Today I believe Obama said his new economic push will create 600k new jobs (which I hope happens). Later in the article it mentioned 'creating or saving 600k jobs'. Since he's started using the term 'saving jobs' has anyone come up with a way to quantify a 'saved job'?
saved jobs will mean that when the unemployment rate hits 12%, he can still say that he's saved 88% of the jobs out there.
Saved jobs are certainly hard to quantify, but they aren't exactly trivial.
The # of new unemployment claims this past month was a sharp reduction from previous months, and much lower than expectations. That represents a lot of saved jobs.
Saved jobs are certainly hard to quantify, but they aren't exactly trivial.
The # of new unemployment claims this past month was a sharp reduction from previous months, and much lower than expectations. That represents a lot of saved jobs.
Today I believe Obama said his new economic push will create 600k new jobs (which I hope happens). Later in the article it mentioned 'creating or saving 600k jobs'. Since he's started using the term 'saving jobs' has anyone come up with a way to quantify a 'saved job'?
Saved jobs are certainly hard to quantify, but they aren't exactly trivial.
The # of new unemployment claims this past month was a sharp reduction from previous months, and much lower than expectations. That represents a lot of saved jobs.
Total rubbish. If that represents "saved" jobs, then the fact that unemployment surpassed their projections by a long-shot months before they said it would peak at the lower estimation represents jobs they "lost", in that case they "lost" far more jobs than they "saved".Saved jobs are certainly hard to quantify, but they aren't exactly trivial.
The # of new unemployment claims this past month was a sharp reduction from previous months, and much lower than expectations. That represents a lot of saved jobs.
It is total rubbish. You can't have it both ways. They "saved" jobs because it was less than projected, but didn't "lose" jobs because the losses were more than projected.It isn't "total rubbish." If efforts save a company or part of a company, that would otherwise have failed, that represents "saved jobs." There is such a thing. I said it's hard to quantify - though there are probably instances when it is very clear - and I do think the admin uses it as a crutch to try to get to their #'s, but the concept of "saved jobs" is hardly rubbish.
It's just as much a part of the recovery as creating jobs, if not moreso. A lot of the "created" jobs will be temp...
It is total rubbish. You can't have it both ways. They "saved" jobs because it was less than projected, but didn't "lose" jobs because the losses were more than projected.
You sound like a Bush supporter talking about WMD.
Analogy fails.That's okay. You sound like someone at MoveOn who thinks 9/11 was an inside job.
It is total rubbish. You can't have it both ways. They "saved" jobs because it was less than projected, but didn't "lose" jobs because the losses were more than projected.
You sound like a Bush supporter talking about WMD.
Their promised "saved or created" jobs have not materialized and a desperate attempt to make it appear that way is sad.
Analogy fails.
Or maybe the projections for the unemployment rate in the absence of the stimulus proposal were as wrongfully optimistic as the unemployment projections with the stimulus bill? Perhaps their promised "created or saved" jobs have materialized but the labor market is simply much much worse than anticipated.
Yeah, because we can't remember the drive to get it passed or the promises of how many jobs he would "create or save" with it...I thought it was an excellent analogy.
Since you're making such a big deal about this, do you have anything aside from the unemployment rate? Promises that include more exact time frames & job creation #'s?