Like many liberals and enviromental activists you quote ESTIMATES to support your beliefs. When I was in engineering school we referred to this as a SWAG. (Stupid Wild Assed Guess to those on the liberal arts side of campus)
Can you folks read the linked story. The CBO uses the term "estimates."
It produces estimates.
The story title is:
From the Congressional Budget Office: Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from January 2010 Through March 2010
To Run R; A headline gives a snapshot. The wording "At A Minimum," suggests that it is a ballpark figure. The headline is not misleading. You are picking nits where none are.
For those of you interested in this back-and-forth: Here are the estimates {on the low side, lest anyone think I was over-emphazing the results) in the CBO report referenced in the blog item and headline:
"Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise.æ
Like many liberals and enviromental activists you quote ESTIMATES to support your beliefs. When I was in engineering school we referred to this as a SWAG. (Stupid Wild Assed Guess to those on the liberal arts side of campus)
ReplyDeleteA short post is meant to get a reader interested in the link. It's the same as a headline.
ReplyDeleteTry not to stumble over your slide rule when you walk away from the computer.
Uh huh. A wild ass guess is as good as a fact.
ReplyDeleteSounds like creating jobs and global warming share the same scientific measure.
And don’t forget to point out that it continues to be “saved or created.”
Keynes, East Anglia – tomato, to-mato.
Can you folks read the linked story. The CBO uses the term "estimates."
ReplyDeleteIt produces estimates.
The story title is:
From the Congressional Budget Office: Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from January 2010 Through March 2010
Yeah, and according to the Feds the unemployment rate will never ever officially go over 10%, no matter how high the rate really is.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as that would be an inconvenient truth.
And anyone who seriously believes a million jobs were created by the "Stimulus" is either a fool, or is deluding themselves.
Anon Jim - - Pretty arrogant comment.
ReplyDeleteNo James, it's not arrogant. Probably it is a good ESTIMATE.
ReplyDeleteFunny to see these bumpkins comment about econometric methods.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, the estimates are based on regression models used in modern economic analysis.
FYI these estimates are provided at a 95% confidence level, the standard in economics.
Unless you give specfic criticisms about the statistical model, it's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about.
Read the report. If there's something specific in the model that doesn't make sense, I'd be interested.
JPK: "Read the report?' Those guys don't read. They react. Their gut tells them what's truthy.
ReplyDeleteThen why didn't your headline say 1 million ESTIMATED jobs, I read the article fine, your headline was misleading. (Imagine That)
ReplyDeleteTo Run R; A headline gives a snapshot. The wording "At A Minimum," suggests that it is a ballpark figure. The headline is not misleading. You are picking nits where none are.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you interested in this back-and-forth: Here are the estimates {on the low side, lest anyone think I was over-emphazing the results) in the CBO report referenced in the blog item and headline:
ReplyDelete"Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise.æ