An argument with Darrel

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
Mike Radigan
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:32 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

An argument with Darrel

Post by Mike Radigan »

Darrel and I have been having a discussion on Big Dogs blog concerning the following chart:

Image

Darrel states that it is OK to ignore the x-axis and elements showing Obama’s net jobs all point up. I agree with him that up is good and I agree that the trend is up. However, I disagree that any element below the x-axis is good. Darrel says it is good and points up. I say no it is not. There is still a net job loss and points down. While it might be better than the previous month, it is still bad if there is a net job loss.

There are two topics where we discuss this:

http://www.onebigdog.net/talk-about-a-snow-job/

http://www.onebigdog.net/good-news-only ... heir-jobs/

Darrel also tries to compare net job change with war battlefield deaths. Huh! Net jobs can be either lost (bad) or gained (good). Battlefield deaths can never be good. A silly analogy.

It’s OK to ignore the x-axis; Darrel yes, Mike no
The trend is up and good; Darrel yes, Mike yes
An element below the x-axis points up; Darrel yes, Mike no
Battlefields deaths can be compared to net job change; Darrel yes, Mike no

Note: I'm not arguing the cause of these numbers, just the numbers. I’m done here!
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Dardedar »

Good to see you Mike. You really should try to quote comments your refer to rather than go from your improvised impressions of what I said. The truth is in the details and this would save a lot of confusion. Anyway, I'll give you a careful line by line response. BTW, all of my previous responses to Mike are copied in full in this thread in The Big Doggy Dump. (except for the most recent)
Mike Radigan wrote: Darrel states that it is OK to ignore the x-axis and elements showing Obama’s net jobs all point up.
DAR
A little background. I posted this chart in the Doggie forum and noted that "up is good, down is bad." Mike repeatedly said, "no it's not" (a position he has since changed). It is entirely appropriate to ignore the zero line in this chart when simply noting that "up is good, down is bad."

As I explained to Mike weeks ago, he is simply equivocating here and using "good" to refer to something different than I am.
MIKE I agree with him that up is good and I agree that the trend is up.
DAR
Well you should have stopped there, because that's all there is, it's all you've got, and you've conceded it.
I disagree that any element below the x-axis is good.
DAR
This pretends that the elements below the zero line are equal. They are not. Some are MUCH better than others. So it's quite appropriate to refer to the very low numbers as "good" (-36k) when compared to the very bad numbers (-736k). And note that the zero line is an arbitrary distinction anyway. We need a positive of about 150k a month just to stay even with growth of the workforce and economy. So "zero" is still not good and 100k is not "good" in the sense you are trying for.
MIKE: Darrel says it is good and points up.
DAR
I said the numbers under Obama trended up and this was good. The numbers under Bush trended down, and this was bad.
MIKE:
Darrel also tries to compare net job change with war battlefield deaths. Huh! Net jobs can be either lost (bad) or gained (good). Battlefield deaths can never be good. A silly analogy.
DAR
Here is an explanation of this simple analogy. It doesn't make much difference but I didn't make this analogy in reference to this chart but rather a similar topic in which Senator Reid referred to a loss of 36k jobs as good when compared with recent losses of over 700k.

"If 200 soldiers are dying a month in Iraq and then we take action to get that number down to 10 (1/20th), this is, viewed objectively, as a “good thing” (while not a good thing viewed from the perspective of the 10 individuals who died).

Likewise, if we are losing 700k jobs per month and then take action to get that number down to 36k (1/20th), this is, viewed objectively, as a "good thing" (while not a good thing viewed from the perspective of the 36k individuals who lost jobs)."

Not sure why Mike has trouble understanding this most basic analogy.

Let's try another one since I am working on my taxes today. I'll keep the ratio the same:

If I take my taxes to one accountant and he says I owe $20,000 this is bad. If I take my same taxes to another accountant and he says I owe $1,000 (1/20th which correspondents with the high and low in the chart), this is good because I owe a lot less taxes! But it's still bad in some other sense because either way... I still have to pay taxes.

Can Mike really not see that the numbers from the second accountant are "good?"

D.
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Doug »

Darrel wrote:Can Mike really not see that the numbers from the second accountant are "good?"
DOUG
Of course he can see it. He just wants to nitpick because he can't bring himself to admit that Obama is fixing the Republican disaster.

How about this, Mike:

"Obama is making the jobs situation better whereas Bush was making it worse."

So whether it is "good" or not is not the issue. Now he can hardly disagree with the large statement above.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
Mike Radigan
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:32 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Mike Radigan »

The trend and trend only is improving under Obama. That's not the argument. And I'm not arguing the cause of the numbers just the numbers. Darrel is saying that he can ignore the x-axis. He says that elements below the x-axis point up. And in a recent post over on Big Dog's he said, "Incidentally, being even 100k over the zero line would still be a net down." Those are all incorrect.

Also he purposely misrepresents what I actually say at times. By definition that makes him a liar. For instance I agree with him that up is good in the graph, but all but two elements are down not up so they are not good. He constantly references that saying I agree with him that the elements are up. He's a liar.

You can read this stuff for yourself over there. I'm not going to reply here anymore. Have a good day!
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Dardedar »

Mike Radigan wrote:The trend and trend only is improving under Obama.
DAR
I am glad you are finally getting it.
That's not the argument.
DAR
Actually it is. You don't get to pick what I am arguing. And what I am arguing is that the trend was down under Bush, and up under Obama. Down is bad, up is good.
Darrel is saying that he can ignore the x-axis.
DAR
Yes, ignore it. Put it anywhere you like. Just keep the ratio between the months the same. You still get the same "V" and this doesn't change the fact that trending down is bad, trending up is good.
He says that elements below the x-axis point up.
DAR
You never cite me saying this of course, because I never said this. And then you charge me with representing things. You're very sloppy Mike, and not too bright.
said, "Incidentally, being even 100k over the zero line would still be a net down." Those are all incorrect.
DAR
I am sorry you are too dense to understand my point. I'll let you argue with the former secretary of Labor:

"Remember, too, that the economy needs about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with a growing population. So we're even further behind."
--Robert Reich, Oct. 2, 2009, The Truth about Jobs that no one wants to tell you.

And then Mike tucks tail and runs away.

D.
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Doug »

Mike Radigan wrote:For instance I agree with him that up is good in the graph, but all but two elements are down not up so they are not good.
DOUG
You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. There are different senses of the word "good." If you are in a major car wreck, but you are not injured, someone might hear that you are not injured and say, "That's good." That does not mean that the person thinks it was good that you were in a wreck.

Similarly, losing jobs is not good, but it IS good that fewer and fewer jobs are being lost each month. So whether the chart shows something good depends on what you are evaluating. The trend is good. Job losses are not good. But fewer job losses is a good thing compared to more job losses. And that is what the chart is showing. It is a comparison. You can tell this because it shows job losses under two presidents, for comparison.

You say: "...all but two elements are down not up so they are not good."

Let's test whether it makes no sense to say that this graph shows something good:

"Improving the job loss situation is good."

Do you deny this claim?
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Dardedar »

I explained this to Mike a month ago. As follows (copied from the Doggy Dump):
***
DAR said:
"Down is bad, up is good. Amazing."

Mike responded: "No its not.">>

DAR
All of this confusion above is based upon an equivocation.

Of course anything below the waterline on that graph is in one sense "not good." One could also argue that anything below a net plus of 150k jobs per month is (in another sense) "not good" since that is about the number needed to break even and make up for population growth.

A "good" is always a subjective claim made relative to something else. Always. When I said, with regard to this chart, that up was good and down was bad, I was clearly making a comparison between the months referenced on the chart. On this chart, when comparing months, down is bad, up is good, no exceptions.

Key point: The "up" is only good when compared to, in relation to, the down.

If you disagree with this then you are equivocating and referring to a "good" in some other sense. That's fine but it doesn't have anything to do with my claim."
User avatar
Betsy
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:02 am

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Betsy »

well, on a good note, I'm proud of him for coming to the forum and presenting his argument. Too bad he won't stay around to defend it, but there isn't much to argue. since we're talking about the number of people who have lost their jobs, obviously having fewer unemployed people is better than having more unemployed people. His argument would make sense if we were talking about, say, apples. If I have 10,000 less apples than zero apples, obviously that's no better than having 70,000 less apples than zero apples. but we're talking about people having jobs, so I'm on Darrel's side with this one.

I certainly hope he'll come back and present opposing arguments for other topics, though.
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Savonarola »

Mike Radigan wrote:You can read this stuff for yourself over there. I'm not going to reply here anymore. Have a good day!
Toodles, Mike. It's a shame that you were treated so terribly badly here, rife with the namecalling and blatant lying that you never, ever see in comments on Big Dog's blog. :roll:

Seriously, Mike: You showed up, posted your gripe, had it dismantled with nary a personal attack, objected to the fact that you and Darrel actually agree upon nearly every detail, then stomped away madly as if you had been wronged.

I'd call you a big, whiny baby, but then I'd have to come back and moderate my own post.
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Doug »

Darrel wrote:And then Mike tucks tail and runs away.
Sure. There are no balls to get in the way of his tail-tuck.

Post and run. A sure sign of Mike's sneaking suspicion that he hasn't got a case...
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by L.Wood »

.

Very good demonstration and such a rare thing these days, especially from one from the irrational side of life. You can see what happens when a Mike , who I find very symbolic of
current rwing ethos, comes up against facts and rationality. They scurry away to hide in a Limbaugh like cocoon of their own creation thinking perhaps there is safety in living amongst
others who have the same affliction.

.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
User avatar
RobertMadewell
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:00 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Harrison, Arkansas
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by RobertMadewell »

I think whoever designed the graph doesn't understand negative numbers. -10,000 lost jobs are actually 10,000 new jobs. I know that's not the intention of the graph, but it shows new jobs under the bush administration and those jobs decreasing during Obama's. I think a heading needs to be changed.
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Doug »

RobertMadewell wrote:I think whoever designed the graph doesn't understand negative numbers. -10,000 lost jobs are actually 10,000 new jobs.
DOUG
The numbers under the baseline are not negative, they are losses. The numbers on the left indicate how many jobs were lost. So -80,000 means a loss of 80,000, not the negation of a loss. It is not two negative numbers combined to make a positive.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Savonarola »

Doug wrote:
RobertMadewell wrote:I think whoever designed the graph doesn't understand negative numbers. -10,000 lost jobs are actually 10,000 new jobs.
DOUG
The numbers under the baseline are not negative, they are losses. The numbers on the left indicate how many jobs were lost. So -80,000 means a loss of 80,000, not the negation of a loss.
We know what it means, but Robert is correct. The y-axis is labeled "jobs lost," so the value on that axis should be the number of jobs lost. Instead, the axis is showing change in number of jobs, or "jobs gained." (-10000 jobs gained means 10000 jobs lost.)
User avatar
RobertMadewell
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:00 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Harrison, Arkansas
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by RobertMadewell »

Thanks Sav,
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Doug »

Savonarola wrote:We know what it means, but Robert is correct. The y-axis is labeled "jobs lost," so the value on that axis should be the number of jobs lost. Instead, the axis is showing change in number of jobs, or "jobs gained." (-10000 jobs gained means 10000 jobs lost.)
DOUG writes:
Yes, the chart is poorly labeled. But a lack of jobs gained is NOT a net job loss. If jobs stay the same, we can say that 10,000 jobs were not gained, but that does not mean that 10,000 jobs were lost.

For any amount of present jobs X, not adding 10,000 =\= (X - 10,000)
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Savonarola »

Doug wrote:But a lack of jobs gained is NOT a net job loss.
Right, a lack of jobs gained is a lack of jobs lost in terms of absolute value, which is how graphs like this one work.
Doug wrote:If jobs stay the same, we can say that 10,000 jobs were not gained, but that does not mean that 10,000 jobs were lost.
Certainly true, but not contradictory to any of my points. If jobs stay the same, we can indeed say that 10,000 jobs were not gained. That's because 0 jobs were gained. If jobs stay the same, then 0 jobs were lost, too. Change is 0.
Doug wrote:For any amount of present jobs X, not adding 10,000 =\= (X - 10,000)
Where did I say that it was?
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Doug »

Savonarola wrote:
Doug wrote:For any amount of present jobs X, not adding 10,000 =\= (X - 10,000)
Where did I say that it was?
You wrote:
(-10000 jobs gained means 10000 jobs lost.)

That appears to say that "there were not 10000 jobs gained." Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Savonarola »

Doug wrote:You wrote:
(-10000 jobs gained means 10000 jobs lost.)

That appears to say that "there were not 10000 jobs gained." Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.
The latter. It means that there were negative ten thousand jobs gained. -10000 jobs gained means 10000 jobs lost in the same way that -5 meters northward means +5 meters southward.

In math, a negative negative is a positive in the same way that a negated negative in philosophy is a positive, but they are not equivalent: "not 10000 jobs gained" in philosophy doesn't mean "negative 10000 jobs gained."
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: An argument with Darrel

Post by Doug »

Savonarola wrote:In math, a negative negative is a positive in the same way that a negated negative in philosophy is a positive, but they are not equivalent: "not 10000 jobs gained" in philosophy doesn't mean "negative 10000 jobs gained."
DOUG
In philosophy, we distinguish between different types of negation, so "a negated negative in philosophy is a positive" is not always the case.

For example, to say "'The present king of France has no hair' is not true" does not mean that that one is asserting that there is a present king of France who has hair. Bertrand Russell gave a series of lectures on this topic. I could go on and on...
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
Post Reply