Quote:
Originally posted by kulrblind
Quite right: it's not an outrageous idea. I think this is the main reason why NAICS took over where SIC left off (SIC was brought into use in the 1930s and phased out in the 80s), and why there are frequent changes to NAICS. Lying (for lack of a better word) through statistics isn't a new phenomenon, and while the prospect of constructing a new system which classifies goods and services in an 'irrefutable' manner seems attractive, there's always the risk that even those stats will be used in ways that are less than scrupulous.
edit: this just in: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...62525?v=glance
|
My goal isn't to minimize the lying as it will, unfortunately, always occur. My point is purely from an economic perspective. The fast food industry, for example, is pointed to with such disdain when in fact it really is an interesting business that can be likened to the early days of other "factory" work.
I remember the transition from SIC to NAICS quite well as I was working as an economist at the time of transition. Of course, electronic media was just coming into play so we were inundated with massive volumes of SIC to NAICS conversion tables, definitions, and methodologies. While there will never be a perfect solution to the classification of industries questions need to be asked constantly about the logic being followed and the impacts of different classifications. Where your business is classified can have a huge effect on subsidies, tax rates, and employment prospects.