Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The only unemployment number you quoted related to Krugman's claim -- the one about the mid-1990s. What we're all talking about is numbers from the last few months. You're debunking a claim that Krugman made and that no one here -- not S_A_M, not skeks, not me -- has repeated. So, debunk away, but don't pretend that you're talking about what the rest of us are. Meanwhile, S_A_M responded to your post about discouraged workers with some nice math, and I gave you statistics about the proportion of people in the work force, but you are ignoring both of us.
|
Actually, I thought his point was that the 9.7% number in your cite was the same 9.7% number incorrectly described by Krugman as showing the worst job market in 20 years (other than during the prior administration), and there was some discussion of how that 9.7% number was actually generated (which discussion was completely inadequate in both of your quotes). Though the "compare apples and apples" comment should apply, strictly on the basis of the quotes provided, to the Krugman statement only (your article's comparison to the 1990s sounds possibly/probably correct).
Suffice it to say: I hate economic journalism, they think they can get away with these vague, sloppy descriptions of what they are calculating because they think, sadly often rightly, that most americans can't do math and have no concept of statistically valid sampling or calculation methods. Statistics can only "lie" if you conceal the math and/or play fast-ones with your sampling data - case in point: why, exactly, should anyone be alarmed that the "looking for work 15 wks +" number is higher at the end of a recession than at the end of a huge job boom, and why wasn't THAT number compared to the early 1990s (end of recession) data, too? 95% of this stuff is mushy bullshit, and trying to engage it at all is like discussing Proust with a toddler.
Threaded Mode