4 ms·

Your comment is broadly misleading. In fact, I would say that "shadow stats" guys like you have enabled the destruction of the system by creating the space to c

by jeffbee 7mo ago

Your comment is broadly misleading. In fact, I would say that "shadow stats" guys like you have enabled the destruction of the system by creating the space to cast doubt on the valid methods used by BLS. BLS unemployment metrics have a valid basis and where they differ from Eurostat those differences are minor and with rational basis (such as 16 vs. 15 year old starting age).

iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
I don't say stuff like this very often, but are you actually blaming a victim for dealing with the reality of government bsing its own stats instead of the government that allowed this bs to continue? BLS had only one thing going for it and it is mostly that it was used for long enough time that changing methodology would prevent us from being able to compare it prior time ranges. That is it. Otherwise, the methodology itself is seriously flawed ( and likely was from get go, but these days, it is absolutely the worst possible mix of options ). Honestly, your comment made me mildly angry. That said, can you say why you believe parent's comment is misleading?
- jeffbee 7mo ago
  Do you have a substantive complaint to make about the BLS methodology? So far all I see in your remark is shadowstats vibes.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
    I can't tell if you are serious or not. Lets assume for a moment that there was once a benefit to BLS survey methodology ( I would argue otherwise, but w/e ). Is it a good methodology today? So my main argument ( and frankly the only argument that should matter ) is that is a bad fit for the goal of estimating values ( even though we do know its failure modes ). Is that not enough?
    - patmorgan23 7mo ago
      What are the alternatives, and do other countries labor statistics agencies use them?
      - iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
        Alternative is to build something better. Just about anything is better than the current survey system. What I would propose is something akin to "derived real-data unemployment system". All this data exists now, but is distributed. It can be stitched together, but if one was so inclined. << do other countries No, it doesn't mean I am wrong.
        jeffbee 7mo ago
        "BLS CPS is worse than a hypothetical better thing" is tautological, void, and without meaning.
        iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
        It must be nice to live in a simple binary world.
    - enraged_camel 7mo ago
      You made the argument and provided zero supporting evidence. As it stands, it's merely an opinion, and appears to be an uninformed one until you prove otherwise. That's what people are asking you to do.
      - iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
        Sigh, your supporting evidence is a record of someone saying something, which itself is merely an opinion.. men in glass houses and all that. The interesting thing about my opinion is that while it may not be AS informed as yours, it is notably above the average level of knowledge when it comes to BLS. << That's what people are asking you to do. No. What I am being asked to do is: "Show me a better way, but I only accept a better way that is already utilized by someone else". Not a recipe for a thoughtful exchange of ideas.
  - salawat 7mo ago
    I've never met a single person willing to attest to filling out a BLS survey. Not once. If their methodology is built on that + unemployment data from State Unemployment agencies + data from payroll processors, anyone not collecting state unemployment benefits is invisible to the system, and half of the payroll is actually not even consituted of U.S. Citizens. Admittedly, if I could find a single instance of someone willing to vouch or share insight on having filled out a BLS survey, that'd cure a healthy chunk of skepticism. There's still be the other distortions in the data to account for, but I'd at least have an instance proving that yeah, there is somebody filling out these surveys and it isn't just something they say they do to make their magic unemployment number sound legit. Note, I'm in a massive sceptical shit phase at the moment. Last decade has burned my optimism hard. So when it comes to my ability to assume benevolent intent right now, there's a heavy bias against doing it, and a heavier bias in the direction of "what would be the easiest way to keep the System limping along?" The answer to that is "say you do one thing, in reality do another, and as long as no one comes lookin', it's gold." The finance industry runs on Trust moreso than anything else, and there ain't much to be said for Trusting anything you can't verify these days. Not from other humans.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > I've never met a single person willing to attest to filling out a BLS survey I’ve never met a single chicken farmer. Does that mean I should be sceptical about them existing? Like, what sort of metric is this for truth finding? > to assume benevolent intent No need. Markets move on these data. The rich and powerful bet their money on what they say.
      - selimthegrim 7mo ago
        No one's ever met a Gideon either.
        JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > No one's ever met a Gideon either I’ve never != nobody has.
_heimdall 7mo ago
It is tough, though, for me to fully buy labor statistics when it has become the norm recently for them to be revised down. This spans back into Biden's term as well so it isn't one party either. With a valid measure I would expect a roughly even distribution over time between underestimates and overestimates. For a valid measure worth considering I'd also expect the stat to be released later when revisions are less likely because more actual data has been collected
- svnt 7mo ago
  That is a reasonable position, however the assumption that it is the administration that is gaming them vs other motivated parties is open for discussion.
  - jeffbee 7mo ago
    It is in fact not at all reasonable. They are saying that the BLS stats can't be trusted because they totally misunderstand the survey methodology. That isn't a reason!
    - svnt 7mo ago
      I’d counter that if we were doing a good job gathering data that these structural biases could be compensated for with more conservative initial numbers. At some point a lack of decision to take compensating action becomes faking the numbers.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > if we were doing a good job gathering data that these structural biases could be compensated for with more conservative initial numbers There is no more conservative. The data will bias in the direction of trend. The point of the data are, in part, to measure that trend. Fucking with it to make it politically correct to the statistically illiterate is precisely the sort of degradation of data we’re worried about. (They’re also useless as a time series if the methodology changes quarter to quarter. That’s the job of analysis. Not the data.)

by jeffbee 7mo ago

iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago

I don't say stuff like this very often, but are you actually blaming a victim for dealing with the reality of government bsing its own stats instead of the government that allowed this bs to continue? BLS had only one thing going for it and it is mostly that it was used for long enough time that changing methodology would prevent us from being able to compare it prior time ranges. That is it. Otherwise, the methodology itself is seriously flawed ( and likely was from get go, but these days, it is absolutely the worst possible mix of options ). Honestly, your comment made me mildly angry. That said, can you say why you believe parent's comment is misleading?

jeffbee 7mo ago
Do you have a substantive complaint to make about the BLS methodology? So far all I see in your remark is shadowstats vibes.
- iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
  I can't tell if you are serious or not. Lets assume for a moment that there was once a benefit to BLS survey methodology ( I would argue otherwise, but w/e ). Is it a good methodology today? So my main argument ( and frankly the only argument that should matter ) is that is a bad fit for the goal of estimating values ( even though we do know its failure modes ). Is that not enough?
  - patmorgan23 7mo ago
    What are the alternatives, and do other countries labor statistics agencies use them?
    - iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
      Alternative is to build something better. Just about anything is better than the current survey system. What I would propose is something akin to "derived real-data unemployment system". All this data exists now, but is distributed. It can be stitched together, but if one was so inclined. << do other countries No, it doesn't mean I am wrong.
      - jeffbee 7mo ago
        "BLS CPS is worse than a hypothetical better thing" is tautological, void, and without meaning.
        iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
        It must be nice to live in a simple binary world.
  - enraged_camel 7mo ago
    You made the argument and provided zero supporting evidence. As it stands, it's merely an opinion, and appears to be an uninformed one until you prove otherwise. That's what people are asking you to do.
    - iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
      Sigh, your supporting evidence is a record of someone saying something, which itself is merely an opinion.. men in glass houses and all that. The interesting thing about my opinion is that while it may not be AS informed as yours, it is notably above the average level of knowledge when it comes to BLS. << That's what people are asking you to do. No. What I am being asked to do is: "Show me a better way, but I only accept a better way that is already utilized by someone else". Not a recipe for a thoughtful exchange of ideas.
- salawat 7mo ago
  I've never met a single person willing to attest to filling out a BLS survey. Not once. If their methodology is built on that + unemployment data from State Unemployment agencies + data from payroll processors, anyone not collecting state unemployment benefits is invisible to the system, and half of the payroll is actually not even consituted of U.S. Citizens. Admittedly, if I could find a single instance of someone willing to vouch or share insight on having filled out a BLS survey, that'd cure a healthy chunk of skepticism. There's still be the other distortions in the data to account for, but I'd at least have an instance proving that yeah, there is somebody filling out these surveys and it isn't just something they say they do to make their magic unemployment number sound legit. Note, I'm in a massive sceptical shit phase at the moment. Last decade has burned my optimism hard. So when it comes to my ability to assume benevolent intent right now, there's a heavy bias against doing it, and a heavier bias in the direction of "what would be the easiest way to keep the System limping along?" The answer to that is "say you do one thing, in reality do another, and as long as no one comes lookin', it's gold." The finance industry runs on Trust moreso than anything else, and there ain't much to be said for Trusting anything you can't verify these days. Not from other humans.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > I've never met a single person willing to attest to filling out a BLS survey I’ve never met a single chicken farmer. Does that mean I should be sceptical about them existing? Like, what sort of metric is this for truth finding? > to assume benevolent intent No need. Markets move on these data. The rich and powerful bet their money on what they say.
    - selimthegrim 7mo ago
      No one's ever met a Gideon either.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > No one's ever met a Gideon either I’ve never != nobody has.

_heimdall 7mo ago

It is tough, though, for me to fully buy labor statistics when it has become the norm recently for them to be revised down. This spans back into Biden's term as well so it isn't one party either. With a valid measure I would expect a roughly even distribution over time between underestimates and overestimates. For a valid measure worth considering I'd also expect the stat to be released later when revisions are less likely because more actual data has been collected

svnt 7mo ago
That is a reasonable position, however the assumption that it is the administration that is gaming them vs other motivated parties is open for discussion.
- jeffbee 7mo ago
  It is in fact not at all reasonable. They are saying that the BLS stats can't be trusted because they totally misunderstand the survey methodology. That isn't a reason!
  - svnt 7mo ago
    I’d counter that if we were doing a good job gathering data that these structural biases could be compensated for with more conservative initial numbers. At some point a lack of decision to take compensating action becomes faking the numbers.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > if we were doing a good job gathering data that these structural biases could be compensated for with more conservative initial numbers There is no more conservative. The data will bias in the direction of trend. The point of the data are, in part, to measure that trend. Fucking with it to make it politically correct to the statistically illiterate is precisely the sort of degradation of data we’re worried about. (They’re also useless as a time series if the methodology changes quarter to quarter. That’s the job of analysis. Not the data.)