pinqy
Gold Member
In other words, you don't even listen to arguments that don't agree with your preconceptions.Actually my memory of your last slanted presentation on U6 caused me to skip to your closing lines.
People who trust government numbers can't be trusted; people who actually advocate government numbers really need to keep moving on by.
And yet you cite Calculated Risk as a reliable source when I find nothing on that site that disputes or has issues with the government numbers. For example, on 4 November 2012 the article
Update: Further Discussion on Labor Force Participation Rate states:
The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force." ... This is the REAL unemployment rate (some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense - although U-6 is an alternative measure of underemployment, it includes many people working part time).
The problem is that you automatically reject the government numbers, yet you cannot point to any particular problems. Neither the President, nor anyone in his adminsitration has anything to do with them and no one outside Census or BLS has any access prior to release and even that is limited to the specific people who compile the data.
Of course there are flaws and inaccuracies and problems with the data...that's the nature of statistics and measuring. And I'd be happy to discuss the real problems instead of the paranoid delusions of manipulation or deliberately inaccurate data.