this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
-31 points (18.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2609 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

[P]erhaps the voters are sensible and the economists are obtuse. And perhaps the indicators on which economists rely no longer mean what economists suppose them to mean.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The White House believes American workers have seldom had it so good. And lots of prestigious economists agree. But the voters aren’t buying. Maybe they know something?

I am instantly suspicious. If the thesis is "the experts think things are good, but the non-experts don't agree, I'm on team non expert" then that's instantly a little weird.

Unemployment is low. Inflation has fallen. Real earnings are rising. GDP growth has held up—so far. The economists are happy, but for some reason the voters are not! It must be their own ignorance and obtuseness—so says Paul Krugman, house economist of The New York Times.

Bro what the fuck

Those first few things sound pretty good

Right? Is there a reason to disagree with the idea that they're good things, and if someone "feels" things aren't good, then maybe the issue is their feelings and perception and not the economic reality?

A low jobless rate can mask a great deal of stress in such households.

Yes, it can. Is it? In this case?

The employment-to-population ratio is still a bit below where it was in 2020, and far below where it was in 2000; average weekly hours are still falling.

Well, by all means, if we're looking for an accurate picture, let's focus in on the metric that includes people who worked 1 hour a week or people who gave up looking for work in "employed." Let's not address anything related to the actual results that are being shown by other metrics, but merely point out that in a theoretical sense they could potentially be misleading, in some scenarios, whether or not that's the current scenario.

Next, consider inflation

Dude. This next piece is even worse. It's a fucking masterclass in misleading. It's honestly impressive.

Okay, so first, the reality:

  • Per capita average income, in constant dollars, is going up. I.e. wages are outpacing inflation. That's fairly impressive given that we've had absolutely historic inflation after Covid's supply-chain troubles and this surge of corporate greed raising prices, and most first-world countries have seen inflation rise faster than wages.
  • But, it gets even more interesting when you break it down by income level -- at the 90th percentile, wages actually are falling, but at the bottom (10th percentile), they're rising. I.e. that average growth is actually driven by wage growth at the bottom end, as wage inequality shrinks overall. (All those $15/hr entry-level jobs that are now standard that didn't used to be, all those fast food places closed for the day because "no one wants to work" for the wages they're paying).

So with that reality in mind, let's look at how they try to spin it into something bad:

, which is the rate of price change measured month-to-month or year-to-year. But what matters to consumers is prices in relation to household incomes over several years.

Accurate (the numbers are up above, but they do not attempt to present them, for obvious reasons -- they just explain what they are, in a way that strongly implies that they would show a bad picture if they decided to show them)

In 1980 Ronald Reagan famously asked, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Accurate, he did

Today, millions of American households are worse off than they were in 2020.

Accurate. There are 336 million people in the United States. If 1.25 percent of them are worse off, then millions of Americans are worse off than they were in 2020.

Basic living costs, such as gasoline, utilities, food, and housing, have risen more than their incomes have.

Accurate. Again, the majority of Americans have had their income rise faster than inflation. And yet, by making the completely true statement that "millions" of people have had their income fall, they make a little trickiness that sounds like the typical person has had their income fall.

Real median household income peaked in 2019 and fell at least through 2022.

Median income is actually pretty steady (-1%). The average increase stems from growth at the bottom, no change in the middle, and loss at the top. I.e. reduced inequality. That's very unusual for a challenging economic time.

Yes, but didn’t real wages go up sharply in 2023? According to the Biden-friendly Center for American Progress, real wages (for those continuously employed) have indeed now recovered roughly to where they would have been had no pandemic occurred.

Yes, according to them and many other experts Biden-friendly and not. But this framing makes it sound like only the Biden friendly people say this.

But there is a great distinction between steady progress and a sawtooth down-and-up. The former breeds confidence; the latter does not.

So we're winning, but it could be a "sawtooth," so it doesn't count. Got it.

[–] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

That was pointless and meandering read. Yeah, dude- individual economics don't align with broad economic figures... what a novel observation...

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago

This was one of the best articles I've read on the subject.