seriously, we're talking about a chart of jobs lost and added for the bush/obama years...I think you're assuming I'm saying the jobs picture is perfect...I'm not...I'm simply saying that chart is telling and I find it interesting that some will automatically dismiss this chart...that's all, nothing more...
I believe I stated my point in that this chart is interesting at face value, but it is more than likely misleading. I didn't say anything about automatically dismissing it, I just don't find it representative of what I see or experience on a daily basis. That's all, nothing more. Who is to say if jobs have been added in the Obama years?? Not me.. I can only speak from the reality of my situation (and extended), and it certainly does not resemble what this chart implies.
What you see and experience on a daily basis is not representative of the rest of the country (this is a big beef of mine--when people make conclusions on their own surroundings and people they know). There has been 12 consecutive months of private sector job growth. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is to say if jobs have been added, because they gather info. You don't appear to be gathering info outside of people you know.
I am not arguing the fact that we have had 12 months of growth. That's great. But I'm going to attribute that soley to Obama being president. Let me restate:
Correlation does not imply causation. Understand? Maybe you're not an engineer/scientist/statistician so it's a little too much to comprehend.
And yes, I do know that my chart is outdated and the same as the one initially posted here except does not show that last 12 months of growth. I was trying to make a point. Obviously you missed that one.
I am not arguing the fact that we have had 12 months of growth. That's great. But I'm going to attribute that soley to Obama being president. Let me restate:
Correlation does not imply causation. Understand? Maybe you're not an engineer/scientist/statistician so it's a little too much to comprehend.
And yes, I do know that my chart is outdated and the same as the one initially posted here except does not show that last 12 months of growth. I was trying to make a point. Obviously you missed that one.
the correlation does not imply causation is a simple concept...
anyway, what was your point in posting that chart...? you know, since correlation does not imply causation...
I am not arguing the fact that we have had 12 months of growth. That's great. But I'm going to attribute that soley to Obama being president. Let me restate:
Correlation does not imply causation. Understand? Maybe you're not an engineer/scientist/statistician so it's a little too much to comprehend.
And yes, I do know that my chart is outdated and the same as the one initially posted here except does not show that last 12 months of growth. I was trying to make a point. Obviously you missed that one.
the correlation does not imply causation is a simple concept...
anyway, what was your point in posting that chart...? you know, since correlation does not imply causation...
My point was that people use data such as these charts to fit their agenda. The implied message with the first chart is that Bush destroys jobs, Obama creates them. The second chart implies that both destroy jobs. But both use the same data, just different time periods. Doesn't make either message true.
It could also be shown that jobs stopped their decline once our gov't decide to give Wall St, banks, GM, and others 1+ trillion dollars. How our gov't got away with that is the biggest swindle in American history. And yet, we still vote the same aholes back into office.
Sorry if I sounded like an ass. Work really sucks today.
I believe I stated my point in that this chart is interesting at face value, but it is more than likely misleading. I didn't say anything about automatically dismissing it, I just don't find it representative of what I see or experience on a daily basis. That's all, nothing more. Who is to say if jobs have been added in the Obama years?? Not me.. I can only speak from the reality of my situation (and extended), and it certainly does not resemble what this chart implies.
I feel the same way. Jobs may have been created in the private sector since Bush left, but around me MANY people are still losing their jobs like wild fire. I hardly see how the recession can really be bouncing back, quite like the graph intends anywhere in my state.
seriously, we're talking about a chart of jobs lost and added for the bush/obama years...I think you're assuming I'm saying the jobs picture is perfect...I'm not...I'm simply saying that chart is telling and I find it interesting that some will automatically dismiss this chart...that's all, nothing more...[/quote]
I believe I stated my point in that this chart is interesting at face value, but it is more than likely misleading. I didn't say anything about automatically dismissing it, I just don't find it representative of what I see or experience on a daily basis. That's all, nothing more. Who is to say if jobs have been added in the Obama years?? Not me.. I can only speak from the reality of my situation (and extended), and it certainly does not resemble what this chart implies.[/quote]
What you see and experience on a daily basis is not representative of the rest of the country (this is a big beef of mine--when people make conclusions on their own surroundings and people they know). There has been 12 consecutive months of private sector job growth. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is to say if jobs have been added, because they gather info. You don't appear to be gathering info outside of people you know.[/quote]
I am not arguing the fact that we have had 12 months of growth. That's great. But I'm going to attribute that soley to Obama being president. Let me restate:
Correlation does not imply causation. Understand? Maybe you're not an engineer/scientist/statistician so it's a little too much to comprehend.
And yes, I do know that my chart is outdated and the same as the one initially posted here except does not show that last 12 months of growth. I was trying to make a point. Obviously you missed that one.[/quote]
I'm not sure who you're responding to, but I'm well aware that correlation isn't causation. I figured that might have been your point, but you didn't make it clear in the post. The initial post said interesting chart, and then showed the chart. To me I saw it as job growth, not 'look how Obama makes jobs and Bush destroys them'. For me, that would be making an assumption. I'm also coming from the vantage of when I post info that reflects economic recovery, the Debbie Downers in here poo-poo it.
I believe I stated my point in that this chart is interesting at face value, but it is more than likely misleading. I didn't say anything about automatically dismissing it, I just don't find it representative of what I see or experience on a daily basis. That's all, nothing more. Who is to say if jobs have been added in the Obama years?? Not me.. I can only speak from the reality of my situation (and extended), and it certainly does not resemble what this chart implies.
I feel the same way. Jobs may have been created in the private sector since Bush left, but around me MANY people are still losing their jobs like wild fire. I hardly see how the recession can really be bouncing back, quite like the graph intends anywhere in my state.
It just depends on how you define recession and recovery. Technically, recession is exclusively GDP related. You can decide if there's a recovery looking at whatever you want: employment, gdp, housing starts, wages, or how your friends and family are doing in their job search. I'm curious what state your in.
I am not arguing the fact that we have had 12 months of growth. That's great. But I'm going to attribute that soley to Obama being president. Let me restate:
Correlation does not imply causation. Understand? Maybe you're not an engineer/scientist/statistician so it's a little too much to comprehend.
And yes, I do know that my chart is outdated and the same as the one initially posted here except does not show that last 12 months of growth. I was trying to make a point. Obviously you missed that one.
the correlation does not imply causation is a simple concept...
anyway, what was your point in posting that chart...? you know, since correlation does not imply causation...
My point was that people use data such as these charts to fit their agenda. The implied message with the first chart is that Bush destroys jobs, Obama creates them. The second chart implies that both destroy jobs. But both use the same data, just different time periods. Doesn't make either message true.
It could also be shown that jobs stopped their decline once our gov't decide to give Wall St, banks, GM, and others 1+ trillion dollars. How our gov't got away with that is the biggest swindle in American history. And yet, we still vote the same aholes back into office.
Sorry if I sounded like an ass. Work really sucks today.
you didn't sound like an ass at all...so no worries there...
I do understand your point, but I just don't agree with all of it...I think this chart shows a positive trend...has this trend hit "main street" yet...I don't think so...
I believe I stated my point in that this chart is interesting at face value, but it is more than likely misleading. I didn't say anything about automatically dismissing it, I just don't find it representative of what I see or experience on a daily basis. That's all, nothing more. Who is to say if jobs have been added in the Obama years?? Not me.. I can only speak from the reality of my situation (and extended), and it certainly does not resemble what this chart implies.
I feel the same way. Jobs may have been created in the private sector since Bush left, but around me MANY people are still losing their jobs like wild fire. I hardly see how the recession can really be bouncing back, quite like the graph intends anywhere in my state.
Thank you, Jeanwah, for at least seeing what I'm saying. And to the others who want to think that my posts imply that I 'know all' or 'is not representative of the entire country'--I never said that I knew all, I stated twice that it is from what I SEE/EXPERIENCE. I also completely realize that my experience does not represent the entire country and I never said it did. Just because I convey what I see or experience in my life (and in the lives of many others around me), relative to this chart, does not mean in any way that I apply a generalization of my personal experience to the rest of the millions of people in this country. That would make me a moron and it's an insult that you would take that away from my posts, which clearly state that it is misleading in comparison to what I have seen. Go Beavers, sorry if you took what I was saying on that point the wrong way. I appreciate the fact that you had some tact with your response and didn't have to resort to sarcasm.
I believe I stated my point in that this chart is interesting at face value, but it is more than likely misleading. I didn't say anything about automatically dismissing it, I just don't find it representative of what I see or experience on a daily basis. That's all, nothing more. Who is to say if jobs have been added in the Obama years?? Not me.. I can only speak from the reality of my situation (and extended), and it certainly does not resemble what this chart implies.
What you see and experience on a daily basis is not representative of the rest of the country (this is a big beef of mine--when people make conclusions on their own surroundings and people they know). There has been 12 consecutive months of private sector job growth. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is to say if jobs have been added, because they gather info. You don't appear to be gathering info outside of people you know.
Thank you, I am aware of this, which is why I said 'not me' (and this was a response to the inmytree comment, which was not so nice). And no, I do not examine the US Bureau of Labor Statistics data on a regular basis because I am too concerned with how it is affecting my own life and the lives of those around me---it directly hits home to me, as well as to others whom I see all the time, and I don't discount my experience just because it doesn't reflect Labor Statistics data.
I'll say this: it's "change" not "levels". The US could lose a huge amount of private sector jobs (which we did during the recession), then gain one job and move into positive territory in "change", yet still be down x amount of jobs since the recession started.
This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.
I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.
You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.
Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.
The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.
I'll say this: it's "change" not "levels". The US could lose a huge amount of private sector jobs (which we did during the recession), then gain one job and move into positive territory in "change", yet still be down x amount of jobs since the recession started.
This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.
I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.
You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.
Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.
The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.
I wasn't so big on the chart, other than it indicating gains in jobs in the private sector and to point out that employment is getting better, slowly. Some people want to say that the economy is worse, so it's just some evidence against that.
I'll say this: it's "change" not "levels". The US could lose a huge amount of private sector jobs (which we did during the recession), then gain one job and move into positive territory in "change", yet still be down x amount of jobs since the recession started.
This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.
I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.
You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.
Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.
The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.
I'll say this: it's "change" not "levels". The US could lose a huge amount of private sector jobs (which we did during the recession), then gain one job and move into positive territory in "change", yet still be down x amount of jobs since the recession started.
This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.
I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.
You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.
Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.
The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.
/ end thread
Too condescending to end on. Someone needs to respond to make this spin out on a tangent.
I'll say this: it's "change" not "levels". The US could lose a huge amount of private sector jobs (which we did during the recession), then gain one job and move into positive territory in "change", yet still be down x amount of jobs since the recession started.
This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.
I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.
You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.
Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.
The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.
"You are all here to just hear your selves talk"...thanks for joining us...
anyway, I'm not sure what the point this ramble...are you saying charts are useless and they shouldn't created...?
yes, business cycles occur, thanks for the reminder...this chart looks to capture a positive trending business cycle...thanks for clearing that up... :thumbup:
Comments
I am not arguing the fact that we have had 12 months of growth. That's great. But I'm going to attribute that soley to Obama being president. Let me restate:
Correlation does not imply causation. Understand? Maybe you're not an engineer/scientist/statistician so it's a little too much to comprehend.
And yes, I do know that my chart is outdated and the same as the one initially posted here except does not show that last 12 months of growth. I was trying to make a point. Obviously you missed that one.
the correlation does not imply causation is a simple concept...
anyway, what was your point in posting that chart...? you know, since correlation does not imply causation...
My point was that people use data such as these charts to fit their agenda. The implied message with the first chart is that Bush destroys jobs, Obama creates them. The second chart implies that both destroy jobs. But both use the same data, just different time periods. Doesn't make either message true.
It could also be shown that jobs stopped their decline once our gov't decide to give Wall St, banks, GM, and others 1+ trillion dollars. How our gov't got away with that is the biggest swindle in American history. And yet, we still vote the same aholes back into office.
Sorry if I sounded like an ass. Work really sucks today.
I feel the same way. Jobs may have been created in the private sector since Bush left, but around me MANY people are still losing their jobs like wild fire. I hardly see how the recession can really be bouncing back, quite like the graph intends anywhere in my state.
I believe I stated my point in that this chart is interesting at face value, but it is more than likely misleading. I didn't say anything about automatically dismissing it, I just don't find it representative of what I see or experience on a daily basis. That's all, nothing more. Who is to say if jobs have been added in the Obama years?? Not me.. I can only speak from the reality of my situation (and extended), and it certainly does not resemble what this chart implies.[/quote]
What you see and experience on a daily basis is not representative of the rest of the country (this is a big beef of mine--when people make conclusions on their own surroundings and people they know). There has been 12 consecutive months of private sector job growth. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is to say if jobs have been added, because they gather info. You don't appear to be gathering info outside of people you know.[/quote]
I am not arguing the fact that we have had 12 months of growth. That's great. But I'm going to attribute that soley to Obama being president. Let me restate:
Correlation does not imply causation. Understand? Maybe you're not an engineer/scientist/statistician so it's a little too much to comprehend.
And yes, I do know that my chart is outdated and the same as the one initially posted here except does not show that last 12 months of growth. I was trying to make a point. Obviously you missed that one.[/quote]
I'm not sure who you're responding to, but I'm well aware that correlation isn't causation. I figured that might have been your point, but you didn't make it clear in the post. The initial post said interesting chart, and then showed the chart. To me I saw it as job growth, not 'look how Obama makes jobs and Bush destroys them'. For me, that would be making an assumption. I'm also coming from the vantage of when I post info that reflects economic recovery, the Debbie Downers in here poo-poo it.
It just depends on how you define recession and recovery. Technically, recession is exclusively GDP related. You can decide if there's a recovery looking at whatever you want: employment, gdp, housing starts, wages, or how your friends and family are doing in their job search. I'm curious what state your in.
you didn't sound like an ass at all...so no worries there...
I do understand your point, but I just don't agree with all of it...I think this chart shows a positive trend...has this trend hit "main street" yet...I don't think so...
Thank you, Jeanwah, for at least seeing what I'm saying. And to the others who want to think that my posts imply that I 'know all' or 'is not representative of the entire country'--I never said that I knew all, I stated twice that it is from what I SEE/EXPERIENCE. I also completely realize that my experience does not represent the entire country and I never said it did. Just because I convey what I see or experience in my life (and in the lives of many others around me), relative to this chart, does not mean in any way that I apply a generalization of my personal experience to the rest of the millions of people in this country. That would make me a moron and it's an insult that you would take that away from my posts, which clearly state that it is misleading in comparison to what I have seen. Go Beavers, sorry if you took what I was saying on that point the wrong way. I appreciate the fact that you had some tact with your response and didn't have to resort to sarcasm.
This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.
I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.
You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.
Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.
The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I wasn't so big on the chart, other than it indicating gains in jobs in the private sector and to point out that employment is getting better, slowly. Some people want to say that the economy is worse, so it's just some evidence against that.
/ end thread
Too condescending to end on. Someone needs to respond to make this spin out on a tangent.
"You are all here to just hear your selves talk"...thanks for joining us...
anyway, I'm not sure what the point this ramble...are you saying charts are useless and they shouldn't created...?
yes, business cycles occur, thanks for the reminder...this chart looks to capture a positive trending business cycle...thanks for clearing that up... :thumbup: