think other people here are raising the right questions. To use a concrete example, Tim Geithner has little “private sector experience,” as his tenure at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York would presumably not count. Would people be happier if the Treasury Secretary instead was another former CEO of Goldman Sachs with extensive Wall Street experience?
November 25, 2009, 9:09 pmKenneth Anderson says:
Anon: I know many Anons, but are we on a first name basis? My preferred creation story is Aztec – and We Priests of Huitzilopochtli Know How to Deal with Non-Believers – and per confirming priors, well, it doesn’t seem worse, at this precise moment, than a hockey stick.
November 25, 2009, 9:39 pmCareless says:
After a quick google (not knowing who Kate Smith was or knowing what Lena Horne looked like), I can say that’s one of the weirdest questions I’ve ever been asked.
Aside from the fact that Lena Horne was whiter than, for example, my half white daughter, you’re comparing an attractive woman to the fat lady at the opera.
November 25, 2009, 9:55 pmLN says:
it doesn’t seem worse, at this precise moment, than a hockey stick.
Trolling your own comment section? Geez.
I mean, we all know that all the blather on this “intellectual” blog serves mainly as cover for a pissing match between different tribes, but we can always hope and dream for something better, right?
November 25, 2009, 9:59 pmGuy says:
You just said “tribes”, which was obviously intended as an anti-semitic slur. How dare you. I CAN PISS FARTHER THAN YOU!!!
November 25, 2009, 10:41 pmyankee says:
This list looks very cherry-picked. Is there any reason for picking that list of agencies? I sure can’t think of one.
When I first looked at the list I thought maybe he picked the departments that have existed in their current forms since 1900, but that’s not right. The department of Commerce and Labor was created in 1903 and split in 1913. HUD was created in 1965, and Energy in 1977. And what happened to the Attorney General?
November 25, 2009, 10:43 pmrpt says:
AIG, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, B of A not private? I guess they have achieved the ultimate regulatory capture.
November 25, 2009, 10:49 pmrpt says:
After Rumsfeld and Cheney? Talk about several decades of capture.
November 25, 2009, 10:56 pmrpt says:
Please no.
November 25, 2009, 10:58 pmBrian K says:
It wouldn’t have been discussed on this blog otherwise.
I assume that is also why it is so hard to find out what they count as private sector experience. it makes it much easier for a political hack to use the graph to prove their own biases.
November 25, 2009, 11:06 pmSteve says:
The list of departments looks absurdly cherry-picked to me. Also, be careful not to sound too hackish with that hockey stick comment.
November 25, 2009, 11:15 pm8:59pm/anon says:
That’s just an odd comment response. The hockey stick graph was obviously the result of a dataset that scientists could (and did) contest. “Graphs” without data are “pictures”: no underlying data, no sense of the crucial assumptions, etc. But you wrote that it makes “a striking contrast”. Sure does. So would photoshopping a picture of Obama hugging Castro.
Look, if you feel comfortable publicizing this picture for political purposes, god bless, but that’s not the attitude I’d expect from an academic of your stature & reputation. The original source says that he thinks the figure is “semi-whimsical”. I’d remove the qualifier.
November 25, 2009, 11:40 pmJohn Moore says:
Frankly, it would take a whole lot of cherry picking to arrive at the sort of contrast shown here.
So lets assume it was optimally cherry picked by cabinet post.
It’s still a shocking deviation and (caveats re: definitions take) appears to support the theory that Obama is by far the most left wing president we have ever had – and also, sadly, the most incompetent to deal with the real world.
We shall see if the cherry picking/definitional issues are strong enough to disprove that statement. I doubt it, but its possible.
November 25, 2009, 11:46 pmanon again says:
I found the actual original source: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/24/michael-cembalest-obama-business-beltway-cabinet.html. It’s not a JP morgan report. It’s a column in forbes by someone who works for JP Morgan. Not terribly revealing because he doesn’t make the underlying data available, and his assumptions aren’t at all explained.
For example, the author writes: “In the rankings, private-sector experience at a law firm counts for a 33% score, which I think is very generous. My wife strongly suggested raising this to 50%, but I refused.” Apart from that, there’s no definition of prior private experience. No sense of why certain departments are excluded. He suggests at one point that he focuses on individuals who ran or started companies. Maybe the graph means: “what percentage of selected cabinet members were previously CEOs of companies, excluding law firms, no matter what their size”. But who knows? It’s still a joke.
November 26, 2009, 12:12 amPliny the Elder says:
It might tell us that Obama is a little more statist than past presidents (not identical to leftist, though overlapping). Some of the variance may simply tell us about the concerns of the appointing Pres. Eisenhower had no private sector experience (unless you count being pres of Columbia) so he may have sought that to balance his own background. Of course, some of these areas almost require substantial government experience to qualify, e.g., state, defense, maybe treasury. Of all the concerns about the current admin, this is close to the bottom of the list.
On another topic: many conspirators wished me luck as I deployed to Iraq. I am now 1/8 of the way through and thank you all.
November 26, 2009, 12:53 amyankee says:
Not really. If you were determined to misrepresent the data, all you’d need to do is take the Obama Cabinet, cross off the departments where the incumbent Cabinet member ran a company or something, and define “private-sector experience” to exclude whatever non-government experience the remaining people have. If you did that you’d be guaranteed to produce a chart like that one. I have no absolutely reason to believe Cembalest did anything that extreme, but you get the point.
I’ve also noticed that according to this graph, out of 9 Cabinet department heads, 7-8% of them have private sector experience—i.e., about 2/3 of one person. That suggests that there’s some funny math going on here.
The question, of course, is whether the result is robust under other analyses: what happens if you look at a different selection of departments, or include the cabinet-level officials who don’t head Cabinet departments, or use a slightly different definition of “private sector”? If Obama is still an outlier, that suggests there’s a real effect. If not, it indicates that this graph is an artifact of cherrypicking. I’m not about to go through the resumes of hundreds of current and former Cabinet members to find out though.
November 26, 2009, 1:04 amLN says:
Let’s demystify this.
State: Hillary Clinton, lawyer. Preceded by Condoleeza Rice, academic.
Commerce: Gary Locke, lawyer. Preceded by Carlos Gutierrez, CEO of Kellogg.
Treasury: Tim Geithner. Preceded by Hank Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Agriculture: Tom Vilsack, lawyer. Preceded by Ed Schafer, President of company owned by his father.
Interior: Ken Salazar, lawyer. Preceded by Dirk Kempthorne, politician.
Labor: Hilda Solis, politician. Preceded by Elaine Chao, CEO of United Way of America.
Transportation: Ray LaHood, politician. Preceded by Mary Peters, mix of public and private sector experience.
Energy: Steven Chu, scientist. Preceded by Samuel Bodman, CEO of Cabot Corporation.
Housing & Urban Development: Shaun Donovan, public administrator. Preceded by: Steven Preston, CFO of ServiceMaster.
Certainly more C-suite experience in Bush’s cabinet, more lawyers in Obama’s. Having looked at everyone’s bio, it’s really hard for me to think any of this stuff is a big deal; yeah, rising through the management ranks at a large corporation is nice but is that really make-or-break experience required to be a good Secretary of Transportation? Also, no idea where that 5% number in the graph comes from. Clinton, Salazar, Vilsack, and Locke have all practiced law. Even the 67% discount leaves you at 1.3 out of 9.
Bottom line: private sector experience is important. But maybe if the author of this graph had more experience in the public sector, he would have realized that the Secretary of the Interior does not play a large role in setting economic legislation. And isn’t that important to know?
November 26, 2009, 1:27 amDw says:
Didn’t “Brownie” have extensive private sector exerience? Arabian horses, I believe
November 26, 2009, 1:27 amGuy says:
With that kind of methodology (arbitrarily assigning percents to different types of jobs), his wife was smart not to be listed as a co-author of the “study”. Nice to see that any moron can slap together a graph without any explanation and have it treated as if it indicates something.
November 26, 2009, 1:44 amLN says:
I should add that Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates and that LaHood was a *Republican* politician. Their lack of CEO experience is indeed further proof that Obama is the most left-wing President we’ve ever had. It’s so shocking I’m shocked shocked I tell you.
November 26, 2009, 2:10 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Private Sector Experience of Cabinet Secretaries -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jeff Nolan and PostRank – Law, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Private Sector Experience of Cabinet Secretaries: Nick Schulz at the Enterprise Blog (ht Instapundit) posts up .. http://bit.ly/8v0hU6 [...]
November 26, 2009, 2:26 amDescribing Obama via Charts & Graphs « Wacki’s blog says:
[...] Obama via Charts & Graphs By wacki Private Sector Experience of Cabinet Secretaries … or lack there [...]
November 26, 2009, 2:53 amveteran says:
Pliny the Elder says:
“now 1/8 of the way through”
A “Toast” to you and “Happy Thanksgiving”.
If you have family, I thank them for their sacrifice and courage and I trust they are surrounded by friends and family while you are away.
Be with God
November 26, 2009, 7:18 amKenneth Anderson says:
Anon again: here’s my point from earlier. Thank you for supplying in your later comment background information that is very helpful in seeing what weight to give this graph. That was a highly useful addition to the discussion and responded to what I asked for in the OP, which, after all, raised many questions regarding the underlying data. If you had done this in the first place, instead is taking a silly shot at me, I wouldn’t have responded in Annoyed Fashion. When you finally get to putting up something useful, it’s … useful, and responsive to the questions I asked. So thank you.
And yes, there is something slightly jarring about having someone post as anonymous who refers to me, not as Kenneth or Kenneth Anderson, which is how I post here, but as Ken. Why? Ken is what my friends and acquaintances in RL use. Which leaves this slightly unsettling sense that we know each other in RL but you’re unwilling to say so. So I’m actually asking, do we know each other? I’m great with anonymous or pseud commenters, but it is a little weird if it carries the sense that you’re someone I know in RL but you’re not saying so.
November 26, 2009, 8:13 amanon again again says:
I don’t think we’ve ever met (maybe at some conference, but I doubt it) I didn’t know what your friends or acquaintances call you. I’m sorry if I unsettled you about the RL issue. Ken was just faster to write than Kenneth. As for anon, I should have used my name, but I didn’t originally for ultimately stupid reasons. Now I’m sticking with that bad decision.
My original comment was sharply written (“a silly shot”) to prompt you to question the appropriateness of posting and extrapolating about a figure you had and have no reason to think reflects actual reality. It’s not a “graph”. It’s a figure or a picture. Graphs present data we can analyze. Again, the burden shouldn’t be on us to find the data, it should be on the presenter of the figure to make it clear. And even now I can’t figure out how he gets to the percentages he does, just in the Obama Administration! I mean this literally. Yankee is right–the numbers make no internal or external sense as presented.
Big picture. The VC is an important platform in the modern conservative movement — akin to a leading think tank. Passing on this kind of crap makes being a conservative look bad – it turns the VC into Instapundit, or some other hackish platform. You raised “questions” about the data, but essentially endorsed the conclusions by posting it and musing about it. I think you did so because the picture confirmed your priors. (This is an implicit process. I don’t think you said to yourself “I’m going to knowingly post a bad analysis because it confirms something I think. Instead, you saw the figure as credible because it seemed true to you.)
I think you should run an update saying something like “My bad. The figure is as good as the data, i.e., fanciful.” Because that update would have the virtue of being honest, politically charitable, and a good model for other folks on this blog. Good things to do on thanksgiving day.
November 26, 2009, 8:42 amEd Darrell says:
Well, if you don’t understand that data back the blade of the hockey stick, I suppose you wouldn’t understand that no data appear to back the chart.
That’s why you’re not a cabinet member, and why nonsensical, most-likely-erroneous charts don’t get play with the Obama folks in picking a cabinet. They can tell the difference between a blade and a shaft, and they work to avoid getting the shaft. People who complain that hockey sticks don’t exist probably deserve the shaft they will get, but the rest of us don’t. Steven Chu has more expertise than the entire Bush cabinet.
I understand American Enterprise Institute didn’t rate Ken Salazar as having private sector experience. They think their steak is a government-produced benefit? They think milk comes from the Department of Agriculture? At the American Enterprise Institute, “private sector experience” is more important than “wisdom,” or “competence.”
I can gin up a chart that shows the American Enterprise Institute is unrestricted by reality. I can’t figure out of that is a result of inexperience in policy, or a result of drug use, but does that matter? Both causes could be sufficiently in the private sector.
November 26, 2009, 9:26 amShelbyC says:
Smart Move.
November 26, 2009, 9:54 amKenneth Anderson says:
Anon: Thanks for the clarification. I’ll take it under advisement, but for now, I don’t think I’ll post a my bad. I’m fine with what I posted and the qualifications I put in the post. I understand and take your point, but think in part it goes to the question of what a blog serves, and the ethics of blog postings – who has the burden of showing what, etc. I’m going to leave that for another post, however, that specifically goes to the “ethics of blogging,” or more narrowly the “ethics of support and evidence in blogging.” I am going to go cook the turkey, though, and anyway it doesn’t fit in a comment here.
I’m honored you think of VC as a kind of virtual think tank – but I probably don’t think of it that way, or at least not to that extent. Perhaps I should, and it would change the nature of how I post, and I’ll consider it, but I can’t say as I do now. Anyhow, I’m going to go silent on this thread and try to come back at some future date with a post specifically on what kind of support blog posts should offer, and who has the burden … in the meantime, happy thanksgiving to you and yours.
November 26, 2009, 9:54 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by jeffnolan: Private Sector Experience of Cabinet Secretaries… which presents an idea for the upcoming jobs summit… http://bit.ly/92WasL...
November 26, 2009, 11:01 amHarry Eagar says:
Careless, the Lena Horne-Kate Smith choice was Lenny Bruce’s, not mine. It was very funny 50 years ago — got a big laugh — and maybe not so funny today but just as trenchant.
As for Cornellian’s worries about defense contractors as secretaries of Defense, I think we lost that one with Engine Charlie Wilson, back in the days of Lena Horne, Kate Smith and Lenny Bruce.
November 26, 2009, 2:10 pmArthurKirkland says:
The second part of that assertion makes sense — unless one’s memory travels back as far as 11 months.
November 26, 2009, 3:46 pmArthurKirkland says:
The chart is fascinating . . . like, and only like, a shiny watch (for a particular audience).
November 26, 2009, 4:20 pmObama’s well-qualified cabinet: Conservatives hoaxed by “J. P. Morgan” chart that verifies prejudices « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub says:
[...] to — and so did others (von Mises Institute, Wall Street Blips, League of Ordinary Gentlemen, Volokh Conspiracy). Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Should students pay attention to Obama’s [...]
November 26, 2009, 4:25 pmElliot says:
Yes.
November 26, 2009, 5:19 pmEd Darrell says:
I think the whole thing is a crock. When I look at the cabinet, I find 77% who have signficant and outstanding experience in the private sector – we’ve never before had a private sector Nobel winner in the cabinet, for example.
I wonder if AEI got hoaxed.
November 26, 2009, 7:06 pmBama 1L says:
By all means continue to post anonymously.
November 26, 2009, 8:13 pmArthurKirkland says:
Yes, any moron can slap together a graph designed to generate support for an argument among those who don’t look too carefully. But not every moron would rely on that type of graph.
November 26, 2009, 8:34 pmProlific Programmer says:
Well, for one, you’d have to establish critereon for grading. Unlike, say, Congresspeople, where there are simple metrics available to discern how active/inactive they are (votes taken, bills sponsored, commitees served on, etc.), I’m not aware of any such metrics on how effective a cabinet secretary is.
November 27, 2009, 12:46 amRicardo says:
So Elliot, you’re on board with Treasury Secretary Jon Corzine?
November 27, 2009, 1:39 amJames T. Carrington says:
I don’t understand why those other cabinet positions were left off of this comparison? Would that skew things into a less-obvious chart? I mean, they are cabinet positions – or the title of the comparison could be more clear as to specific positions measured.
November 27, 2009, 9:28 amMichael Drake says:
“do not doubt that the whole of the Obama administration is weighted more heavily than any than perhaps the Kennedy administration with what I would call New Class professionals.”
I’m gratified that you tempered the initial idealogical cast of the post with your concession that the Obama administration is stocked from a bureaucratic caste most commonly associated with Stalin. For a minute, there, I was beginning to worry that this post was a total hack job.
November 28, 2009, 10:32 amFloridan says:
To suggest that a cabinet secretary would be more effective had he or she private sector experience is about as verifiable as claiming that former politicians make the best cabinet members.
In other words, who knows without going through the cabinet careers of all the individuals?
As this chart stands, it is nothing more than an intellectual Ponzi scheme.
November 30, 2009, 3:51 pmfooburger says:
What made me initially suspicious, was the normalization of the graph to 60%, which arbitrarily magnifies the differences reported.
December 1, 2009, 2:25 pmWhy not only graph it between a range of 7% and 58%, as that would yet further contrast the data?
With these kinds of percentages, it’s quite reasonable to graph 0-100%. That gives a better picture.
I’m glad the y-axis range made me suspicious.. from the comments here it seems there are far bigger problems with that graph.
Taking data out of context is a fool’s game « A Man With A Ph.D. says:
[...] Richard Lies and the Lying Liars: [Via Fables of the reconstruction] Remember that claim wingers made that Obama had too few people with private sector experience in his administration? [...]
December 5, 2009, 6:07 pm