Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, February 6, 2010
Politics Was This On Slog Yesterday?
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Via TPM:
The red bars are the accelerating rate of job loss during President Bush's last year in office; the blue bars are the decelerating rate of job loss during President Obama's first year of office.
2
This is a great graphic, and I hope they use it well to fight the assholes. And I hope the assholes don't look too closely at the BLS definitions that went into this thing. Fingers crossed.
4
The 'y' axis label says "JOBS LOST", and most of the chart shows a negative "JOBS LOST", so we must have been doing rather well in the middle and things are now getting worse? (yes yes... i'm being pedantic, but charts are my thing y'see)
8
@6
yeah, that's what the world needs - more t-shirts. a meeting about Slog webdesign, promotion, ad sales, ad nauseum are much more productive than discussing topics. Money rules conversation, subject matter is scary.
yeah, that's what the world needs - more t-shirts. a meeting about Slog webdesign, promotion, ad sales, ad nauseum are much more productive than discussing topics. Money rules conversation, subject matter is scary.
10
Well, fine, and I hated Bush, but that is still misleading. Job losses had to decelerate.
Example: You lose 10% of your cash every day. You start with $100.
Tomorrow you have $90 (loss of $10).
Day 2 $81 (loss of $9)
Day 3 $72.90 (loss of $8.10)
Day 4 $65.61 (loss of $7.29)
Day 5 $59.05 (loss of $6.56)
etc. Just because you're losing less quantitatively everyday doesn't mean you lose any less proportionally. It doesn't make the situation any better. It may be a condition necessary for improvement, but that doesn't mean POTUS is doing anything right or well.
And there had to be some sort of floor. No one thought we would lose EVERY job, so a slowdown was inevitable. The question is how long before the number of jobs goes up, not stops losing.
Example: You lose 10% of your cash every day. You start with $100.
Tomorrow you have $90 (loss of $10).
Day 2 $81 (loss of $9)
Day 3 $72.90 (loss of $8.10)
Day 4 $65.61 (loss of $7.29)
Day 5 $59.05 (loss of $6.56)
etc. Just because you're losing less quantitatively everyday doesn't mean you lose any less proportionally. It doesn't make the situation any better. It may be a condition necessary for improvement, but that doesn't mean POTUS is doing anything right or well.
And there had to be some sort of floor. No one thought we would lose EVERY job, so a slowdown was inevitable. The question is how long before the number of jobs goes up, not stops losing.
11
Sorry not a job boom.
What this chart shows is that jobs are still being lost just at a decreased rate, in fact the total amount of lost jobs is still increasing logarithmic rate. The data has been presented to look like the amount of lost jobs are decreasing when they are increasing. In short shoddy math.
Decrease in the rate of job loss does not recovery make, this chart shows we are going further into recession. The large layoff from huge companies have been made however jobs continue to disappear as smaller companies close or lay off employees. The giants of have fallen, or more truthfully they have propped up with taxpayer dollars, now the middle class faces the brunt of the burden. Smaller business continues to collapse and will not get the privilege of getting bailed out.
learn2math/economics
What this chart shows is that jobs are still being lost just at a decreased rate, in fact the total amount of lost jobs is still increasing logarithmic rate. The data has been presented to look like the amount of lost jobs are decreasing when they are increasing. In short shoddy math.
Decrease in the rate of job loss does not recovery make, this chart shows we are going further into recession. The large layoff from huge companies have been made however jobs continue to disappear as smaller companies close or lay off employees. The giants of have fallen, or more truthfully they have propped up with taxpayer dollars, now the middle class faces the brunt of the burden. Smaller business continues to collapse and will not get the privilege of getting bailed out.
learn2math/economics
15
@4 and 10 --- Stop muddying things up with facts and logic.
People hate that kind of thing.... http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/…
People hate that kind of thing.... http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/…
16
Wow. You guys are as bad as MSNBC. Why not put all of Bush's years in office? Their was kinda a global recession the last year of Bush's Presidency. Wtf. I hate Bush as much as the rest guy, but why does the slog and MSNBC loving(Because they are the only ones that will put dan on tv) Dan Savage have to be so damn partisan. Look Obama is doing a bad job. He has lots of time to get it together.There is no need to start bush bashing just to divert attention.
17
@4 and 10-
So whats your point? You wish Bush was still in office so we could keep up his trend of losing jobs at an increasingly accelerated rate? You are angry that the Obama administration has slowed it down in the first year?
So whats your point? You wish Bush was still in office so we could keep up his trend of losing jobs at an increasingly accelerated rate? You are angry that the Obama administration has slowed it down in the first year?
18
@11
I'm afraid it is -you- that ought to learn2math given that your use of the term 'logarithmic' is woefully incorrect. The original graph does not depict the first derivative of any reasonably plain logarithmic function.
I'm afraid it is -you- that ought to learn2math given that your use of the term 'logarithmic' is woefully incorrect. The original graph does not depict the first derivative of any reasonably plain logarithmic function.
19
I would still personally pay to tattoo that backwards on the forehead of the primary Slog troll so s/he/it sees it in the mirror every morning.
And since job loss is a lagging indicator, Bush owns the entire fucking thing.
And since job loss is a lagging indicator, Bush owns the entire fucking thing.
20
"Look, we picked one metric out of literally millions and according to that, we're saving the world!"
Call me when medically preventable deaths start falling, or we start meaningfully withdrawing troops from occupied nations, or we start significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So far this administration has been about three-quarters disappointing and one-quarter infuriating.
Call me when medically preventable deaths start falling, or we start meaningfully withdrawing troops from occupied nations, or we start significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So far this administration has been about three-quarters disappointing and one-quarter infuriating.
21
Nobody said that we're doing well; we're on a path to recovery.
It's like if a cancer patient's tumor's size has been increasing monotonically, but at continually lower rates of growth. The tumor may still be growing, but the fact that it's slowing down is a good sign.
It's like if a cancer patient's tumor's size has been increasing monotonically, but at continually lower rates of growth. The tumor may still be growing, but the fact that it's slowing down is a good sign.
22
@16
It is not bush-bashing when it is the truth there skippy. But please go back to watching fox. I am sure you just missed glen "baby huey" beck crying about some impeding doom that he thinks is caused by Obama.
It is not bush-bashing when it is the truth there skippy. But please go back to watching fox. I am sure you just missed glen "baby huey" beck crying about some impeding doom that he thinks is caused by Obama.
23
@16 That's pretty whiny considering Bush got us into this mess.
And the title"America is on a path to recovery." The chart doesn't show THAT.
The imprecision is irksome especially since charts and quatification's primary purose is to convey information.
And for those of you who seem to only have two modes ever available at your fingertips, life has much more nuance than binary choices (Hate Bush: Love Obabma; we are failing: we are winning; If you have views like mine that's great; if you don't you suck).
Politicians LOVE that stupid shallow thinking.
And the title"America is on a path to recovery." The chart doesn't show THAT.
The imprecision is irksome especially since charts and quatification's primary purose is to convey information.
And for those of you who seem to only have two modes ever available at your fingertips, life has much more nuance than binary choices (Hate Bush: Love Obabma; we are failing: we are winning; If you have views like mine that's great; if you don't you suck).
Politicians LOVE that stupid shallow thinking.
24
Dan,
I don't the data on the graph. But blaming Bush doesn't solve the problem. Check this out:
http://www.economist.com/world/united-st…
It's a jobless recovery. Pres. Obama has his hands full. Until we become a producer a la China, the economic situation will remain bleak.
I don't the data on the graph. But blaming Bush doesn't solve the problem. Check this out:
http://www.economist.com/world/united-st…
It's a jobless recovery. Pres. Obama has his hands full. Until we become a producer a la China, the economic situation will remain bleak.
25
According to Sloggers, it would have been so much better to just keep losing more and more jobs each month, since losing fewer and fewer jobs each month is not a recovery, a path to recovery, something for which Obama's policies have been responsible, or really good in any form whatsoever. In fact, it appears to be a colossal failure, and we would have been so much better off under McCain.
26
19
what if you tattoo this on your forehead, skippy:
8,400,000
don't leave off any of the zeros...
that's 8.4 Million, btw.
That's how many Americans have lost their job during the Obama Good Times.....
what if you tattoo this on your forehead, skippy:
8,400,000
don't leave off any of the zeros...
that's 8.4 Million, btw.
That's how many Americans have lost their job during the Obama Good Times.....
27
But Obama did save some jobs, according to his administration-
the Stimulus kept a million more people from losing their jobs.
(according to his administration)
remember, the Stimulus.
$800 Billion borrowed from China.
that our Grandchildren will have to pay back.
$800 Billion.
1 million jobs not lost (not new jobs, mind you, just not lost...)
(according to his administration...)
That's $800,000 per "saved" job.
for one year.
Obamanomics.
America can't afford it.
the Stimulus kept a million more people from losing their jobs.
(according to his administration)
remember, the Stimulus.
$800 Billion borrowed from China.
that our Grandchildren will have to pay back.
$800 Billion.
1 million jobs not lost (not new jobs, mind you, just not lost...)
(according to his administration...)
That's $800,000 per "saved" job.
for one year.
Obamanomics.
America can't afford it.
28
It is sooo precious when Dan delves into real news.
Precious in an awkwardly embarrassing 'listening to a 5 year old's piano recital' sort of way...
ESPECIALLY when the topic is economics.
Dan may not know numbers from his Ass but his heart is in the right place;
for example-
One of the Stranger interns
brought Dan a news clipping;
"two Brazilian homosexuals were killed
in a hate crime yesterday, Dan..." the intern said.
Dan grew ashen, paused,
slowly lowered his forehead to the table...
"This is horrible.
just horrible..." he weakly mumbled.
His head popped up-
"just how many is a Brazilian, anyway?
Is that, like, more than a Gazillion?..."
Precious in an awkwardly embarrassing 'listening to a 5 year old's piano recital' sort of way...
ESPECIALLY when the topic is economics.
Dan may not know numbers from his Ass but his heart is in the right place;
for example-
One of the Stranger interns
brought Dan a news clipping;
"two Brazilian homosexuals were killed
in a hate crime yesterday, Dan..." the intern said.
Dan grew ashen, paused,
slowly lowered his forehead to the table...
"This is horrible.
just horrible..." he weakly mumbled.
His head popped up-
"just how many is a Brazilian, anyway?
Is that, like, more than a Gazillion?..."
29
@28: First heard that joke when President Bush was in office. Something about the weakening Brazilian Dollar.
30
I don't know about the 'jobs had to decelerate' example. We could've just marched right into a depression instead of trekking out of a bad recession.
I too think the chart would make a good t-shirt, though I don't know I'd be enough of an asshole to actually wear it hahaha.
I too think the chart would make a good t-shirt, though I don't know I'd be enough of an asshole to actually wear it hahaha.
31
18
you area correct the graph is question is not the 1st derivitive of a logarithmic function, if anything the function cubic.
The point is data has been presented in a scewed manner to givv the false perception that job loss is decreasing when it is in fact increasing.
you area correct the graph is question is not the 1st derivitive of a logarithmic function, if anything the function cubic.
The point is data has been presented in a scewed manner to givv the false perception that job loss is decreasing when it is in fact increasing.
33
Very amusing, huh. The fall '08 and winter '09 bailouts should have never been necessary and sorely lacked strict preconditions for the banks and financial institutions bailed out.
But if the blood-lusting teabaggers had their way (CNN has given them quite the platform all week long) there would have been no bailouts, our economy would have fallen to pieces in fall '08, we'd have martial law, civil war, an impenetrable shadow government operating out of secret bunkers, and the global economy probably would have collapsed too.
I STILL would have preferred seeing the lower and middle classes receiving the bailouts. Tens of thousands for each American. No question at all we'd spend, as opposed to squirrel away, that money
But if the blood-lusting teabaggers had their way (CNN has given them quite the platform all week long) there would have been no bailouts, our economy would have fallen to pieces in fall '08, we'd have martial law, civil war, an impenetrable shadow government operating out of secret bunkers, and the global economy probably would have collapsed too.
I STILL would have preferred seeing the lower and middle classes receiving the bailouts. Tens of thousands for each American. No question at all we'd spend, as opposed to squirrel away, that money
36
@23. Yes Bush got us into this. However, how the hell does pointing that out get us through it? Where is the chart showing the wasted money on the stimulus that CNN,ABC,CBS,FOX, NBC, etc reported?
And @ 16. Hey skippy. Who said anything about me watching Fox? I guess it is easier for you to put me in that box, instead of considering I AM A FUCKING DEMOCRAT that watches every news outlet I can(PhD Poly Sci jackass). MSNBC and FOX both are perpetuating bipartisanship(the same as the above chart) that prevents us from getting any meaningful legislation through Congress. Stick to the issues. OUR president is diverting attention and not fixing our problems. When I and others have a plentiful job market to go into, I will reflect on Bush's presidency. Until then it is just bullshit diversionary tactics meant to distract us away from a failing health-care bill and an ever increasing(or sometimes erratic) unemployment rate.
And @ 16. Hey skippy. Who said anything about me watching Fox? I guess it is easier for you to put me in that box, instead of considering I AM A FUCKING DEMOCRAT that watches every news outlet I can(PhD Poly Sci jackass). MSNBC and FOX both are perpetuating bipartisanship(the same as the above chart) that prevents us from getting any meaningful legislation through Congress. Stick to the issues. OUR president is diverting attention and not fixing our problems. When I and others have a plentiful job market to go into, I will reflect on Bush's presidency. Until then it is just bullshit diversionary tactics meant to distract us away from a failing health-care bill and an ever increasing(or sometimes erratic) unemployment rate.
37
@ 17, 25 etc.
I'm not saying Bush is better. I voted for Obama. I'm not saying a depression was impossible. But almost any administration could be in the same spot as we are now. I'm saying that this kind of bullshit is the kind of crap promulgated by idiots claiming "their side" is right. It's statistics without any analysis. It's like Fox saying "some people say..." It's giving shallow minds a reason to believe horse shit. All Obama had to do to "slow" job loss by this metric was to not go on tv with his thumb up his ass.
I'm not saying what he did was wrong, but this type of comparison, "Look, Obama is doing better than Bush at the recession!" is like giving your wing-man empty shells. It's not good ammunition in a debate. In fact, it's worse than that. It's just stupid.
Finally, job losses at the current rate by raw numbers was exceedingly unlikely (and long-term impossible). It had to slow eventually.
I'm not saying Bush is better. I voted for Obama. I'm not saying a depression was impossible. But almost any administration could be in the same spot as we are now. I'm saying that this kind of bullshit is the kind of crap promulgated by idiots claiming "their side" is right. It's statistics without any analysis. It's like Fox saying "some people say..." It's giving shallow minds a reason to believe horse shit. All Obama had to do to "slow" job loss by this metric was to not go on tv with his thumb up his ass.
I'm not saying what he did was wrong, but this type of comparison, "Look, Obama is doing better than Bush at the recession!" is like giving your wing-man empty shells. It's not good ammunition in a debate. In fact, it's worse than that. It's just stupid.
Finally, job losses at the current rate by raw numbers was exceedingly unlikely (and long-term impossible). It had to slow eventually.
38
@31: How is the function cubic? I see a local minimum, with no suggestion of minima or maxima anywhere else. How has the data been skewed "to givv the false perception that job loss is decreasing when it is in fact increasing"? Unless the data is falsified (which I find hard to believe), the rate of change of jobs is clearly decreasing heavily under Bush's last year, reaching its minimum around the time Obama took office. The rate of change then steadily (not monotonically, but steadily) increases until the present, where it is varying somewhere slightly below the zero line. How the fuck does that mean that jobs are now being lost even faster than before?
Know who you're trying to pull one over on, cascadianbacon. Something ain't kosher with what you wrote.
Know who you're trying to pull one over on, cascadianbacon. Something ain't kosher with what you wrote.
39
Look, it's not easy selling cool t-shirts retail.
Just look at the employees on Jersey Shore ...
So if Obama can help small businesses sell t-shirts - hey, at least people are buying something.
Just look at the employees on Jersey Shore ...
So if Obama can help small businesses sell t-shirts - hey, at least people are buying something.
40
38
calm down, venom-
you're pulling one over on yourself.
Cascadian Bacon is talking about Job Loss, which continues to get greater/worse each month as more people lose jobs and the economy loses more jobs than it creates.
Job Loss is bad.
The graph singles out the rate of job loss and presents that without representing the cumulative amount of jobs lost (8.4 million so far and growing more every day, btw) to create the impression that things are (dramatically) getting better, when, in fact, they are continuing to get worse.
Dan might not be expected to catch that fine point, being a community college drop-out who has chosen to limit his intellectual development to buttsex and nonmonogamy, and who naturally would see the graph and just think, "ooooh! pretty colors..."
But you, a brilliant True Scholar college boy from The Univershitty of Shitcago, should know better.
calm down, venom-
you're pulling one over on yourself.
Cascadian Bacon is talking about Job Loss, which continues to get greater/worse each month as more people lose jobs and the economy loses more jobs than it creates.
Job Loss is bad.
The graph singles out the rate of job loss and presents that without representing the cumulative amount of jobs lost (8.4 million so far and growing more every day, btw) to create the impression that things are (dramatically) getting better, when, in fact, they are continuing to get worse.
Dan might not be expected to catch that fine point, being a community college drop-out who has chosen to limit his intellectual development to buttsex and nonmonogamy, and who naturally would see the graph and just think, "ooooh! pretty colors..."
But you, a brilliant True Scholar college boy from The Univershitty of Shitcago, should know better.
41
@40: Dude; did you read a single word I wrote? The fact that FEWER jobs are being lost is a good sign; it suggests that quite soon we might get to a place where we are GAINING rather than losing jobs. The fact that the rate of job loss has slowed so substantially (thanks in no small part to Obama's stimulus package) is a sign of good things to come. Job loss is actually getting better in that it's slowing down. The graph doesn't say that things are good (i.e., unemployment going down), it just demonstrates that they're LESS BAD.
And cascadianbacon is a moron who pretends to know things about math but can't recognize when a trend is roughly logarithmic or not. You somehow make yourself even dumber when you try to back him up, you leotard.
Do you even think about what comes out of your mouth?
And cascadianbacon is a moron who pretends to know things about math but can't recognize when a trend is roughly logarithmic or not. You somehow make yourself even dumber when you try to back him up, you leotard.
Do you even think about what comes out of your mouth?
42
41
Actually I am able to type without hanging my mouth open (or even moving my lips!). Try it sometime.
Actually I am able to type without hanging my mouth open (or even moving my lips!). Try it sometime.
43
@42: And yet you are incapable of understanding a figure of speech. No cookie for you; bad troll!
44
@23 Let's be honest, Bush had a lot help starting with the Fed'S easy money policies, the democrats in Congress who were pushing home ownership for everyone, greedy and unscrupolous bankers, mortgage brokers, realtors, investment bankers, ad nauseum who created the asset bubble, the republicans who opposed effective regulation, incompetent government bureaucrats, corrupt politicians in general, lobbyists
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Liveblogging the Washington State House Debate and Vote
onIN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE by Eli Sanders -
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Jeff Bezos' Racist, Pro-Life, Anti-Evolution, Rape-Apologist Search Engine by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
"The law at the time required a prosecution." by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS