4 ms·

You make a good point. Especially if the definition of "politicizing" something includes "lying, subtly or blatantly, about something in order to advance your a

by veidr 10y ago

You make a good point. Especially if the definition of "politicizing" something includes "lying, subtly or blatantly, about something in order to advance your agenda". (Which I think it always has.) That does make things harder to know, and unemployment is a good example. To answer your question, off the top of my head I think the unemployment rate is about the same (+/- 0.5%?) as it was this time last year, and rounds to 5%. However I am pretty sure that the reason I think that is because that's what the US Dept. of Labor says. It's an interesting example because it's not a topic on which I have expertise, so I've (tentatively, maintaining some uncertainty) decided to go with what I perceive to be the most credible authority on the matter. I've heard many of the alternate narratives, but haven't been convinced, probably because I usually perceive some ulterior motivation along with them (leaving aside candidate Trump's insane "42%" claim, which is something different). This is exactly what makes me despair of the current environment; I don't want to do a bunch of my own research to tease out the unemployment rate. I would much prefer it if society would promote achieving an accurate consensus on this kind of issue, by collectively punishing blatant liars and diminishing their credibility, and on the other hand reacting with outrage if the official government statistics were politicized. That seems not to be the trendline we are on, though... P.S. Am I wrong to place my trust in the official unemployment statistics? ;-)

MagnumOpus 10y ago
> I don't want to do a bunch of my own research to tease out the unemployment rate. Conspiracy theorists and the people who sell them newsletters don't want to do that either. That's why most of these conspiracist stories boil down to either amateurishly misinterpreting existing measures - e.g. alleging that the unemployment rate must be 100% minus the employment/population ratio - or trying to spin conspiracy where it doesn't exist, say by alleging that the US government is fudging statistics by not reporting the higher/wider U-6 measure of unemployment more prominently (U-6 is about twice the "official" unemployment rate at any given time - and has been for ever).
xyzzy123 10y ago
I think my perspective is quite close to yours. Definitely agree that the idea of facts as "unknowable" is hurtful. Thanks for your reasoned response! In terms of trusting "offical" unemployment figures I actually think they're not too bad. At least compared to say, money supply and accessible economic metrics :) For unemployment we can talk about things like "Oh, you mean U6 or U3?": http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12309/has-the-way-unemployment-is-measured-changed-in-the-last-8-years http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12309/has-the-wa... - and then be prepared to understand changes in how they are measured, which are a little contentious but IMHO not too bad in U.S. over last 20 years. In the end, questions like "how many jobs are there?" or "how much money is there?" are not really that simple to answer. From this perspective, the "current environment" is not really any different to how it's always been, but I think people are much more sensitive to difficulties in measurement and definition right now. It looks a lot like an environment where you get to make up facts. Political candidates shouldn't get to make up facts. For example, if they rely on narrow definitions of employment increasing or decreasing in making arguments, the exact definition in use should be made clear and if an unusual or non-standard metric is used that should be highlighted. Unfortunately this looks increasingly like an unattainable level of political discourse.

by veidr 10y ago

MagnumOpus 10y ago

> I don't want to do a bunch of my own research to tease out the unemployment rate. Conspiracy theorists and the people who sell them newsletters don't want to do that either. That's why most of these conspiracist stories boil down to either amateurishly misinterpreting existing measures - e.g. alleging that the unemployment rate must be 100% minus the employment/population ratio - or trying to spin conspiracy where it doesn't exist, say by alleging that the US government is fudging statistics by not reporting the higher/wider U-6 measure of unemployment more prominently (U-6 is about twice the "official" unemployment rate at any given time - and has been for ever).

xyzzy123 10y ago

I think my perspective is quite close to yours. Definitely agree that the idea of facts as "unknowable" is hurtful. Thanks for your reasoned response! In terms of trusting "offical" unemployment figures I actually think they're not too bad. At least compared to say, money supply and accessible economic metrics :) For unemployment we can talk about things like "Oh, you mean U6 or U3?": http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12309/has-the-way-unemployment-is-measured-changed-in-the-last-8-years http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12309/has-the-wa... - and then be prepared to understand changes in how they are measured, which are a little contentious but IMHO not too bad in U.S. over last 20 years. In the end, questions like "how many jobs are there?" or "how much money is there?" are not really that simple to answer. From this perspective, the "current environment" is not really any different to how it's always been, but I think people are much more sensitive to difficulties in measurement and definition right now. It looks a lot like an environment where you get to make up facts. Political candidates shouldn't get to make up facts. For example, if they rely on narrow definitions of employment increasing or decreasing in making arguments, the exact definition in use should be made clear and if an unusual or non-standard metric is used that should be highlighted. Unfortunately this looks increasingly like an unattainable level of political discourse.