

Obama's Data - momoro
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/recoveryanniversary/

======
fizx
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
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
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
Speaking of Bush and third derivatives...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)>

------
patio11
This is the landing page for a political campaign. It has a graph on it. That
makes it a landing page for a political campaign... with a graph on it.

Here's another page with a graph in it, from the same data source:

[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_too...](http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000)

Pesky things, those graphs.

~~~
isamuel
What is this new graph supposed to illustrate? I understand that by calling it
"pesky" you're speaking in a sort of code, which is meant to signify factual
victory on a disputed point.

But you're right: the charts show exactly the same thing. A rocketing
unemployment rate beginning in early 2008, the rate of increase of which
slowed by early 2009, and which has now leveled off. Both charts accurately
show that there were huge job losses in one period, followed by a slowing and
(for now) arrest of those losses.

The one you linked to is concededly uglier (pesky things, those ugly graphs)
but otherwise it's unclear to me what it's supposed to show.

~~~
patio11
_What is this new graph supposed to illustrate?_

An old hobbyhorse of mine: the perception of data is directly linked to how it
is presented. (See also <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=802439> although
I think I've done it maybe three times on HN.)

Are you isamuel like "Ian who has known me for a decade" isamuel? If so, you
already know this. If not, trust me on this: I have strong political beliefs,
generally do not communicate them in code, and have almost zero desire to
discuss them on HN. (Though if Obama is A/B testing that page I am _so there_
for that discussion.)

------
vsync
These graphs are interesting. <http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html>
Sudden and massive deflation? That usually means rampant and almost
insurmountable job loss is just around the corner.

<http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html#pain_misery> "Pain and misery
index": unemployment plus consumer price index.

[http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/inflation/2007-06-13-i...](http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/inflation/2007-06-13-inflation-
usat_N.htm) [http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/05/core-
measures...](http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/05/core-
measures-o.html)

------
dangrossman
Now give us one that shows how adjusted household income has changed over
those years. I bet it's not turned around quite so nicely.

~~~
mbreese
Given that job growth is a lagging indicator, I'd guess that household income
probably follows this trend pretty well.

The first thing that happens is that hours are cut. Next, jobs are cut. Then
in recovery, hours are increased before jobs are created. So, I'd guess that
household income would follow this plot pretty well.

Well, that would probably only hold true for people with jobs. Given the
millions of jobs that have been lost, once those households are accounted for,
you'd probably see a rate change, but not an absolute change. Then again, this
data is a rate anyway, so it still might be comparable.

Here are the total non-farm earnings from 2000-2010 (prelim data for 1/2010
and 12/2009). This plot shows the same trend for 2008-2010: a sharp decrease,
followed by a leveling off. I'd suspect that if this data was plotted in the
same manner as the Obama graph that it would look very similar.

One thing that this graph shows is just how much the last decade didn't
matter.

[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_too...](http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001)

~~~
btilly
Of course what really matters is not hours worked, it is hours worked per
capita.

Given population growth, winding up at the same hours a decade out is a
significant per capita cut in hours worked.

------
mickrussom
This graph discounts one thing, using massive deficit spending to accomplish
this and have no real infrastructure improvements at the end will leave a
debt-hole which will become impossible to service. The price for this
profligacy will likely be collapse.

~~~
mildweed
This is merely the government getting caught holding somebody else's bag.

Financiers? Investors? Irresponsible American consumers?

D: All of the above.

~~~
mickrussom
"Main Street" didnt cause this. Sure you could blame the military industrial
complex or the banking cabal and banking oligarchy, but propping up too big to
fail institutions (called the Bernanke put) incentivizes failure.

More to come on that.

------
ksraines
Funny. I thought this was Obama's data:

[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obam...](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html)

------
proemeth
There exist 3 kinds of lies. Correlation does not imply causation.

------
TomOfTTB
Have we finally reached the point where people can post straight up propaganda
(from the official Obama site no less) and no one flags it?

~~~
robotron
Don't do this. Flag it if you have a problem with the article being posted
here.

------
tkeller
It says it's a graph of "job loss." Negative job loss (= positive job gain)
should be a good thing...

------
marshallp
If they're willing to go trillions into debt for this 'recovery', why not just
give everyone a guaranteed basic income of 1000 dollars a month, that comes to
about 3.5 trillion. In teturn, scrap welfare and minimum wage and bailouts to
banks, and you might have a thriving economy where everyone chooses how to
spend their time.

~~~
btilly
I've suggested this in the past, usually with the proviso that nobody would be
willing to actually do this.

The underlying philosophy is that it is the job of the government to guarantee
sufficient resources to survive. By giving it to everyone you make everyone
benefit which makes everyone want to keep it. (The same principle that makes
Social Security impossible to get rid of.) But once government has taken that
step, then there is no need for separate welfare programs, there is no reason
for a job to provide a living wage (hence the removal of minimum wage), and
there are not artificial barriers where a single mom on welfare has incentives
to not work.

Another crazy idea I have is to fix the student loan programs so that parents
are expected to have living costs that a reasonable for some time in this
century (currently they are appropriate for the 1960s) but then only make
students at universities whose average tuition is in the bottom 75% eligible
to receive any kind of government financial aid. This would provide a
downwards pressure on tuition to stop tuition from rising substantially faster
than inflation, as it has done for the last few decades.

 _sigh_ If only I ran the country...

~~~
marshallp
They way to fix tuition fees is simply to stop providing government guaranteed
loans, most students nowadays don't get a financial return on their investment
(and many pass the bill to the taxpayer by defaulting).

~~~
btilly
The problem with that is that you've just massively increased the economic
barriers for poor people who want to go to college.

My proposal provides a very clear incentive to universities to not jack up
tuition while continuing to provide reasonable educational access to people
whose families are not in the top x% of the population.

~~~
marshallp
By eliminating loans, most universities would be drastically cut their fees.
Good poor students could get scholarships and bursaries which is already the
case.

Colleges are bogus insitutions, they have been since the advent of the book,
radio, television, and especially now with internet.

