Zero net jobs doesn't mean what people say it does

There's been a lot of chatter on the right about how the economy created 'zero net jobs' for the first time in history.  The implication is that this means that things are particularly bad.  Which isn't true - zero net jobs simply means that the number of jobs created and destroyed were equal.  Most of the time net job growth is positive but during recessions it can go very negative as more jobs are destroyed than are created.

What we had was the statistical equivalent of a flipped quarter standing on edge.  An oddity but not anything particularly meaningful.

C'mon fellow righties, this Obama hepcat has way more shocking things we can make a big deal of than no net jobs.