Maybe Rick's plan is a mandated national day of prayer for God to fix the economy, because we know it worked in his home state.

The actual numbers on Texas' jobs: http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by luxury_pie.

Further evidence that Republicans can't be called Republicans anymore, they MUST be called Anti-Democrats

They are against _anything_ the Democrats are for...even things that are traditionally conservative concepts.

>> ^Morganth:

The actual numbers on Texas' jobs: http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590


Thank you for a textbook example of how to lie repeatedly with statistics.

For brevity's sake, just look at the first four graphs. Note that the Y-axis in the first is the raw, numeric number of jobs in Texas. Then look at graph number four showing population growth.

Chart 4 invalidates entirely the point Chart 1 is trying to make, but the surrounding text pretends it amplifies it.

More here: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/17/297556/report-texas-ranks-dead-last-in-total-job-creation-accounting-for-labor-force-growth/

I want Rick Perry nowhere near the executive branch of the United States. That said, the politicalmathblog post comes across as fairly even handed. The point of the first 4 graphs is to explain how a state can grow a bunch of jobs but still have a high unemployment rate. His supposition that Texas is the victim of it's own success is the only controversial statement in that section, and he clearly labels it as his own opinion.

Meanwhile your think progress article seems completely irrelevant. Since it doesn't normalize for population size, their graph is naturally going to have longer bars for larger states, so calling someone the "worst" is basically just saying, "its bar goes in the wrong direction and it's a big state." But do the directions of these bars even mean anything? Look at the "best" state on the list. It's Michigan. Is Michigan's economy doing well lately? This makes me believe that this measurement has little to do with the actual economic health of a state.

Maybe some smarty pants economist can come explain why I should care about that chart, but for now I don't, and I don't think you should either.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Morganth:
The actual numbers on Texas' jobs: http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

Thank you for a textbook example of how to lie repeatedly with statistics.
For brevity's sake, just look at the first four graphs. Note that the Y-axis in the first is the raw, numeric number of jobs in Texas. Then look at graph number four showing population growth.
Chart 4 invalidates entirely the point Chart 1 is trying to make, but the surrounding text pretends it amplifies it.
More here: http:/
/thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/17/297556/report-texas-ranks-dead-last-in-total-job-creation-accounting-for-labor-force-growth/

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

[T]he politicalmathblog post comes across as fairly even handed. The point of the first 4 graphs is to explain how a state can grow a bunch of jobs but still have a high unemployment rate.

Read what he's saying about the charts. Each chart is meant to say "Rick Perry's job creation in Texas is awesome!" Chart 1 is raw jobs, unadjusted for population growth, even according to him. Rather than saying "hmm, I wonder if that actually means the jobs situation has improved when you look at population," instead he says:

In a "normal" employment data set, we can easily look at it and say "Yep, that's where the recession happened. Sucks to be us." But not with Texas. With Texas, we say "Damn. Looks like they've recovered already."

People are flocking to Texas in massive numbers. This is speculative, but it *seems* that people are moving to Texas looking for jobs rather than moving to Texas for a job they already have lined up. This would explain why Texas is adding jobs faster than any other state but still has a relatively high unemployment rate.