CBO: 600K to 1.6M jobs created or saved by stimulus (cost, biased)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't accurately measure GDP or inflation or unemployment or capacity utilization or average weekly hours worked in manufacturing either. Should we cut that crap out? Or would you like to accept the fact that good statistical methodologies are actually quite accurate and provide very useful information. This is true in particular when a number of different reputable models and projections are clustered in the same range, as is true in this case.
The difference is in the perception of the numbers by the general public. When a govt agency claims the unemployment rate is 10.2%, you don't hear that the unemployment rate could be between 3% and 20%.
The wide range in the number of jobs saved or created has caused a distrust of the numbers themselves. An almost 300% difference from one claimed number to another really does not give a sense of confidence that the CBO (or any organization that would use such a large gap) knows what they are doing. Perhaps the definition of what exactly constitutes a "saved" job should have been better defined, possibly causing the large gap to be somehat narrowed.
I don't understand...the Right reference the CBO numbers like it was the bible when talking about the health care cost when it speaks against this administration, but when they report on findings that support this administratioin, its spin.
They are reporting the limits of the confidence interval. Sort of like when you see a poll and it says the margin of error is 3%. Garden variety statitical analysis. It's done all the time in business, government, and academia...
Is that how you grade Saggy? You give students a grade between an "A" and a "D"? Anything more than 1 times lower bound indicates a failure in any discipline.
Yes jobs were created. But the fact that they are estimating to two commas is pretty scary.
Last edited by GOPATTA2D; 12-01-2009 at 08:26 PM..
Hey great idea: next April 15 let's all estimate our tax liability! I predict mine is somewhere between $80k to $300k. I'll send the IRS a check along with my guess methodology. Good enough for the CBO, good enough for me.
The difference is in the perception of the numbers by the general public. When a govt agency claims the unemployment rate is 10.2%, you don't hear that the unemployment rate could be between 3% and 20%.
The unemployment numbers come from a monthly survey of more than 60,000 households. That's a very large sample gathering exact information (Are you currently employed?) which is going to produce a very narrow confidence interval.
There aren't any surveys you can do to find jobs saved or created. Those numbers come from very detailed models and projections that characterize dozens of economic interrelationships to estimate what employment is today versus what it would have been today had the stimulus not been in effect. The difference is jobs saved or created. There is no separate count or measure. But because each estimate of a relationship contains a small bit of variability and there are lots of them, the model overall will carry a seemingly broad confidence interval. Watching that interval over time and comparing it in current time to the results of other models trying to do the same thing gives you an idea of how serious a thing that seemingly broad interval might be. Most major public and private sector models are currently producing data that are in broad consensus. That increases your tendency to believe that the models have got something right.
Rising slower? I love that one. If I am drowning, I will be happier that I am dead in 7 feet of water, rather than 10 feet. That is certainly progress- liberal style.
Well to use your own (flawed) logic, I guess it wouldn't be better to crash a car at 30mph instead of 60mph either.
They are reporting the limits of the confidence interval. Sort of like when you see a poll and it says the margin of error is 3%. Garden variety statitical analysis. It's done all the time in business, government, and academia...
They are reporting the limits of the confidence interval. Sort of like when you see a poll and it says the margin of error is 3%. Garden variety statitical analysis. It's done all the time in business, government, and academia...
A confidence interval that spans one million numbers is unreliable, regardless of what the data concerns. That large of a gap would be the same as issuing a margin of error around ±40%. If we were talking about an election, say 50% of people would vote for Obama, with a ±30% margin of error. That means your actual figure could be between 20% and 80%, which makes the data completely useless. Same concept here.. If your measurement of how many jobs are saved or lost gives you that large of a difference, the resulting figure is worthless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
