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 : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (4006)	1/2/2004 9:55:05 PM
From: eddieww	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4909

The important thing, in terms of usefulness to investors, is the self-consistency of the data series. If how the numbers are arrived at doesn't change over time, then having an idea of what is left out and what is included or massaged is as useful as govmt statistics will be, yes?

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (4006)	1/2/2004 11:53:22 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4909

In order to measure something and to have it be useful you have to agree about how you define it. Most of what I read are people making claims the number should be this or that without actually making a case for why certain groups should be included or excluded from the number. It makes sense to put forth an argument as to why the definition should be changed (believe me this has been argued extensively every which way since the government started keeping the numbers). As difficult as it is to believe, the definition has changed over the years with intent of making it more honest and more useful. Last time it was over-hauled was back in 1994. I doubt that this will be it's finally resting place because about every ten years or so one group or another attempts to change the way the thing is put together, mostly right before election time. At first blush it appears to be dishonest to exclude people who are now included in the group of discouraged workers or those that are considered "marginally attached to the work force" but which number is more useful, the number that includes those actively looking for a job or one that includes those that have for whatever reasons not looked for a job in over a year? The figure attempts to measure not only who isn't working but who actually wants a job and can't find one. Can you say that a person who has let a whole year go by without acting on that desire actually wants a job? They start looking like cousin Eddie whose been out of work for seven years but is interested in a management position. There are extensive statistics on self-employment. On the long term self-employment has trended down (as a percentage of the workforce) from it's all time peak back when most of us lived and worked on family farms but it spikes from time to time when jobs are difficult to get. Self-employed (as a sole proprietor) isn't the most tax advantaged entity so the modern figures may under-report it, especially now that it is so easy for an individual to set up a LLC, C or S corp. An interesting tidbit I read years ago in the WSJ (it may no longer be true) was that in the US citizens of Russian ancestry had the highest incidence of self employment of any of the various ethic groups studied. I'm betting you can guess why.