dagblog - Comments for "Cousin Eddie gives up search for work."

Aw, heck.

Oxy Mora — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:47:06 +0000

In reply to Okay. Maybe not. But kudos

Aw, heck.

Thanks, Flower. I know a guy

Oxy Mora — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:24:31 +0000

In reply to The penalty drops after you

Thanks, Flower. I know a guy who "retired" at 62. He's working in a field where he has a lifelong interest but where he definitely won't earn more than $13.5 K a year. He's healthy enough to go back doing something with higher pay when he's 66. Just curious about such a strategy.

Thanks, Flavius. I think what

Oxy Mora — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:19:48 +0000

In reply to At one point I was crunching

Thanks, Flavius. I think what Romney is saying to his campaign right now is that the polls are giving the "wrong answer". Indeed, in business Romney might have done the same thing as you to get the numbers he wanted. Unfortunately for him, the poll numbers right now can't be re-written.

At one point I was crunching

Flavius — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:19:47 +0000

In reply to Cousin Eddie gives up search for work.

At one point I was crunching numbers for a large company. We had about 50 subsidiaries. Each month they submitted a forecast of the year's profit- a well substantiated number- plus a list of more subjective "hard" or "soft" spots:things that might occur to change that profit up or down.Each had a specific number attached.

I accumulated them and calculated a number which was the net of the forecasts ,increased by the hard spots and decreased by the soft ones.Call it the "net- net".

One month several subs improved their forecasted profit.But at the same time they added enough soft spots so that the net-net dropped from the prior month.

I gave it to my boss who said "that's the wrong answer". By which he meant,not that I had added them up wrong, but that we knew that the overall situation had actually improved not gotten worse.So we changed the net-net by encouraging some of the subs to eliminate some of the least likely soft spots.

As I blogged elsewhere,it's intuitively obvious that a category such as the number of discouraged workers changes gradually. As, I think , Emma showed an analysis of those not looking for work showed it was made up of various sub sets only some of which can be described as discouraged workers.

For John King to say that the decrease from 8.3 to 8.l was due to an increase in discouraged workers was the wrong answer.

Thanks, Artsy. 'Preciate' ya!

Oxy Mora — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:18:34 +0000

In reply to This WSJ "Real Time

Thanks, Artsy. 'Preciate' ya!

Ha! Very funny. I seldom have

Oxy Mora — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:15:20 +0000

In reply to Speaking of, by happenstance,

Ha! Very funny. I seldom have the edge with Eddie, so I can't wait to needle him with that one.

Okay. Maybe not. But kudos

Ramona — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:46:57 +0000

In reply to Thanks, Ramona. Do you want

Okay. Maybe not. But kudos to you, again. You're one of the good guys.

Speaking of, by happenstance,

artappraiser — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:17:01 +0000

In reply to This WSJ "Real Time

Speaking of, by happenstance, I came across Newt using them for an agenda (it's also kinda funny how he needs so many tweets to get his message across):

Obama supporters have a unique opportunity to help the President. As we learned this morning unemployment rates decline people drop out
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) September 7, 2012

unemployment rate dropped as more people dropped out. 4 times as many dropped out as found jobs. Unemployment dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) September 7, 2012

If 3,500,000 Obama supporters will drop out of work force unemployment would drop to 6%. Imagine positive impact of getting to 6%.
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) September 7, 2012

So Obama's best reelection chance may come from the sacrifice of 3.5 million strong supporters leaving work force. This would be dedication.
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) September 7, 2012

So, you can tell Cousin Eddie that, according to Newt, he is helping Obama

This WSJ "Real Time

artappraiser — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:59:53 +0000

In reply to Cousin Eddie gives up search for work.

This WSJ "Real Time Economics" blog article notes that the number is also highly affected by the teenage group:

among people of prime working age — which the Labor Department defines as those between 25 and 54 years old — the labor force declined by a more modest 66,000. The biggest workforce drops were among teenagers 16-19 years old (down 209,000) and 20-24 year-olds (down 218,000). The older workforce, those over 55, grew by 274,000, continuing a long-running trend.

and goes into how complicated the teenage numbers can be depending upon things like the week of data collection (going back to school would mean dropping out of looking for work, and due to a quirk of the calendar data was collected a week later this year.)

P.S. I, for one, don't see what's wrong in learning that this particular piece of data doesn't tell us much about the unemployment situation in this country with any sort of accuracy, unless you really delve into it and study it in detail. And I don't see anything defense-able about using these numbers inaccurately. I don't think you should have to apologize for pointing out that they need to be taken with a grain of salt, and for trying to figure out who and what they include, and don't think that doing that should be judged as having an agenda. Rather, it's when people are trying to fudge figures (as cmaukonen quoted, "torture them,") rather than figure them out, is when one should look for an agenda.

Thanks, Qnon. People are in

Oxy Mora — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 01:19:25 +0000

In reply to I hear you, Oxy. The thing

Thanks, Qnon. People are in difficult situations, it was not my intention to minimize it. I myself was in that never never land of no health insurance in my late fifties and it was a very scary thing.