[PRCo] Statistics 101

[Schneider Fred]

I don't know.   You would have to add that it.   But the number on  
welfare was not as large as people want to belive it is.   In  
Lancaster County, when I was responsible for labor statistics here,  
the unemployed were about 2.5% of the labor force or about 4200  
people and the total on any form of welfare (men on general  
assistance, women on AFDC, women receiving food stamps, kids ...  
anyone at all whether they were even old enough to work or not)  
numbered about 12,000.   Many of those were working and were entitled  
to medical assistance or a food stamps because their earnings were  
too low to support the family.    People tend to believe such numbers  
are huge.

The census is a 100% count.   Certain detail is a sample.   However,  
certain census takers are just as incompetent today as they were  
then.  Race for example is supposed to be a 100% count.   Employment  
and unemployent is a sample count ... 20%.   Remember that census  
takers are also the people they can get that are unemployed at the  
time and if it is a period of demand employment, they're not going to  
get quality people.   I remember putting a note in one return saying  
where my daughter was at that moment but saying I had no idea where  
she would be on April 1st.   In June 1990 I got a call wanting to  
know where she was then.   I asked why.  The census taker wanted to  
know for the census.   I told her she had no reason to know.   She  
told me that she had every right to know and that I was interfering  
with the U. S. census.   I reminded her that the date of the census  
was April 1st and note June and that she had best figure out what her  
job was or maybe she would like to put her supervisor on and I would  
talk with that person.   Then she asked where the kid was on April  
1st.   At that point I gave her Lynne's phone number and told her to  
ask her, herself.   Again, some of the help is not always  
competent.   There also wasn't a census record for a member of my  
family in 1890 and they didn't move either ... the census taker just  
didn't bother to come back to that address in Allegheny.

I've never been missed in any census count.   I have a solution for  
those who are and in particular those who refuse to return the census  
form or ignore returning it ... a $500 fine would be appropriate.    
It might stop the problem a lot better than trying to pad counts.

Government plays with the CPI?   I'm not sure what the article you  
read said.   The government adjusts the "market basket" to reflect  
changes in consumer buying habits.   If someone didn't like those  
changes because it hurt them, I can assure you an article will come  
out against the CPI.   If the unions don't get big raises in 2009  
because the CPI goes down because home prices went down and because  
oil and gas prices went down, you will see people complaining that  
the CPI is faked.

I suspect the military is getting 3% because it needs to keep  
enlistments up.   When you are killing people off, you need to pay  
more to get mercenaries.   As the "depression" deepens, then the  
military won't need to pay as much because there won't be as many  
civilian jobs.

Enter and leaving differ?   Kids jumping over the gates?

Houston I believe as much as anyone because they were using a light  
beam at the doorway to count people boarding the cars.


On Dec 6, 2008, at 5:25 PM, John Swindler wrote:

>
> 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 wi!
>  ll 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 th!
>  e nation as a whole. I should know John, I worked with > those  
> data fo
> r 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 w!
>  as 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 inde!
>  x.> > In general, our federal statistical data are very good  
> because t
> he > 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 nu!
>  mbers 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 r!
>  ate 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
>