It's actually the first derivative. It's the change in employment (jobs) per month. So it's a pretty reasonable statistic.
What's wonky about it (from a mathematical perspective) is that it's labeled 'job loss,' yet a negative number implies that jobs were lost in the month. One would expect that a net loss of jobs in a month on a graph labeled 'loss' would result in a positive number.
Well, the Obama administration is arguing that it's good even though we're still losing jobs because we're losing them at a slower rate, i.e. the second derivative is positive. And if we're going to play that game, it looks like the third derivative had already become positive by the end of Bush's term...
Right, but the point is that the raw data is in the "second derivative" format - the total number of jobs in America is not recorded/reported every month, the change in the total number of jobs is.
Comments
It's interesting to me that they chose to emphasize the 2nd derivative of jobs (we're looking at the slope of the job loss/month).
It's not good, it's not getting better, it's just getting worse slower, with hope of getting better soon.
It's actually the first derivative. It's the change in employment (jobs) per month. So it's a pretty reasonable statistic.
What's wonky about it (from a mathematical perspective) is that it's labeled 'job loss,' yet a negative number implies that jobs were lost in the month. One would expect that a net loss of jobs in a month on a graph labeled 'loss' would result in a positive number.
Well, the Obama administration is arguing that it's good even though we're still losing jobs because we're losing them at a slower rate, i.e. the second derivative is positive. And if we're going to play that game, it looks like the third derivative had already become positive by the end of Bush's term...
Speaking of Bush and third derivatives... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)
The aren't emphasizing a (first) derivative of the number of jobs.
This is the actual raw data. All of the other statistics (unemployment rate, etc) are derived from these numbers.
It's quite a stretch to call this "actual raw data".
It's highly massaged data, always has been, always will be.
And there's no guarantee whatsoever that it's massaged in the same way month to month. None at all.
Right, but the point is that the raw data is in the "second derivative" format - the total number of jobs in America is not recorded/reported every month, the change in the total number of jobs is.
You can't very well look at just the number of jobs and say good or bad. A healthy economy is in constant, gradual expansion.