Criminals do not get a free pass to Harvard. They get there through being generally exceptional. How they then apply the lessons learned there throughout their lives is a different matter.



I was once poor and homeless. I was not arrested for it. I don't know of anyone who has ever been arrested for it. Are you referring to laws against vagrancy, or have you dreamed up a world where all those with W2's showing less than $2000/year in income are summarily rounded up and jailed?

How is her job search going, during THE GREAT DEPRESSION II?

Like I said...jealousy. For some people, there is no room for the concept that some are exceptional...and it sometimes ain't them.

I am familiar with the shadowstats process. Do you have any experience with hiring and firing during the boom period of time in the US when the stats from this website were describing 14-17% unemployment? Or is your experience with employment during that time period limited to an island somewhere?

I was in the US during this massive wave of unemployment, and didn't see it. Shadowstats does not explain how such a boom in activity, for hire signs everywhere, and anyone with a pulse getting a job fits within his 14-17% unemployment statistic, other than he calculates it different from the government. Different does not automatically equate to correct, and certainly I think this is one of those times.

As i say, arguing from incredulity doesn't work. If you're convinced that there is something wrong with the way that shadowstats are calculated, show that they are wrong, instead of using anecdotal evidence. I'm sure the guy will take well reasoned arguments on board.

I heard you the first time. Watching ads in the paper, reading articles in the paper, and watching positions going unfilled because of lack of people is not arguing from a position of incredulity. I am offering you the opportunity to insert your own experience with the US economy...assuming you were here during that time period?



Do you have anecdotal evidence of your own to offer to backup the accuracy of his numbers, OR to refute them, or do you simply accept them because your experience in our markets convinces you he is right?

I was on panels trying to hire people during the time period on question. Applicants would have 3 offers before we could make ours, and sometimes would not even call us back to tell us they were interested any longer.

Thats because in 2005 this is how things went.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article- ... ounce.html

And that company just filed for bankruptcy, and the articles are more like this now.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/sn ... 3069.story

So you can't fashion a rational argument against the shadowstats methodology? Fair enough.

Sure I can. I read his complete beef. It is actually pretty poor, the entire article was about his BEEF.

The entire read boils down to "gee, I don't like the way they used to do it, I missed the change they made when I claimed they sucked, and when they informed me I was wrong, I still thought they sucked, and certainly I won't tell you which ones are my favorites which TRIPLE the unemployment rate".

But the very fact of comparing his numbers to reality certainly shouldn't be limited to my experience in the US economy. How was yours?

So, as I say, you can't come up with a rational argument against his methodology. That's fine, just so long as we know that it's just your gut feeling.

I can't prove you are a liar so therefore you are telling the truth?

Huh?

I hired people during the boom, and the bust Tony. Not quite "my gut", but I'm perfectly willing to listen to your experience in the same market. Have any, or is backbiting at those who do your own contribution to this topic?

No one ever said that using logic around here is the line of first, or ever LAST defense.

SOS and Maddog don't get it, for some reason. As a claimed critical thinker, I would have thought at least SOS would. So far, SOS has rubbished the shadowstats site simply because he can't believe its figures. That isn't good enough. I'm not saying that the shadowstats graphs are more accurate than the governments (as usual, reality probably sits somewhere between the two). However, to simply use a belief and the experience of one persion as de facto proof that shadow stats is wrong is garbage. One would have to show either that the shadowstats methodology is wrong or that it doesn't match with figures that you can show must be accurate.

I'm not sure why this needs explaining but, there, I've done it.

Argument from indredulity doesn't hack it, though I have to admit that it was one of my approaches for many years (to my shame).

If by, "don't get it" you mean our personal experience might lead us to not swallow every random claim without the enthusiasm you believe is due, well yes, of course.



A) I did not rubbish the site.
B) "Belief" isn't my problem, "boots on the ground" experience versus someone's unexplained number is.

I have asked for your experience, in any, to verify your belief in the shadowstats numbers. Do you have any, or do you wish to dance some more?



Which is why I asked for you to expand the dataset available. Can you?



Your inability to understand the value difference between indredulity(sic) and the experience of people hiring during this time period is not in question. What IS in question is how 15% claimed unemployment can be possible when, during the time period referenced, it does not match evidence from people actually hiring. Small dataset to be sure, but since you have chosen to not contribute, or are just speculating at random because of your comfort with this technique, alternate information is good.

I'm not asking you to swallow every random claim, nor do so with enthusiasm. So your statement is nonsense.OK, rubbished the shadowstats GDP figures, then. It most certainly was belief; you extrapolated your personal experience to the whole of the US, without any rationale for doing so. That is belief.Your incredulity is that the US GDP, as a whole, could not have performed as shown on the shadowstats site, simply because the economy seemed to be going along fine, for you. That's argument from incredulity. You were arguing about the whole of the US economy over many years, given your tiny slice of it, during a short period. I think it is you who fails to understand the difference in those two situations.Well thanks for that. Point made.