Why isn’t anyone asking for the exact formula used to calculate unemployment and then posting it on the screen every time the numbers are presented? How hard can this be?
I contend that just like the rhetoric employed by politicians such as “Forward”, “Hope and Change” and “Country First” the formulas we use to get our numbers are always left intentionally vague. Think about it for a moment… If you know exactly how the data is arrived at, you might be able to do it yourself. And… if you could do it yourself then there is no way for any Administration to monkey with the results.
In other words, if you define anything, it will be used to measure your performance. We certainly cannot have any of that in government. And clearly we are willing to accept, allow, endorse this behavior from our political leaders. Why on earth would you be specific when you can leave it all up to the listeners imagination? If they like you, they’ll make it mean whatever they think is favorable, if they don’t like you… well, who cares?
So once again we have an unemployment number that is meaningless except that it’s bad, or good, depending on who you like. Keep in mind, it’s the best one the Monkey’s could produce… and sometimes it’s better than the last one, until the Monkey’s revise it when no one is looking, and then it’s not… or it is.
My latest favorite bit of Monkey business has applied a number to those “dropping out fo the work force” and “those who have stopped looking for work”.
I’m not the sharpest bowling ball in the deck, so it’s probably no surprise that I don’t understand what that means. Help me here. Does that mean that these people have disappeared from the face of the earth? Does it mean they have illegally crossed the border into Canada to find work? Does it mean that they are no longer a burden on our already overwhelmed social safety net because they stopped taking welfare? (This one I would be happy with.) Apparently none of the above. It simply means they are not considered “unemployed”.
Well okay!… Let’s all drop out of the workforce thus solving our problem.
Frankly, I’m not sure why our government goes through all the posturing to create an idea that any of this is based in reason. I would have more respect if they just came out and said “We made up this months unemployment number, at it’s X.” (It’s been done before… FDR did it with gold.) Then at least there would be some honesty, even if inaccuracy remains, in the system.
I can hear it now… “Mike, you’re just not educated enough to understand the complexities involved when trying to get an accurate number for something like unemployment. It’s just not that simple.” Yes… Yes… it’s FAR TOO COMPLEX for small minds like mine. I seem to hear this anytime the Number Monkey’s get challenged. Well, yes, it is that simple which is why I’m educated enough to understand it.
Floating metrics are loved by anyone not wishing to be held accountable to the results of their prognostications. “We created 4 million new jobs!” Just don’t bother me with the fact that unemployment is going up, not down. And don’t bother me with the fact that many of these jobs already existed but we decided to call them something else in order to count them. I get to decide what job is and I get to decide how I calculate it… so SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP and stop bothering me… As long as we let them get away with it then they will keep behaving like your little sister. This truly is supposed to be the function of our news media as our watchdogs over government. Where are these bastions of objectivity when you need them?
I guess it’s up to us.
So, let’s all agree on a single, unalterable, formula and stick to it. We should also agree that people don’t simply disappear. I’m sure all the media will jump on this idea after they read this post.
If nothing else it would be fun to watch the politicians screams out in pain after being shown the cross of accountability. remember, the formulas should not change from Administration to Administration. When’s the last time we changed the length of
Oh right… and lets start making a public list of those “surprised” economists every time the economic numbers come out. I think it would be useful for the news agencies (since they are incapable of doing this themselves) to finally figure out who not to listen to. (For all you news nets out there, you can just send me a check for that one. I also accept scotch.)
No comments:
Post a Comment