Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Can US Citizens Trust Government Data? (msn.com)
mmell writes: An editorial in the Washington Post and made publicly available via an MSN news feed has asked the question: "In the Trump administration era of 'alternative facts,' what happens to government data?" Given that Slashdot members (and readers) may represent a somewhat more in-the-know crowd on matters concerning data integrity and trustworthiness, I thought this would be a good place to ask: can we trust (or has anyone ever really trusted) government data? One might think government data would all be cut 'n' dried and not subject to manipulation, but I personally remember when government data back early in the Reagan presidency went from reporting nearly 15% unemployment nationwide to well under 6% by redefining what "unemployed" meant. So . . . has government data ever been trustworthy, and is it still so?
IIRC this is the same gov't that redefined broadband as 768Kbps so our broadband maps would look better back in the broadband recovery act days.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Before you go getting your panties all in a wad, the Bureau of Labor Standards (BLS) reports quite a few numbers on unemployment statistics. Unfortunately, too many people harp about the basic unemployment rate w/o taking the time to go look at the other numbers available...underemployment for example. The "redefinition" of unemployment removed people who weren't looking for work from the basic number. But, let's take a look at https://www.bls.gov/news.relea... and see what's actually being produced, and compare apples to apples instead of whining that someone changed (or refined depending upon what spin you'd like to put on it) the calculation.
Just another day in Paradise
Have you ever been able to trust it? I doubt it, so nothing has really changed in this regard and the timing of this question seems partisan.
To a degree, yes. Obviously a healthy amount of skepticism is needed and you need to be aware that governments can and will lie if there is a pressing need.
Individual politicians? No, don't believe a word they say without fact checking. Government agencies you tend to believe because they are large bodies with multiple employees paid to analyze data. In the era of Trump though I think I will be more suspicious of even government agencies than usual. We've already seen a press release filled with bare-faced "Alternate Facts". We've already seen the National Park service censored for publishing inconvenient data.
I think it's going to be more and more important to get news on domestic issues from overseas sources such as the BBC. Not only is our own media already polarized to the left or the right instead of just reporting facts, Trump threatened several times during his campaign to treat it as illegal for the press to criticize him. At what point will he try to enforce that?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The most important thing about gov't data is that they describe accurately where they get the data, what each of their terms mean, and that those not change from year to year or administration to administration.
As long as the methodology is consistent then it's useful for longitudinal comparison, regardless of whether you agree with the absolute numerical value.
On the bright side, it is refreshing to see the Democrats suddenly care about fiscal responsibility, and the press actually scrutinizing the government.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
They stopped counting the long-term unemployed under St. Ronnie, under Shrub they redefined 'long-term'. I believe it was under Bush the Elected (but maybe under Clinton) that they stopped counting people who didn't have phones.
Removing food, fuel, housing and healthcare from the official yardstick for inflation happened during the '80s, that was how Reagan "beat inflation". In the '90s they added electronics and communications to make the numbers look better (not sure if they're still in there).
Benghazi? Seriously? I thought even InfoWars had given up beating that poor dead horse.
The IRS didn't target conservative groups, they were instructed by Congress to enforce the laws on the books about registering non-profit organizations (IIRC environmental groups were the actual target of Congress). That conservative groups were found to be breaking the law wasn't a surprise to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. They chose a category which disallowed political action so that they could hide their donor lists, and started politicking before they even finished the paperwork. The non-Libertardian groups caught said, "Oops, we chose the wrong category and will fix it."
Before you go off on your tangent of calling me an Obama-loving Democratic shill I should probably make clear that I loathe what the Democratic Party has become and seriously dislike Barry "Bush-lite" Obama. Just your post was so full of bullshit that it irritated me.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
There are also some other factors that skew the numbers, depending on how you count.
- Retirees have a full time job of being retired. Some statistics count them, some exclude them from the total, and some disregard them and the numbers go all wrong.
- Prison population, many of whom are modern slave labor (refuse to work = don't get parole). With the outrageously high prison population in the US, how this number is treated can make a significant difference.
- People who work multiple jobs. If you count the number of jobs, or count the number of workers, that leads to a discrepancy.
- The underemployed, who while having work, do not have enough income to subsist on. Seasonal workers can also fall under this. How should they be counted?
- Dark economy. Is it fair to count those who make a decent living outside the system as unemployed? This includes not only tax evaders and criminals at large, but also housewives and groups with an internal economy (mennonites, native tribes, communes).
While the exact numbers can be hard to determine, there's no doubt that the politicians have cooked the numbers many times by doing things like excluding those who have been unable to find work for a while, or excluding permanent residents and only counting citizens (as if the voting ability changes anything).
No kidding. The really sad thing is that libertarian candidates could be that viable alternative, if they would just understand that the tragedy of the commons is a real thing and that government is a legitimate means of solving it, and tone down the economic extremism. Progressives and libertarians substantially agree on social policy (except for affirmative action), after all!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz