qƃl lɐuıƃıɹo

aatombomb:

spiegelman:

Same data, two charts.

Obama’s chart (top) measures the rate of change from month to month. Pollster.com’s chart (bottom) measures the cumulative number of unemployed.

Anyone remember calculus? One chart graphs the derivative of the other. Acceleration vs. distance travelled.

Obama’s chart doesn’t lie, but it does misstate the nature of the problem. We don’t care that fewer people lost their jobs this month than last month. We care that the total number of people unemployed is still ridiculously high.

Another way to look at it: imagine you get pulled over for speeding. The officer says you were going 85. You respond, but I was going 115 and then I slowed down! So I shouldn’t get a ticket. That’s the logic of the Obama chart.

I wish I didn’t have to agree with this, but yes. The whole “we’re losing fewer jobs now!” metric is totally perplexing to me. If no one had a job, then no one could lose their job. Would that be a big win for the economy?

Notes

1. tester-webmaster liked this
2. hyperlife liked this
3. isnteverything liked this
4. schwegler reblogged this from aatombomb and added:

   I must say, however, that both charts are very important. The Chart on the bottom shows that the problem isn’t getting...

5. edkohler liked this
6. dylicious reblogged this from grantbussinger and added:

   I think we can all agree that Obama inherited this problem. All we have to judge him based upon is the changes that have...

7. dylicious liked this
8. brettnolan reblogged this from grantbussinger
9. bencochran liked this
10. grantbussinger reblogged this from aatombomb
11. dietcock liked this
12. matthewgallaway liked this
13. enteekaygee liked this
14. aatombomb reblogged this from spiegelman and added:

    I wish I didn’t have...agree with this,...yes. The whole...

15. aatombomb liked this
16. choire liked this
17. americastoppushing liked this
18. lowindustrial liked this
19. spiegelman posted this