Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (39182)	10/5/2003 11:21:36 AM
From: Joe S Pack	Respond to of 74559

Ramsey, If you look at how that survey is conducted, who participated, why LBS does n't want to reveal whom they include as part of the survey and what parameters are used to select the sample may provide some idea as to how these numbers are estimated. (Here is the actual report, bls.gov look at Table A to get an idea without spin and counter-spin. First 4 rows provide a summary.) bls.gov Some idea of what this administration tried to cut the funding for the survey Message 19021136 And then restored. Message 19021171 Funding for the Mass Layoff Statistics (MLS) program has been restored, effective with the President's signing of the Omnibus Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2003. The MLS program had been discontinued on December 31, 2002, due to lack of funding. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) intends to continue both the monthly and quarterly mass layoff statistics time series from the point of interruption. The last monthly release was Mass Layoffs in November 2002, and the last quarterly release was Extended Mass Layoffs in Third Quarter 2002. It is expected that the MLS program will return to its regular publication schedule during Spring 2003. The MLS program collects reports on mass layoff actions that result in workers being separated from their jobs. Monthly mass layoff numbers are from establishments which have at least 50 initial claims for unemployment insurance (UI) filed against them during a 5-week period. Extended mass layoff numbers (released quarterly) are from a subset of such establishments--those where the employer indicates that 50 or more people were separated from their jobs for at least 31 days.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (39182)	10/5/2003 11:45:36 AM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 74559

What a refreshingly intelligent post. Thank you. Dumb farkology is the name of game unfortunately. You have to stick a cell phone to your ear, fart about on a computer, and get nowhere to impress people these days. No chance ever would the government hire me as a statistician -g-

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (39182)	10/10/2003 1:17:36 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74559

In this day and age, there is absolutely no reason why, especially the jobless claims, cannot be actual to the last guy who walked in to the unemployment office Friday pm in Hawaii (that being the latest time zone for US). Many unemployed don't ever show up in an unemployment office. They do know the exact number of jobless claims (within a small margin of error) but this is not what defines unemployment. To understand why this is so all you have to do is ask yourself how it is that you count someone in the ranks of the unemployed, whose unemployment benefits have run out (they last six months) but is still looking for a job. Under the current definition of unemployment, this person is unemployed but would not come up in the stats for unemployment insurance claims. Using statistical sampling that person is counted. The unemployment rate differs significantly from those receiving unemployment insurance during times when jobs are harder to find. Also, how about self employed people whose business has failed who are looking for a job, they don't get unemployment insurance payments. How about a woman whose children are grown up and is looking for work? The list goes on and on of these kinds of situations. Statistical sampling is a very accurate method of counting over a large population when counting every instance in a timely fashion is impractical even though the public has little trust of it. What they don't know is how frequently it is employed in the hard science that the safety of their lives depends on! If you don't believe in the accuracy of statistical sampling you may not want to get blood work done or use prescription drugs, or drive a car or fly for that matter. Don't breathe the air because the EPA uses it to test the air and for Pete's sake don't drink the water. Here's a pretty good layman's explanation of the methods employed and the reasoning behind them. If you want to argue the validity of their model on a scientific basis you have to order the white paper detailing the method precisely, but I'll warn you, you better have a background in statistics to get through it: bls.gov