More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[bigrebnc1775]

Wait a second - you provided a link to government figures in order to demonstrate that your industry is fairing poorly...Yet you also claim the figures are a lie?

How convenient.

As I explained the numbers are much higher than reported. I may have used a government source but tack on higher numbers to that source if you want to see the true numbers.

I see, and you know the numbers are much higher than reported because your survey of a few guys in the bar is much more statistically rigorous than a monthly 60,000 person survey.

That makes good sense.

When you have been in the construction industry for as long as I have been you use your past experience to come up with the truth. Been here done that works pretty good. You look at the trends. You look at was and what is now.

 

[Full-Auto]

Well, bigreb's I made up.
But the others, go to the links with the formulas from my last post and do the math yourself. I was using 90% confidence (+-1.645SE)

So we very well could have an 11 percent unemployment rate.

Oh gawd. Please stop. Within the 90% confidence interval, we could "very well" have an unemployment rate of 8.4% or 8.8%.

Asswipe I suggest you look at those figures again have a swallow of coffee and take the shit out of your eyes.

8.6 minus 2.4 is


But no one would buy into that, would they?

 

[8537]

As I explained the numbers are much higher than reported. I may have used a government source but tack on higher numbers to that source if you want to see the true numbers.

I see, and you know the numbers are much higher than reported because your survey of a few guys in the bar is much more statistically rigorous than a monthly 60,000 person survey.

That makes good sense.

When you have been in the construction industry for as long as I have been you use your past experience to come up with the truth. Been here done that works pretty good. You look at the trends. You look at was and what is now.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[8537]

So we very well could have an 11 percent unemployment rate.

Oh gawd. Please stop. Within the 90% confidence interval, we could "very well" have an unemployment rate of 8.4% or 8.8%.

Asswipe I suggest you look at those figures again have a swallow of coffee and take the shit out of your eyes.

8.6 minus 2.4 is


But no one would buy into that, would they?

Hey asswipe, you're reading the wrong fucking numbers. Let's review, shall we?

Accuracy of the Unemployment rate: +-0.2 percentage points

The current reported unemployment rate is 8.6%
8.6 +.2 = 8.8
8.6 - .2 = 8.4
Apologies accepted.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see, and you know the numbers are much higher than reported because your survey of a few guys in the bar is much more statistically rigorous than a monthly 60,000 person survey.

That makes good sense.

When you have been in the construction industry for as long as I have been you use your past experience to come up with the truth. Been here done that works pretty good. You look at the trends. You look at was and what is now.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Old timers experience is the best method. Hey but you stick with those experts if you want to, by the way wasn't it the experts who got us into this mess in the first place?

 

[pinqy]

So we very well could have an 11 percent unemployment rate.

No, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is between 8.4% and 8.9% at 90% confidence. At 95% confidence it's the same (due to rounding errors). We definitely could not have anywhere near 11% (without changing definitions)

And we still drop people from the count even though no one talked to them.

Where do you get that idea from? First, a survey is not a count and the survey data is based directly on what the respondents say.

This accuracy is overwelming. Same guys that calced the result of the stim? 5 to 25 million

Nope. Not the same people. BLS would not comment on the effects of the stimulus or any other policy decision. Dr. Hall regularly refuses to answer such questions. I know one BLS employee who did detailed research into the effects of a policy change on the labor market and was barred from publishing it's againts BLS policy to comment on policy at all.

Ah, I see the problem...the 2.4% is the Unemployment LEVEL. Standard error for the UE level is 195,647 At 90% confidence that's 1.645 standard errors or 321,840 The reported level is 13,303,000 so 321,840/13,303,000 = .024

 

[pinqy]

When you have been in the construction industry for as long as I have been you use your past experience to come up with the truth. Been here done that works pretty good. You look at the trends. You look at was and what is now.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Old timers experience is the best method. Hey but you stick with those experts if you want to, by the way wasn't it the experts who got us into this mess in the first place?

Nope..sure wasn't. That was the poliiticians and policy people, not the statistics geeks.

 

[8537]

When you have been in the construction industry for as long as I have been you use your past experience to come up with the truth. Been here done that works pretty good. You look at the trends. You look at was and what is now.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Old timers experience is the best method.

I'll stick with educated statistical analysis.

 

[pinqy]

Would the government intentionally release false numbers?

Would the politicians? Of Course. Obama was spewing false and misleading numbers in his campaign. Would the statisticians and economists at a statistical agency intentionally release false numbers. Nope.