4 ms·
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 mathem
by 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 agoWell, 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 agoSpeaking of Bush and third derivatives... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)