It can't possibly be worth mentioning the nature of these jobs, compared with the jobs that have been expunged from the U.S. economy. It can't possibly be worth mentioning the methodology of calculating unemployment figures, or how these figures have been shaved and cherry-picked into its best possible light, and that they still show that the Bush era boasts around a net-zero gain in employment. It can't possibly be worth mentioning such esoteric issues as wage stagnation, illegal immigration, pensions and health care, or the shrinking of a middle class.
No, instead, let's glibly celebrate each official government statement as if it exists in a vacuum! Wheeeee!!! The economy on February 3 is better than February 2's. It's one louder, innit?
Most people agree that the health of an economy can be gauged by metrics. They include the employment rate, the growth rate, and the stock market.
I know numbers disturb and confuse you, but some of us think they're swell. They're definite. They're quantifiable. They can easily refute nonsense claims about "net-zero gain in employment." But then that's why you fall back on qualitative metrics: they're squishy and unprovable. Stick a slide rule on "nature". My happiness is 13% higher today.
Here's some other metrics for you: Branches of government controlled by conservatives: 3 Chance of this changing after 2006: 0%
They're definite. They're quantifiable. They can easily refute nonsense claims about "net-zero gain in employment."
Mmmm, such abiding faith in what you're told. If only I shared it.
Definite? Quantifiable? They're statistical formulae that can be altered at their source, and regularly are, so as to reflect the most flattering light possible.
What's the "most possible" for the greater glory of George W. Bush? If unemployment is at its lowest in 54 months, that time-travels us all the way back to... the first year of the Bush era. Thus, a net-zero gain.
And this is before accounting for the caliber of these new jobs gained, which virtually all observers agree is lower than the types of jobs that have been lost in the last decade. Oh no, is that "qualitative"? Squish! Squish!
Most people agree that the health of an economy can be gauged by metrics. They include the employment rate, the growth rate, and the stock market. I know numbers disturb and confuse you, but some of us think they're swell.
Unemployment is up under Bush, growth is down under Bush, and the stock market is down under Bush. You might want to check that swell-ing.
This could (and does) mean a lot of things, but let's go with your "yay for numbers I like" premise. You must admit that, by your economic standards of excellence, Bush has truly hit the trifecta.
6 comments:
I expect the "too much employment hurts the economy" stories to appear any day now.
It can't possibly be worth mentioning the nature of these jobs, compared with the jobs that have been expunged from the U.S. economy. It can't possibly be worth mentioning the methodology of calculating unemployment figures, or how these figures have been shaved and cherry-picked into its best possible light, and that they still show that the Bush era boasts around a net-zero gain in employment. It can't possibly be worth mentioning such esoteric issues as wage stagnation, illegal immigration, pensions and health care, or the shrinking of a middle class.
No, instead, let's glibly celebrate each official government statement as if it exists in a vacuum! Wheeeee!!! The economy on February 3 is better than February 2's. It's one louder, innit?
Mr. Glass:
Most people agree that the health of an economy can be gauged by metrics. They include the employment rate, the growth rate, and the stock market.
I know numbers disturb and confuse you, but some of us think they're swell. They're definite. They're quantifiable. They can easily refute nonsense claims about "net-zero gain in employment." But then that's why you fall back on qualitative metrics: they're squishy and unprovable. Stick a slide rule on "nature". My happiness is 13% higher today.
Here's some other metrics for you:
Branches of government controlled by conservatives: 3
Chance of this changing after 2006: 0%
Wheeeee! Indeed!
They're definite. They're quantifiable. They can easily refute nonsense claims about "net-zero gain in employment."
Mmmm, such abiding faith in what you're told. If only I shared it.
Definite? Quantifiable? They're statistical formulae that can be altered at their source, and regularly are, so as to reflect the most flattering light possible.
What's the "most possible" for the greater glory of George W. Bush? If unemployment is at its lowest in 54 months, that time-travels us all the way back to... the first year of the Bush era. Thus, a net-zero gain.
And this is before accounting for the caliber of these new jobs gained, which virtually all observers agree is lower than the types of jobs that have been lost in the last decade. Oh no, is that "qualitative"? Squish! Squish!
Most people agree that the health of an economy can be gauged by metrics. They include the employment rate, the growth rate, and the stock market. I know numbers disturb and confuse you, but some of us think they're swell.
Unemployment is up under Bush, growth is down under Bush, and the stock market is down under Bush. You might want to check that swell-ing.
This could (and does) mean a lot of things, but let's go with your "yay for numbers I like" premise. You must admit that, by your economic standards of excellence, Bush has truly hit the trifecta.
Your comment has been reviewed. Thank your for your interest in Viking Pundit.
I'm just writing this because it's the sixth post, and 6 comments are 20% better than 5. It's basic metrics!
Post a Comment