Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 32 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

32 minutes ago

No...

You clearly can't "help" with something you consistently demonstrate you don't understand. 

The surveys only seek to determine how many people are employed under their definitions. There is no sampling of the survey population.

The sampling is in the choice of survey respondents, but there the only question is whether the sample is large enough to be "valid"...the matter of "survivorship" is handled through what is referred to as the "birth/death adjustment".

I think we can stop now while you apologize to the forum and eviscerate yourself in my honor.

Chop, chop.

Veghead really out here delivering a TED Talk on BLS survey mechanics like it somehow proves he understands survivorship bias. You are trying so hard to sound authoritative, but once again you are confusing data collection methodology with cognitive bias. It’s like watching someone mistake the instruction manual for the point of the game.You are flexing your Wikipedia-tier understanding of labor statistics while completely missing the point, again.

You keep reciting the mechanics of how employment surveys are conducted like that somehow refutes a discussion about how the interpretation of those numbers creates a distorted narrative. That’s what survivorship bias is—not about how surveys sample respondents, but how outcomes are framed by ignoring what’s been lost or excluded from view.“Birth/death adjustment”? Cute attempt at sounding like you’ve cornered the glossary, but it’s irrelevant to the actual argument. You’re trying to patch up your misunderstanding with buzzwords and hoping nobody notices you're still off-topic.

 And as for eviscerating myself in your honor—sorry, Veghead, you’re not quite impressive enough for ritual sacrifice. Maybe start by answering a question, the first time asked, without a tantrum first.

Chop chop.