- Everyone's statistics are completely and utterly incorrect with respect to the effect of Obama's term on unemployment. On a macroeconomic scale, there is such a thing as momentum and what people should be looking at is the derivative of unemployment (how quickly it is going up or down) rather than the number at a specific moment. My graph starts in January of 2009, Obama was inaugurated on Jan 20th. Each data point is moving forward one month.
- The data and the interpolation:
- The derivative:
- And the graphs themselves:
- The interpolator (yes I'm lazy):
- At the beginning of the graph, you see that Bush handed the country off to Obama with unemployment going up by a rate of .4% per month. By one year into his presidency, unemployment was stable. From that point forward unemployment has been dropping (getting faster but not that much faster, the tail at the end is a consequence of the interpolation).
- Counter point: But the graph starts concave down! Unemployment was already correcting itself!
- I know, it's a 4-th degree polynomial. I pulled that out of my ass because that's what the raw data looked like at a glance. I don't know who's to blame for the first year's performance, I'm just tired of people arguing about Bush vs Obama and saying that the country's state is Obama's or Bush's fault. That derivative tells me that the country (job-wise) is recovering and in a better state than when Obama's term started. Sure, the wealth gap is bigger and we're outsourcing like crazy, but to say that Obama has hurt employment is a downright lie.
- P.S. Pick who you want in this election, they're both pretty awful candidates. I'm just tired of the incorrect numbers being thrown around on the news and online.
A Very Brief Study of Unemployment in Obama's Term
a guest Nov 2nd, 2012 55 Never
RAW Paste Data