Quick question: if a 0.3 percent decrease in unemployment in May (2011) was a noteworthy trend, how come a 0.3% increase isn’t equally noteworthy? If a .3% change is noteworthy then the statistics watchers should have caught that one as a leading indicator before the job market crashed.
Had the watchers paid as close attention to that tiny drop way back when, we might have been able to make the necessary changes when it was easy and cheap.
Posts
2 comments:
I haven't looked at the numbers, so I cannot say for sure, but I would bet that a 0.3% drop or increase was within the statistical margin of error. If so, this means that the change could have easily been caused by random fluctuations, not a long-term trend.
The related problem of getting excited about an uptick but ignoring the downtick is the sensationalism problem - what gets reported is a reflection of what sounds good, not what is important.
I haven't looked at the numbers, so I cannot say for sure, but I would bet that a 0.3% drop or increase was within the statistical margin of error. If so, this means that the change could have easily been caused by random fluctuations, not a long-term trend.
The related problem of getting excited about an uptick but ignoring the downtick is the sensationalism problem - what gets reported is a reflection of what sounds good, not what is important.
Post a Comment