From: Mikko Särelä (msarela@cc.hut.fi)
Date: Tue Mar 02 2004 - 22:57:44 MST
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Mike wrote:
> To conclude that the jobs that are disappearing are those of people who
> don't need them, wouldn't you also have to take into consideration other
> data, such as how many people are receiving unemployment, welfare, and
> foodstamps? If those numbers have increased as the population has
> increased, that might give you a different conclusion. Of course, that
> data is skewed, since public assistance benefits are given out for a
> limited time, after which the recipients are simply cut off. So then,
> you'd want to look at the numbers of people staying in shelters for the
> homeless, except many of the shelters are filled to capacity and you'd
> miss the numbers of people who sleep on the street.
And not even this is enough. You'll have to see if the government benefits
to the poor or unemployed have gotten better, or can purchase you better
living than in previous times. You'll havet to see if taxation has risen
(income tax is a penalty tax for working) and if there are minimum wages
that prevent people from working, etc.
There are lots of variables that have changed (most pointing to higher
unemployment and lower employment) and are controlled by the government.
If you forget all about their consequences, you'll get skewed data.
-- Mikko Särelä Emperor Bonaparte: "Where does God fit into your system?" Pièrre Simon Laplace: "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT