|
No, I get your overall point. I don't even disagree with it.
That said, you're the one who said "A and B therefore C" where A is murky (in that I could pick a different set of equally true numbers that present a different picture of employment growth), B is subjective (in that you're just deciding on your own whether an 18% increase is "slight" and whether the baseline was a proper size and you've now kind of compromised yourself by clarifying that the 17% growth was not over 30 years but over two years), and C doesn't necessarily follow from A and B even if taken as true as you present them.
I know you feel that your logic is irrelevant if your conclusion is satisfying (and so any push back is just "picking apart the details", I just disagree. Your conclusion is irrelevant, even if correct, if your logic is unsatisfying. YMMV.
|