|
a skewing to produce a discouraging picture
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
"To counter this last point, liberals have lately taken to adjusting the household survey numbers so as to get the "true" unemployment rate. One technique is to add to the number of unemployed those working part time for economic reasons, temporary workers and others marginally attached to the labor force. In November, these adjustments would have given us an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent instead of the official figure of 5.9 percent.
Princeton economist Paul Krugman claimed in a Dec. 30 New York Times column that the adjusted data "indicate the worst job market in 20 years." However, the BLS shows unemployment rates as high as 12.8 percent in the mid-1990s using the same methodology. Therefore, Krugman's claim is simply wrong factually."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20040106.shtml
|
Since no one here is relying on Krugman, you are now quoting himself so that you can then debunk him. Would you like a separate thread so you can do this without any interruptions?
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Point is, if we get to decide how we're going to count everything to best fit our ambitions and ideologies, we need some consistency.
|
The rest of us are discussing the so-called jobless recovery. Pardon me for returning to that subject, but you aren't disputing that employment is not doing as well as the markets, which is the point.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
