posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 03:01 AM
a reply to: ScepticScot
It's far more accurate being compiled from census data.
Not seemingly random households selected from different regions of households.
They use a group measure of 60,000 people selected from various places somewhat randomly based on certain criteria and were suppose to believe that
this represents the macrocosm of what's happening with 94 million people?
I bet it ranges very dramatically from area to area.
I think it would more accurately depict the truth of the labor force than how they are currently estimating unemployement.
We could even quantify variables and play games with them to see how dramatically it effects the overall percentages.
edit on 4/14/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/14/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason