Now, it’s hard to read, but the left side of the chart shows the Bush years 2001 to 2008. Uniformly it shows the jobs lost. Of course it doesn’t show the jobs created, I guess that would be unfair. But as a person who once had Engineer on his business card, I’m trying hard to figure out how we could have all these low unemployment numbers if we created fewer jobs than were lost. Especially since 4%-5% is considered full employment.
To be fair, or more likely to cloud the issue, he shows the jobs lost in Obama’s first year, 2009. He then shows 2010 as gains, but none of the losses. That can’t be correct because we were hovering around 9%.
Let's look at the article in some depth...
and another that "wind and solar energy generate 40 percent more jobs per dollar invested."
Now, what does that actually mean?? What type of jobs? What do the jobs pay? Installing solar panels is labor intensive but mostly grunt type work so the pay is low and the number of workers higher. Building a steam powered coal plant requires more engineering, more "knowledge" workers so the pay is higher but the number of workers fewer.
Here's another one…… (the)
0.4% drop in the unemployment rate in December from 9.8% to 9.4% "was the steepest one-month fall since 1998."
Yes, 1998, when Clinton was president.
So???? The important facts to those unemployed are that under the Demos unemployment had risen from a Repub low of around 4.5% to 9.8% under the Demos. Was a .4% drop nice? Yes. Meaningful? No. And especially since the drop stalled and unemployment has now increased.
Now, we have another example.
A recent report by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Estimating the Employment Impacts of Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Road Infrastructure,” finds bicycle and pedestrian projects create about twice as many jobs as road projects per dollar spent.
Again, so???? Building highways for motor vehicle traffic designed to last for 40 years is expensive and it requires the use of large earth moving equipment. So the number of workers is low. Building bicycle and pedestrian paths is very much more labor intensive... you don't use a bulldozer to build a walking path so the number of "jobs" is naturally greater.
Now, let's close with the base claim:
If you haven't heard yet, new data out by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in 2010 the economy saw an increase of 1.1 million jobs. But what is a number like that without a reference point, right? Turns out that if you look back at the same stats over the past decade, you can see that is more than the total number of jobs created in Bush's 8 years as president.
What the chart, supplied by the Demos leader's office, shows is the jobs lost under Bush in 2008. Naturally as the country fell into the Dimicrap recession caused by their housing and energy policy, jobs were lost. The unemployment rate went up from around 4% to around 7.5%. The article's author then ignores the jobs lost in 2009... and says that in 2010 Obamie created more jobs than Bush did in 8 years.
Let me explain that in terms that you may be able to understand.
Your friend George goes to a casino for 7 straight days. Every day he wins $1000 for a total of $7000. On the 8th day he loses $7000. Question. How much has he won? Answer is, zero.
Now you take his place and at the end of the next day (12 months) you have lost $2000.
Now you continue to go and at the end of the next day (12 months) you have won $1100.
Results:
George - Broke even.
You - Lost $900.
No charge for the education.
OnTwitter I am Lesabre1 "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” - William Pitt
"Logic. There is little logic among the cultural elite, maybe because there is little omnipresent fear of job losses or the absence of money, and so arises a rather comfortable margin to indulge in nonsense." - Victor Davis Hanson
No comments:
Post a Comment