As everyone knows, there is quite a bit of tension at my work ever since it was 'discovered' that I am supporting Bush. I'm getting emails from my boss' boss who happens to sit in the office directly across from my cube. He sent me an email the other day
Challenger says more than 724-thousand job cuts have been announced so far this year.
At the same time, employers revealed only 16-thousand new job openings, according to the Challenger report.
Let's hear the spin on this one :}
The problem is, I went ahead and asked someone who wrote a book on economics about this and Dale Franks (Q and O blogger) replied with the following
There are a couple of problems with the CGC. First, it's not a count of anything real. It's just a count of the number of layoffs that companies are announcing in the media. CGC doesn't know whether those layoffs actually take place, nor do they count in-company transfers or new hiring. A compnay could announce layoff of 5,000 people from Division A, transfer all of them to Division B, and as far as the CGC knows, that's 5,000 people out of work, when, in reality, they are all still working full-time for the same company, in a different division. All the CGC people do, really, is search through media sources for layoff anouncements, and add up the numbers. At best that's nothing more than a broad gauge of future sentiment, and briefing.com and thestreet.com don't even include the CGC on their economic calendars.
Additionally, the CGC isn't seasonally adjusted. Sep-Jan are historically times when layoffs increase, so if you see a jump in the CGC during the fall and winter, it doesn't really tell you all that much.
And, of course, the CGC doesn't really tell you why compnaies are planning these layoffs. Kodak just announced they were laying of 15,000 people, because the rise in digital photography is reducing the demand for film. But what can we do about that? Not much. Those people are losing their jobs because technology is moving into a new area, and nobody needs to buy film anymore. It's hard to see what that tells us about the economy as a whole, though.
In essence, the CGC does exactly what it's designed to do, which is to get Challenger, Gray and Christmas mentioned in the media, for free, on a regular basis. It does that very well.
So here is the problem. Dale explains what these numbers do or do not signify and it's a pretty honest look at the numbers my boss thinks should be pinned on Bush. In essence, it's a refutation of his 'facts' which really are just a bunch of numbers he doesn't understand but look bad for the man he hates so much.
Now, my dilemma is this. Should I send him Dale's information? Information from a true economist who has more knowledge about the subject should carry enough weight, shouldn't it?
What I am battling with is if I would do so because I want him to see the light (and it's more than likely he'll just shut his eyes and ignore this or simply move the goal posts) or if I'm really just trying to get the last word in. Part of me just wants to ignore the emails because, well, after Dale's information and a little bit of research have proven to me the facts and I have made up my own mind about it and that should be that. Deep inside I actually am satisfied that I did a little research and found answers.
The other part of me wants to prove that I am not someone who bases his opinions on a news clip here and there and that trying to argue a point with me isn't going to be an easy task since I am more than willing to do a little research to find the truth (proving me right or wrong). Part of me wants to do so because already I've fended off another person at work when I wouldn't back down on what I believed in and ended up putting him in a corner trying to defend the indefensible (this guy asked me to prove anything was a lie in F9/11 and when I did, he changed the subject and stopped talking politics to me).
The third part of me says "f*ck it, let's go get a butterscotch sundae".
Any help is appreciated.
rolled out on
Thursday, October 07, 2004 9:46 PM