The Measure of SuccessFollow

There nothing wrong with the data, unless you try and interpret it.

There are ways around that inconvenience: "It's coming right for us!" and such.

It's a list that shows how many jobs each state created last year. There were three states that didn't create jobs at all, but lost jobs. That fact holds value

Wrong. We can agree to disagree if you like, but of course, you'll still be wrong.

To make any comparisons among states at all, you'd have to at least normalize the numbers; Convert them to per capita or percent of jobs by population or geographically if you want.

What's the buzzword this cycle? Is it still terrorist? Just use whatever it is.

Fulltime jobs with benefits? Where?!?! Most of the jobs I've interviewed for were doing the "we're waiting to see how the economy does" - and they keep the position open, never hiring anyone.

Stab them. You'll probably get the next job you interview for, although it may or may not involve stamping license plates.

What I don't get is that you're asking people to speculate about why something happened, but then when someone (like myself) does just that, you don't like the answer. There is not enough data readily available for any of us to do more than toss out possible explanations (including potential zombie apocalypses). It could be any of a combination of hundreds of different factors.

As I said earlier, employment rates are not uniform. You can't expect that because unemployment is dropping nationwide that this must mean that all states unemployment rates will drop. It's not unusual at all to have 47 states rates drop and 3 to rise during a period in which the national rates dropped. Yet you're insisting that we accept your premise that this is somehow unusual and requires a special explanation. It doesn't. I know it's unsatisfying, but there really is no magical answer to the question you're asking.



And maybe folks moved to another state with a lower unemployment rate, resulting in an increase in work force greater than the increase in jobs in that state, thus causing its rate to rise even while the rest of the nations dropped? Hypothetical? Sure. Point being we can make guesses all day long. At issue (which I mentioned before) is whether the increases in those three states represent an actual problem rather than statistical static. And the answer I gave you initially still stands: One year of delta isn't sufficient to make that declaration. It's not enough data points over a long enough period to see a trend.

She didn't ask about the data and facts though. She presented the data and then asked what people thought those data meant, or what might have caused them. If she were content with just the data and facts, she wouldn't have asked the question.

Cite?