crissindahouse said:
The result would be still not much different for Sony or many others in this case. Sony got 406 of 1000 possible votes. If 40 of these 1000 voters would have been unemployed there would have been maybe 20 votes less for Sony (that's rounded up, probably more like 16) if none of these (also unrealistic) would vote for Sony which would put them still at 38.6% but probably at 39-40%. For companies who got 20-25% votes in this poll the to expected loss of votes would be even lower since they already got only every 4th-5th vote. So, those could maybe expect to lose ~8 of their 200-250 votes. Then there is the fact that employed people will also consider a company as not so great if it's known to fire people even if they are still employed. Or do you expect that employed people don't care about a company which has a bad name if it comes to that just because they have a job? That took probably also already some votes away of these companies. It would also not push other companies way up since there is no reason why employed persons shouldn't vote for companies unemployed would since both would obviously vote for these companies for the reason that they are good potential employers who didn't fire people. So, those who aren't liked by unemployed people would get only a very slow percentual downgrade and those companies who are liked by them would probably get 0 extra votes since employed people have no reason to vote less for these companies. You are right, it's not a 100% accurate survey because of this but it would change not much and almost all companies in that list would be still there and not like you said "many wouldn't" I mean, to even think that employed people don't care about companies who made a name as companies who fire people in masses is beyond me. In reality there is no real reason why employed people shouldn't think the same as unemployed in this case only because they have a job. |
Ermm... I never mentioned Sony. The point had nothing to do with Sony at all - or even Nintendo.
Also, it's difficult to get "fired" in Japan. Additionally, the culture in Japan is very different. In Japan, most people do their work and not complain. So, whether the work is good or bad, this isn't something openly discussed in Japanese culture. So, what makes this particular survey bias is that even if there _were_ issues with the companies the Japanese worked for, they would mostly never talk about them.
The survey is mostly about company perception, and the unemployed are much louder than the employed. In Japanese culture, where you work is what you do. Your attitude there can either help or hurt the company as a whole. So, most Japanese are loyal to where they work for this very reason. However, most of the unemployed have no loyalty to any particular company; so their opinions would be more vocal and more honest. However, their voices were completely cut from the frame. Therefore, you'll never truly know how Japan as a whole thinks.
Another thing I must mention. Ignore the unemployment rate when it comes to surveys. I made a great example before, and I'll break it down again. In the US, African Americans take up 15-20 percent of the entire population. So out of 1000 people, you may conclude that African Americans take up 150 to 200 people out of 1000 people. Meanwhile, white Americans would encompass 800 - 850 of the rest of that 1000. That's an overwhelming majority, right? So, what you're thinking is that, if we don't survey African Americans, then the survey would stay the same. However, that is completely false. Like I said earlier: The location in which the survey in conducted is important. Notice how the Japanese survey didn't specify where in Japan this survey was conducted. I'll break it down further. If we were to go to the poor areas of Chicago and conduct a survey, chances are, African Americans and other minorities would take up the bulk of that survey - despite the fact that they are the minority.
Surveys can be skewed in a way that would make something totally false appear to be true. Excluding an entire group of people, not providing additional details such as income level, location and etc., makes this survey rubbish (and yes I did check the pdf). Excluding the unemployed is like excluding African Americans because they're the minority, and therefore, need not be included. I'm making that example to prove that, just because something is of a low percentage, doesn't mean the survey will give you the same results if it were excluded.
