[PRCo] Re: Indian cultural differences

Sat Dec 6 17:25:52 EST 2008

Ahhh, your the one that told me that it does not include those who are not looking for work, Fred.  Also that some European countries and the US define unemployment differently.  What would the unemployment rate be if it included people on welfare???

When the rate moves, that is something to watch.  But as a percentage of population, meaningless. 

Also, census is not a 100% count.  You won't find me in the 1970, 1980, 1990 nor 2000 census.  Nor will you find  my great-great grandfather's family in the 1880 census, even though they show up in the Pittsburgh city directory.  There was no census record for the Fourth Ave. house in which they were living during the 1880 census.  Guess everyone was at work.  (what a unique concept) And my great grandfather was counted in both Denver and Gunnison census for 1880.  There are many other instances.
This is why politicians want the census bureau to "adjust" the census statistics for people allegedly not counted - it affects districting.  The requirement is in the constitution.

I always thought the CPI was accurate - until a recent article disclosed how the federal government "plays" with that number, and it helped contribute to the current bailout going on on Wall Street.  It's crap, designed to underestimate inflation and overestimate growth in economy.  And apparently it did that rather well past few years.  Maybe that's why military is getting around a 3% cost of living increase, and you will get less, Fred.

Don't trust PATCO either.  I watched the daily numbers for several years and always found it amusing that the number of people entering and number of people leaving the system were NEVER the same.  Yet it was based on a readable ticket.  We are talking several hundred.

Most transit ridership numbers are based on a formula applied against revenue, particularly at larger systems.  It's less manpower then tabulating the statistics.  I wouldn't bet my life on any of it.  Even when a smaller system uses driver counters, don't believe it.  It's part of my job to check.

And you really don't want to know about financial records and annual reports.

John

> From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Indian cultural differences> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 16:32:09 -0500> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> > I think what John is saying is they are no good because I don't like > them.> Unemployment estimates are estimates. Correct. But the national > estimates are reliable to within 1/100th and proven so every ten > years when we have a U. S. dicennial census. If you don't like to > hear what they say, sorry about that. If the national rate moved > from 2.3 to 2.2, maybe it moved and maybe it didn't. If it moved > from 2.3 to 2.1 or to 2.5, it did move and it moved in the direction > published and with 0.1 of what was shown. I was amazed in all the > years I worked in Lancaster, the U. S. census came within 0.1 of the > estimates for the average of March and April of 1960, 1970, 1980, > 1990 for the county too. The census had a 100 percent count. > Because all areas have to by BLS procedure add up to the nation, > there will be aberrations in area data. Statistics 101 ... the > larger the area, the smaller the sample you need for reliability. A > one percent U. S. sample will give you 99.9 percent accuracy. You > would probably need a 20 percent sample in Lancaster County to get > the same reliability. Obviously then, of the area data, New York > and Los Angeles and Houston probably are the most accurate while > Wyoming is probably poor in comparison to New York. After all, > Wyoming has only as many people as Lancaster County. In huge areas > you can use the national sample and make it work by itself. In > small areas you need to start with unemployment claims and adjust > them upward using national rations to accommodate people who have > exhausted benefits and are no longer filing or people who have become > discouraged, etc. Obviously the> greatest data problems will be in Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, North > Dakota but not in Philadelphia County or Cook County or Los Angeles > County or the nation as a whole. I should know John, I worked with > those data for 30 years. (Last year's national rate average was > 4.725%. Assuming an accuracy to within .01, then it is accurate to > between 4.71 and 4.73. And we had 5,792,000 on an annual average > unemployed ... give or take 5800 on an annual average basis. I think > that is fair accuracy.> > Consumer price index. Quite reliable. But it doesn't show what > prices do. It shows what consumers are buying. CONSUMER PRICE > INDEX. If consumers cut back on driving because the price of > gasoline goes up or turn the thermostat down because oil goes up or > change to chicken because beef goes up in price, then the CPI does > not reflect the entire magnitude of those changes. It reflects not > price changes but what people are spending. I suspect it also might > show a down turn for the first time in years because of the magnitude > of the gasoline and housing price drops. Yes, I just looked ... > those two components have dragged it down from September to October. > The 1% drop in October was the worst since 1946. The average of > +0.23 so far this year is very low. Another bad month could make it > the lowest ever. A couple of very bad months could make it almost > zero making those people with CPI figured into union contracts very > unhappy. Those of us on social insecurity are not going to get much > if anything in 2009. If it doesn't change at all between now and > the end of the year, it will go up about $30 a month ... but we know > gasoline is continuing to drop. Today is was $1.77 around the > corner. I can imagine social security almost flat from 2008 to > 2009. (The flaw is the people on social security don't drive as > much as people working; they are penalized.)> > > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htm> > If you take this link and plug in 1947 and push go, you can get the > monthly CPI changes since 1947.> > http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet> > If you wish to know what prices are doing, then look at wholesale > price index.> > In general, our federal statistical data are very good because the > Bureau of Labor Statistics works independent of the politicians to > keep it good. The politicians may put their spin on it later and > say the other guy was responsible for making it bad, but the data are > decent most of the time. That does not say, as in statistics 101, > that you cannot have one time in ten that you have fluke data. > National averages tend to iron out the month when you had a fluke. > Remember that if the national unemployment rate falls within 0.1 nine > months out of ten, then the nation rate will be within .01.> > > > The problem with highway fatality numbers will be getting identical > data from different countries. We also have no clue if police are > honest in reporting numbers.> > Transit ridership numbers are bad because the agencies adjust them to > get more money for their own use. Some are very good like PATCO and > Houston Metro. Some, like SEPTA are incapable of being proven. I > think Baltimore needs a good powder keg to blow their numbers off the > planet. I fail to see how they can haul 85,000 a day on the > subway ... look at the youtube pictures of the subway and all you see > are empty trains. And the light rail claims to haul about 30,000 a > day and I see empty trains even on weekdays ... their numbers presume > 100+ people on every car in both directions at each end of the > line. No damn way. I would bet some of those numbers are off by > 50 percent.> > But don't assume all statistics are bad.> > > > > On Dec 6, 2008, at 3:06 PM, John Swindler wrote:> > >> >> > A lot of statistics aren't worth the paper they are printed on, > > such as consumer price index, unemployment, highway fatalities and > > transit ridership numbers. All are nothing more then estimates > > with a lot of assumptions. But they can provide some means of > > arriving at ballpark estimates.> >> > And this is nothing compared to some financial reports. (which also > > aren't worth the paper they are printed on) But best not go there.> >> > My favorite reference is an internal memo from a certain transit > > authority that talks about a "heuristically derived formula" for > > their ridership statistics. And yes, I had to look that word up.> >> > John> >> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:48:21 -0800> From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com> > >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Indian cultural differences> To: pittsburgh- > >> railways at dementia.org> > Mr.Schneider;> > > This certainly puts it > >> in perspective doesn't it.> > It has been stated that the U.S. has > >> higher work place injuries as well within the last couple decades; > >> I have not heard any comparisons recently. Relative to injuries > >> one has to wonder about the criteria for reporting; this could > >> vary considerably between countries, even locations inside > >> borders.> > > Phil> > > > > > ----- Original Message ----> > From: > >> Schneider Fred <fwschneider at comcast.net>> > To: pittsburgh- > >> railways at dementia.org> > Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 11:28:33 > >> AM> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Indian cultural differences> > > http:// > >> www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/ > >> statsmulticountry-percapita-2004.htm> > > > Most recent data I > >> could find was 2004. "Close enough for govmint > > work."> > > > > >> Yes, China killed 107,077 people on!> > their roads in 2004 but that is > > out of a population of 1.3 > > billion people. India lost 90,000 out of > > a billion people. We > > lost 42,636 out of 293.5 million.> > > > China had 8.26 fatalities > > per 100,000 people,> > India had 8.33 and> > we had 14.53.> > > > > > Surprisingly, the worst death rate was> > Russia with almost 25 > > deaths per 100,000 population.> > > > Germany, with a motor vehicle > > registration rate about the same as > > ours but with people > > driving about half as many miles per year as we > > do and with a > > tremendous number of miles of express highways (very > > well > > designed ones) with no speed limits outside of rural areas, has > > > > a fatality rate half that of the U. S. A. > > Their rate is 7.09 > > per 100,000.> > > > > >> > _________________________________________________________________> > Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass.> > http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail? > > ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008> >> > > > 
_________________________________________________________________
Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008