Dec 11
I dropped statistics in J-School.
I predict that on January 21, 2009, news reporters will start to use work force size adjusted unemployment numbers:
The Labor Department reported Thursday that initial applications for jobless benefits in the week ending Dec. 6 rose to a seasonally adjusted 573,000 from an upwardly revised figure of 515,000 in the previous week. That was far more than the 525,000 claims Wall Street economists expected.
Sure that is a “record” number but as a % of the size of the work force not the largest we’ve ever seen.
Drudge should know better. As should any credible journalist.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
As I remember, Ronald Reagan once belittled “seasonally adjusted” figures when politically convenient. And Republicans against tax increases ignored such a normalizing figure when talking about “the biggest tax increase in history.” Although percentages or other normalizing bases often paint a more accurate picture, they raise the question of what base to use, and we know that politicians and other advocates cannot resist using the base that best supports their claims. Total US employment of percentages of able adults employed? Stock market price movements on linear or logarithmic scale? Let’s cite as many figures as needed, even some that haven’t been invented yet, to tell any story.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
A while back I accused pols and pundits of using floating baselines. Add the journalists to that.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I want the story to convey the info I need to decide. Inciting me with “biggest drop” or “biggest increase” doesn’t thrill me no matter who does it.
Remember… I put up with Republicans because I gave up on Democrats.