Now on ScienceBlogs: The death of Tetrapod Zoology

Enter to Win

Mike the Mad Biologist

Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology

Search

Profile

ntm4-30-7 Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology. Comment policy: say what you want, but back it up with an email address. I don't like anonymous trolls.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Science Links

« Saturday Sermon: "Abortion Is a Blessing" | Main | The Future of Sequencing at NHGRI Report: The Human Microbiome »

Unemployment Figures: Hooray for the Second Derivative?

Category: EconomicsMathematics
Posted on: June 7, 2009 10:08 AM, by Mike

Unnamed "economists" appear to claiming a light at the end of the economic tunnel because the U.S. economy 'only' lost 345,000 jobs last month, and the increase in unemployment is slowing.

We have been reduced to cheering on the second derivative.

For those of you whose math is rusty, the first derivative is the change in unemployment. A negative number is actually a good thing, since it means unemployment has dropped. The second derivative measures how large the change in unemployment is.

These "green shoots" still mean that unemployment is rising, but it's not rising as quickly. I've heard of turning a frown upside down, but this is ridiculous. The broad rate of unemployment ('U6') could easiily reach twenty percent. And with a big surge in ARM recasts coming, I'm afraid this modest increase is a blip, not a good sign.

Brad DeLong is right: we need another stimulus package.

Note: Umemployment figures are not the same as job-losses. The former is reported by workers, the latter by business owners. The pattern for both, right now, is similar, however.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/111803

Comments

1

Derivatives helped create this financial mess so why not celebrate 'em?

Posted by: Matt Platte | June 7, 2009 11:22 AM

2

It is pointed out on TV that the jobless rate for people with Bachelors degrees is @ 4.9%, essentially full employment. Yes, education is good.

Since the early 80's, females have dominated the ranks of those receiving Bachelors; even Masters in recent years. This is particuloarly true of the classical minority groups. This suggests the total pool of educated people in the USA is majority female, or will soon be so. What are the implications of this?

Posted by: Jim Thomerson | June 7, 2009 11:27 AM

3

This suggests the total pool of educated people in the USA is majority female, or will soon be so. What are the implications of this?

Get used to saying, "Yes, Ma'am."

As in, "I have a master's degree, and you have a GED; so you dig the ditch, and I will write the report. Get it?"

"Yes, Ma'am!"

And could you smile when you say it, please?

Posted by: yogi-one | June 7, 2009 9:14 PM

4

Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com pointed out the second derivative issue a month ago. And he had a much more detailed analysis. See: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/horray-second-derivative-of.html

Posted by: Jeff | June 13, 2009 3:14 PM

5

[url=http://www.findnike.com]Jordan Shoes[/url] this is i want to say...

Posted by: jordan shoes | July 25, 2009 1:35 AM

6

This is particuloarly true of the classical minority groups. This suggests the total pool of educated people in the USA is majority female, or will soon be so.

Posted by: jordan 6 rings | September 1, 2009 4:26 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Collective Imagination
Enter to win the daily giveaway
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.