Interesting chart

CH156378
CH156378 Posts: 1,539
edited May 2011 in A Moving Train
http://www.oliverwillis.com/wp-content/ ... sector.jpg
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • BinauralJam
    BinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    8-)
  • SatansFuton
    SatansFuton Posts: 5,399
    "Interesting Chart" is an oxymoron.
    "See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,470
    if that chart is legit then it is pretty interesting.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,677
    Looks good to me. :)
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • butterjam
    butterjam Posts: 221
    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Furthermore, it is broken down by just who is president and over a period that seems to benefit Obama versus Bush. What happened in the period before 2008? How about we break it down by what party controlled congress?

    I get a kick out of people who find some chart that fits their agenda and use it as an arguement.

    By no means am I a Bush supporter. But I like to try and get the whole picture instead of just a partial one that will suit my beliefs.
  • Gary Carter
    Gary Carter Posts: 14,077
    311jj wrote:
    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Furthermore, it is broken down by just who is president and over a period that seems to benefit Obama versus Bush. What happened in the period before 2008? How about we break it down by what party controlled congress?

    I get a kick out of people who find some chart that fits their agenda and use it as an arguement.

    By no means am I a Bush supporter. But I like to try and get the whole picture instead of just a partial one that will suit my beliefs.
    well said
    Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
    Sammi: Wanna just break up?

  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,623
    311jj wrote:
    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Furthermore, it is broken down by just who is president and over a period that seems to benefit Obama versus Bush. What happened in the period before 2008? How about we break it down by what party controlled congress?

    I get a kick out of people who find some chart that fits their agenda and use it as an arguement.

    By no means am I a Bush supporter. But I like to try and get the whole picture instead of just a partial one that will suit my beliefs.

    Was there an argument?
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,470
    that chart goes back to the time of the now famous "dey tuk urr jerbs" and shows the progression to today.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIzivCJ9pzU
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    311jj wrote:
    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Furthermore, it is broken down by just who is president and over a period that seems to benefit Obama versus Bush. What happened in the period before 2008? How about we break it down by what party controlled congress?

    I get a kick out of people who find some chart that fits their agenda and use it as an arguement.

    By no means am I a Bush supporter. But I like to try and get the whole picture instead of just a partial one that will suit my beliefs.

    I'm a big fan of the correlation does not imply causation...it's hard to dismiss this chart...unless of course one wants to quickly dismiss this chart...

    I guess one could say "what about the Johnson administration" and "what was the effect on jobs by Nixon's resignation"...those statements don't make this chart an less compelling...
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    Still a long way to go, but it is positive to see the recovery picking up speed.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • butterjam
    butterjam Posts: 221
    I'm dismissing what this chart is implying, that Bush is a job killer and Obama is the a job saver. Both are out of control spenders and are their policies are bad economically for this country in the long run. It was inevitable that at some point we will start to see job growth after all of the jobs that were lost.
  • zarocat
    zarocat Posts: 1,901
    edited May 2011
    Are these jobs not basically part time jobs without benefits & health care ?

    Just asking ...
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    1996: Toronto
    1998: Barrie
    2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
    2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
    2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
    2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
    2006: Toronto X2
    2009: Toronto
    2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
    2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
    2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
    2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
    2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
    2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
    2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto
    2023: Chicago X2
    2024: New York X2
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    311jj wrote:
    I'm dismissing what this chart is implying, that Bush is a job killer and Obama is the a job saver. Both are out of control spenders and are their policies are bad economically for this country in the long run. It was inevitable that at some point we will start to see job growth after all of the jobs that were lost.

    I dismiss this post as opinion and conjecture... ;)
  • butterjam
    butterjam Posts: 221
    inmytree wrote:
    311jj wrote:
    I'm dismissing what this chart is implying, that Bush is a job killer and Obama is the a job saver. Both are out of control spenders and are their policies are bad economically for this country in the long run. It was inevitable that at some point we will start to see job growth after all of the jobs that were lost.

    I dismiss this post as opinion and conjecture... ;)


    Yes that is my opinion. I think it is pretty valid. Would you like to offer your opinion?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    311jj wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    311jj wrote:
    I'm dismissing what this chart is implying, that Bush is a job killer and Obama is the a job saver. Both are out of control spenders and are their policies are bad economically for this country in the long run. It was inevitable that at some point we will start to see job growth after all of the jobs that were lost.

    I dismiss this post as opinion and conjecture... ;)


    Yes that is my opinion. I think it is pretty valid. Would you like to offer your opinion?

    Sure...I think the chart speaks for itself....during the bush years lots of jobs were lost...and since Obama took over lots of jobs have been gained...

    it's fairly clear to me...
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    I see a correlation with the rise of the Tea Party as well. ;)
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    zarocat wrote:
    Are these jobs not basically part time jobs without benefits & health care ?

    Just asking ...
    Excellent point, and I would venture to guess they are.
  • EmBleve
    EmBleve Posts: 3,019
    311jj also brings up some good points about biased information fitting an agenda-- although the chart is interesting, if true, albeit misleading---considering that my boyfriend got laid off TWICE in 2010 from 2 different jobs in the private sector (once early in the year, once at the end of the year), and my aunt got laid off from her job at a private hospital in mid '10. This during the time that the chart indicates private sector jobs were on the rise. hmm.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Jason P wrote:
    I see a correlation with the rise of the Tea Party as well. ;)

    good point...all those yellie teabaggers taking it to the streets probably created a few jobs at the local hardees/meeting centers... ;)
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EmBleve wrote:
    311jj also brings up some good points about biased information fitting an agenda-- although the chart is interesting, if true, albeit misleading---considering that my boyfriend got laid off TWICE in 2010 from 2 different jobs in the private sector (once early in the year, once at the end of the year), and my aunt got laid off from her job at a private hospital in mid '10. This during the time that the chart indicates private sector jobs were on the rise. hmm.

    hmmm.....I guess you may have a point...since your bf and aunt lost their jobs...no one else anywhere could have taken a new job...

    discussion over...

Categories