| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
Please... |
| Date Posted: |
08/23/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
we can agree to disagree john.
did you read the stories today about the
new "labor laws" re: overtime? everyone
agrees -- these new, sweeping
laws are "unclear." see the trend?
you are saying that the BLS data is correct,
i'm saying it is not. 60,000 households
would be significant if they were polled at
random. this is a flaw.
as you read the story in question, you also
see that i use both BLS stats, as well as
the LAT's stats. and it is up to the reader
to weigh both sides. the european union
uses actual numbers of people -- they are
not (only a) sampling.
listing the "los angeles times" as a publication
is sufficient enough for a news story as
would be the AP, or the BBC. the LAT is
the only major publication at this point in
time keeping track of the number of unemployed.
for the simple version (7 month example)
in the story, the data was taken directly
from BLS :-) the number of employed,
the number who lost jobs, and the number who
found jobs. magically (or not) we start with
100 people and end with 88 employed, but
the unemployment rate falls back to 4 percent
after a high of 6 percent during the period
used.
no matter how much one wants to believe the feds... BLS data is
not fully baked. we are not in a booming
economy my friend despite the election year
rhetoric. |
| Message: |
??we can agree to disagree john.??
We aren??t disagreeing about anything. You simply refuse to admit you had/have no clue about what you are talking about when you wrote your ??article??.
??you are saying that the BLS data is correct,
i'm saying it is not. 60,000 households
would be significant if they were polled at
random. this is a flaw.??
They are polled at random. Did you read their website? I don??t understand why you refuse to do basic research on something you care enough about to write ??articles?? about. Perhaps it??s because if you did read how they get the unemployment rate you couldn??t simply brush it off without knowing you were lying.
??as you read the story in question, you also
see that i use both BLS stats, as well as
the LAT's stats. and it is up to the reader
to weigh both sides. the european union
uses actual numbers of people -- they are
not (only a) sampling. ??
I can??t read the story in question you refuse to cite (post a link) to anything you are talking about. You just pull things out of your ass and expect people to accept it as fact.
??the LAT is the only major publication at this point in
time keeping track of the number of unemployed.??
How about the OECD publications which uses the same method across each country?
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/47/2483871.xls
I hate to break it to you but no major country uses ??actual numbers of people??. Here is a link to the French agency that collects their unemployment data:
http://www.insee.fr/en/ffc/Liste_theme.asp?theme_id=3&first_doc=41&simple=&coll=0&num_pub=&titre=&deb_mois=&deb_annee=&fin_mois=&fin_annee=&auteur=&mot_cle=
Here you can read about their ??Employment Survey?? (and how it's conducted even less often then in the US) but I??m sure this is just an election year ploy by Bush to keep himself in power, right? I would look up the links for other EU members but something tells me you wouldn??t read them because you don??t care about the truth only spewing what you think is right.
??for the simple version (7 month example)
in the story, the data was taken directly
from BLS :-)??
Please post a link to this. Make sure it explains how people are no longer counted as unemployed because they no longer receive unemployment benefits.
??no matter how much one wants to believe the feds... BLS data is
not fully baked. we are not in a booming
economy my friend despite the election year
rhetoric.??
Can you post anything that suggests that the BLS is doing anything different right now then it has since it started collecting data? Or is doing anything diffrent then INSEE their French counterparts?
|
|
