Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why would independent economists, who are not in government and not in charge of gathering or releasing statistics, be so completely incorrect? And what does it say about the Washington Post and their selection of economists?


> be so completely incorrect?

Were they so completely incorrect?

> That is down from a revised loss of 3,000 in August. Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal had expected an increase of 45,000.

Sure, you might say "gosh, +45,000 is way off from -3000". But at the same time, you have to consider they are measuring the change in a population of millions of people. In that sense, the percent error is very tiny whether it's +45K or -3K.


Its much worse than that. -3k was for August. The expectation for September was +45k but instead was -30k. So it was actually 75k misprediction.


>Were they so completely incorrect?

Yes, utterly. having number off by an order of magnitude in the complete opposite direction tells us at best that we are in unusual times and at worst that our estimates no longer work in this job market.


> Why would independent economists, who are not in government and not in charge of gathering or releasing statistics, be so completely incorrect?

Because the situation we find ourselves in is highly unusual?

There's not much precedence for a global pandemic, a demented president, and the US shooting itself in the balls to piss off every major trading partner.


A different way to think about this is asking why anybody thinks they can be correct about this?

If records surrounding this topic are always correct and require revision maybe that's just how the data presents itself.

You only know the true amount of rainfall that happens after the storm passes.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: