| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
1 of 2 |
| Date Posted: |
08/25/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
??france (has used) a 35 hour work week.??
Yes, this does help to explain unemployment in France compared to the US. The labor laws in much of Europe are the exact reason why they have a higher unemployment rate. Do me a favor and take an intro to macroeconomics class.
??no survey...accurate? paint an equal picture of the entire
economy? enough to say everyone is back to work??
Yes, it does. And no it doesn??t say that everyone is back to work, see above.
??what you are saying is that 60,000 (if indeed we buy that higher number is consistent, BLS does not
confirm consistency only estimates ) is enough of a sample out of all households to accurately
gauge the unemployment rate. 60 / 105000??
That is exactly what I??m saying. I would give you the statistical equation to calculate the error rate for a sample size of that large (I??m sure it??s also on BLS somewhere) but I doubt you would be able to see beyond what you want to see.
??fair to apply the same estimates to our GNP? trade deficit? military spending with contracting
service companies? your ID says "banker" is this is how banking business works today, by
estimating one or two accounts for all???
Absolutely. The use of statistics such as this is a prerequisite for any modern job in high finance (I??m not a commercial banker??). Trillions of dollars are traded each day in the world??s financial markets based on statistics/econometrics/etc. To attempt to plug in all the economic data that I would like an exact numbers for would take more computing power then the human race has created and probably will in my life time
I didn??t read through this post so if there are sentences that don??t make sense please let me know and I??ll clarify.
|
| Message: |
lets not mix political messages with the stats... bush is saying
'everyone' is going back to work / finding jobs... not BLS. i'm
saying that when you look at BLS stats, it is supporting his
claim without telling the whole story. and for the record... BLS
did not support that clinton 'put everyone' to work either, for
it was just as difficult to find a professional job during clinton
as it is today. why bush doesn't say that, escapes me....
onto counting...
think of this as an inventory tracking system, product comes
in, product sits on shelf, product goes out either as sale or
damaged goods. "we" are the product when we rec'v a
SS#. we sit on the shelf as we (work) earn money. no
question that the majority will stay on the shelf for the
duration of their career and leave at retirement / death.
we only want to know about the products (the minority) which
leave the shelf as damaged goods... (lay off or disability) and
how that product returns for future sale.
i've attended 4 universities in my lifetime and all 4 use
SS# as the student ID. if all universities practiced this, we'd
have student data and know whether or not they are in school
full-time/ part-time or less.
that leaves the 'non-students' to measure...
>layoff -- not a choice, and is my greatest concern in the usa.
certainly s/he qualifies for unemployment benefits, that is
tracked for 26 weeks. that person also deserves more
assistance and retraining the others do not - personal
judgment call...
>fired -- really, by choice when you think of it. that employee
won't qualify (depends) for unemployment and as long as
s/he looks for a new job must be counted.
>leave -- by choice. this person decides not to work, and
therefore is not counted in any data, including the 'potential'
workforce.
>retired -- by choice/age, out of the picture.
>"discouraged".... there is no model for this, and i don't
think is should be part of the equation -- life is discouraging,
we can all assume every one of is just plain discouraged
for most of the time.
CONTD
|
|
