Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
If you're sure it's "nowhere near accurate," then why would you even bother including it in your statement as support of anything meaningful?
|
If you'll look at what I typed again, you'll see that I said it is what I 'heard', not read from a book or article and supplied a link to it. I try very hard to qualify what are 'facts' and what are opinions and assumptions. I may not have made that very clear from my remark so I apologize for any confusion on my part.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
If you had been thinking more critically when you read that statistic, and if you had thought about my question more in-depth instead of blowing it off, then you might have wondered how researchers could come up with a number accurately approximating people who aren't participating in the legal work/social domain.
|
please see above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
People who aren't here legally are going to be more difficult to find, by their own desires and by the function of the market (illegal, under the table, hidden) in which they work within. They are going to be difficult, and sometimes impossible, to survey.
One might reasonably conclude that 4.7% is a lowest (non-politcally "conservative") estimate, at best. The number of undocumted workers could, and in all liklihood is, much larger than that. In so far as anyone would use such a troubled estimate to bolster a claim that undocumated laborers are "not a very large portion" of the economy is highly suspect to me.
|
And until I find some other stat that is credible, i'll consider it 'suspect' as well.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|