Honestly, your comment made me mildly angry. That said, can you say why you believe parent's comment is misleading?
Honestly, your comment made me mildly angry. That said, can you say why you believe parent's comment is misleading?
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.
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.
I’ve never != nobody has.
It comes from the Census bureau, a letter like this: https://old.reddit.com/r/frederickmd/comments/1p1j1my/did_an...
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#Meth...
> Note, I'm in a massive sceptical shit phase at the moment
How might one distinguish such "scepticism" from ignorance?
>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.
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.
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?
<< 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.
<< do other countries
No, it doesn't mean I am wrong.