Lies, damn lies, and statistics

[Jaskalas]

Basically the author was like ‘people point to U-3 and claim the economy is strong but it doesn’t count x, y, and z!’ while failing to mention the unemployment measure that DOES count x, y, and z ALSO shows a strong economy.

Again, either stupid or a liar.

Do the rosy looking "wage" stats only use full time employees?
The article covered more than one economic indicator, and it does raise questions by representing more of what we know to be true. That pain was delivered in the economic wake of COVID.

 

[fskimospy]

Do the rosy looking "wage" stats only use full time employees?
The article covered more than one economic indicator, and it does raise questions by representing more of what we know to be true. That pain was delivered in the economic wake of COVID.

No, wage stats are available for hourly as well. Really people at the low end saw the biggest gains. They did very well.

 

[ivwshane]

Wait so we aren’t supposed to be using the same standard of measurement when talking about the employment numbers that we have always used when comparing presidents and the economy and instead use these other numbers that might paint a more detailed picture but let’s not apply the same detailed stats to all presidents?

In other words, let’s judge democrats on a higher scale than Republican presidents. Sure sounds like DEI to me!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Wait so we aren’t supposed to be using the same standard of measurement when talking about the employment numbers that we have always used when comparing presidents and the economy and instead use these other numbers that might paint a more detailed picture but let’s not apply the same detailed stats to all presidents?

In other words, let’s judge democrats on a higher scale than Republican presidents. Sure sounds like DEI to me!

The author specifically states that the measurements have been wrong for decades, so no, not just a Democrat thing.

 

[soulcougher73]

He would have to apply this same metric to all past records to paint a picture of what is going on. It is fine to come up with a better metric, but you cant use new metric against an old metric and go "see....bad".

 

[Brainonska511]

Idk, author in a right wing rag coming out of left field to tell everyone how BLS has been wrong and we should use this different number that helps to justify "Biden economy bad" messaging. Seems a bit sus.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Idk, author in a right wing rag coming out of left field to tell everyone how BLS has been wrong and we should use this different number that helps to justify "Biden economy bad" messaging. Seems a bit sus.

Interesting, I read it as 'this is why they lost, messaging is wrong'

 

[manly]

This is a retrospective article, countering the deafening narrative leading up to the election that the economy was roaring and everyone was doing fine.

Haven't finished the article, but you play fast and loose with the facts. There was no "deafening narrative," unless you mean a few people feel strongly one way (or the other).

I've maintained for months that the "truth is in the middle" on Bidenomics, but this debate will never be resolved definitively. Not sure if it really matters anymore, because the message on Bidenomics clearly lost.
OTOH DJT is trying very hard to spike inflation and/or cause a recession. Let's see how people feel when real economic pain arrives.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Haven't finished the article, but you play fast and loose with the facts. There was no "deafening narrative," unless you mean a few people feel strongly one way (or the other).

I've maintained for months that the "truth is in the middle" on Bidenomics, but this debate will never be resolved definitively. Not sure if it really matters anymore, because the message on Bidenomics clearly lost.
OTOH DJT is trying very hard to spike inflation and/or cause a recession. Let's see how people feel when real economic pain arrives.

From my anecdotal perspective it was deafening. Every time I tried to bring up an argument here that the economy was not as strong as it seemed I got shouted down. On MSNBC (bout the only mainstream news source I consume) it was repeated basically every day. It was the main drum beat.

 

[PowerEngineer]

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.'

You do realize that every incumbent president seeking reelection has to portray the country's condition as better now than when they first took office. And that every challenger has to argue that conditions are worse. And when it comes to the country's condition, it is famously said that "it's the economy, stupid!".

Not surprisingly, the Democratic drumbeat emphasized only the positive economic indications. But it should have been impossible for you to not hear the Republican drumbeat emphasizing only the negatives. The Republicans message certainly was that "everything sucks right now for everyone" with the addendum that "it's all the fault of the Democrats".

What I never heard prior to the election was a believable Republican plan to make things better for the American lower and middle classes. Did you? And I certainly haven't heard one since the election either. Have you?

Sadly, the shrinking of the American middle class and the steady loss of living wage jobs is a decades long trend that no one administration or political party is responsible for.

My two cents...

 

[manly]

From my anecdotal perspective it was deafening. Every time I tried to bring up an argument here that the economy was not as strong as it seemed I got shouted down. On MSNBC (bout the only mainstream news source I consume) it was repeated basically every day. It was the main drum beat.

Your other economic anecdote from last year is that grocery prices roughly doubled between 2020 and 2024. You're right that some folks expressed some strong opinions; but no that wasn't a broad consensus, not even among just Democratic voters.

I actually liked the article you posted, and if its facts and conclusions are true, does explain a lot about what's going on in America. I think you'll find many in this forum that find some truths in it: that the trickle-up economy has been a long-term failure and no, not "everybody is doing fine." The crazy part is this has more to do with GOP policies than Joe Biden, but voters are too dumb to figure that much out.

I disagree with the above commentary that this is something of a hit piece on Biden. I'll quote directly from towards the end:

The problem isn’t that some Americans didn’t come out ahead after four years of Bidenomics. Some did. It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks, and the last four years did not turn things around enough for the lower 60 percent of American income earners.

I thought that it's a good balanced article, and although I don't read a lot of Politico, had not found them to be a conservative rag until it was mentioned above. 🤷‍♂️

And others said above, as a strategic option, Biden/Harris HAS to say the economy is in good shape. What else would they say, even if that wasn't true?

 

[fskimospy]

Your other economic anecdote from last year is that grocery prices roughly doubled between 2020 and 2024. You're right that some folks expressed some strong opinions; but no that wasn't a broad consensus, not even among just Democratic voters.

I actually liked the article you posted, and if its facts and conclusions are true, does explain a lot about what's going on in America. I think you'll find many in this forum that find some truths in it: that the trickle-up economy has been a long-term failure and no, not "everybody is doing fine." The crazy part is this has more to do with GOP policies than Joe Biden, but voters are too dumb to figure that much out.

I disagree with the above commentary that this is something of a hit piece on Biden. I'll quote directly from towards the end:



I thought that it's a good balanced article, and although I don't read a lot of Politico, had not found them to be a conservative rag until it was mentioned above. 🤷‍♂️

And others said above, as a strategic option, Biden/Harris HAS to say the economy is in good shape. What else would they say, even if that wasn't true?

The problem is the article also plays fast and loose with stats. Again - it makes a very clear point that unemployment is worse than U-3 says and this means the economy isn’t as strong as it is portrayed and then doesn’t note that the measure that directly addresses that complaint ALSO points to a strong economy. Same when it comes to wages.

This is a guy talking his own book - he has developed methodology that he claims is better than what BLS does and so he’s trying to talk it up in the context of ‘if you only used my measure you would have known’.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And others said above, as a strategic option, Biden/Harris HAS to say the economy is in good shape. What else would they say, even if that wasn't true?

Shrug, honesty may go further with some constituents than half truths that are dispelled by their own eyes. I could be wrong though.

 

[manly]

The problem is the article also plays fast and loose with stats. Again - it makes a very clear point that unemployment is worse than U-3 says and this means the economy isn’t as strong as it is portrayed and then doesn’t note that the measure that directly addresses that complaint ALSO points to a strong economy. Same when it comes to wages.

This is a guy talking his own book - he has developed methodology that he claims is better than what BLS does and so he’s trying to talk it up in the context of ‘if you only used my measure you would have known’.

IMO it was a balanced article. He goes out of his way to say the BLS stats are correct; he's not calling anyone a liar as the thread title seemingly suggests. The author just believes that the official stats are not reflective of how the bottom 50% of Americans actually lives.

We'd have to see the methodology, and be pretty good economists, to know whether or not the conclusions are legit. But even in this subforum, there are a lot of folks that have expressed that unaffordable housing has made it difficult for "median" folks to get ahead. And like I said above, a lot of this is tied to GOP trickle-up policies. You could argue that Democrats have been complicit in globalization, but I actually see a lot of good in a "rising tide lifting all boats." Globalization does create some winners and losers, but it is not the root cause of the difficulties that most American households deal with. (Cheap Chinese goods HAS given Americans a lot more disposable income to spend on other things.)

Shrug, honesty may go further with some constituents than half truths that are dispelled by their own eyes. I could be wrong though.

You usually are wrong, so we'll go with that.
Look, these two things can be simultaneously true: the U.S. macroeconomy is resilient/strong compared to ALL of its peers; but tens of millions of households are not sharing in that strength. And you're right that the latter is partly why Trump has won not one, but two elections.
There's no doubt that if voters felt about the economy as they did back in 1996, a Democrat would be POTUS right now.

 

[uclaLabrat]

This is a retrospective article, countering the deafening narrative leading up to the election that the economy was roaring and everyone was doing fine.

That's not at all what the message was unless that's what you wanted to believe. The message was the economy is roaring and little people are getting fucked, so we better elect the people that will keep the economy roaring and help stop the little people from getting fucked.

Apologies if you didn't read past the headline but that's on you.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's not at all what the message was unless that's what you wanted to believe. The message was the economy is roaring and little people are getting fucked, so we better elect the people that will keep the economy roaring and help stop the little people from getting fucked.

Apologies if you didn't read past the headline but that's on you.

Absolutely false. It was stated multiple times on this very forum that 'the little people' were benefitting more in the economic boom than anyone else, save for the ultra rich (who always benefit). I was specifically told that lower income brackets were doing better in 2024 than decades prior. Now I'm being told that the little people were getting fucked? Which is it?

When people talk about Democrats having shitty messaging, this is why. Different people have distinctly different ideas of what the truth is and none of it is entirely accurate, nor does it reflect reality enough to win votes.

he's not calling anyone a liar as the thread title seemingly suggests.

Eh, I wasn't suggesting anyone was specifically lying. That's a common phrase to suggest how statistics can lie to you (or be used as a lie against you), which is what the article suggests.

 

[fskimospy]

IMO it was a balanced article. He goes out of his way to say the BLS stats are correct; he's not calling anyone a liar as the thread title seemingly suggests. The author just believes that the official stats are not reflective of how the bottom 50% of Americans actually lives.

We'd have to see the methodology, and be pretty good economists, to know whether or not the conclusions are legit. But even in this subforum, there are a lot of folks that have expressed that unaffordable housing has made it difficult for "median" folks to get ahead. And like I said above, a lot of this is tied to GOP trickle-up policies. You could argue that Democrats have been complicit in globalization, but I actually see a lot of good in a "rising tide lifting all boats." Globalization does create some winners and losers, but it is not the root cause of the difficulties that most American households deal with. (Cheap Chinese goods HAS given Americans a lot more disposable income to spend on other things.)



You usually are wrong, so we'll go with that.
Look, these two things can be simultaneously true: the U.S. macroeconomy is resilient/strong compared to ALL of its peers; but tens of millions of households are not sharing in that strength. And you're right that the latter is partly why Trump has won not one, but two elections.
There's no doubt that if voters felt about the economy as they did back in 1996, a Democrat would be POTUS right now.

I do not agree.

If he wants to criticize BLS that’s great but he misleads his audience on what BLS stats say.

More importantly he says he has a new measure that is better, which is fine, but then he says bad employment is like 23% or whatever. First, that’s very clearly intended to be interpreted as opposed to BLS stats, which is wrong, but then gives no comparative measure.

Like let’s take his 23% as right. Is that good or bad? I don’t know because I have no idea what that figure was 5, 10, 20 years ago. I also have no idea how it was arrived at.

This is a bad piece that is basically pulling a Shadowstats.

 

[APU_Fusion]

Round and round we go tryin to justify feelings based on biased and bad data. Magat Power

 

[manly]

Absolutely false. It was stated multiple times on this very forum that 'the little people' were benefitting more in the economic boom than anyone else, save for the ultra rich (who always benefit). I was specifically told that lower income brackets were doing better in 2024 than decades prior. Now I'm being told that the little people were getting fucked? Which is it?

When people talk about Democrats having shitty messaging, this is why. Different people have distinctly different ideas of what the truth is and none of it is entirely accurate, nor does it reflect reality enough to win votes.

So here's the thing, there were clearly some real wage gains for the bottom 20% earners over the past decade. If you look at this closely, I believe you will see this originated out of Seattle/California's strong economies after the Great Recession. Housing prices shot up so much that if you paid only $13/hour for minimum wage, nobody would even work those low-end jobs. So the market adjusted. Even with the wage growth, many service workers can barely afford to stay in these metro areas; so you see a lot of multiple households crowded into a "single family home."

Eventually some of these higher wages trickled across the entire country because ultimately Seattle and California exported its hot real estate to other metro areas. Did these increased low-end wages adequately catch people up after decades of GOP trickle-up? Not really. And what about the middle 50% that statistically didn't get robust raises over the past five years?

Obviously messaging is a problem, and a tough nut to crack. And Democrats are far from solving it. But it's ironic you said honesty would work better on the electorate than half-truths. Because Trump's entire economic message is built on a house of lies, that he's for the working and middle classes. We all understand that hot inflation sucks, and it definitely left some scars on Americans. But people are damn fools if they think that Trump was and is a good steward of the economy for the common man.

As everyone here likes to repeat, the voters get to FAFO.

Eh, I wasn't suggesting anyone was specifically lying. That's a common phrase to suggest how statistics can lie to you (or be used as a lie against you), which is what the article suggests.

I'm familiar with the cliche but the author goes to lengths to not bash the BLS. He just thinks his methodology explains the disconnect between the official (and accurate) stats and how people on the streets see the world. This is in contrast to Trump, who claims during Democratic administrations that the official stats are fake; but during his first term it was all legit and beautiful. I don't have to tell you he's a charlatan, a liar and a madman.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So here's the thing, there were clearly some real wage gains for the bottom 20% earners over the past decade. If you look at this closely, I believe you will see this originated out of Seattle/California's strong economies after the Great Recession. Housing prices shot up so much that if you paid only $13/hour for minimum wage, nobody would even work those low-end jobs. So the market adjusted. Even with the wage growth, many service workers can barely afford to stay in these metro areas; so you see a lot of multiple households crowded into a "single family home."

Eventually some of these higher wages trickled across the entire country because ultimately Seattle and California exported its hot real estate to other metro areas. Did these increased low-end wages adequately catch people up after decades of GOP trickle-up? Not really. And what about the middle 50% that statistically didn't get robust raises over the past five years?

Obviously messaging is a problem, and a tough nut to crack. And Democrats are far from solving it. But it's ironic you said honesty would work better on the electorate than half-truths. Because Trump's entire economic message is built on a house of lies, that he's for the working and middle classes. We all understand that hot inflation sucks, and it definitely left some scars on Americans. But people are damn fools if they think that Trump was and is a good steward of the economy for the common man.

As everyone here likes to repeat, the voters get to FAFO.

And now this looks like something closer to actual truth. Some regions, namely higher cost of living areas, saw dramatic rises in wage growth while others stagnated or went down when compared to inflation and price gouging. Some areas needed help on the lower end, and others did not, or needed a different kind of help to lower costs.

Now why wasn't that the messaging? Why did people on this forum shout myself and others down, if their sample size of 'the lower income is doing great' was only looking at areas where the primary driver was supply and demand, and had nothing to do with the government's efforts at large? Or is this ALSO incorrect?

 

[NWRMidnight]

All in all President Musk is doing ok. 👍

If your standard of ok is lying, violating the constitution, and breaking laws.... Oh snap, the same traits you support in Trump... Nevermind.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Absolutely false. It was stated multiple times on this very forum that 'the little people' were benefitting more in the economic boom than anyone else, save for the ultra rich (who always benefit). I was specifically told that lower income brackets were doing better in 2024 than decades prior. Now I'm being told that the little people were getting fucked? Which is it?

When people talk about Democrats having shitty messaging, this is why. Different people have distinctly different ideas of what the truth is and none of it is entirely accurate, nor does it reflect reality enough to win votes.

Eh, I wasn't suggesting anyone was specifically lying. That's a common phrase to suggest how statistics can lie to you (or be used as a lie against you), which is what the article suggests.

Is it shitty messaging or is it differences in interpretation of what is said and what people choose to hear? You just gave a perfect example of just that, where your interpretation of what the article says, is different than the person you replied to.

I know I have heard many people complaining about Democrats messaging,l across many sources, saying they didn't talk about XYZ, they suck at messaging, which at times makes me scratch my head because many times the stuff that is brought up, I heard Democrats talk about. Other stuff I learned thru research of my own.

 

[Brainonska511]

I know I have heard many people complaining about Democrats messaging,l across many sources, saying they didn't talk about XYZ, they suck at messaging, which at times makes me scratch my head because many times the stuff that is brought up, I heard Democrats talk about. Other stuff I learned thru research of my own.

Because Democrats aren't looking directly into the camera to say "[name], I'm speaking specifically to you and using your exact messaging preferences."

There is a whole ecosystem that is basically Murc's law - built up around hating Democrats. And rage drives social media algorithms and media clicks. An ouroboros of vibes.

 

[fskimospy]

And now this looks like something closer to actual truth. Some regions, namely higher cost of living areas, saw dramatic rises in wage growth while others stagnated or went down when compared to inflation and price gouging. Some areas needed help on the lower end, and others did not, or needed a different kind of help to lower costs.

Now why wasn't that the messaging? Why did people on this forum shout myself and others down, if their sample size of 'the lower income is doing great' was only looking at areas where the primary driver was supply and demand, and had nothing to do with the government's efforts at large? Or is this ALSO incorrect?

Nobody shouted you down - we just pointed out that you were empirically incorrect. You are still empirically incorrect and linking a piece by an incompetent/liar doesn't change that.

It is sort of funny that your standard for deciding that the entirety of BLS is wrong is an op-ed in Politico that I'm very confident you have spent exactly zero minutes verifying the accuracy of. (pretty sure Politico spent no time either)

 

[wirelessenabled]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-tricked-strong-economy-00203464

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:

Remember it is the GOP that is holding the minimum wage at $7.25 per hour. That is less than $15,000 per year working full time. $25K per year would be good wages in many of the red states. Do you really think trump and henchman are going to improve that? Keep in mind that tariffs are a regressive form of revenue generation. Then there is giving the 1% another tax cut. Then there is slashing Medicare, all forms of health maintenance, vaccinations, etc. All are regressive.

Politico does a lot of whataboutism. That does not explain or solve where the US is now.