4 ms·

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 Une

by 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.
    - selimthegrim 7mo ago
      It used to be an old Jay Leno late night bit
jeffbee 7mo ago
> I've never met a single person willing to attest to filling out a BLS survey. Unless you have introduced yourself with this question to thousands of people, this is a totally meaningless statement. It says more about your social circle, your grasp of descriptive statistics, and the weird online stew you are soaking your brain in than it says about the CPS.
- salawat 7mo ago
  I never complained about the Current Population Survey. Census Bureau does a great job. I complain about BLS. And yes, I'm the odd fellow who does, in fact, talk about weird niche 'work' minutiae with people because I'm actually curious how the world works, and whether our "authoritative metrics" are actually worth a damn. My grasp of descriptive statistics is just fine, thank you very much, but I also happen to know it doesn't work if you're not actually collecting data, and if the data you're collecting is incomplete, you're doing what is essentially inferential statistics (assuming your whole is entirely represented by what you have collected. If you don't check, you don't bloody know. If you actually are checking, it's not normally that hard to find the population you're checking with.
verteu 7mo ago
> 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 It comes from the Census bureau, a letter like this: https://old.reddit.com/r/frederickmd/comments/1p1j1my/did_anyone_else_received_this_letter_from_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/frederickmd/comments/1p1j1my/did_an... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=%22current+population+survey%22+letter&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOjrjcraCTAxW1k68BHQzlOwYQtKgLegQIExAB&biw=1728&bih=994&dpr=2 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=%22current+population+... They only reach ~100k unique households per year, so you'd need to survey a few hundred people to find a respondent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#Methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#Meth... > Note, I'm in a massive sceptical shit phase at the moment How might one distinguish such "scepticism" from ignorance?
- salawat 7mo ago
  See, Census letters are one thing. BLS is another. I've actually received Census letters. BLS ones, not so much, and given they claim to be collecting data through surveys all the damn time, I'd expect to have been able to find someone who filled one out. It's weird, to me, that my luck has been so bad in finding someone with context on it. At best I only find someone who knows BLS uses surveys as part of their methodology, usually through reference to the site. No one ever seems to be able to primary vouch for having been the one surveyed. >How might one distinguish such "scepticism" from ignorance? Ignorance doesn't seek to invalidate itself. Scepticism does. It does not enrich my life knowing there's a methodology to collect a "high value statistic", but not finding any on the ground proof of people who actually have primary exposure to the methodology. One can't reason around what the system is actually measuring without a sampling of that. I can find screenshots of UI at times. I find papers around low response rates. I never find an actual person who says "Yeah, I get dinged to do those every few months, once every few years..." I sure as hell know when I'm gathering statistical data, that sampling bias evaluation requires foot work, and if you do that footwork, if your methodology works, it shouldn't take you that long to run into someone you've surveyed if you're doing it right. If you're not, and only hitting "the usual suspects", you're not getting a representative sample/measuring what you think you are. So I look for payroll people or people who have done payroll in the U.S. and ask if they've actually ever been directed to provide input. I've been doing it the last few years. Nobody seems to recall ever having been asked to participate in what amounts to billion dollar money movement at stake jury duty. So yeah. This is kind of a weird tic of mine at the moment. Ranks right up there with the time I felt the inexplicable urge to figure out what the deal with zoning as applied to city planning was and how it worked. Something just doesn't add up. I hate that. Mental equivalent of a thumb detection via hammer.

by salawat 7mo ago

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.
  - selimthegrim 7mo ago
    It used to be an old Jay Leno late night bit

jeffbee 7mo ago

> I've never met a single person willing to attest to filling out a BLS survey. Unless you have introduced yourself with this question to thousands of people, this is a totally meaningless statement. It says more about your social circle, your grasp of descriptive statistics, and the weird online stew you are soaking your brain in than it says about the CPS.

salawat 7mo ago
I never complained about the Current Population Survey. Census Bureau does a great job. I complain about BLS. And yes, I'm the odd fellow who does, in fact, talk about weird niche 'work' minutiae with people because I'm actually curious how the world works, and whether our "authoritative metrics" are actually worth a damn. My grasp of descriptive statistics is just fine, thank you very much, but I also happen to know it doesn't work if you're not actually collecting data, and if the data you're collecting is incomplete, you're doing what is essentially inferential statistics (assuming your whole is entirely represented by what you have collected. If you don't check, you don't bloody know. If you actually are checking, it's not normally that hard to find the population you're checking with.

verteu 7mo ago

> 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 It comes from the Census bureau, a letter like this: https://old.reddit.com/r/frederickmd/comments/1p1j1my/did_anyone_else_received_this_letter_from_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/frederickmd/comments/1p1j1my/did_an... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=%22current+population+survey%22+letter&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOjrjcraCTAxW1k68BHQzlOwYQtKgLegQIExAB&biw=1728&bih=994&dpr=2 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=%22current+population+... They only reach ~100k unique households per year, so you'd need to survey a few hundred people to find a respondent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#Methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#Meth... > Note, I'm in a massive sceptical shit phase at the moment How might one distinguish such "scepticism" from ignorance?

salawat 7mo ago
See, Census letters are one thing. BLS is another. I've actually received Census letters. BLS ones, not so much, and given they claim to be collecting data through surveys all the damn time, I'd expect to have been able to find someone who filled one out. It's weird, to me, that my luck has been so bad in finding someone with context on it. At best I only find someone who knows BLS uses surveys as part of their methodology, usually through reference to the site. No one ever seems to be able to primary vouch for having been the one surveyed. >How might one distinguish such "scepticism" from ignorance? Ignorance doesn't seek to invalidate itself. Scepticism does. It does not enrich my life knowing there's a methodology to collect a "high value statistic", but not finding any on the ground proof of people who actually have primary exposure to the methodology. One can't reason around what the system is actually measuring without a sampling of that. I can find screenshots of UI at times. I find papers around low response rates. I never find an actual person who says "Yeah, I get dinged to do those every few months, once every few years..." I sure as hell know when I'm gathering statistical data, that sampling bias evaluation requires foot work, and if you do that footwork, if your methodology works, it shouldn't take you that long to run into someone you've surveyed if you're doing it right. If you're not, and only hitting "the usual suspects", you're not getting a representative sample/measuring what you think you are. So I look for payroll people or people who have done payroll in the U.S. and ask if they've actually ever been directed to provide input. I've been doing it the last few years. Nobody seems to recall ever having been asked to participate in what amounts to billion dollar money movement at stake jury duty. So yeah. This is kind of a weird tic of mine at the moment. Ranks right up there with the time I felt the inexplicable urge to figure out what the deal with zoning as applied to city planning was and how it worked. Something just doesn't add up. I hate that. Mental equivalent of a thumb detection via hammer.