J.D. Foster, Ph.D., explains that sometimes surveys produce results that are inaccurate.
The federal government runs two main jobs surveys. The payroll survey queries employers and is more reliable mostly because it is a fairly large sample. The second survey queries households and is much smaller, but provides a different look at the employment picture. The household survey also generates the unemployment rate. Typically, the two surveys disagree somewhat month-to-month, but track fairly well with one another over longer periods of time, because over longer periods of time, the small size of the household survey matters less and less.Foster is confident the September numbers will be shown to be inaccurate.
Because they are samples, there are margins of error around the reported figures, just as political polls are reported with margins of error. The larger the sample, the smaller the margin of error, but what this really means is that with a substantial probability, the true figure lies within the margin of error.
Probabilities are not certainties, however. If a survey reports a margin of error with a 90 percent probability, this also means that one time out of 10, the correct figure will be much lower or much higher. Even a 99 percent probability means that one time out of 100, the true figure will be much different than the reported figure. One time out of 100 means about once every eight years for a monthly survey.
What seems to have occurred with the September household survey is that one time in 100. The household survey, a relatively small sample, reported an astounding 418,000 jobs jump in the labor force at a time when it has been steadily shrinking, and the survey reported an 873,000 jobs jump in employment at a time when the economy is stumbling.
...[T]he last time the household survey showed such a huge jump in employment was in 1983 during the Reagan-era economic boom. Today’s economy does not look much like the Reagan boom.
If the survey is not reversed, we'll know the Obama administration is manipulating the numbers.
The September household survey is one to set aside to wait for a more reliable report next month, which will almost certainly reverse the odd results from September. If it does, then we have both confirmation of the power of statistics and of the weakness in the economy. If the next household survey is like the September survey, however, then we will know the Obama Administration was playing games with the numbers as alleged. The odds against two such anomalous reports back-to-back are not 100 to 1, but 10,000 to one, or about once in 800 years.I think... No, I know Obama and the Democrats are more than willing to lie to the American people.
I wouldn't be surprised if they try to uphold their September jobs lies.
We know they are liars.
Benghazi.
2 comments:
"...this also means that one time out of 10, the correct figure will be much lower or much higher."
No. It doesn't. Each instance is independent; you can only say "I am 90% confident the result is within this range." You have to say that every time. And for the 1 time in 10, and remember we don't know which time that is, that the result fall outside that range, the chances of it being "much" different are very small.
I swear, you guys don't understand stats, you don't like stats, and you don't trust stats. Unless they favor your preconceived notions. Then they're all hunky dory.
Why so stressed lately? What's with all the personal insults?
_________
I understand stats. I understand probability and the impact of sampling. I understand margin of error.
Although they can be useful tools, as a rule, I don't like stats. I don't trust stats, because I believe that many (most) surveys tell more about the people behind the surveys than they do about reality. They're too often used to construct a reality, like unemployment is 7.8 percent.
It's the sample, stupid.
Post a Comment