only to be homeless, on food stamps, un- or under-employed, medically insecure, emotionally panicked don't care about those numbers. Those that completed or entered higher education in order to get those new jobs and are now un- or under-employed or come to find out that those great jobs only pay minimum wage (the para-medical professions particularly) that'll never cover the cost of the education.... those numbers don't carry the warm fuzzy feeling you desire to suggest it should.

Or bad, depending what they highlight or hide. The other information about the distribution helps--things like the standard deviation--help unhide information without removing the highlighting.

* started when unemployment was at a fairly high point. All the leading indicators in fall 2000 said "recession" and it was a hot topic. (D) said to stop "talking down" the economy. Like that's what caused the recession. Fortunately, it was mild. We recovered from it, but the recovery was anemic. Still, an anemic recovery was enough to get back to historically record low unemployment rates. A few months of job creation over 500k would have led to 0% unemployment.

* ended at an employment low point, with unemployment nearing its peak. The rate of unemployment was already slowing down.

So the average takes the unemployment dip at the end, the recovery in 2002/3, and the job creation that (D) panned (200k/month or so for many months when nobody should, we said, settle for less than 300k/month).

20,000 jobs a month makes a mockery of the criticisms beling leveled against this administration.

Thanks.

Also, remember that it takes around 125,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth, in fact to break even. Growth less than 125,000 should be seen as a net loss.

Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

that if a Bush had been president every time since George Washington, no American would have ever had a job?

Wolf Frankula