Xref: utzoo misc.kids:8800 comp.edu:2252 sci.med:10015 misc.headlines:8371
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!denbeste
From: denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,comp.edu,sci.med,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: U.S. Far Behind In Health Care, Education : Panel Finds
Summary: I was in this study once
Message-ID: <39592@bbn.COM>
Date: 7 May 89 03:24:54 GMT
References: <1843@ccnysci.UUCP# <1303@optilink.UUCP> <784@aoa.UUCP> <17323@mimsy.UUCP>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Lines: 21

In article <17323@mimsy.UUCP>, sears@tove.umd.edu (Andrew Sears) writes:
> I think you may have the wrong definition too.  As far as I've heard, from
> Economics classes and text books, this is not the case.  There is supposed to 
> be some government agency that actually calls people to gather this information.
> They ask questions like a) Are you currently working?  If you answer no to the 
> first question (actually they ask about working at least X hours a week), then
> they ask you b) Have you looked for work in the last N weeks?  If you answer
> no to the first, and yes to the second then you are unemployed (and trying to
> work).  If you answer no to the first and no to the second, then you are considered
> a 'discouraged' worker, or something like that.  They are supposed to do this every
> so often with a 'representative' sample, and extrapolate to the actual numbers.

About 10 years ag I was part of this. A lady called and asked if our house-hold
would like to be part of this study, and we said we would.

She showed up and spent quite a while asking us census-type questions. Then
every month or so, for 6 months, she called to ask if we were still working,
and we both always were. (Rather boring, I guess.)

She said that participants always are in for 6 months. (Not like the Nielsen
families...)