There's no point in answering this. Too much trouble with communication. On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 13:42 -0700, Jim Devine wrote: >> It's not the only number. the establishment survey's employment >> numbers get a lot of press, since it seems to be a better gauge of the >> employment situation than the official unemployment rate. These days, >> the number of discouraged workers has also gotten more attention than >> in the past. This seems partly a result of Greenspan. > > I provided facts, I asked questions: > > - why 60% difference for OECD normalized unemployment with same > employment in men 25-54 USA vs France at the same date? > - why 30% difference for unemployment with same employment in men 25-54 > USA vs USA some years ago? > > You have an easy way to be constructive here: where are the papers > discussing those striking data point? (vs the number of papers > using unemployment within country or between countries) > >> In the household survey, the employment numbers are based on the >> answers given by those questioned. So they are just as (un)reliable as >> those about unemployment (as defined officially). The employment >> numbers from the establishment survey may be better, but the same >> worker can be counted twice or more as employed (because he or she >> moonlights). > > So we have two mostly independant ways to measure employment, and only > one way to measure unemployment. What does that fact says? > >> Population numbers tend to miss the homeless, undocumented workers, >> and the like. They are estimates. I don't think monthly numbers exist >> for the population, either. Rather, what we see are interpolations. > > Nice strawman, I never said the confidence interval was zero > for population or employment or income. > > You didn't answer about measuring human psychology vs mere existence. > Which one is likely to be more accurate? > >> > Your paragraph is in the category "total joke". >> >> Your stooping to insult reflects badly on you, not me. You should sit >> down and take a stress pill, Dave. > > It must be my hard science background, I have far too much respect for > facts and measures. > > Laurent > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
-- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
