On 8/14/16 7:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 17:44:57 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Typically, I view government statistics that interest me "relatively,"
especially the ones under questions because of the inherent vagaries of
data gathering and manipulation.

Perhaps back in the olden days when people were using a pencil,
"statistics" was an arcane science but these days it is just data base
analysis. The first rule is garbage in garbage out. You can frame a
"view" to make the data look almost any way you want. In the case of
the unemployment number, the biggest variable is who they consider to
be unemployed. In the current view, that excludes anyone who quit, was
fired with cause, simply refused to apply for unemployment or anyone
who was never able to get a job in the first place. You are pretty
much left with the ones who were laid off, signed up for unemployment
and are still eligible for benefits.


You're really overgeneralizing in your first sentence. How many
undergrad, grad, and post-grad stats courses have you taken?

On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:41:48 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Well, Tim, you implied government figures were not trustworthy. I don't
believe much of what churches or corporations tell us is trustworthy.

It really depends on what you are talking about. There are plenty of
government agencies going over corporate books and stockholder reports
with a fine tooth comb, When they misrepresent products, the lawyers
are all over them, along with regulatory agencies. You certainly have
to take some advertising with a grain of salt but you know more about
that than us since you live in the belly of the beast.

Churches just preach to the converted so they are not talking to you
in the first place. Why would you care what they say ... unless it
starts middle east wars? You seem to accept those claims as gospel.

On 8/14/16 7:55 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:41:50 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/14/16 7:34 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 4:16:27 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/14/16 2:58 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:34:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
http://www.newsweek.com/big-lie-rosy-unemployment-rate-489897?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The-Big-Lie-Behind-the-Unemployment-Rate&utm_campaign=newsweek_email_newsletter

http://tinyurl.com/jsquzxz

Not surprising. Greg, when did you ever trust government figures?


Right, because you can only trust what corporations and churches tell you.

Your thought process is amazing Harry, you know that?



Well, Tim, you implied government figures were not trustworthy. I don't
believe much of what churches or corporations tell us is trustworthy.

Well, Harry, the subject was about govt figures now wasn't it? Not Churches or corporations. Wow can you throw a thread to the curb. LOL


Oh, I thought the subject included trustworthiness of data. I have a
feeling the data from the DOL is more trustworthy than what the
perpetrators of religious superstition offer.

On 8/14/16 8:01 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:41:48 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Well, Tim, you implied government figures were not trustworthy. I don't
believe much of what churches or corporations tell us is trustworthy.

It really depends on what you are talking about. There are plenty of
government agencies going over corporate books and stockholder reports
with a fine tooth comb, When they misrepresent products, the lawyers
are all over them, along with regulatory agencies. You certainly have
to take some advertising with a grain of salt but you know more about
that than us since you live in the belly of the beast.

Churches just preach to the converted so they are not talking to you
in the first place. Why would you care what they say ... unless it
starts middle east wars? You seem to accept those claims as gospel.




If the churches in this country kept their preaching, rule-making,
hate-spewing, and attempted rule-making to themselves and their
followers, I'd ignore them.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:57:21 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You're really overgeneralizing in your first sentence. How many
undergrad, grad, and post-grad stats courses have you taken?

I have a whole lot of training in database analysis along with a few
decades of actual experience running numbers that my company was
betting millions on. Sitting in a room listening to some old fart
telling me how they did things with paper records, pencils and
mechanical calculators does not interest me.
It is sort of like taking a course in celestial navigation in a GPS
world. It may be interesting (I actually am playing with a sextant and
my Bowditch) but not really that relevant as long as the computers are
still working.

I do understand that statisticians will try to fill the holes in their
data and that will take some training but it is still just an educated
guess. I like hard data.

The classic joke. "What is pi"?

Engineer ... 3.14

Mathematician 3.14159265358979323846264338327950... (until you don't
care anymore)

Statistician "around 3"

On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 20:02:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Oh, I thought the subject included trustworthiness of data. I have a
feeling the data from the DOL is more trustworthy than what the
perpetrators of religious superstition offer.


You can't really compare the two. The country does not make fiscal
policy based on whether Noah had a boat

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 20:02:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Oh, I thought the subject included trustworthiness of data. I have a
feeling the data from the DOL is more trustworthy than what the
perpetrators of religious superstition offer.


You can't really compare the two. The country does not make fiscal
policy based on whether Noah had a boat


Trustworthy data, remember?

--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 7:02:04 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/14/16 7:55 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:41:50 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/14/16 7:34 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 4:16:27 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/14/16 2:58 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:34:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
http://www.newsweek.com/big-lie-rosy-unemployment-rate-489897?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The-Big-Lie-Behind-the-Unemployment-Rate&utm_campaign=newsweek_email_newsletter

http://tinyurl.com/jsquzxz

Not surprising. Greg, when did you ever trust government figures?


Right, because you can only trust what corporations and churches tell you.

Your thought process is amazing Harry, you know that?



Well, Tim, you implied government figures were not trustworthy. I don't
believe much of what churches or corporations tell us is trustworthy.

Well, Harry, the subject was about govt figures now wasn't it? Not Churches or corporations. Wow can you throw a thread to the curb. LOL


Oh, I thought the subject included trustworthiness of data. I have a
feeling the data from the DOL is more trustworthy than what the
perpetrators of religious superstition offer.

Maybe that's what you get for thinking. read it again.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 20:41:02 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 20:02:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Oh, I thought the subject included trustworthiness of data. I have a
feeling the data from the DOL is more trustworthy than what the
perpetrators of religious superstition offer.


You can't really compare the two. The country does not make fiscal
policy based on whether Noah had a boat


Trustworthy data, remember?

The difference is the cost.
I do find it interesting that you will fight over a bible story about
Jesus curing a leper but when it is a Torah story about god promising
Moses Palestine for any Jew who can make it there, forever, you take
it as gospel.
If one is a fairy tale, both are.

On 8/14/16 8:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:57:21 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You're really overgeneralizing in your first sentence. How many
undergrad, grad, and post-grad stats courses have you taken?

I have a whole lot of training in database analysis along with a few
decades of actual experience running numbers that my company was
betting millions on. Sitting in a room listening to some old fart
telling me how they did things with paper records, pencils and
mechanical calculators does not interest me.

My lovely wife took several stats courses as an undergrad, many more as
a grad student, and even more as a doctoral student. The latter were
taught by university math professors and held at the College of
Engineering. Pretty heavy math and studies in interpretation, database
analysis and more. I don't recall her mentioning paper records, pencils,
and calculators. She did use a couple of computer stats courses, though.
Upon completing her doctoral course work, she had to take and pass a
three day written examination that included doctoral level statistical
work and after that, a day of oral exam by a handful of professors,
including two from another institution and I believe one of those guys
was a math professor.


Now, me, I can do some math, but anything beyond really simple stats is
beyond my knowledge and probably ability.