PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment rate dropped in every state that elected a republican gov. In 2010



illriginalized
07-08-2012, 05:46 PM
In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.
Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner:
Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%
Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%
New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%
Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%
Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%
Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%
Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%
Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%
Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%
South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%
South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%
Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%
Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%
Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%
Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%
On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.
This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/07/Unemployment-Rate-Dropped-In-Every-State-That-Elected-A-Republican-Gov-In-2010
And by no means am I even hinting at the idea of voting for Mitt Romney. So don't get it twisted. :D

So there's a correction as of today:


Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to theExaminer:

Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8 [percentage points (11.6 percent)]

Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6 [percentage points (7.5 percent)]

Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of [2.4 percentage points (22 percent)]

New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of [1.0 percentage points (13 percent)]

Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of [1.4 percentage points - (22.6 percent)]

Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of [.6 percentage points (7.5 percent)]

Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of [1.6 percentage points (16.8 percent)]

Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of [0.9 percentage points (11.9 percent)]

Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of [1.1 percentage points (17.5 percent)]

Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of [1.9 percentage points (20.4 percent)]

Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of [1.2 percentage points (11.9 percent)]

South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of [1.5 percentage points (14.2 percent)]

South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of [0.7 percentage points (14 percent)]

Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of [2.3 percentage points (21 percent)]

Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of [2.2 percentage points (15.9 percent)]

Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of [1.0 percentage points (16.4 percent)]

Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of [1.7 percentage points (18.9 percent)]

This was not the case for states that elected Democrats in 2010. For instance, the unemployment rate in New York actually went up. On average, states that elected Republican governors in 2010 saw their unemployment rates decrease at a faster clip than states that elected Democrats and the unemployment rate at the national level did.

This is yet another example of how the so-called "blue state" model is not working.

*an earlier version of this article incorrectly relied on an analysis that mistook a decline in percentage points for a percent decline.

brighamw
07-08-2012, 05:55 PM
Just finished reading this story...

Intredasting/10

Zigrakil
07-08-2012, 05:57 PM
there's so much wrong in this article i don't even know where to start.

Tekkendo
07-08-2012, 06:04 PM
there's so much wrong in this article i don't even know where to start.

That's ok. Just wait till MoveOn.Org comes up with their usual spin and you suck it up and regurgitate it back.

illriginalized
07-08-2012, 06:14 PM
there's so much wrong in this article i don't even know where to start.

Oh.. please do start. Enlighten me.. I'm in the mood for a laugh. Honestly, I am! :D

What's hilarious is that Oregon is a blue state and honestly the job market is pretty bad... at least in the fields of computer/networking... and just recently I was looking at the job market in South Florida, it has boomed amazingly. Good job republican governor man.

r0gue6
07-08-2012, 06:18 PM
wtf does a Governor have to do with unemployment rates?

Is this some new science I'm unaware of where you take random things, and simply attach to them random and illogical conclusions?

illriginalized
07-08-2012, 06:21 PM
wtf does a Governor have to do with unemployment rates?

Is this some new science I'm unaware of where you take random things, and simply attach to them random and illogical conclusions?

It sure as hell has nothing to do with that dumb ass in the white house.. especially since his administration's main focus is government expansion via government jobs, while giving the private sector the finger.

r0gue6
07-08-2012, 06:25 PM
It sure as hell has nothing to do with that dumb ass in the white house.. especially since his administration's main focus is government expansion via government jobs, while giving the private sector the finger.

lolz, thank you for your astute observation.

By your own logic, Obama caused the unemployment rates to drop in all states that elected Republican Governors.

illriginalized
07-08-2012, 06:26 PM
lolz, thank you for your astute observation.

By your own logic, Obama caused the unemployment rates to drop in all states that elected Republican Governors.

I would like to see employment rates on government vs private sector actually.. would be something interesting to research.

Private sector in Florida is nice though.. here around my way the only thing hiring is Lockheed Martin. And I've already refused 2 offers from them last year :cool:

odangdude
07-08-2012, 06:30 PM
the government should not be responsible for making jobs.

The government should be responsible for making sure the private sector can create jobs

They're doing it wrong!

r0gue6
07-08-2012, 06:30 PM
I would like to see employment rates on government vs private sector actually.. would be something interesting to research.

Private sector in Florida is nice though.. here around my way the only thing hiring is Lockheed Martin. And I've already refused 2 offers from them last year :cool:

This has nothing to do with the OP.

amtharin
07-08-2012, 06:49 PM
wtf does a Governor have to do with unemployment rates?

Is this some new science I'm unaware of where you take random things, and simply attach to them random and illogical conclusions?

Our governor has worked out many tax deals with companies like Amazon, and Boeing that brought lots of jobs to the state. She actually almost ran Amazon off by backing off the deal, and people got pissed, but she wised up at the last minute. Amazon alone brought 2000 jobs to the capital city area.

danow
07-08-2012, 08:58 PM
In Michigan, Governor Snyder forced a lot of people off the extended unemployment tit and into jobs.

r0gue6
07-08-2012, 09:05 PM
In Michigan, Governor Snyder forced a lot of people off the extended unemployment tit and into jobs.

Actually, based on the logic shows ITT, I'd postulate that Obama was the one that forced those people into jobs.

000350
07-08-2012, 09:16 PM
Why didn't they show the stats for the blue states? Could this article be biased?

danow
07-08-2012, 09:20 PM
Actually, based on the logic shows ITT, I'd postulate that Obama was the one that forced those people into jobs.Based on the facts you're wrong.

danow
07-08-2012, 09:24 PM
Why didn't they show the stats for the blue states? Could this article be biased? The article is about states that have gone from dem govs to rep govs. The blue states with dem govs have unemployment that has maintained or have had increased unemployment rates.

000350
07-08-2012, 09:32 PM
The article is about states that have gone from dem govs to rep govs. The blue states with dem govs have unemployment that has maintained or have had increased unemployment rates.


Just checked the original source. As expected, the evil blue states fared just as well as the holy and righteous red states. Except New York which was pointed out. And this list doesn't even cover states that were traditionally blue or traditionally red. Biased journalism.


Copy and pasted from the source

Colorado - 8.8% to 8.1% = a decline of 0.7%

New York - 8.2% to 8.6% = an increase of 0.4%

Oregon - 9.9% to 8.4% = a decline of 1.5%

California - 12.1% to 10.8% = a decline of 1.3%

Connecticut - 9.3% to 7.8% = a decline of 1.5%

Hawaii - 6.7% to 6.3% = a decline of 0.4%

Minnesota - 6.8% to 5.6% = a decline of 1.2%

Vermont - 6.0% to 4.6% = a decline of 1.4%

r0gue6
07-08-2012, 09:46 PM
Based on the facts you're wrong.

Which facts?

Obama was president...and then these states had better unemployment numbers.

Seems logical to me...

MrRIP
07-08-2012, 10:05 PM
Source: Breitbart.com

They could tell me the sky is blue and id doubt it

The facts is this. Unemployment in the country has gone down simply due to the recovery.

Phil9
07-08-2012, 11:05 PM
Interesting but exactly how many states have maintained the same unemployment rate or had it increase since January of 2011? I'd imagine it's a short list if any.

Tekkendo
07-08-2012, 11:39 PM
Source: Breitbart.com

They could tell me the sky is blue and id doubt it

The facts is this. Unemployment in the country has gone down simply due to the recovery.
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/images/smilies/new/takei.gif


Knock knock... its REALITY at the door!! :D

http://www.businessinsider.com/june-jobs-report-private-sector-hiring-misses-2012-7

newtmiscer
07-08-2012, 11:53 PM
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/images/smilies/new/takei.gif


Knock knock... its REALITY at the door!! :D

http://www.businessinsider.com/june-jobs-report-private-sector-hiring-misses-2012-7

did you read anything besides the title u fukcing troll? despite some jobs being temporary, the trend is a good one

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4ff6f71e69bedd7d1f000012/white-house-private-sector.png

Tekkendo
07-08-2012, 11:58 PM
did you read anything besides the title u fukcing troll? despite some jobs being temporary, the trend is a good one

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4ff6f71e69bedd7d1f000012/white-house-private-sector.png
The trend is going DOWN, you freaking moron!!!
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/images/smilies/new/takei.gif

danow
07-08-2012, 11:59 PM
did you read anything besides the title u fukcing troll? despite some jobs being temporary, the trend is a good one

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4ff6f71e69bedd7d1f000012/white-house-private-sector.png
Takes 150,000 jobs created monthly to maintain current unemployment rate. Your comment is potato.

newtmiscer
07-09-2012, 12:02 AM
The trend is going DOWN, you freaking moron!!!
[img]http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/images/smilies/new/takei.gif[/img
from december 2011, yes. From a non retarded viewpoint, the trend is actually on the rise. The way you try to warp what people say is uncanny; if you put as much effort into your own argument you might not sound like such a troll

Tekkendo
07-09-2012, 12:03 AM
I am going to post this eventhough i am pretty sure the R/P trolltards, libtards, and obamaNutHuggers are too stupid to comprehend it.

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc120709.htm

danow
07-09-2012, 12:05 AM
from december 2011, yes. From a non retarded viewpoint, the trend is actually on the rise. The way you try to warp what people say is uncanny; if you put as much effort into your own argument you might not sound like such a trollYou truly are potato.

Tekkendo
07-09-2012, 12:09 AM
from december 2011, yes. From a non retarded viewpoint, the trend is actually on the rise. The way you try to warp what people say is uncanny; if you put as much effort into your own argument you might not sound like such a troll



There is a catastrophic recession unfolding, and the data from Dec 2011 shows the trend is DOWN!!

You are like the fuking moron in a plane that has lost power and is nose diving, saying 'the trend is up' !

http://www.mercenarytrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/obama-drinking-a-beer-300x255.jpg

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/no%20no%20no/grand/paris_says_no_gif.gif

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp241/3RDW0RLD/MauryLaughing.gif

LennardiVooDoo
07-09-2012, 12:35 AM
It sure as hell has nothing to do with that dumb ass in the white house.. especially since his administration's main focus is government expansion via government jobs, while giving the private sector the finger.

lol wut?

http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/22480/FE_DA_PublicvPrivateJobsGraph.jpg

Phil9
07-09-2012, 02:27 AM
lol wut?

http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/22480/FE_DA_PublicvPrivateJobsGraph.jpg


It's amazing when perception doesn't match reality.

US_Ranger
07-09-2012, 02:39 AM
In after everyone twists this story to their partisan viewpoint.

A-GAME
07-09-2012, 02:40 AM
It's amazing when perception doesn't match reality.


And yet it is almost always the case.

Phil9
07-09-2012, 03:06 AM
In after everyone twists this story to their partisan viewpoint.


Hell, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me if there are even any states with a higher unemployment rate now than back in January 2011. I've looked up several states not on the list but don't feel like going through every single one of them just to make sure.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 04:19 AM
did you read anything besides the title u fukcing troll? despite some jobs being temporary, the trend is a good one

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4ff6f71e69bedd7d1f000012/white-house-private-sector.png

All this chart shows is a leveling out of jobs after the big decrease when the housing market crashed.

Streetbull
07-09-2012, 05:31 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/us-economy-global-idUSBRE86805Y20120709

Toast...

"Japan's core machinery orders in May plunged 14.8 percent from April, with the key gauge of capital spending sinking far below analyst expectations of a 3.3 percent decline...

Meanwhile consumer inflation in China, the world's second biggest economy, eased more than expected in June, with producer prices in outright deflation for a fourth month...

The numbers signal that demand for goods from the nation's vast factory sector - especially from foreign customers - is declining as the global economy weakens...

Exports from Taiwan, one of the world's largest producers of electronics, declined in annual terms for a fourth straight month in June against market expectations of a modest rise. Taiwanese firms make the majority of Apple gadgets as well as smartphones for various brands, and the dip reflects falling global demand for such consumer products...

Asian shares and the euro slumped on Monday as sluggish U.S. jobs data and cooling inflation in China deepened worries about slowing global growth..."

The collapse is happening before our very eyes.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 05:38 AM
Hell, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me if there are even any states with a higher unemployment rate now than back in January 2011. I've looked up several states not on the list but don't feel like going through every single one of them just to make sure.

Doesn't the OP say that New York is one of those states??

markymark69
07-09-2012, 06:18 AM
Our governor has worked out many tax deals with companies like Amazon, and Boeing that brought lots of jobs to the state. She actually almost ran Amazon off by backing off the deal, and people got pissed, but she wised up at the last minute. Amazon alone brought 2000 jobs to the capital city area.

8.9% unemployment? Y'all are doing it wrong.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 06:22 AM
8.9% unemployment? Y'all are doing it wrong.

And it would be worse if not for out sometimes incompetent governor. In other words she had something to do with our unemployment levels, a foreign concept to rogue.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 06:23 AM
And it would be worse if not for out sometimes incompetent governor. In other words she had something to do with our unemployment levels, a foreign concept to rogue.

She did? By bring 2k jobs to the state? Wow...what is the population there?

illriginalized
07-09-2012, 06:23 AM
I can't find any data showing job growth between private sector and government jobs. -.-


lol wut?

http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/22480/FE_DA_PublicvPrivateJobsGraph.jpg

I'm trying to find more details. I'm not giving any credit to Obama on unemployment rate dropping in the private sector.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 06:24 AM
Why am I the only one that notices the math is in correct in the OP?

I sometimes wonder about the intellectual level of the R&P.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 06:25 AM
She did? By bring 2k jobs to the state? Wow...what is the population there?

That was a substantial amount of jobs for the capital city area, and again that was just with the Amazon deal. Boeing was situation that brought in a lot more than 2000.


Again, it is proof that our governor had an affect on our unemployment level, some thing that rogue was completely unaware of being possible.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 06:50 AM
That was a substantial amount of jobs for the capital city area, and again that was just with the Amazon deal. Boeing was situation that brought in a lot more than 2000.


Again, it is proof that our governor had an affect on our unemployment level, some thing that rogue was completely unaware of being possible.

The unemployment rate for the capital city area is trending up...What did she do to cause it to go up?

amtharin
07-09-2012, 06:52 AM
The unemployment rate for the capital city area is trending up...What did she do to cause it to go up?

So you want white knight for rogue and stand up for his position that they governor has no affect on the unemployment level?? LOL.

Im so in your head marky. To the point that you have to argue with me even when I state a direct fact. Add this to your recent race card arguments, and your troll attempts are really getting pathetic.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 06:56 AM
So you want white knight for rogue and stand up for his position that they governor has no affect on the unemployment level?? LOL.

Im so in your head marky. To the point that you have to argue with me even when I state a direct fact. Add this to your recent race card arguments, and your troll attempts are really getting pathetic.

No I fully agree the government can influence unemployment levels.

I just asked a question: The unemployment rate for the capital city area is trending up...what did she do to cause it to go up?

Its ok if you dont know the answer.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 06:59 AM
No I fully agree the government can influence unemployment levels.

I just asked a question: The unemployment rate for the capital city area is trending up...what did she do to cause it to go up?

Its ok if you dont know the answer.

There are many contributing factors, and she is not the only one. However, this is irrelevant to that fact that rogue is a focking idiot, and you are obsessed with me.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 07:18 AM
There are many contributing factors, and she is not the only one. However, this is irrelevant to that fact that rogue is a focking idiot, and you are obsessed with me.


The unemployment rate for the capital city area is trending up...what did she do to cause it to go up? She brought 2k jobs to the capital. Which law did she sign to bring those jobs to SC?

edit: btw..why do you keep mentioning rogue? The discussion is between you and I.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 07:22 AM
The unemployment rate for the capital city area is trending up...what did she do to cause it to go up? She brought 2k jobs to the capital. Which law did she sign to bring those jobs to SC?

edit: btw..why do you keep mentioning rogue? The discussion is between you and I.

Who said she caused it to go up??


I keep mentioning rogue because you were trying to wk for him. I think its funny that instead of calling him out for being completely wrong, you call me out for being completely right. Its just a sign that Im up in your head.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 07:29 AM
She brought 2k jobs to the capital. Which law did she sign to bring those jobs to SC?

This law... http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9NFTOAG0.htm

NeoKantian
07-09-2012, 07:34 AM
Pretty crappy article, especially when all you have to do to refute it is do a two second google search for BLS data.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 07:52 AM
Who said she caused it to go up??


I keep mentioning rogue because you were trying to wk for him. I think its funny that instead of calling him out for being completely wrong, you call me out for being completely right. Its just a sign that Im up in your head.

White Knight? Are you 12? Teen misc ----------------->

markymark69
07-09-2012, 07:53 AM
This law... http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9NFTOAG0.htm

Oh she didnt sign that law.

Haley has opposed the legislation, saying it gives Amazon an unfair advantage over brick-and-mortar retailers who collect sales taxes. She said again Friday that she won't veto the measure, and will allow it to become law without her signature.

I thought you were referring to some law she had signed.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 07:56 AM
Oh she didnt sign that law.


I thought you were referring to some law she had signed.

I have already acknowledged in this thread that she almost fuked up the whole deal. She ended up just sitting on the sidelines and letting it happen.

Regardless the overall point was that the governor had an affect on the unemployment rates.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 07:59 AM
Regardless the overall point was that the governor had an affect on the unemployment rates.

And what affect was that? Did she raise or lower unemployment rates?
How big was the effect?

markymark69
07-09-2012, 08:00 AM
Why am I the only one that notices the math is in correct in the OP?

I sometimes wonder about the intellectual level of the R&P.

It is threads like this that make me realize most of you do not possess the math skills of a 9th grader.

Page after page of posts and not one person questions the incorrect math.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 08:03 AM
And what affect was that?

Helping the situation by bringing jobs to the state.


Did she raise or lower unemployment rates?

That is irrelevant to the point, which was, she affected it.


How big was the effect?

That is irrelevant to the point, which was, she affected it.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 08:12 AM
Helping the situation by bringing jobs to the state.



That is irrelevant to the point, which was, she affected it.



That is irrelevant to the point, which was, she affected it.

You said if it were not for her, the rates would be much worse. Are you not curious about her true impact on employment?

Are you not the least bit curious about the neg/pos rates & amounts? Your intellectual curiosity is almost non-existent. FYI: That is indicative of being a state worker

aberry33
07-09-2012, 08:37 AM
In after everyone twists this story to their partisan viewpoint.

This

amtharin
07-09-2012, 08:39 AM
You said if it were not for her, the rates would be much worse.

Which is true.


Are you not curious about her true impact on employment?


Are you not the least bit curious about the neg/pos rates & amounts? Your intellectual curiosity is almost non-existent. FYI:


Not as much as you are obviously. It was only my point that she did infact have an affect.


[quote]That is indicative of being a state worker

Or more accurately, someone who just does not give a fuk about what ever tangent argument you're having to conjurer up because you wk'ing attempt failed.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 09:25 AM
Which is true.


Not as much as you are obviously. It was only my point that she did infact have an affect.

So you cant quantify her effect on unemployment...but you just know it would have been alot worse without her? lol...are you sure you are an engineer?



Or more accurately, someone who just does not give a fuk about what ever tangent argument you're having to conjurer up because you wk'ing attempt failed.


lol dear god..still using white knighting during a discussion in the R&P? Are you 32 or 12? teen misc ----------------->


When you and the other state workers sit around wasting tax payers money do you mention white knighting?

markymark69
07-09-2012, 09:28 AM
It is threads like this that make me realize most of you do not possess the math skills of a 9th grader.

Page after page of posts and not one person questions the incorrect math.


Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

lol

amtharin
07-09-2012, 09:30 AM
So you cant quantify her effect on unemployment...but you just know it would have been alot worse without her? lol...are you sure you are an engineer?

None of that has anything to do with the point of whether not she affected the rate.




lol dear god..still using white knighting during a discussion in the R&P? Are you 32 or 12? teen misc ----------------->


When you and the other state workers sit around wasting tax payers money do you mention white knighting?

One day when I work for the state, Ill let you know.

ZenBowman
07-09-2012, 10:54 AM
lol wut?


You are speaking to Danny, he makes up his own facts, we call them dannyfacts.

illriginalized
07-09-2012, 11:13 AM
You are speaking to Danny, he makes up his own facts, we call them dannyfacts.

Did you even read what he quoted? I was looking for further information in regards to private sector vs government jobs. :rolleyes:

markymark69
07-09-2012, 11:52 AM
Oh.. please do start. Enlighten me.. I'm in the mood for a laugh. Honestly, I am! :D

What's hilarious is that Oregon is a blue state and honestly the job market is pretty bad... at least in the fields of computer/networking... and just recently I was looking at the job market in South Florida, it has boomed amazingly. Good job republican governor man.

You seriously do not see the flawed analysis in this article? I'll give ya hint


the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate

I swear to god..it is no wonder the US primary education system is ridiculed. You idiots do not even understand basic math.

dr_D
07-09-2012, 12:45 PM
that "study", "analysis", whatever you want to call it, really made me cringe. My heart sank with the realization that our education system truly is in tatters. There are so many cardinal sins of statistics that I briefly fell into a depression.

If any of you are even remotely objective and took an elementary statistics course this "analysis" should have triggered red flags, to say nothing of the lack of economic analysis. Such as the lack of any attempt to prove causation and correlation. Used a very suspect methodology of choosing the states (states that got new governors even if the previous governor was from the same party). Why not compare blue stats vs red states (because it would probably come out to be a wash). This, combined with the very constrictive sample size suggests that the author was just cherry picking data until he got favorable results.

For the economic aspect of it, for starters (seriously just to scrap the surface) Governors have minimal influence on state economies. States are so intertwined with each other, and in turn the global economy that outside factors (of the state) play a far more prominent role than governors. It really is no contest. Even if you still want to make a claim that the governor made a difference, the fact that the author made no effort in highlighting then explaining how their policies contributed to the decrease should tell you something (correlation vs causation)

Many of these states were already experiencing declining unemployment rates when they took office so really they were just along for the ride and then claimed credit for it.

More importantly, states are very much constrained to how they act. Almost all states (except for 1) have balance budget amendments (no not because they don't want to saddle the future with debt) because they are not like the federal government, they cannot borrow as freely as the government. So despite what the author of this article wants to imply blue states can't do "Keynesian" style fiscal policy. They have to, like every state, cut back. So state governments really can't do much, hence why governors (democrat or republican) have very little influence.

edit: Another important aspect is that states or not homogenous. The implications should be obvious.

illriginalized
07-09-2012, 01:03 PM
You seriously do not see the flawed analysis in this article? I'll give ya hint



I swear to god..it is no wonder the US primary education system is ridiculed. You idiots do not even understand basic math.

Than the overall/national rate? In other words, the Republican states are overall highest (by leading), they have more significance in the overall/national statistic.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 01:38 PM
Than the overall/national rate? In other words, the Republican states are overall highest (by leading), they have more significance in the overall/national statistic.


ITT: Guys that supposedly graduated from highschool and or college and still do not understand the difference between percentages, rates, and percentage points.

The math in that article is so fcuked up a 6th grader could have written a better analysis.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 01:43 PM
the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%



Conservative math: 9+6=96

lol

amtharin
07-09-2012, 01:47 PM
Conservative math: 9+6=96

lol

You have been derping about this math for too long now. What is the problem?

markymark69
07-09-2012, 01:52 PM
You have been derping about this math for too long now. What is the problem?

*shakes his head*

You claim to be an engineer. Assuming your degree is not from ITT Tech, Devry or Barbizon School of Fashion & Design..you took alot of math courses..DE, calc I/II/III, linear algebra, etc


the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%
^^^
Is the above quote from the OP even remotely correct?!

amtharin
07-09-2012, 01:53 PM
*shakes his head*

You claim to be an engineer. Assuming your degree is not from ITT Tech, Devry or Barbizon School of Fashion & Design..you took alot of math courses..DE, calc I/II/III, linear algebra, etc


^^^
Is the above quote from the OP even remotely correct?!


Seriously, what is wrong with this... Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

^^^ why was that so funny to you?

markymark69
07-09-2012, 01:55 PM
Seriously, what is wrong with this... Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

^^^ why was that so funny to you?

lol because the answer is not 0.8%



Absolutely no way you are an engineer.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 01:57 PM
ITT: Faux engineer cannot differentiate between ratios and differences.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 02:05 PM
lol because the answer is not 0.8%



Absolutely no way you are an engineer.


Im heading for a training ride and then off to the gym so I will make it easy for the faux conservatives: The correct answer is 11.59%


I used to hold math classes for faux conservatives like Nutsy54. I guess I need to expand my enrollment.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 02:07 PM
lol because the answer is not 0.8%



Absolutely no way you are an engineer.

How is it not? If I have 20 of 100 items then I have 20%. if I reduce that number to 15 then I would have 15%. That would be a reduction of 5 items, or 5%.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 02:15 PM
How is it not? If I have 20 of 100 items then I have 20%. if I reduce that number to 15 then I would have 15%. That would be a reduction of 5 items, or 5%.

lol...Conservative math.


9+6=96!


btw: Its a 25% reduction...not 5%.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 02:21 PM
lol...Conservative math.


9+6=96!


btw: Its a 25% reduction...not 5%.

Its a 25% reduction of what I already had. Its a 5% reduction of the total amount. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way they expressed it. You are so anxious to "call someone out" that you are willing to make yourself look like fool to do so.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 02:24 PM
Its a 25% reduction of what I already had. Its a 5% reduction of the total amount. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way they expressed it. You are so anxious to "call someone out" that you are willing to make yourself look like fool to do so.


There isnt? Odd....every single mathematician on the entire planet disagrees with that statement in bold.


ITT: Again a faux engineer canot differentiate between percent, percentage point, ratios and differences.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 02:26 PM
There isnt?


ITT: Again a faux engineer canot differentiate between percent, percentage point, ratios and differences.


I can do nothing but lol at someone who is so determined that they are right, when they are not.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146360413&p=912960663&viewfull=1#post912960663

KRANE
07-09-2012, 02:27 PM
The more important question is, is it dropping because they're fixing the problem, or because people have given up trying? I think its more of the latter than the former. What say you?

Florida's buffoonish governor tried that same tactic to make his state look as if it were improving. If I didn't actually live here to see things the way they are, I'd almost believe it. Fortunately, I switch to plan B.

PSToolman
07-09-2012, 02:32 PM
The more important question is, is it dropping because they're fixing the problem, or because people have given up trying? I think its more of the latter than the former. What say you?

Florida's buffoonish governor tried that same tactic to make his state look as if it were improving. If I didn't actually live here to see things the way they are, I'd almost believe it. Fortunately, I switch to plan B.

This is a great question. Reps for it. They keep talking about people who have given up looking for work, when they mean people who have used up all their unemployment benefits, but not when it applies to states with Republican governors.

PSToolman
07-09-2012, 02:33 PM
Fun facts:

According to Kiplingers, of the 17 states listed in the OP, five of them are in the Top Ten of states spending stimulus money. On average, those 17 states spent $25 Million more of the stimulus than the remaining 34 states, and $17 Million more than the national average.

Further, the data in Kiplingers shows a direct correlation between the number of stimulus dollars spent and the number of jobs created.

To say in the OP that this is all due to having Republican governors, and has nothing to do with the policies of the current administration is simply election year rhetoric.

illriginalized
07-09-2012, 02:34 PM
Its a 25% reduction of what I already had. Its a 5% reduction of the total amount. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way they expressed it. You are so anxious to "call someone out" that you are willing to make yourself look like fool to do so.
I think markymark is using the extreme leftist source to play semantics in numbers, I've been chuckling for a minute once I realized his angle.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 02:36 PM
I can do nothing but lol at someone who is so determined that they are right, when they are not.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146360413&p=912960663&viewfull=1#post912960663


an earlier version of this article incorrectly relied on an analysis that mistook a decline in percentage points for a percent decline.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146360413&p=912965533&viewfull=1#post912965533


You do not grasp basic, fundamental mathematics principles. Difference in percentage points /= percentage.

Good luck with those HVAC goals 2012!

r0gue6
07-09-2012, 02:36 PM
I think markymark is using the extreme leftist source to play semantics in numbers, I've been chuckling for a minute once I realized his angle.

Marky is being semantic and is technically correct...but it's a pretty minor point.

The biggest travesty is the actual articles conclusions...which are batsh!t retardation.

markymark69
07-09-2012, 02:37 PM
I think markymark is using the extreme leftist source to play semantics in numbers, I've been chuckling for a minute once I realized his angle.

Bright one...you are not.

lol.

KRANE
07-09-2012, 02:38 PM
I think markymark is using the extreme leftist source to play semantics in numbers, I've been chuckling for a minute once I realized his angle.Where have you been? His hijinks are legend.

amtharin
07-09-2012, 02:40 PM
Its a 25% reduction of what I already had. Its a 5% reduction of the total amount. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way they expressed it. You are so anxious to "call someone out" that you are willing to make yourself look like fool to do so.


http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146360413&p=912965533&viewfull=1#post912965533


You do not grasp basic, fundamental mathematics principles. Difference in percentage points /= percentage.

Good luck with those HVAC goals 2012!

What were you saying about my example, and 5% not being right again??

KRANE
07-09-2012, 02:44 PM
This is a great question. Reps for it. They keep talking about people who have given up looking for work, when they mean people who have used up all their unemployment benefits, but not when it applies to states with Republican governors.He's on his way to Europe to sell Florida to the highest bidder. What good is a job if you're not earning a living wage?

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/on_the_money/fla-ala-governors-in-europe


One of Satan's minion no doubt?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/voldemort-150x150.jpg

illriginalized
07-09-2012, 02:47 PM
Marky is being semantic and is technically correct...but it's a pretty minor point.

The biggest travesty is the actual articles conclusions...which are batsh!t retardation.


Yep I see it now, I've updated OP.

But the fact still stands.

Ughh... I wish I could find something showing the rest of the states.. because all they're doing is generalizing the blue states and using New York as an example of unemployment rising.

PSToolman
07-09-2012, 03:34 PM
He's on his way to Europe to sell Florida to the highest bidder. What good is a job if you're not earning a living wage?

Another good point. I was trying to find the data on wages for this year vis-a-vis the OP but couldn't find anything current. I know in the case of Wisconsin that median wages have gone down mostly due to all the public sector layoffs.

It's funny how this entire recovery is put on the backs of the workers, yet no expectations are made of the job creators. It's as though protecting profits is more important than giving people jobs.

There was a very interesting discussion at the Nobel Peace Prize Winners Summit last April on C-Span today. Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, was talking about how we get into a mode of making money and it never stops because that is the direction we are in. I agree. There is more to running a company than that, such as serving customers and employing workers.

He is much more eloquent than I on the subject.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PeaceL
Skip to about 44:00

markymark69
07-11-2012, 06:53 AM
Seriously, what is wrong with this... Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

^^^ why was that so funny to you?


I will pay pal you $1000 and get perma banned if you get any math professor to say that is correct. Are you up for the challenge?

amtharin
07-11-2012, 06:58 AM
I will pay pal you $1000 and get perma banned if you get any math professor to say that is correct. Are you up for the challenge?

Same offer to you if you can find a math professor to say that it is not possible to express a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount.

markymark69
07-11-2012, 06:59 AM
Same offer to you if you can find a math professor to say that it is not possible to express a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount.

lol...where did you learn how to write?

amtharin
07-11-2012, 07:02 AM
lol...where did you learn how to write?
Huh?? That does not make sense to you??

markymark69
07-11-2012, 07:03 AM
Huh?? That does not make sense to you??

lol! Nope...and it doesnt make sense to anyone else on this forum...just you.

Go post that on a math forum...let us know responses. lol

edit: Sounds like you are trying to evolve your position again.

You were pretty clear:

6.9%-6.1% = a decline of .8%
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way they expressed it.

amtharin
07-11-2012, 07:07 AM
lol! Nope...and it doesnt make sense to anyone else on this forum...just you.

Go post that on a math forum...let us know responses. lol

You want to make a big deal about math, and that does not make sense to you?? You dont think that would make sense to anyone who is knowledgeable about math??

Romankey123
07-11-2012, 07:10 AM
of corse the states that elected republicans are goin 2 win lol the liberas wwant to allow ppl to **** up butts like lol wtf how can a guy want that like a dick in his ass lol not me i wouldnt want that but like how can someone cwant that seriously but i dont want it i wont do a dick in my butt and i do wnat it

but ya how r u gonna let a gay persin be a leader like lol all they wood do is think about anal and not work out jobs for people just anal

amtharin
07-11-2012, 07:17 AM
edit: Sounds like you are trying to evolve your position again.

You were pretty clear:

Its pretty obvious that the 0.8% would have to be from the total amount. So that is how I read it. Just because I can think of several other ways to express the same thing does not mean I going to start whining that one if them is wrong.

markymark69
07-11-2012, 07:21 AM
Its pretty obvious that the 0.8% would have to be from the total amount. So that is how I read it. Just because I can think of several other ways to express the same thing does not mean I going to start whining that one if them is wrong.

You are the only person that thinks that way. Everyone else on the forum knew it was wrong. Breitbart.com knew it was wrong which is why they issued this statement:


an earlier version of this article incorrectly relied on an analysis that mistook a decline in percentage points for a percent decline.

They made the same mistake you did...the difference: They admitted their mistake and issued a correction.

itt: faux engineer doesnt know that .8% decline is a slope.

amtharin
07-11-2012, 07:24 AM
You are the only person that thinks that way.

Math is not a one way street. Things can be broke down in many ways.


Everyone else on the forum knew it was wrong. Breitbart.com knew it was wrong which is why they issued this statement:

Again, Breitbart corrected what he said about the math, not the math itself. *You never said anything about the analysis. *You were lol'ing at "the math"


They made the same mistake you did...the difference: They admitted their mistake and issued a correction.

I only defended the math, not the analysis.

markymark69
07-11-2012, 07:30 AM
Again, Breitbart corrected what he said about the math, not the math itself. *You never said anything about the analysis. *You were lol'ing at "the math"



I only defended the math, not the analysis.

lol..there you go again..evolving..

Once again: 6.9%-6.1% != a decline of .8%


Here is what you stated


6.9%-6.1% = a decline of .8%
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way they expressed it.

amtharin
07-11-2012, 07:32 AM
lol..there you go again..evolving..

Once again: 6.9%-6.1% != a decline of .8%


Here is what you stated

a decline of .8% of the total

Does it say "of the total", no but what else would 0.8% be referring to?? It would be the only thing it could be referring to, and there is nothing wrong with expressing a reduction, as a percentage of a total amount. <--- here is that "complicated" phrase that you dont understand again.

As soon as I saw you whining about the math, I knew exactly what your point was, but that does make the other way of expressing it wrong.

PSToolman
07-11-2012, 07:44 AM
somebody please shoot them.

amtharin
07-11-2012, 08:03 AM
Same offer to you if you can find a math professor to say that it is not possible to express a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount.


lol...where did you learn how to write?


Huh?? That does not make sense to you??


lol! Nope...and it doesnt make sense to anyone else on this forum...just you.

Go post that on a math forum...let us know responses. lol


http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=620114

markymark69
07-11-2012, 11:05 AM
a decline of .8% of the total

.

Do the math.

If it was indeed a decline of .8% of the total..you should be able to calculate that with the figures posted in the spreadsheet.

http://i.imgur.com/00IVI.jpg

You cant.

amtharin
07-11-2012, 11:21 AM
Do the math.

If it was indeed a decline of .8% of the total..you should be able to calculate that with the figures posted in the spreadsheet.

http://i.imgur.com/00IVI.jpg

You cant.

Well of course not. 0.8% of the total would assume a constant workforce.