3 ms·

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 gett

by fizx 17y ago

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.

jordanb 17y ago
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.
- orangecat 17y ago
  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...
  - ludwig 17y ago
    Speaking of Bush and third derivatives... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)
DannoHung 17y ago
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.
mbreese 17y ago
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.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  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.
  - dandelany 17y ago
    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.

by fizx 17y ago

jordanb 17y ago

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.

orangecat 17y ago
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...
- ludwig 17y ago
  Speaking of Bush and third derivatives... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)

DannoHung 17y ago

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.

mbreese 17y ago

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.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
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.
- dandelany 17y ago
  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.