Centrism'sVoice
Seceded from USMB
- Jul 8, 2009
- 813
- 58
- 28
Okay, I'll put that to the test, then.I simply pointed out your error. I put out the facts, that's it. I have no clue why you refuse to even acknowledge that. I'm willing to have a serious discussion, but you seem more interested in tap-dancing around a basic error.So please clarify: do you want to have a serious discussion of this topic, or do you just want to win?
First, I'll admit that, having read the technical explanation page you cited, I was mistaken to claim that the BLS stats cover "only" those who apply for or receive benefits. That being said, their analysis still suggests to me that the statistics in practice cover MOSTLY such people. I have a number of reasons on which to base this suspicion.
1. The page claims the numbers are based on a survey, but it's not clear how often this survey is conducted. It appears that it's no more than once per quarter, yet the statistics are revised more often. As a practical matter, I don't see how the BLS can keep up-to-date without the cooperation of state employment departments. Aside from which, I've never even heard of anyone being contacted by the BLS for such a survey: this suggests an extremely small sample size.
2. There are several major flaws in the survey methodology, as they admit to on the website. Two significant examples include the nonsampling error and the relatively low level of statistical confidence (90 percent is low when it comes to making major strategic or policy decisions).
3. It would be impossible for the federal government to grant unemployment insurance extensions without the cooperation of the states. For the BLS not to use this data would be grossly negligent.