Double Taxation?

[OROD]

Hasn't that image already been thoroughly discredited as being... um... "misleading", to say the least?

How so?

[prototoast]

How so?

Well, for one, the starting date of the window is cherry-picked to make the previous administration appear as bad as possible. Also, the decision to only graph private sector jobs is again made to make the current administration's performance appear more favorable.

And if we're being picky, it would be nice if it normalized for population.

The picture isn't "wrong", but it has clearly been chosen to make the Obama administration's job performance appear as strong as possible.

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

*snip* This is especially apropos since I just heard it again today from a certain Illinois congressman talking about how Mitt Romney should be paying zero capital gains tax, instead of 13.9%. The theory, as I understand it, goes like this:

*snip*

Since this was my field of study, I could probably go on and on, but I won't. I will say that if you research the numbers (which I did a few days ago), Mitt's cap gains exposure over the last two years is significantly more than 13.9%. If I remember correctly, 13.9% is an approximation of his effective income tax rate.

Also, our tax code is probably the most f*cked-up amalgam of policies which vary from the stupid to the merely misguided, passed into law by people who don't have the first idea of how the economy works. It's a little like death by a thousand cuts. The logical thing to do would be to scrap the whole thing and have a new system designed by a benevolent supernatural dictator with a degree from the University of Chicago. Unfortunately, such an enormous number of people rely on the convoluted system for their livelihoods (think IRS employees, CPAs, tax preparers) that simplication will never happen.

What do taxes do? Two things, and two things only.

1) Taxes pay for government.
2) Taxes modify behavior.

[jeff]

A starting date at the beginning of the recession's job losses is quite appropriate, and so is charting private sector jobs, as that is what everyone says are the only ones that are desirable.

[Inquartata]

Hasn't that image already been thoroughly discredited as being... um... "misleading", to say the least?

But a chart proves everything!

[prototoast]

A starting date at the beginning of the recession's job losses is quite appropriate

Then should we not end it when the recession ended?

and so is charting private sector jobs, as that is what everyone says are the only ones that are desirable.

Who is "everyone"?

[OROD]

Well, for one, the starting date of the window is cherry-picked to make the previous administration appear as bad as possible. Also, the decision to only graph private sector jobs is again made to make the current administration's performance appear more favorable.

And if we're being picky, it would be nice if it normalized for population.

The picture isn't "wrong", but it has clearly been chosen to make the Obama administration's job performance appear as strong as possible.

I think the window is chosen to start roughly when the decline started. You could say that's to make Bush look bad, but I dont really think so. I think the data just makes Bush look bad because, well, it is what it is. We can easily look at other graphs that extend back further and see how that makes Bush seem:


bush-vs-obama-total-private-jobs-full-picture-july-data.jpg

Here we see that things started out rough for Bush, not surprising given 9/11, dot-com bubble, etc. Then things started getting better up until around the middle of his Presidency where they peaked, and things started going downhill from there. Then around Jan '08 it really went downhill fast. But, you can see the trajectory downwards starts a couple of years before 08. So, is that better or worse now for Bush?

Why not just private sector jobs? I keep hearing the Republicans saying that government cant create jobs. I'm confused, maybe you can explain this to me.

Normalized for population? Uhmm, ok, would that make so much of a difference? Can you point us to such a graph?

[prototoast]

I think the window is chosen to start roughly when the decline started. You could say that's to make Bush look bad, but I dont really think so. I think the data just makes Bush look bad because, well, it is what it is. We can easily look at other graphs that extend back further and see how that makes Bush seem:

Better.

Why not just private sector jobs? I keep hearing the Republicans saying that government cant create jobs. I'm confused, maybe you can explain this to me.

Who the **** gives a **** what "Republicans" think? I'm all for small government, but whatever the government does do, it shouldn't be cutting back in a recession. And for that matter, remember the **** republicans say and the **** republicans do are entirely different ****s. GW was a pretty big public jobs creator: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001

Normalized for population? Uhmm, ok, would that make so much of a difference? Can you point us to such a graph?

[/QUOTE]

Employment:Population ratio is a good measure. http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/9839/fredgraph.png (for reference, it peaked around 65% during the late Clinton years).

[jeff]

Too many asterisks to be sure, but I think I agree with that.

[Inquartata]

Who is "everyone"?

People with brains.

[jeff]

Then should we not end it when the recession ended?

We should end it December 2012, when the Mayan calendar comes to and end and the universe implodes

Seriously: since the topic is still of interest, to say the least, extendinging it to the current date makes obvious sense. A vertical line to mark the end of the recession would be a useful datapoint to insert in the chart.

Who is "everyone"?

Inq's flippant remark aside (I guess his job doesn't count since public sector, therefore it should be eliminated) private sector is the category of job agreed by conservatives and liberals alike to be A Good Thing, while public sector is sometimes attacked as "bloat" (even when the work done is of unmistakeable value), and increasing unemployment by laying off public sector workers would be view as good.