Charles Jannuzi wrote:
>>I've just done hours of online> >reading and as far as I can >>tell the
'official' US statistics >>on unemployment are largely >>determined by
analysis>>of data gathered from 60,000 selected households. If that doesn't
scare the >>shit out of you, then it ought (just the fact that you have to
be part of an
>>official household should set off the bullshit detectors). This then is
>>generalized to a population that now tops 280,000,000. I'll bet it's at
>>least as accurate as the registered voter rolls of the state of Florida.
Doug Henwood:
>60,000 households is a very >large sample. Why is that >scary? And
>what's with this "official >household" business? The >sample is
>constantly changing.
Well, no, 60,000 is not a sufficient sample of 280,000,000, which the gov't actually admits at its site. Hence the need for various fudge factors and other techniques (like regression analysis of historical data).
The problem with the household concept is it can be based on data that are over ten years old. And the US census, held every ten years, is famous among OECD nations for being the most unreliable.
>>Also, the idea that people who are not actively looking for employment
(not
>>going to a state employment security office since it doesn't help them to
>>find work and it is not giving them money to show up) as not being among
the
>>unemployed is obviously absurd.
>Not if you're measuring labor market slack, buddy.
>Doug
How unambitious. But I don't even think it measures that.
Charles J