Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Suffice it to say: I hate economic journalism, they think they can get away with these vague, sloppy descriptions of what they are calculating because they think, sadly often rightly, that most americans can't do math and have no concept of statistically valid sampling or calculation methods. Statistics can only "lie" if you conceal the math and/or play fast-ones with your sampling data - case in point: why, exactly, should anyone be alarmed that the "looking for work 15 wks +" number is higher at the end of a recession than at the end of a huge job boom, and why wasn't THAT number compared to the early 1990s (end of recession) data, too? 95% of this stuff is mushy bullshit, and trying to engage it at all is like discussing Proust with a toddler.
|
Which is a non-performance art way of saying what I was saying.
the argument was made that since a guess at new jobs was too low to justify the guess at the drop in unemployment, that it made sense to guess that tons of people got discouraged. It is all guess work- not a science justifying the strength you are bringing to this argument.
