An argument with Darrel

[Mike Radigan]

Mike asks for feedback from someone with a background in math, but when I point out that whether the trend (delta-delta jobs) reverses is way less interesting than why and when, he doesn't pay attention.

Yes, we can realistically expect delta-jobs to max out, meaning that delta-delta-jobs will hit zero or go negative. But -- and read carefully and slowly, Mike (you can even follow along with your finger and say the words out loud if it helps) -- whether doesn't matter nearly as much as when or why. If the switch happens when delta-jobs is positive, then it's not so bad. If the switch happens because the number of jobs available meets the number of employable people, then that's not so bad.

Savonarola, pay attention. The argument was SOLELY if the trend had to reverse and you agree me me. I stated politics do influence how fast and how much the trend changes. But that was NEVER the argument, NEVER. Darrel stated the trend did not have to reverse. I argued it did. That was the entire argument, THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT. You agree with me.

[Dardedar]

All I ever argued was that the trend must change.

DAR
And your point is? Anyone notice that what Mike has "argued" keeps getting smaller and smaller? And more irrelevant.

MIKE "...the trend, as it stands now, must eventually go down.

DAR
And your point is? You have never bothered to show how this is relevant to the point of your thread or the chart in question.

MIKE
Does anyone here agree with Darrel that with a finite number of jobs and people that it doesn't have to eventually trend down?

DAR
You are confused. I never said it wouldn't eventually trend down. If you post the quote you are misremembering I'll gladly explain it to you again. Regardless, do try to show how this is relevant to the topic of the thread you started. Hint: it isn't. You are just continuing to distract and evade from conceding the error you made in the very beginning.

D.
------------------
Incidentally, it's not true that job creation has to eventually trend down (just as it's not true that a countries GDP has to trend down), but I won't confuse Mike with that hypothetical right now.

[Mike Radigan]

We were discussing the trend from going down to up and I stated it must eventually go up and you, Darrel, said it didn't. From an earlier post here:

Regarding the trend here is an exact cut and paste from his e-mail regarding the chart’s trend.

MK: The trend MUST eventually go up. It has to.>>

DAR
Nope. Doesn't.

[Dardedar]

Darrel stated the trend did not have to reverse.

DAR
Citation please.

MIKE
That was the entire argument, THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

DAR
That's the nice thing about having exchanges that are written down and preserved. Anyone can review this thread and see for themselves that your claim is not true. It's not even close to true.

MIKE to SAV
You agree with me.

DAR
On Bigdog's forum and as I referenced earlier in this thread Mike said that Doug's post regarding equivocation agreed with him. I told Mike that I would contact Doug and I would wager him, $1,000 to his ten spot, that Doug was not agreeing with him but rather pointing out his equivocation. Those were pretty good odds but curiously, Mike didn't go for it. Instead Mike admitted that he hadn't actually read Doug's post (maybe he said "read carefully") and didn't know what the word equivocation meant. Point being, when Mike says: "you agree with me" it should be considered in this context.

D.

[kwlyon]

We were discussing the trend from going down to up and I stated it must eventually go up and you, Darrel, said it didn't. From an earlier post here:

Regarding the trend here is an exact cut and paste from his e-mail regarding the chart’s trend.

MK: The trend MUST eventually go up. It has to.>>

DAR
Nope. Doesn't.

Dammit Mike...now you have changed your argument AGAIN! I see now why Darrel is rather short with you. Are you an idiot or are you being intentionally obtuse as you lack the character to simply admit you have no point.

[Mike Radigan]

I just gave you the citation, Darrel, your e-mail.

You guys just spin and deny. Whatever.

For the record my position is the trend must reverse. If it is going down it must eventually go up. And if it is going up and there is a finite number of jobs and people to fill them then it must eventually go down.

[Dardedar]

Regarding the trend here is an exact cut and paste from his e-mail regarding the chart’s trend.

DAR
Right, you are referencing an email from a different discussion, not something I posted here. Let's see how much context you provide with this particular digression. Oh, two words! Very nice.

MIKE quoting EMAIL exchange:
MK: The trend MUST eventually go up. It has to.>>

DAR
Nope. Doesn't.

DAR
Excellent. Mike is trying to back up a claim. Love it. We only get two words of context snatched out of a different discussion but hey, no problem, it's a start and it's enough.

So let's put on our thinking caps. Is it true, absolutely true, that "the trend MUST eventually go up."

Of course not.

It is possible, while not likely, that the trend could continue to worsen perpetually unto the complete demise and collapse of the USA. It's happened before, many times, and it'll probably happen again.

So it's not true that "the trend MUST eventually go up."

This is why I said, correctly, "Nope. Doesn't."

I already explained this to Mike in our email exchanges but he tends to remember when he thinks he has a gotcha while tending to completely forget the debunk of his gotcha. In contrast I think Mike will find that my gotchas tend to stick.

Keep digging Mike.

D.

[Mike Radigan]

Regarding the trend here is an exact cut and paste from his e-mail regarding the chart’s trend.

DAR
Right, you are referencing an email from a different discussion, not something I posted here. Let's see how much context you provide with this particular digression. Oh, two words! Very nice.

MIKE quoting EMAIL exchange:
MK: The trend MUST eventually go up. It has to.>>

DAR
Nope. Doesn't.

DAR
Excellent. Mike is trying to back up a claim. Love it. We only get two words of context snatched out of a different discussion but hey, no problem, it's a start and it's enough.

So let's put on our thinking caps. Is it true, absolutely true, that "the trend MUST eventually go up."

Of course not.

It is possible, while not likely, that the trend could continue to worsen perpetually unto the complete demise and collapse of the USA. It's happened before, many times, and it'll probably happen again.

So it's not true that "the trend MUST eventually go up."

This is why I said, correctly, "Nope. Doesn't."

I already explained this to Mike in our email exchanges but he tends to remember when he thinks he has a gotcha while tending to completely forget the debunk of his gotcha. In contrast I think Mike will find that my gotchas tend to stick.

Keep digging Mike.

D.

Gotcha, Darrel. The above is proof he doesn't understand it. Does anyone here agree with his post above? Anyone? Savonarola, do you agree with Darrel?

[Dardedar]

For the record my position is the trend must reverse.

DAR
And your point is? If you don't know what you point is, would you like me to help you assemble one?

(Mike doesn't like to respond directly to questions, this makes it difficult for him to learn new things).

This is a completely irrelevant rabbit trail but, for the record, you are strictly speaking wrong. I would say that within US history so far, this has been right. The trend goes up and down. But it doesn't follow that it must in the future. But let's pretend. Now show some relevance.

If it is going down it must eventually go up.

DAR
You are saying it is impossible for job loss to continue down and reach a maximum which could at the same time coincide with the demise of the US and thus the "end of the chart." For your claim to be true you need to show that this is impossible. Perhaps a little study of world history would be in order? I'm pretty sure we covered the decline and fall of civilizations in high school.

And if it is going up and there is a finite number of jobs and people to fill them then it must eventually go down.

DAR
Again, even if this were true, you don't even attempt to show any relevance. It's another silly rabbit trail and a claim that, strictly speaking, is not true. Considering the human penchant for reproduction, and the rather vastness of space, it is possible (though unlikely) that we do not have to have "a finite number of jobs."

But if you would like to pretend these claims are true, it's not too much to ask that you at least try to show some relevance. Get to the punchline so we can all have a good laugh (I know the punchline and am going to give it away if you don't hurry).

D.

[Mike Radigan]

Regarding the trend here is an exact cut and paste from his e-mail regarding the chart’s trend.

DAR
Right, you are referencing an email from a different discussion, not something I posted here. Let's see how much context you provide with this particular digression. Oh, two words! Very nice.

MIKE quoting EMAIL exchange:
MK: The trend MUST eventually go up. It has to.>>

DAR
Nope. Doesn't.

DAR
Excellent. Mike is trying to back up a claim. Love it. We only get two words of context snatched out of a different discussion but hey, no problem, it's a start and it's enough.

So let's put on our thinking caps. Is it true, absolutely true, that "the trend MUST eventually go up."

Of course not.

It is possible, while not likely, that the trend could continue to worsen perpetually unto the complete demise and collapse of the USA. It's happened before, many times, and it'll probably happen again.

So it's not true that "the trend MUST eventually go up."

This is why I said, correctly, "Nope. Doesn't."

I already explained this to Mike in our email exchanges but he tends to remember when he thinks he has a gotcha while tending to completely forget the debunk of his gotcha. In contrast I think Mike will find that my gotchas tend to stick.

Keep digging Mike.

D.

Gotcha, Darrel. The above is proof he doesn't understand it. Does anyone here agree with his post above? Anyone? Savonarola, do you agree with Darrel?

Again, does anyone here agree with his post above? Anyone? Savonarola, do you agree with Darrel?

[Savonarola]

Gotcha, Darrel. The above is proof he doesn't understand it. Does anyone here agree with his post above? Anyone? Savonarola, do you agree with Darrel?

Actually, I had the whole "terrible depression leading to the dissolving of the US and thus the dissolving of the ability to produce new numbers that could ever show a reversal of the [delta-delta-jobs] trend" scenario go through my head, too.

I think that that's more likely than a never-reversal of the upward (delta-delta-jobs) trend, but I also think that both of those scenarios are absurdly unlikely (while a Democrat is in office, anyway... and even Dubya got the stimulus through).

Frankly, I can't be sure what either of you is trying to say. I've asked both of you to be specific and clear, and I don't think that either of you have managed to do so.
It's entirely reasonable that delta-jobs won't go negative. If that is the trend of which you or Darrel speak, that's my input. I don't think it's reasonable that delta-delta jobs won't turn negative -- even temporarily -- which can be done without delta-jobs turning negative.

Mike, if you'd like to claim victory, let's lay out the terms of the victory.

Mike originally claimed that delta-delta-jobs must eventually switch from negative to positive. I consider that statement technically wrong but functionally correct. I also -- and let there be no ambiguity about it -- consider that statement to have nearly zero usefulness.
Mike then claimed that delta-delta-jobs must eventually switch from positive to negative. This is also technically wrong if we suppose entirely unrealistic events but functionally correct. I also -- and let there be no ambiguity about it -- consider that statement to have nearly zero usefulness.

Mike, let's not pretend that your only argument was that delta-delta jobs must switch from positive to negative. Before then you argued that delta-delta-jobs must switch from negative to positive. Before that you argued that delta-delta-jobs switching didn't mean as much as delta-jobs' negative value. To say that you've spent so much time on this thread and trading emails to argue whether a positive-to-negative switch in delta-delta-jobs is just sad, because the truth value of the claim is virtually irrelevant. Nobody who understands the math cares much about it.

So, congratulations, Mike. You are correct regarding a nearly meaningless factoid. What is more is that I clearly stated this in my first introduction of "delta-jobs" vs. "delta-delta-jobs" and then again in my response to your all-caps yelling. Why harp on this? Whether the delta-delta-jobs trend changes is not even remotely as important as why or when it changes. Why aren't you addressing those questions instead?

If it's the case that one or both of you are referring to delta-jobs, then no, nothing says that it must eventually turn negative. I don't think that either of you were talking about this one, but -- hell -- with the lack of specificity, there's no way to tell.

Again, does anyone here agree with his post above? Anyone? Savonarola, do you agree with Darrel?

Yes. I agree that this discussion is a complete rabbit trail and really does nothing productive. I typically don't lock threads, but I have to admit that I'm tempted because the argumentation (i.e. pissing contest) here has become so ridiculous.

[Dardedar]

While Mike rarely responds to direct questions, he does expect other people to respond to his.

There's a word for that.

[Mike Radigan]

Savonarola, thank you! I'm out of here.

[Savonarola]

Savonarola, thank you! I'm out of here.

I guess the victories of irrelevance are more important than the countless meaningful defeats.

[Dardedar]

Mike never did try to show the relevance this particular rabbit tail but I am guessing he was claiming that it got so bad under Bush it just had to naturally bounce under Obama?

Maybe conservatives could run on that theme.

"We'll make things soooo bad they'll just have to get better under the next guy!"

There's probably some truth to that.

[Doug]

Sat May 01, 2010 6:51 am
My only argument was the net job change is still bad as long as a period is below the x-axis, a net job loss for the period.

Sat May 08, 2010 1:58 pm
The argument was SOLELY if the trend had to reverse and you agree me me. [sic] I stated politics do influence how fast and how much the trend changes. But that was NEVER the argument, NEVER. Darrel stated the trend did not have to reverse. I argued it did. That was the entire argument, THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT. You agree with me.

So his "sole" argument was:

Obama is bad and you should never, never say that he did anything good. Reversing the job loss trend was not good. I mean, it was bad because it was still not good.

Uh, besides, job trends go up and down. They have to. So Obama can't take credit for it. It's just a coincidence that job creation started trending upward. Later it'll trend downward. It has to! So you can't say it's good because later it may be bad. Of course, it may "have to" only when a Republican gets in the oval office, but in that case it's not his fault...

[kwlyon]

Gotcha, Darrel. The above is proof he doesn't understand it. Does anyone here agree with his post above? Anyone? Savonarola, do you agree with Darrel?

I absolutely agree with him that there is no reason the exponential trend of job loss MUST turn around...Of course the US is not immune to utter economic collapse...didn't we talk about this?

[Betsy]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........................

[Dardedar]

Time to update the bikini job chart Mike was having such difficulty with:



"According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, President George W. Bush handed an economy over to President Barack Obama in January of 2009 that was losing private sector jobs at the rate of over 800,000 jobs from the previous month. In fact, Bush’s economy had been steadily (and alarmingly) losing private sector jobs almost every month for a year. In December 2008, we’d lost 667,000 private sector jobs more than we lost in November, and in November we lost over 700,000 private sector jobs than we lost in October 2008 (see chart below).

Since President Obama took office in January 2009 and Congress passed his stimulus package in February 2009, the U.S. has been losing less and less jobs each month, and since January 2010, we have steadily been adding private sector jobs, not losing them (see chart above)." LINK

[John Galt]

Question: Does the graph include government jobs, or only the real (private) jobs? Putting more people on the government payroll or govt subsidized jobs shouldn't count, since it is robbery+redistibution rather than productive work determined by what consumers want.