Re(4): Could Be Worse Posted on April 25, 2022 at 06:40:39 PM by ah, playing with statustics
This is social media, not an academic board evaluating discertations.
My view is that if it makes sense, and conforms to conventional thinking, no need for citations.
But if the numbers are shocking, right out of Ripley's Believe it or Not, well a source is helpful so readers can judge the source from what they know of them.
Fox and Western Journal and anything coming out of GOP politicians or conspiracy nutcases dont have much credibility and I'd NEVER believe them without looking for MSM agreement.
But if it coems out of MSM, I believe that if it's wrong, their soruces were wrong, not them, themselves.
Like jobless figures. KNowing that they're based on people ON unemployment during the 26 week period makes up the numbers.
But people who've fallen off and are past 26 week or extended expirations, aren't counted, so unemployment figures are always way LOWER than reality.
Moreover people COULD work if there were jobs in their areas and the pay was high enough to make it profitable TO work...and all other things being equal, then the numbers might have some validity, or be even more distorted.
For example, there was a HUGE crop of boomers born after 1946, and when we retired, we fell off the rolls and were no longer on unemployment.
And seasonal employment is 'adjusted' by govt, but are they adjusted WELL? What about weather, parts shortages, tariffs, tax season, so many things. Numvbers aren't helpful. Replies: