Keynesian policies have failed to reduce unemployment here.

[Pr0d1gy]

eskimopy likes to include data that is irrelevant so I understand how the u3 number is preferable to him.()

The bottom line is that when people just say, "fuck it", and stop looking for work and the number that is supposed to represent employment levels actually improves then we need to seriously look at how this is calculated.

Or maybe we should take a much longer and more honest look at why people are giving up on the private sector.

Its not really Keynesian policy its the "Keynesian game"

Which means you read through Keynes's writings and look for justification for the policy you want to do and ignore its context.

Economics 101. A couple math classes focused on finance so you can statistically analyze risk and ignore the off chance something actually goes wrong despite common sense and you are set. Then pick through a bunch of his writings to justify various retarded economic experiments out of context.

http://xkcd.com/1132/

http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1132:_Frequentists_vs._Bayesians

Excellent post.

 

[fskimospy]

The survey design seems bad.

I was mocking his insistence that the election polls were wrong because he bought into the 'oversampling democrats' crap. When he was repeatedly informed how wrong his understanding was, he clung to it wholeheartedly. In a different thread he made some hilariously bad research design arguments and then desperately clung to them as well.

I don't have strong opinions about the unemployment survey as I haven't looked into their design much. What specific elements of the survey design do you think lead to a bad sample and what would you change to make it better?

 

[mshan]

"The largest 358 metros created 464,000 more jobs in 2012 than the 1,472,000 jobs previously estimated, a 32% increase from initial employment gain figures. 310 of the 358 metros showed job growth."

http://www.realestateconsulting.com...ns-include-464k-more-jobs-previously-reported

 

[mshan]

"A few key long terms trends include:


• A decline in participation for those in the 16 to 24 age groups. This is mostly due to higher enrollment rate in school (see the graph at Get the Lead Out Update). This is great news for the future and is directly related to removing lead from the environment (see from Brad Plumer at the WaPo: Study: Getting rid of lead does wonders for school performance)

• There is a general long term trend of declining participation for those in the key working years (25 to 54). See the second graph below.

• There has been an increase in participation among older age groups. This is probably a combination of financial need (not good news) and many workers staying healthy or engaged in less strenuous jobs.


Of course, even though the participation rate is increasing for older age groups, there are more people moving into those groups so the overall participation rate falls.

As an example, the participation rate for those in the "55 to 59" group has increased from 71.8% ten years ago, to 73.4% now. And the participation rate for those in the "60 to 64" age group has increased from 50.1% to 55% now. But even though the participation rate for each age group is increasing, when people move from the "55 to 59" age group to the "60 to 64" group, their participation rate falls (from 73.4% to 55%). And right now a large cohort is moving into these older age groups, and this is pushing down the overall participation rate."



http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2...cipation-rate-update.html#KshXY2Qq8Q8jsAFv.99

 

[hal2kilo]

You wouldn't look for a job no matter what policy was being followed.

The endless sophomore.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh look, the amateur statistician is back. Tell us more about how the polls are wrong or about how in our research designs we should limit our sample to positive outcomes only.

Oh look, shit head is still here continuing to be a shit head.

Like I said, you like to use data that has nothing whatsoever to say about what is being analyzed. The U3 number is total bullshit (on its own) IF you're interested in figuring out what the job market is really like.

If 1,000,000 people simply say "fuck it" and moves into a crack house instead of looking for work then the u3 number improves. It's like taking 100 at bats from a batter's stats and saying that he had an awesome year.

 

[buckshot24]

I was mocking his insistence that the election polls were wrong because he bought into the 'oversampling democrats' crap.

Not quite but whatever.

When he was repeatedly informed how wrong his understanding was, he clung to it wholeheartedly.

You're full of shit.

In a different thread he made some hilariously bad research design arguments and then desperately clung to them as well.

Yeah, you liked using businesses who had nothing whatsoever to say about racism when calculating level of significance on the question of racism.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh look, shit head is still here continuing to be a shit head.

Like I said, you like to use data that has nothing whatsoever to say about what is being analyzed. The U3 number is total bullshit (on its own) IF you're interested in figuring out what the job market is really like.

If 1,000,000 people simply say "fuck it" and moves into a crack house instead of looking for work then the u3 number improves. It's like taking 100 at bats from a batter's stats and saying that he had an awesome year.

Don't be mad that I keep reminding you of how you try and talk about subjects you don't understand. I'm not going to try and explain basic stats to you again, as I already spent several pages attempting that. As I said before, you should go take a stats class and then come back and tell me if you still think you were right. Maybe President Romney can award you with an honorary stats degree.

As for U3, of course it would. We use six measures of unemployment for precisely such reasons. If someone isn't interested in working, should we count them as unemployed? Maybe, maybe not. Should we count people in comas? How about those in prison that we are forcibly preventing from working?

U6 includes people that say they would like a job but have made no attempt to get one in the last year, not because they are discouraged but because they haven't gotten around to it. Do they sound like a good measure of the health of the job market? Depending on what you want to analyze, each number is informative. For news stories U3 is generally used as it picks a reasonable middle ground.

If you have a different measure that you think all news stories should use, by all means let us know.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

http://www.realestateconsulting.com...ns-include-464k-more-jobs-previously-reported

Working at the new McDonald's is not job growth.

 

[buckshot24]

As for U3, of course it would. We use six measures of unemployment for precisely such reasons. If someone isn't interested in working, should we count them as unemployed? Maybe, maybe not. Should we count people in comas? How about those in prison that we are forcibly preventing from working?

U6 includes people that say they would like a job but have made no attempt to get one in the last year, not because they are discouraged but because they haven't gotten around to it. Do they sound like a good measure of the health of the job market? Depending on what you want to analyze, each number is informative. For news stories U3 is generally used as it picks a reasonable middle ground.

If you have a different measure that you think all news stories should use, by all means let us know.

What's your source on u6? I couldn't find one source where they describe the workers who "haven't gotten around to it" in the labor force.

People who are working part time who would rather work full time should factor into a rate that more accurately represents the overall job market. Don't you think so? U3 just counts them as "employed".