Half a Million a week are still filing for Unemployment Insurance.

[The Rabbi]

Have you studied you biases?

Notice how you never present any empirical evidence for your rather dull and rhetorical, rather than empirical, conclusions?

The empirical evidence for this thread would require references to academic journals that describe the data flaws in the survey data. Those journal articles do not exist. Whilst plucking out make-believe information might be a joy for some, its not something that I could tolerate

Which you do not have because you are not concerned with the empirical, you are concerned with some of the worst prose, the double speak 'I will jargon you into submission idiot shit', I have ever read.

You are pretending to think.

If I were you I would look up Socrates.

He can save you.

Some people resort to jargon to cover up their lack of thinking skills. I stuck Limey's ass on iggy after he could not defend his own opinion with plain language. It is a dead giveaway.

 

[pinqy]

Now to the larger question, why is it different University faculties or economic think tanks can review a supposedly objective economic study, or macro data and come up with diametrically opposed viewpoints on what it means?

You're talking about 2 seperate things. The research and methodology itself can be empirical and objective (as are the US Labor Force Statistics), but the interpretation of the results is another matter entirely. You'll note that BLS releases the figures, but does not comment on what they mean beyond a pure statistical analysis.

There's a huge difference between objectivity of statistical methodology and collection and interpretation of the implications.

Now, if you're going to claim bias or agenda for the Labor Force methodology I'm interested in what you think they are and why, keeping in mind that all changes have been vigorously debated for years before anything is done.