On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:59:32PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> Its an interesting mix, one survey is much more accurate but doesn't
> cover the whole field, the other is broader, but with greater
> statistical and systematic errors. One might argue that one should use
> the gross numbers from payr
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: Household vs. payroll employment
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:59:32PM -0600, Dan Minette wr
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:59:32PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> worth thinking about any catagories is why they would change enough
> in 4 years to account for the differences. The biggest factor is
> the population control, so that is one good reason to focus on that
> factor. For example, why w
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: Household vs. payroll employment
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:40:19PM -0600, Dan Minette
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Household vs. payroll employment
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:14:04PM -0600, Dan Minette
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:40:19PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> 4) The estimation of the growth in population since 2000 has been
> overdone.
>
> It appears that the Federal Reserve is looking at #4 as the most
> likely.
BLS revised it in January 2000, 2003, and 2004 for population
control. Was
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:14:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> Right, but there is a seperate catagory for them.
I don't see your point. The categories are not well-defined, so they
cannot be fully reconciled between the two surveys.
> The difference between payroll figures are still substantia
Sorry all, I'm multitasking and didn't finish this thought.
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Household vs. payr
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Household vs. payroll employment
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:38:59PM -0600, Dan Minett
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:38:59PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:42:48AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> > > This is an interesting question. On the face of it, your
> > > arguement is intuative, but there are other factors in
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Household vs. payroll employment
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:42:48AM -0600, Dan Minette
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:42:48AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> This is an interesting question. On the face of it, your arguement is
> intuative, but there are other factors involved. People who work in
> housing, but are not "on the books" are usually (or at least often)
> illegal immigrants.
The Federal Reserve believes that this number has
been over estimated.
We have a quote on this from Brad DeLong's website:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000343.html#000343
Note: The Fed's View on the Household vs. the Payroll Employment Survey
Populati
13 matches
Mail list logo
