Shopsmith Forums

dusty wrote:Three tenths of one percent. That is what happened to the jobs number. It dropped from 8.1% to 7.8%. Three tenths of one percent.

That .003 right.

When I am adjusting the main table for squareness to the blade, .003 is pretty darn good.

But we are not talking about squaring the table. We are talking about the number of people who now have no need to apply for "unemployment compensation". In this context, I don't think that is such a good number. Yes, it is better than it was but is it really good? I don't think so.

It's worse than that because many of the people with no need to apply need not apply because they have used up their benefit. At least I think they still calculate it that way.

My Momma used to tell me "figures don't lie, but be very careful of liars who can figure":eek: Thanks Mom.
Bill V

Statistics -- weapons of math deception!

saminmn wrote:Statistics -- weapons of math deception!

I always thought of them as guesses with a slight chance of being accurate.

What I really distrust is extrapolation of them.!:(

saminmn wrote:It's worse than that because many of the people with no need to apply need not apply because they have used up their benefit. At least I think they still calculate it that way.

Here is how it is calculated, which is very deceptive:

If you are on unemployment, you are counted even if you are not actively seeking a job through your state unemployment agency (professionals, sales people, specialists, engineers and a host of others NEVER use the services of the agency, but do the administrative things required to continue to receive unemployment.) When benefits run out, because they are no longer contacting the agency, they are dropped and are considered to no longer seek employment.

The system is skewed to those with lessor skills and education.

Also, if you are working part time you can be dropped based on how much you earned during a previous period and you have to reapply when the part time job ends. So, while you are unemployed, but working part time to make ends meet, you are not counted.

The Feds never talk about the part time employment (no longer unemployed) nor the under employed. They never have and never will.

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Obama said that he agrees with Lincoln. "So long as you can fool enough people all of the time you are home free and re-elected."

I ran into a guy yesterday who was wearing a t-shirt that said: "in the 80s we had Ronald Reagan, Johnny Cash, and Bob Hope. Today we have Barack Obama, No Cash, and No Hope!"

Not enough data yet but I'll let you know what the trend is.

In a graduate statistics course I learned that you need a minimum of 36 separate samples to be able to calculate a trend much less a conclusion at a .005 level of significance and 5 degrees of freedom (meaningless to most of you who only know the key word is freedom). However, looking at this post and the trend I would conclude (having not looked at any personal data) that most of you are over 50, self-motivated, solution oriented, who tend to be conservative because you have learned how to do something on your own (no courses at the JC on Shopsmith) and no OJT either.

Hmm? Solution oriented, older than Obama, self-sufficient, conservative. Does that cover it?

db5 wrote:Not enough data yet but I'll let you know what the trend is.

In a graduate statistics course I learned that you need a minimum of 36 separate samples to be able to calculate a trend much less a conclusion at a .005 level of significance and 5 degrees of freedom (meaningless to most of you who only know the key word is freedom). However, looking at this post and the trend I would conclude (having not looked at any personal data) that most of you are over 50, self-motivated, solution oriented, who tend to be conservative because you have learned how to do something on your own (no courses at the JC on Shopsmith) and no OJT either.

Hmm? Solution oriented, older than Obama, self-sufficient, conservative. Does that cover it?

You left out wise enough to realize the possible negative effect of snide parenthetical expressions. I am sure you intended that one as humor. Others will probably react differently.

pennview wrote:I ran into a guy yesterday who was wearing a t-shirt that said: "in the 80s we had Ronald Reagan, Johnny Cash, and Bob Hope. Today we have Barack Obama, No Cash, and No Hope!"

I saw that one. I hope Kevin Bacon doesn't pass on!:D (But, bacon prices are "necessarily going to skyrocket" if I'm elected.) Sorry, misquoted BHO. He was talking about coal fired utilities.

As a disclaimer, Mitt's dad, (George Romney, former Governor of Michigan, and former head of American Motors, former Presidential candidate) and MY dad were born in the same town, in MEXICO. Yes, a Mormon Colony.

I'm REALLY looking for Mitt to make it, because I know how he was raised. I'm just wondering how Harry Reid, (another Mormon) keeps his religious status.

Too harsh? Sorry.

I've had a couple "adult" beverages. (Didn't say I was a "good" Mormon.)

Outside of that, I LIKED the debate. Can't wait for the JV version next week. Biden (Dan Quayle was NO WHERE as good of a gaffemaster, as Joe) should be a RIOT!

steve

db5 wrote:Not enough data yet but I'll let you know what the trend is.

In a graduate statistics course I learned that you need a minimum of 36 separate samples to be able to calculate a trend much less a conclusion at a .005 level of significance and 5 degrees of freedom (meaningless to most of you who only know the key word is freedom). However, looking at this post and the trend I would conclude (having not looked at any personal data) that most of you are over 50, self-motivated, solution oriented, who tend to be conservative because you have learned how to do something on your own (no courses at the JC on Shopsmith) and no OJT either.

Hmm? Solution oriented, older than Obama, self-sufficient, conservative. Does that cover it?

You have a problem with that?

Neither do I!

Oh, barely older that BHO. (If his BC is to be trusted.)

And, I've got an 10ER older than me, and my first one had NO manuals. I've STILL got ALL my digits. (Alas, the center, lower one isn't working like it used to!)(Sorry, TMI?)

steve