Well, I started reviewing Ms. Cecilia López's tweets, and there's something in her account that doesn't add up:
Photo 1: She claims that 365,000 jobs were lost in the rural sector in February and also that informality there is at 84%. I ask her where she gets the figure of 365,000, attaching a photo from DANE (National Administrative Department of Statistics), which shows that between last February and this one, the employed population grew by 56,000 in populated centers and dispersed rural areas (that's the technical term DANE uses for RURAL areas).
Photo 2: As evidence of her claim of job losses, Cecilia shows a photo that shows that the number of people employed in the "Agriculture, livestock, hunting, forestry, and fishing" sector decreased by 363,000. Even assuming that 100% of those who carry out this activity are in the rural areas of the country, it doesn't mean that everyone in rural areas works in this sector. There's no direct equivalence between this activity and rural areas, but oh well...
But Cecilia's inconsistency lies in the following:
Photo 3: Responding to a Twitter user who quoted my screenshot from DANE (National Administrative Department of Statistics), Cecilia says it's misleading to include populated centers in the country's rural area, and that's where my question comes in: if that's misleading, why in the original tweet does she cite the 84% rural informality rate, which corresponds precisely to "Populated centers and dispersed rural areas"? So, Cecilia finds the 84% informality figure useful, but not the increase of 56,000 employed people, even though both figures refer to the same segment of the population!
I must be wrong because someone who was Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development of Colombia for 9 months should have a very clear understanding of EVERYTHING related to rural areas, right?
twitter.com/hanwenzhang1982/st...
