3 ms·
> One strong reason to prefer U3 is that the series is available much further back in time. Isn't it a bit like saying one should prefer the bible to carbon da
by beagle3 12y ago
> One strong reason to prefer U3 is that the series is available much further back in time.
Isn't it a bit like saying one should prefer the bible to carbon dating because we've only had carbon dating for the last handful of decades?
It's not that U3 is useless, but one shouldn't assume it properly describes unemployment.
- maxlybbert 12y agoWell, I think it's more like saying we should prefer temperature data based on tree rings or ice cores (or, even, old mercury thermometers). "Prefer" is probably the wrong word, so you certainly have a point. "Accept, with a note that the data isn't ideal" is much better. I'm OK with using less-than-ideal data when ideal data isn't available; but I'm disappointed with the number of reports that fail to mention any limitations of their. It's entirely acceptable to say "we don't have enough data to establish whether this claim is true."
- grayclhn 12y agoIt's a bit like saying that having data on 1960 is useful.
- lkbm 12y agoNo, it's not relevant how long we've had the method--what's relevant is how far back the data goes.