[spdgg]

Those economic gains are not felt by a majority of the population. That was clear by the election, and would be clear to you if you stepped out of your own echo chamber. Nobody wants to hear about U3 unemployment when they can't afford childcare, groceries, medicine, all of which have inflated significantly. For folks who were already living paycheck to paycheck, of which there are many, these explanations are both patronizing and out of touch with the lived experience of most of the population.

[maximusdrex]

I’d love to see some data supporting this argument because I’ve heard it over and over from people all over the political spectrum the past few years but it just doesn’t line up with any data. You act like they’re quoting abstract numbers which are meaningless compared to people’s “lived experience” but unemployment is a large part of people’s experience. Furthermore, inflation adjusted wages are up (with the highest gains in the lowest 50% of earners). If these statistics aren’t fully capturing people’s experiences, I’m sure every economist in the world would love to know what metrics are better. Instead it seems perceptions about the state of the economy have become more tightly coupled to the media atmosphere than anything measurable.

[spdgg]

If the anecdotes are not matching up with the data maybe the data is not measured right. Economics is not a science. Given that for profit media is already tightly coupled with the economy, and supported by advertising, the incentive would be for them to create a narrative that the economy is doing well. Consumer confidence is necessary to continue their model of making money through advertising. Righteous consumers of the media have incentive to promote its narratives to make themselves seem more worldly and educated, and that's how we end up with arguments denying the lived experience of "people all over the political spectrum the past few years". The people who have been saying that are not the ones with incentive to lie to you.

[nothercastle]

If you can’t see the issues with the data you aren’t looking. If you examine the CPI basket and see that health care weighing vs what it is as a % of the economy and that doesn’t draw suspicion idk what will.

[itsdrewmiller]

What is your allegation here? Health care is weighted at 8.275% and private spending on healthcare is right around there. Do you think it should include public spending on healthcare for some reason?

[CRConrad]

> I’d love to see some data supporting this argument because I’ve heard it over and over from people all over the political spectrum the past few years but it just doesn’t line up with any data.

Wasn't one of the main points — perhaps the main point — of the article that the data is measured wrong?

> You act like they’re quoting abstract numbers which are meaningless compared to people’s “lived experience” but unemployment is a large part of people’s experience.

Yeah, and the article was in large part about how the unemployment measures in the data don't reflect what people’s lived experience of unemployment is. That's pretty much the definition of “abstract numbers which are meaningless”.

> Furthermore, inflation adjusted wages are up (with the highest gains in the lowest 50% of earners).

Again, that depends very much on how you measure inflation.

> If these statistics aren’t fully capturing people’s experiences, I’m sure every economist in the world would love to know what metrics are better.

That may be the reason the article suggested some new metrics. Honestly, did you even read it at all?

[latentcall]

You can just ask people instead of relying on some study or survey…