Good News: Only 36,000 Lost Their Jobs

Darrel and Mike, two commenters at this site, have been having a debate about a chart that shows the number of people losing their jobs. There are still jobs being lost but not as many and these two gentlemen are discussing if losing fewer jobs is good or if it is still bad because we are losing them.

Harry Reid has settled this and it would appear that losing jobs is a good thing as long as it was not as many as before. Reid tells us today that the good news is that only 36,000 people lost their jobs last month.

That is great news, unless you are one of the 36,000.

It is not reasonable to say policies are responsible for fewer jobs being lost. At some point this would have to happen as employers hit the bare bones number of employees required to still operate

The administration was preparing us for bad numbers by telling us that the numbers would be bad because of the snowstorms in February. That is a bogus claim. I can’t see how the storms resulted in people losing their jobs. But if I concede that the storms caused job loss I would have to say it was a wash because a whole lot of people became employed clearing snow. The labor report (linked below) addresses how people were counted with regard to the storms.

In order for severe weather conditions to reduce the estimate of payroll employment, employees have to be off work for an entire pay period and not be paid for the time missed.

It is unlikely that people would lose their jobs over bad snowstorms. They might get time off without pay but that is about it. But then again, that counts as unemployed to the BLS.

Now the progressive pundits, in response to an unemployment rate that held at 9.7%, are claiming the numbers would have been better if we had not had the storms. Once again, not credible (especially considering the definition of unemployed due ot severe weather). Also, when discouraged workers are counted, the number rose:

The U6 alternative gauge of the unemployment rate, which includes discouraged workers and those forced to work part-time, rose to 16.8% from 16.5%. Market Watch

The government has boosted the number of jobs by hiring for the census. Thousands of people have been hired to work for the government. Those people will lose their jobs once the census is completed.

So remember, it is good when people lose jobs so long as it is fewer than before (progressive mantra). It is certainly a positive trend but it is not good news. These numbers do not indicate that jobs are being created, just that fewer people are losing them. We will not see job creation until jobs are being added to the numbers. In other words, the graph has to rise above the zero line.

It is also interesting how we continue to have jobs being lost, albeit many fewer than before, and yet the unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 9.7% two months ago and has held there. How can this happen?

No job loss is good news despite what Harry Reid believes.

Well, maybe there are a few exceptions…

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

62 Responses to “Good News: Only 36,000 Lost Their Jobs”

  1. Adam says:

    “That is a bogus claim. I can’t see how the storms resulted in people losing their jobs.”

    You’re still not approaching this correctly. It’s not job loss that was a problem but the slowdown of economic activity that leads to job growth.

    Economic activity slackened or remained soft across most sectors of the Fifth District’s economy since our last assessment. However, severe winter storms throughout the District played an important role.

    Even in a boom time there’s job losses every month. We just don’t notice or care because job growth far exceeds it. Right now when job growth is hindered we notice a lot more because we’re still losing so many jobs every month. It’s pretty straight forward.

  2. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “…it would appear that losing jobs is a good thing as long as it was not as many as before.”>>

    DAR
    Absolutely right. Losing a small fraction of the number of jobs as before, is overall a very good thing.

    Bigd: Reid tells us today that the good news is that only 36,000 people lost their jobs last month.>>

    DAR
    I was going to post Reid’s response too. Reid’s right. Compared to losing 700k jobs per month under Bush, 36k is very good indeed. It’s 1/20th in fact. And when we get on the positive side of the ledger it will of course be better. This doesn’t change the fact that a negative 36 is nearly twenty times better than a negative 700.

    This is the ammo republican are packing today? Childish word games based upon the variable interpretations and perspectives of the word “good?”

    D.

    • Big Dog says:

      Not at all. It is never good news when people lose jobs and it is political suicide to call it good.

      You are changing the context of what he said.

      Darrel, anyone can see that comparatively, losing fewer jobs is a better thing than losing more jobs BUT, there is a difference between that and saying is is good that only 36,000 people lost their jobs.

      Ammo? We don’t need ammo. November will be a bloodbath because of the Democrat’s own deeds. They will use their own ammo.

      And as I indicated, this would happen no matter what. You eventually get to a point where businesses have cut to the bone and there will not be massive losses.

      But losing is still losing and it is not good news.

      When we see job gains, then it is good.

      Adam, I doubt that the economic activity slowed enough to make a difference because it was offset by the increase in activity related to snow removal and other activities. People did not lose jobs because of this. Some folks might have had to wait a week to hire people they were going to but people did not lose jobs and there was just different activity.

      We have had plenty of snowstorms and unemployment did not go up. Of course, the way they count it would make you think it did.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “…losing fewer jobs is a better thing than losing more jobs BUT, there is a difference between that and saying [it] is good that…”>>

        DAR
        As I said, a quibble over wording. A word game.

        If 200 soldiers are dying a month in Iraq and then we take action to get that number down to 10 (1/20th), this is, viewed objectively, as a “good thing” (while not a good thing viewed from the perspective of the 10 individuals who died).

        So you are engaging in a transparent and childish word game based upon purposely changing the perspective of “good” away from the one Reid intended.

        D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          I’ve been out of town for a basketball tourney and haven’t had a chance to answer Darrel’s last reply in the other topic. I just replied to it there but will repost it here. But before I do I want to reply to this also as Darrel doesn’t understand stats either. You cannot compare the lowering of deaths to net jobs lost. Jobs can be gained and lost. So a net job loss is still bad even if it is less than the previous period. That’s not true with deaths. You can only die in a war and cannot be reborn. So the comparison is silly. Darrel doesn’t get either math or stats.

          Now for my other reply:

          This is about my last comment on this topic as you just don’t understand basic math.

          First, here’s your chart link (just the chart – no point linking your message board topic).

          http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4b6c5ff6000000000042f5ed/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administrations.gif

          Each element in YOUR graph displays the net change made for a particular month If more jobs for a month are gained than lost then the element graphs up from the x axis that amount. Example: say 7 jobs are gained and 3 are lost. Then the element would indeed graph up – in this case 4 above the x axis. Now if 3 jobs were gained while 7 were lost then the element would graph DOWN 4. And that is exactly what YOUR graph shows, except for 2 months, a net loss (DOWN). 3 minus 7 is a minus 4 not a plus 4 and it graphs DOWN not up. We can argue all day the reasons for the job loss and who to blame it on, but that is not the case with math. You cannot ignore the x – axis. Any element ending below the x axis is a net job loss for that month and is DOWN. That’s how math works and if you don’t get that then you are dumb at math. You cannot get two interpretations of it. There is only one right. And you are wrong. Show me on this graph how graphing below the x axis is up and I’ll donate $100 to the DNC. You have to do nothing in return, but my money is safe. In summary 3 minus 7 is a negative 4 and graphs DOWN not up. Up is good when it is, in fact, up. That’s just not the case with your graph.

        • Adam says:

          “That’s how math works and if you don’t get that then you are dumb at math.”

          Gee, Mike. Remind us again about all those math classes you took and your strong grasp of stats that keeps you from admitting that losing only 36,000 in February 2010 is better than losing 726,000 in February 2009. What? You can’t admit that because then you might be falsely accused of thinking a net loss of 36,000 jobs is a good thing?

          I know you have a strong grasp of 3rd grade math because you keep bragging about it. What I’m not seeing is an ability for you to read past a 3rd grade level.

          See, there’s not a single person on this site that fails to note that numbers below the line are net job losses and a bad thing on their own. If you’d take the time to read harder you’d notice that. All we’re saying is the economy has had a dramatic decrease in the number of jobs lost per month and that is a good thing.

        • Darrel says:

          If Mike still wants to pretend he is too dumb to understand that up is good and down is bad (on that chart) then he should argue with this fellow, his name is Mike too:

          ***
          Mike Radigan says:
          Wednesday Mar 3rd, 2010 at 09:13

          “I agree with you that up is good…”

          Apparently there is nothing so stupid that some ideologue won’t defend it if it conflicts with cherished ideology. Mike really hates that chart because in a near perfect V, it shows each month getting worse under Bush (that’s bad) and each month getting better under Obama (that’s good). Down is bad, up is good.

          Moving on…

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Adam, you are wrong about everybody on this site understanding below the line are net job losses and a bad thing on their own. Darrel said he ignores the x axis, his words.

          Further I do admit that losing only 36,000 in February 2010 is better than losing 726,000 in February 2009. I never posted otherwise. That doesn’t change the fact that BOTH are bad. One is just less bad than the other. NEITHER is good. The overall job situation is still getting worse only at a slower pace. If you do not understand that, yes you are bad at math.

          And please explain to me how you can compare battlefield deaths to the jobs argument. Jobs can be gained or lost. Battlefield lives are only lost not gained. That’s a valid comparison? Explain.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          BTW Adam, I posted my math background exactly one time to give my argument some context. I wasn’t bragging. You’re the one who has brought it up multiple times. And please give some context to your argument. How much math have you had?

          Adam and Darrel go to a Casino and lose $1000. The next day they only lose $900. They argue the second day was s good day. No both are bad. The second day was better than the first day, but it is still bad.

        • Adam says:

          Yes, Mike. I have an extensive background in mathematics going back years and years. For instance in Kindergarten we learned to count on our fingers and toes and to paint numbers on paper. By the 2nd grade I had learned to add and subtract small numbers. By the 3rd grade I had mastered the ability to know that -36,000 is less than -726,000. That is pretty much all I need to know when it comes to math in this argument.

          But by all means continue to go in circles and call us dumb for not seeing your point. We know how much you hate it when you get called names like tofu and such but by all means, continue…

        • Adam says:

          Well of course mathematically speaking -36,000 is greater than -726,000 but in terms of losing something we both know which number is better.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Adam, you forgot to explain to me Darrel’s comparison of battlefield deaths to the jobs argument. Jobs can be gained or lost. Battlefield lives are only lost not gained. Do you think that’s a valid comparison?

          Are you afraid to post you math background?

          And you agree that -36,000 is a negative number? Darrel posted such a figure points up not down, that’s it’s OK to ignore the x-axis. Do you agree it’s OK to ignore the x-axis?

          I’m not arguing the merits of why these job losses are what they are. I would argue the same no matter whose numbers they represent. The fact is a new month with more jobs lost then gained is bad. It may be less bad then the previous month, but it is still bad. It is still down not up. The trend may be up but it is still bad until more jobs are gained then lost.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Darrel’s post:

          If Mike still wants to pretend he is too dumb to understand that up is good and down is bad (on that chart) then he should argue with this fellow, his name is Mike too:

          ***
          Mike Radigan says:
          Wednesday Mar 3rd, 2010 at 09:13

          “I agree with you that up is good…”

          Apparently there is nothing so stupid that some ideologue won’t defend it if it conflicts with cherished ideology. Mike really hates that chart because in a near perfect V, it shows each month getting worse under Bush (that’s bad) and each month getting better under Obama (that’s good). Down is bad, up is good.

          End of Darrel’s post.

          Those month’s under Bush were bad, I agree. And yes up is good and down is bad. I agree. But below the x-axis is down not up. It may be trending up, but it is still down until it crosses the x-axis. It’s less bad, but still bad. It’s less down, but still down. So I’m not arguing against myself.

          And Darrel, please explain to me how you can compare battlefield deaths to the jobs argument. Jobs can be gained or lost. Battlefield lives are only lost not gained. That’s a valid comparison? Explain.

          Moving on!

        • Adam says:

          Mike:

          There’s not a person here who thinks the numbers below the line are job growth. It’s job losses, we get it.

          Your example is of gambling is the same. Say we lost $726,000 last night and we only lost $37,000 today. You know, we’re still in the hole and we hope to quit losing soon (or go to gamblers anon) but can we at least admit that what we lost today is better than what we lost last night?

          Why you’re having trouble grasping Darrel war example is strange because it’s a good one. It’s not about whether you can be reborn or whether you can get a job back. That’s just a distraction. You could destroy any comparison the way you’re doing but it just shows you’re missing the point.

          The point is simply that you would not argue the war is getting worse just more slowly because soldiers are still being killed when fewer die one month than the last. No, conditions are improving. We’d rather be at zero or above but you know, we take what we can get and we don’t say silly things like it’s still getting worse, only slower…

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Adam, that’s not what Darrel said. He stated it is OK to ignore the x-axis. He stated that the elements below the x-axis point up.

          I agree the trend is up, but the numbers are still bad.

          Adam, is it OK to ignore the x-axis?

          Adam, do elements in this graph that are below the x-axis point up?

        • Darrel says:

          MIK: “[Darrel] stated it is OK to ignore the x-axis.”>>

          DAR
          Absolutely right. As you have already admitted, twice now, up is good, down is bad. So there is nothing left to say. You thus understand the way I was using the word “good.” It’s relative. It doesn’t matter where you put the big V in relation to the zero line. Doesn’t matter at all. Put it half way through, put it ENTIRELY above. It doesn’t change the fact that up is good, down is bad. The zero line is *completely* irrelevant to my point.

          MIKE: [Darrel] stated that the elements below the x-axis point up.>>

          DAR
          TREND up (or down). The trend under Bush pointed down. The trend under Obama, pointed up. That’s all.

          MIKL “please explain to me how you can compare battlefield deaths to the jobs argument.”>>

          DAR
          You really are having trouble understanding my one sentence war example?

          “If 200 soldiers are dying a month in Iraq and then we take action to get that number down to 10 (1/20th), this is, viewed objectively, as a “good thing” (while not a good thing viewed from the perspective of the 10 individuals who died).”

          Really?

          Whether soldiers can “come back” or not has nothing to do with the analogy. But I see Adam already addressed this.

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Darrel, the trend is up but the jobs are DOWN. Do you dispute this? Jobs are down not up. Show me otherwise. You state over and over where I say up is good. Yes, yes, yes. But the jobs are down not up. Quite a difference.

          Darrel, are the jobs up or down? Easy question. Yes or no?

          And the war deaths analogy is plain silly as you can never have a good result only less of a bad result. Jobs can be lost or gained. Lives cannot be gained on a battlefield. Just a silly analogy.

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: “Darrel, the trend is up but the jobs are DOWN.”>>

          DAR
          Irrelevant to the fact that on this chart, up is good, down is bad. Before when I said this you said, more than once: “no it’s not.” Now, you have repeatedly said that yes, it is true. So which Mike would you recommend people believe Mike? The Mike that agrees up is good, down is bad, is the Mike that understands my point.

          MIKE: Darrel, are the jobs up or down?>>

          DAR
          Down. But down 95% less than before. That’s a lot and VERY “good.” Incidentally, being even 100k over the zero line would still be a net down.

          MIKE: “…the war deaths analogy is plain silly as you can never have a good result only less of a bad result.”>>

          DAR
          A “less of a bad result” is good when compared with the alternative.

          MIKE: “Jobs can be lost or gained. Lives cannot be gained on a battlefield.”>>

          DAR
          Actually, a saved life on a battlefield looks exactly the same as a gained life. Same result. Again, your emphasis and distraction with the zero line on the chart is bogus. We need to actually have about a net increase of 150k jobs per month just to stay even with growth.

          One doesn’t need to understand math to understand this chart, just some basic language skills and the difference between up and down.

          Regarding the analogy, it works perfectly to make my point regarding Reid (you’ve switched the topic back to the chart).

          Do try to avoid distractions with artificial zero lines while I hold your hand and walk you through it:

          “If 200 soldiers are dying a month in Iraq and then we take action to get that number down to 10 (1/20th), this is, viewed objectively, as a “good thing” (while not a good thing viewed from the perspective of the 10 individuals who died).”

          Likewise, if we are losing 700k jobs per month and then take action to get that number down to 36k (1/20th), this is, viewed objectively, as a “good thing” (while not a good thing viewed from the perspective of the 36k individuals who lost jobs).

          Not sure it can be made any simpler.

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Darrel constantly states I say up is good in his graph, but conveniently leaves out the part where I say the graph elements point down not up. He’s a liar as he is blatantly misrepresenting what I’m saying.

          I asked, “Darrel, are the jobs up or down?”

          To which Darrel replied, “Down. But down 95% less than before. That’s a lot and VERY “good.” Incidentally, being even 100k over the zero line would still be a net down.”

          I agree the trend is up, but the net change is still down and is not good until it is positive. And no, each element shows the net gain or loss for that month only. So 100k over the zero (x-axis) would be a net up of 100k jobs for that month. What did you say your math back ground was? Oh yeah, you never did.

          Darrel, I never said comparing losing fewer lives in a month to a previous month was bad. I said it was the wrong analogy. Again you are purposely trying to misrepresent what I said. You’re a liar.

          Darrel thinks it’s OK to ignore the x-axis of a graph even though it is the 0 line from which the graph’s elements are plotted. And he thinks anything below the 0 line points up if it is less than the previous month.

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: “Darrel… conveniently leaves out the part where I say the graph elements point down not up.”>>

          DAR
          This is Mike confusing “elements” with “trends.” Unfortunate.

          MIKE: “…[Darrel] is blatantly misrepresenting what I’m saying.”>>

          DAR
          I quote you verbatim, so that’s not possible. However, you in contrast respond to your impressions of what you think I am saying. My way is better.

          MIKE: I agree the trend is up,…”>>

          DAR
          Well you should have stopped there, because that’s all, and quite precisely, what my “up is good, down is bad” says and means. Do you feel stupid yet? You should.

          MIKE: but the net change is still down and is not good until it is positive.”>>

          DAR
          Nonsense. An improvement of 95% in the right direction is VERY VERY VERY good even if less than in the positive range. And your “positive” is arbitrary and bogus as I already pointed out.

          MIKE: So 100k over the zero (x-axis) would be a net up of 100k jobs for that month.”>>

          DAR
          You’re a bit of dim bulb aren’t you Mike? I simply repeated a point that Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor was fond of making, and that is, the zero on that chart is still a net loss overall when considered in the entire job landscape. We need to have about a net increase of 150k jobs per month JUST TO STAY EVEN with growth. So the real zero, breakeven, tread water point is around 150k plus. If the US just held at zero it would quickly lead to massive unemployment (note: job creation/growth averaged about +240k per month under Clinton).

          MIKE: What did you say your math back ground was? Oh yeah, you never did.”>>

          DAR
          Actually I have several times. I have a high school education. But your inability to understand these very simple things has nothing to do with math. It’s become clear that you can’t keep up, because you are stupid.

          MIKE: “I said it was the wrong analogy.”>>

          DAR
          The analogy is fine. I could make another fifty for you (and did another one in my response to your post on our freethinker site.) But if you can’t understand that military casualty one, then there is no hope. You can’t fix stupid.

          MIKE: “…[Darrel] thinks anything below the 0 line points up if it is less than the previous month.”>>

          DAR
          Nope. “Trends up.” Do try to keep up. Although it’s probably hopeless.

          Hey, maybe you’re good at basketball or something?

          D.

        • Darrel says:

          Footnote:

          “Remember, too, that the economy needs about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with a growing population. So we’re even further behind.”
          –Robert Reich, Oct. 2, 2009, The Truth about Jobs that no one wants to tell you.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Darrel, you say you quote me verbatim, but you conveniently leave stuff out to purposely misrepresents what I actually say. By definition that makes you a liar. For instance I agree with you that up is good in the graph, but all but two elements are down not up so they are not good. You constantly reference that saying I agree with you that the elements are up. You’re a liar.

          And population growth is not considered in this graph. We’re arguing the net gain or loss of actual jobs.

          And what is your math background?

          And why did you leave Canada?

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: “…you conveniently leave stuff out to purposely misrepresents what I actually say.”>>

          DAR
          Then you shouldn’t have any trouble showing where I left something out that “purposely misrepresents” what you “actually” say. You can’t do this.

          MIKE: “By definition that makes you a liar.”>>

          DAR
          Of course it wouldn’t. First you have to show that I have said something untrue. You haven’t done that nor can you. Then you would have to show that I intended to do this. You can’t show that either.

          MIKE: “…all but two elements are down not up so they are not good.”>>

          DAR
          You are equivocating. This has all been explained to you before and again just today by some new folks who chimed in on your thread on our forum.

          MIKE: You constantly reference that saying I agree with you that the elements are up.”>>

          DAR
          No, I simply quote you saying you now agree that “up is good” (in contrast to what you used to say).

          MIKE: “And population growth is not considered in this graph.”>>

          DAR
          Of course. My point was that the zero line is not set in stone as you were pretending. The zero line can be placed any where and still the truth remains “up is good, down is bad.” No exceptions.

          MIKE: And what is your math background?>>

          DAR
          Already given. Mike, the purpose of an education is to learn how to think, not to be able to recite degrees obtained. If you’ve paid for an education you need to get a refund because they failed you. None of this has required a math understanding above the third grade level. You are confused not because of the math but because you have a rudimentary misunderstanding of language.

          MIKE: “And why did you leave Canada?”>>

          DAR
          So I could be closer to geniuses like you.

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Darrel, for the last time here’s the example where you try to misrepresent what I said. I agree with you that up is good in the graph, but I further state the elements are not up but down. Then you say I’m agreeing with you because I said up is good. You purposely leave out the part where I say the elements are down not up. You’re misrepresenting what I say by leaving the second part out. You’re a liar.

          Regarding the population growth, we are only discussing what the graph displays. There are other factors in addition to population growth the graph doesn’t consider such as the census workers who will lose their jobs once the census is complete. The discussion was what this graph depicts. Nothing more!

          You are still afraid to state your math background. You say the purpose of an education is not degrees but to think. I hope you never need surgery where your “doctor” has a PhD in philosophy. I think your math background is grade school at best.

          And you still won’t state why you left Canada, your model for everything. Since you won’t state why and since your site says you and your son only came to the States, I think your wife had enough of your foolishness and dumped your sorry butt and is still in Canada. Getting out of paying alimony, Darrel?

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: “I agree with you that up is good in the graph,”>>

          DAR
          That’s your new position. Earlier when I said “up is good” you responded, and I quote, “No its not.” That’s not agreement. Words have meaning.

          MIKE: but I further state the elements are not up but down.>>

          DAR
          That’s nice, I didn’t say anything about elements.

          MIKE: The discussion was what this graph depicts. Nothing more!>>

          DAR
          For the third time, I was showing how the zero line is arbitrary (and irrelevant to my point) since it will be placed in different locations if other considerations are taken in account. Where it is placed makes no difference to the trend.

          MIKE: You are still afraid to state your math background.”>>

          DAR
          Apparently you can’t read because I stated it plainly. Sorry about that. Again, your confusion has nothing to do with the third grade math involved here. You have extremely poor language comprehension.

          MIKE: I think your math background is grade school at best.”>>

          DAR
          No need to guess since I answered the question directly, as always.

          MIKE: “And you still won’t state why you left Canada,”>>

          DAR
          I’ve only done it about 20 times on this forum. It’s always brought up when someone has completely run out of argument and is grasping for an ad hominem. Any other red herrings?

          I am a Critical Thinking Missionary and I have come to where “the need is great.”

          MIKE: “since your site says you and your son only came to the States,>>

          DAR
          My son was born in the Excited States of America in 1990, three years after I moved here. At least you are consistent in your inability to read and comprehend!

          MIKE: I think your wife had enough of your foolishness and dumped your sorry butt>>

          DAR
          I have an ex-wife down the street (American) and we are great friends. Second time I imported one from Canada.

          I guess when you run out of argument, change the subject. But thanks for coming by and making a fool of yourself on our freethinker forum! Come back any time. I think the folks liked you.

          (Mike thought he would come by and humble me on my own forum. Two posts later he had his ass handed to him and he ran for the hills).

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Darrel, you are still trying to misrepresent what I said by trying to make it appear that I agree with you by leaving out the part where I say the elements point down not up thereby resulting in bad job numbers not good. You are purposely misleading and that makes you a liar. BTW, did you catch the Jay Leno show last night? In his monologue he made fun of your buddy Reid’s analysis that it was “good” that 36,000 jobs were lost. He went on that there would be one additional job lost come November. The audience roared.

          You still haven’t stated your math back ground when I asked? Maybe you did someplace else on this blog, but I don’t read everything here. So again what is your math background. Answer it here. Whatever it is, it is not enough to understand the graph, that each new element represents the change in jobs for that period. That an element below the x-axis represents a NET loss of jobs for that PERIOD. And what math teacher would say you can ignore the x-axis? Oh, I forgot, you don’t need degrees or training (and before you argue you never said training – that’s what you get with a degree) just be a thinker. Lot’s of luck with any surgery. I suppose any one of your deep thinkers on your site could do it for you.

          And again, I don’t read everything here. So why did you leave Canada? All you do is bash things here when compared to Canada? It seems dumb to me. I wouldn’t move from I place I liked to one I disagree with.

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: “you by leaving out the part where I say the elements point down>>

          DAR
          Incidentally Mike, there is nothing in that chart that “points.” They are just data points. The chart could be made into a pie chart.

          MIKE: Jay Leno… made fun of… Reid’s analysis>>

          DAR
          That’s nice. His job is to make jokes, and he’s not very good at it. Glad he got a laugh.

          MIKE: He went on that there would be one additional job lost come November.>>

          DAR
          And if that happened it would be a very good thing if compared to 700k lost under Bush. Good is relative but up on that chart is always good, down is always bad. Glad you finally figured that one out.

          MIKE: You still haven’t stated your math back ground when I asked?>>

          DAR
          It’s an irrelevant ad hominem and it’s in THIS thread dumbass (that descriptor being a relevant ad hominem).

          MIKE: So again what is your math background.>>

          DAR
          Oops, forgot your question mark. Too bad. Math is irrelevant here. You get a different answer because you used a different frame of reference. This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Avoid committing fallacies. When you do, admit them, learn from them.

          MIKE: “…an element below the x-axis represents a NET loss of jobs for that PERIOD.”>>

          DAR
          Ah yeah, got it. Irrelevant. Up is good (improvement), down is bad (worse).

          Are you mentally retarded?

          MIKE: And what math teacher would say you can ignore the x-axis?>>

          DAR
          The x-axis is completely irrelevant to the V trend. Multiply any of the months, by the same number, thus keeping the ratio the same. The V remains, the x-axis can be moved in any location and my point, which you are still too stupid to understand, remains.

          MIKE: So why did you leave Canada?>>

          DAR
          Answered twice in this thread. Here’s a third. I like the weather.

          MIKE: All you do is bash things here when compared to Canada?>>

          DAR
          Wrong. I am very complimentary of your post office, and other things. While you get all wrapped up in tribalism, I am not a great respecter of patriotism and these temporary political boundaries called countries. Try thinking outside the tribe some time.

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          I’m not going to look all through this blog to find your math background. Just state it here or are you afraid? Each element in the graph starts at the x-axis. If there is a net job gain for the period the element graphs up and if there is a net job loss for the period the element graphs down. Less bad is not good.

          The post office is your good example? And it makes how much money per year. To answer my own question, on a graph its net income would point down.

          You moved to Arkansas for the weather? That explains a lot.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          BTW, Leno only told that joke because Reid’s assertion (and yours) was so ridiculous. Do you really think Leno would have told that joke if Reid had said a net loss of 16,000 jobs was bad?

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: I’m not going to look all through this blog to find your math background.>>

          DAR
          It’s in this very thread but irrelevant of course. I am not going to hold your hand and assist you in your attempt to distract and obfuscate with fallacies. Grow up.

          MIKE: Just state it here or are you afraid?>>

          DAR
          Three weeks ago I explained your equivocation to you. Your misunderstanding has nothing to do with math but rather language. You pretend to be concerned with education and degrees (non sequiter fallacy) so fortunately a professor of philosophy has also taken the time to explain your equivocation to you. Why haven’t you answered his question? Why did you run?

          MIKE: Less bad is not good.”>>

          DAR
          Actually it is. I’ll quote philosophy professor Doug here since he gives a nice example:

          ***
          DOUG
          “You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. There are different senses of the word “good.” If you are in a major car wreck, but you are not injured, someone might hear that you are not injured and say, “That’s good.” That does not mean that the person thinks it was good that you were in a wreck.

          Similarly, losing jobs is not good, but it IS good that fewer and fewer jobs are being lost each month. So whether the chart shows something good depends on what you are evaluating. The trend is good. Job losses are not good. But fewer job losses is a good thing compared to more job losses. And that is what the chart is showing. It is a comparison. You can tell this because it shows job losses under two presidents, FOR COMPARISON.” [CAPS mine, italics in original] LINK.
          ***

          This is at least the tenth time this has been explained to you so I am under no illusion that your stubborn dogmatism will allow you to get it this time.

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          OK, I looked back and found your math skills are the ability to count with your fingers. Impressive!

          I’m not running from an argument with someone I’m not arguing with (your professor). Less bad is not good. Spin it any way you want. Go on Leno. And, anyway, your professor is arguing my point. The professor states that comparing the lesser of two bads is still bad, that a car wreck is still bad even though one states it is good you were not injured. That’s my point not yours. I agree with your professor. The lesser of two bads is not good, that a net job loss is still bad even if it wasn’t as bad as the previous period. You’re saying the lesser of two bads is good, quite the opposite of your professor.

          And BTW even the trend is down from November. You do see that?

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: “OK, I looked back and found your math skills are the ability to count with your fingers. Impressive!”>>

          DAR
          Nope, sorry. You screwed it up again Mike. It was Adam who said that. And he was making fun of you.

          MIKE: Less bad is not good.”>>

          DAR
          You didn’t learn. I am so surprised!

          MIKE: your professor is arguing my point.”>>

          DAR
          How much do you want to bet? How about $1,000. Seriously. My professor explained how you are committing the fallacy of equivocation (just as I explained to you over and over). Were you under the impression that when someone tells you that you are using a logical fallacy that this is a compliment? A good thing?

          MIKE: The professor states that comparing the lesser of two bads is still bad,”>>

          DAR
          Actually, that’s the exact opposite of what he said:

          “Similarly, losing jobs is not good, but it IS good that fewer and fewer jobs are being lost each month.” [CAPS his]

          MIKE: That’s my point not yours.”>>

          DAR
          I think people are starting to feel sorry for you. I hope so.

          MIKE: The lesser of two bads is not good, that a net job loss is still bad even if it wasn’t as bad as the previous period.”>>

          DAR
          Again, that is the exact word for word opposite of what he said, and I have said. You should go and lie down now.

          MIKE: And BTW even the trend is down from November. You do see that?”>>

          DAR
          So you would like to pull yet a new logical fallacy out of your silly bag. Cherry picking one or two months.

          You know, months ago, I had you pegged as a dumb ass within your first couple of posts but I realize now, I had NO IDEA of what you were capable of. I think you should keep digging at this point. It looks good on ya.

          And do let me know if you want to wager $1,000 on whether the good professor is agreeing with you. But even better, if you accept this offer within 24 hours, I’ll even sweeten the pot 100 to 1. My thousand dollars to your ten spot. Interested? We’ll see.

          I’ve got a thousand bucks that says how confident I am of my position. We’ll see if you’ve got $10 worth of confidence in your position. I’m gonna guess no.

          D.
          —————–
          “Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.” –ibid

          cc. Professor Doug.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          I’m done arguing with you. A net loss of jobs is ALWAYS bad, ALWAYS bad! It’s foolish to think otherwise,

          You think you can ignore the x-axis, that says it all.

          You cannot disagree with anyone without name calling. I’m finding myself wanting to do that with you and I don’t like it. So long, Darrel.

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: “I’m done arguing with you.”>>

          DAR
          So there we have it. Mike claims Doug is arguing his point, not mine. But when offered $1,000 if his claim is true (and he need only risk $10 of his money), Mike runs FULL SPEED from standing by his claim.

          So we find that when it comes down to the crunch, even Mike doesn’t believe the material he writes. Money talks, BS walks.

          D.
          —————
          cc. Freethinker forum

        • Mike Radigan says:

          I was wrong about Doug’s argument. It was late and I skipped over some stuff much as I do yours. I will also admit I didn’t know fallacy of equivocation. Having looked it up I don’t know that I agree with Doug’s interpretation. Regardless, I’ll never agree that less bad is good. And as stated the reason I’m done arguing with you is because I’m tired of the name calling. If you think as argument is foolish state that, do not make it personal. Bye, Darrel.

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: “I’ll never agree that less bad is good.”>>

          DAR
          But of course you do it in your day to day life all the time.

          Staying with Doug’s example, if someone said their child totaled the car, you might say, “that’s bad,” then if they added “but insurance is paying for it and no one was hurt” you might say “that’s good.”

          So does this accident then go in the “good” box or the “bad” box? You JUST said (in my example) something about the accident was GOOD. How could that be? So we see “good” depends on the context and perspective. Some aspects of an event, item, CHART can be good from one perspective and bad from another.

          Likewise, as Doug said:

          “…losing jobs is not good, but it IS good that fewer and fewer jobs are being lost each month.”

          This is the simple fact you have failed to grasp.

          This is actually a keen insight into a typical trait of the mind of conservatives. A difficulty in seeing/understanding nuance. A comfort with easy black/white answers and a discomfort with gray areas and considering different frames of reference. Something is to be viewed as good, or bad, right or wrong. Never mind that “good” and “bad,” right and wrong are human constructs and are almost always subjective and change depending upon perspective.

          MIKE: “…I’m done arguing with you is because I’m tired of the name calling.”>>

          DAR
          Sorry, not buying it. You have thrown no end of ad hominems, most of them made up. You tried denigrating my education, intelligence, my honesty, the country I came from. You called me a liar six times in just this thread. Then you went on to hypothesize a completely fictional insult regarding divorce and alimony. This is not how a person who is touchy about “name calling” acts. I can take it or leave it, doesn’t matter to me in the slightest. But spare me the sudden feigned sensitivity.

          D.

  3. Adam says:

    “These numbers do not indicate that jobs are being created, just that fewer people are losing them.”

    Actually it indicates both. Jobs are being created and jobs are being lost. Right now more are being lost than added is all. Just take a look at this table to see which sectors are creating jobs and which are losing them.

  4. victoria says:

    “US nonfarm payrolls declined for the 25th time in the past 26 months. Unemployment rose by 34,000 to stand at 14.9 million. The jobless rate stuck at 9.7%. Total hours worked fell by a seasonally adjusted 0.6%. Job losses in February were concentrated in construction, schools, transportation, insurance, and publishing.”
    “The U6 alternative gauge of the unemployment rate, which includes discouraged workers and those forced to work part-time, rose to 16.8% from 16.5%.” An economist, Heidi Shierholz, for the Economic Policy Institute in Washington said, “What we see in this report’s essentially a job market on pause. The pace of decline has slowed dramatically but jobs are not being created to put this country’s nearly 15 million unemployed back to work.”

    And it is only going to get worse. And in the meantime:
    March 05, 2010
    the Rapper and the White House Situation Room
    Ed Lasky

    Is Barack Obama a serious man? The Obamas started a regular music series at the White House so they and their friends and family can enjoy some tunes; Barack Obama flies off to Copenhagen to push the global warming story; flies off to promote Chicago as an Olympic site; flies up to New York City to take in a Broadway show; plays golf with an avidity that eclipses that of Dwight Eisenhower; reward Democratic donors with perks at the White House (including a birthday visit to the Oval Office, a bowling party, a movie in the basement of the Presidential mansion); chats up sports on national television; and, most recently, makes the all important situation room a backdrop for celebrities to have photos snapped sitting in the chairs that would normally seat our most important security officials.

    Mr. Laskey forgot to add in there that after all those activities all Obama can come up with to concentrate on is this so called healthcare crisis.

    As Rush put it–America is getting cut down to size. It is getting its come uppence so to speak. You know Darrel–Mr. Childish word games based upon variable interpretations and perspectives of the word “good”–why don’t you think about the word “decline” for awhile and some variables for that.

    As far as Big Dogs article goes though, it is too bad Harry Reids job wasn’t part of the 36,000 lost but it is starting to look like it will be come November along with another maybe 30,000 or so.

    • Darrel says:

      VIC: As Rush put it–America is getting cut down to size.>>

      DAR
      Actually, that’s what happened during Bush. It seemed to me that America kind of peaked under Clinton, then suffered a tsunami during a period of darkness and stupidity, and now we are picking up the pieces after the storm.

      VIC: “…why don’t you think about the word “decline” for awhile and some variables for that.”>>

      DAR
      “Decline” like “good” is a relative term. It only means something in relation to something else. We’ll see how Obama’s job creation record looks later, we already know he’s following and cleaning up after the worst record in modern history.

      D.
      —————
      “The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity…

      There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.”

      Link

      • Big Dog says:

        Yes, he is following and cleaning up the worst record in history.

        And he is doing it with the people who caused it. Congress was controlled by his party when the wheels came off the cart.

        I might add that Soros helped cause this collapse to help Barry get in office.

      • victoria says:

        “we already know he’s following and cleaning up after the worst record in modern history.”

        I don’t know about Obama actually but Congress is cleaning us poor schmucks out, out here in the real world who are working and making a few bucks. They are going to clean us out of everything.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Yes Darrel, far be it from me to engage in something YOU call a childish game.

    Once again, there is nothing being done or that has been done which made the decline happen.

    If we have only 300 soldiers and 200 of them get killed then we know that the next month cannot possibly be as bad as the previous.

    In the case of jobs, the cutting and huge numbers always come at the beginning and decline over time as the pool from which to draw decreases.

  6. Adam says:

    “I might add that Soros helped cause this collapse to help Barry get in office.”

    I hope that’s sarcasm.

    “Adam, I doubt that the economic activity slowed enough to make a difference…”

    The FED disagrees. Obviously it’s hard to quantify the impact of the storms but it’s clearly wrong for you to mock the suggestion that the snow storms hurt job numbers when you are ignoring the impact on job creation and economic activity.

    • Big Dog says:

      If the storms made a difference the UE number would not have stayed the same. Of course, any loss, assuming the storms had that effect, were offset by census workers (temporary jobs) and snow removal workers.

      Soros also told “The Australian” that the world financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”

  7. Adam says:

    “But losing is still losing and it is not good news.”

    This is another poor choice of words by Reid which was sucked up and taken out of context by the right wing echo chamber. You’re playing your part as usual.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Imagine a coach meeting the press after a Superbowl loss of 27-24 and saying well the good news is we only lost by a field goal.

    As if losing by a touchdown would be worse…

    • Adam says:

      That’s a terrible example. A better one would be to imagine a coach meeting the press after having only won 1 game in 3 seasons and being blown out many of those games. You lost by a field goal? Well, that’s still a loss, but you’ll take any kind of improvement as a positive sign at that point.

  9. This business of assessing the direction of “the economy” is no simple matter. There is no single metric that can accurately capture such a thing.

    Joseph Schumpeter, one of the Twentieth Century’s great economists, made particular note of capitalism’s process of “creative destruction.” Businesses fail rather frequently in a capitalist economy; indeed, the great majority of new businesses fail within a year or two. Old, established firms might find that they’ve grown sclerotic, and can no longer keep up with the competition. Some new firms sprout and become powerhouses. Jobs are lost, and jobs are created, and matters remain in flux.

    Were more jobs lost last month than were created? Possibly, but what that means is inherently obscure. If the jobs lost had to be lost to liquidate capital that was being put to non-viable or unprofitable uses, then the capitalist process was at work “making room” for new uses of that capital, and of the labor energy that was being misdirected into inferior channels. We can’t know from a static snapshot. Even moderately long trends of a year or two can be deceptive, as witness the rocket-propelled performance of the American economy from 1926 through 1929.

    Ultimately, “the economy” as a collectivized assessment of “how we’re doing” is a misleading concept. Each of us — every worker and every family in America — is an economy unto itself. Which is nicely captured in the old saying that “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours.”

  10. Adam says:

    “Soros also told “The Australian” that the world financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.””

    Oh, so you weren’t kidding then? Too bad for you. I guess if you live in a world where Soros is a scary bogeyman leftist that has all the Democrats in his pocket then you might misconstrue his interview to mean something absolutely hilarious like “Soros helped cause this collapse to help Barry get in office.” Echo, echo, echo…

    • Darrel says:

      Why isn’t Bigd celebrating the extremely successful Soros? He’s doing what we all should be doing right? Living the capitalist dream life and getting richer while destroying his competition.

      Anything he does now would be the “culminating point” of his “life’s work.” He’s old. And he made a correct call on the collapse. And the problem with this is…? Oh I see, he is trying to spin what he said just like with Reid. Oy.

      D.
      ————-
      “And while the financial crisis continued to deepen across the globe, the 78-year-old still managed to make $1.1 billion last year.

      ‘It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work,’ he told national newspaper The Australian.

      Soros is one of 25, top hedge fund managers from across Wall Street who have defied the credit crunch crisis to reap a total of $11.6billion (£7.9bn) last year.”

      Link.

  11. Big Dog says:

    You know Adam, I have told you a number of times I am afraid of no one so this tactic of claiming that the reason a person is trouble is because he is a scary boogey man is just more Alinsky.

    Soros has a sordid history and he has manipulated many markets as well as toppled economies.

    It is not unreasonable to assume he had something to do with the collapse.

    Darrel, no one is spinning anything. Your definition of capitalism is wrong and therefore the entire conclusion is wrong. The purpose of capitalism is not to destroy competition, it is to make money and provide products.

    The question is, why don’t you libs hate Soros? He is anti all that you believe in.

    Oh, he is a former Nazi supporter who gives big money to Dems.

    Soros is no capitalist. He manipulates the money system, he is a money trader.

    Think of how much better off we would now be if the Germans had known Soros was a Jew.

    • Adam says:

      “…claiming that the reason a person is trouble is because he is a scary boogey man is just more Alinsky.”

      Right, you’re not quivering in your boots about Soros but yet you think he helped cause the housing bubble? That kind of rational thinking sure makes your case.

      Let me let you in on a little secret about Alinsky. No body cares. No one knows who Alinsky is and no one follows those rules outside of a few community organizing groups. It isn’t a manual we pick up at our introduction to leftist ideology classes in school or something. You get that yet?

      No one had even heard of this guy until a couple of years ago when your side started making a stink about it. Now all of the sudden when a liberal makes the same political arguments and frames both sides have used for centuries? Well, that’s just more Alinsky! Get real.

      “The question is, why don’t you libs hate Soros? He is anti all that you believe in.”

      I couldn’t care less about Soros.

  12. Big Dog says:

    It is strange to me how Darrel will talk about this perfect chart, which is you look at it starts getting bad under Democrat control, but when a chart showing the debt and deficit shows Obama running way up (and in this case UP IS BAD) then he calls it bogus or blames it on Bush.

    Mike is right, anything below the line IS DOWN. Less down is not UP.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “when a chart showing the debt and deficit shows Obama running way up… he calls it bogus or blames it on Bush.”>>

      DAR
      Blaming it on anyone but Bush is bogus.

      Again, Obama’s spending accounts for about 10% of the change in the deficit. Bush’s legacy spending accounts for about 90% of the deficit. All carefully explained in this short article by Gene Lyons:

      The Deficit Blame Game.

      Excerpt:

      “Two weeks before Obama was inaugurated, the Congressional Budget Office projected the 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion, adding that due to the economic crisis the new administration also inherited, “collections from corporate income taxes are anticipated to decline by 27 percent and individual income taxes by 8 percent; in normal economic conditions, they would both grow.” Mandated spending on unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc., increased.

      A year later, little had changed. A December 2009 analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded that the Bush administration’s fiscal legacy “explain(s) virtually the entire deficit over the next 10 years.”

      Economic stimulus and all, new spending by the Obama administration amounts to roughly 10 percent of this year’s deficit.”

      DAR
      Oh, and the largest part of Obama’s deficit increase? Tax cuts. You’re welcome.

      D.

  13. Big Dog says:

    Right, and the 9 trillion dollars of debt he will add, will we blame that on Bush?

    There is no doubt that Bush spent (Congress spent and Bush signed) but Obama and his Congress are outspending at a much greater pace. This is undeniable.

    Tax cuts, that is rich. Tax cuts do not cause deficits. Tax cuts increase revenue. Out of control spending increases deficits.

    If he truly cut taxes revenue would go up (in the absence of further spending) and jobs would increase.

  14. Big Dog says:

    No action taken got the job losses down. The pool from which to fire has gotten increasingly smaller. This happens all the time and would eventually work itself out with no intervention.

    The intervention that has occurred has stifled growth and delayed recovery.

    Next comes inflation and then a double dip recession.

    That will be Bush’s fault as well, I suppose.

  15. Big Dog says:

    He left Canada because of better opportunities here.

    And Darrel is good at picking only parts of what you say to give the appearance that you said something else.

    • Darrel says:

      Gee, I wonder if Mike will give an example of me supposedly misrepresenting something he said.

      Here is Mike’s problem in a nutshell and even further dumbed down:

      Good and bad, up and down, only have meaning in reference to something. I posted the chart clearly making reference to the trends in the chart. Down under Bush, up under Obama. “Down is bad, up is good.” It’s a statement so mundane and obviously true, I kind of meant it as a joke, never dreaming some lunkhead would try to disagree with it.

      Mike then stumbles in and starts using a different reference point, the zero line, so OF COURSE he gets a different answer for what is “good.”

      His confusion stems entirely from this simple and most basic equivocation (which I explained to him a month ago).

      D.

      • Mike Radigan says:

        I’ve given the example where you misrepresented what I said both here and on your own site. Your reading comprehension skills compare with your math skills.

        And what is your math background?

        And why did you leave Canada?

      • Darrel says:

        MIKE: “I’ve given the example where you misrepresented what I said both here and on your own site.”>>

        DAR
        You’ve done no such thing. You’ve only made the claim. You need to learn the difference between making a claim, and actually backing up a claim. There’s a big difference.
        If I claimed someone misrepresented something I said, I would show what I said and then show how it was misrepresented. You haven’t done either of these things because you can’t.

        D.

  16. Big Dog says:

    Up is relative to the base which is the zero or X axis. Down under Bush and less down under Obama would make more sense. It cannot be up if it is down. This all depends on how you define the terms. In relation to the chart down is below zero and up is above it.