So, how willing are we to have an actual conversation about this, or are we going to continue to insist that everything was rosy, and any indicators to the alternative are anecdotes and to be ignored?
Highlights:
and the banger:
and the banger:I don’t believe those who went into this past election taking pride in the unemployment numbers understood that the near-record low unemployment figures — the figure was a mere 4.2 percent in November — counted homeless people doing occasional work as “employed.” But the implications are powerful. If you filter the statistic to include as unemployed people who can’t find anything but part-time work or who make a poverty wage (roughly $25,000), the percentage is actually 23.7 percent. In other words, nearly one of every four workers is functionally unemployed in America today — hardly something to celebrate.
....
Today, as a result, those keeping track are led to believe that the median wage in the U.S. stands at roughly $61,900. But if you track everyone in the workforce — that is, if you include part-time workers and unemployed job seekers — the results are remarkably different. Our research reveals that the median wage is actually little more than $52,300 per year. Think of that: American workers on the median are making 16 percent less than the prevailing statistics would indicate.
....
Our alternative indicator reveals that, since 2001, the cost of living for Americans with modest incomes has risen 35 percent faster than the CPI. Put another way: The resources required simply to maintain the same working-class lifestyle over the last two decades have risen much more dramatically than we’ve been led to believe.
Driving into the office each day in Washington, I noted a homeless encampment fixed outside the Federal Reserve itself. And then I began to detect a second pattern inside and outside D.C. alike. Democrats, on the whole, seemed much more inclined to believe what the economic indicators reported. Republicans, by contrast, seemed more inclined to believe what they were seeing with their own two eyes.
This is a retrospective article, countering the deafening narrative leading up to the election that the economy was roaring and everyone was doing fine.What are you trying to have conversation about? What policies (cough supply side economics and massive tax cuts for corps and wealthy) do you think led to stagnant wages and massive deficits?
People still forget this, COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE WORLD part.nearly one of every four workers is functionally unemployed in America today — hardly something to celebrate.
Everyone was, in fact, NOT doing fine. We knew it. But to defend an incumbency Democrats chose to lie. Voters hit the nuclear option in retaliation.
Certainly had/has proponents here. Also denial that rent was outpacing wage growth.This is a retrospective article, countering the deafening narrative leading up to the election that the economy was roaring and everyone was doing fine.
Bingo.Again, this was a world wide issue and the US in context to most of the world was doing great. The problem is social media has allowed liars to gain outsized voices and the average American is ignorant of inflation, covid, logistic interruptions and supply and demand. BIden and Harris should have pounded they are trying to clean up Trumpflation mess due to his bungling of Covid, massive deficit spending and tax cuts to the wealthy during his four years. Do what he does. Blame someone else. Repeatedly pound. “Thanks Trump for your incompetence causing inflation for us to clean up you bankrupt loser.” It would be true in this case.
Democrats have lost because they don’t propagandize their platform. People don’t want facts, they want feelings.
Amazing how egg prices and groceries are suddenly no longer an issue to the right 🤣🤷♂️
Sigh, that is NOT the message delivered leading up to the election. Democrats were so terrified of losing, the only drum they beat was 'economy is great, economy is great, economy is great'. Not a one was saying 'Everything sucks right now, for everyone. Has since COVID. We're doing better than some, but we could be doing better than this. Here's my plan.'Again, this was a world wide issue and the US in context to most of the world was doing great. The problem is social media has allowed liars to gain outsized voices and the average American is ignorant of inflation, covid, logistic interruptions and supply and demand. BIden and Harris should have pounded they are trying to clean up Trumpflation mess due to his bungling of Covid, massive deficit spending and tax cuts to the wealthy during his four years. Do what he does. Blame someone else. Repeatedly pound. “Thanks Trump for your incompetence causing inflation for us to clean up you bankrupt loser.” It would be true in this case.
Democrats have lost because they don’t propagandize their platform. People don’t want facts, they want feelings.
Amazing how egg prices and groceries are suddenly no longer an issue to the right 🤣🤷♂️
That is my point. They lost because they failed to blame Trump’s real failure for four years leading up to the election. Everything was comparatively fine in America but the didn’t message that in context of world and Trump as a loser who caused inflation.Sigh, that is NOT the message delivered leading up to the election. Democrats were so terrified of losing, the only drum they beat was 'economy is great, economy is great, economy is great'. Not a one was saying 'Everything sucks right now, for everyone. Has since COVID. We're doing better than some, but we could be doing better than this. Here's my plan.'
My dude, you don't get to blame your administration's problems on the previous guy, that's a very republican way of thinking and it's idiotic.That is my point. They lost because they failed to blame Trump’s real failure for four years leading up to the election. Everything was comparatively fine in America but the didn’t message that in context of world and Trump as a loser who caused inflation.
Democrats are still operating like this is the 1980s or 90s. That time is over.
I don't think saying everything sucks would have helped Dems. Because who's in charge and gets the blame? Dems.Sigh, that is NOT the message delivered leading up to the election. Democrats were so terrified of losing, the only drum they beat was 'economy is great, economy is great, economy is great'. Not a one was saying 'Everything sucks right now, for everyone. Has since COVID. We're doing better than some, but we could be doing better than this. Here's my plan.'
I was being hyperbolic, but yes, they could have done a lot better with their messaging. There's a perception that Democrats are elitists out of touch with the common folk, and we're being presented with data that the perception has grounding in reality.I don't think saying everything sucks would have helped Dems. Because who's in charge and gets the blame? Dems.
I think the best they could have done is "we know the economic recovery that we've seen hasn't been shared with you, and here's how we're going to make sure you get a fair share".
Though either way, Dems messaging could have been a million times better. No question.
The claim was 'record low unemployment numbers'. 2024's U-6 numbers are decidedly not record lows. (~7.5-8% depending on the month, vs ~7% in 2019, ~6% in 2022, 2023). It's using half-truths to deliver a rosy picture that doesn't reflect reality.Oh my god this article is either incompetent or actively misleading.
First thing I checked was his claim that U-3 only seems good because it's not counting marginal employees. He then leaves it at that because either he's too lazy to check or he's trying to mislead people because when you look at U-6 that DOES account for his complaints you see the exact same story of historically low levels of unemployment. There is no legitimate reason not to inform your readers of this.
Then they go on to say that if you use new standards they simply made up the percentage is 23% or whatever. Sounds bad! They give exactly zero context to what it was like in other years though so there's no way to judge if that's good or bad.
You can't compare U6 numbers to people using the more popular and well recognized reporting for unemployment. It's apples and bananas.The claim was 'record low unemployment numbers'. 2024's U-6 numbers are decidedly not record lows. (~7.5-8% depending on the month, vs ~7% in 2019, ~6% in 2022, 2023). It's using half-truths to deliver a rosy picture that doesn't reflect reality.
But that's exactly what the article is pointing out, it's massaging statistics to fit a narrative, then being surprised when the people you're ignoring feel disenfranchised.You can't compare U6 numbers to people using the more popular and well recognized reporting for unemployment. It's apples and bananas.
The only idiotic reaction is yours clown. So, you are saying democrats should not have spent four years and election blaming Trump for inflation and recovery nor extolling their success in navigating inflation without recession. Got it.My dude, you don't get to blame your administration's problems on the previous guy, that's a very republican way of thinking and it's idiotic.
Democrats lost because they stood on the deck of the titanic telling everyone that didn't get to lifeboats that everything was going great, because the only statistics they measured for greatness was based on the people in the fucking lifeboats.
Your post is mangled by either spell check or your own incompetence so I don't really know what you're trying to insult me about.The only idiotic reaction is yours clown. So, you are saying democrats should have not run Nola ing Trump nor extolling their success.
By your idiotic measure they shouldn’t have run at all.
lol. Ah yes spellcheck on a forum is a measure of competence. You do you clown. You are projecting. How about admitting the statistics were biased and misleading as noted thus invalidating your original premise. Your original post was garbage and your laughably bad takes that democrats should have not run on positive or negative messaging is equally dumb.Your post is mangled by either spell check or your own incompetence so I don't really know what you're trying to insult me about.
They should not have run on the platform they did though, no. It had shaky supports.
It was very close to record lows. By any reasonable estimation a number that low is an indication of a strong economy. The author misled his readers by implying otherwise.The claim was 'record low unemployment numbers'. 2024's U-6 numbers are decidedly not record lows. (~7.5-8% depending on the month, vs ~7% in 2019, ~6% in 2022, 2023). It's using half-truths to deliver a rosy picture that doesn't reflect reality.