5 ms·

You sound like a conspiracy theorist if you have no sources, the first couple google searches are not doing this[0],[1]. The public is being misled, by wheneve

You sound like a conspiracy theorist if you have no sources, the first couple google searches are not doing this[0],[1]. The public is being misled, by whenever someone complains about stagnant wages the response is "you have smartphones now", but we can't afford houses or healthcare how is this okay? So your argument seems to be that all economists are in on this together to do what? And your thankful your favorite youtube news personality has cracked the case (without publishing any research and has an opportunity to make money from getting views). Good thing he /she is looking out for you. The bottom line is you sound incredibly foolish to me if you can't supply any sources of people trying to do this trick. Even if you do find one or two examples, there are plenty of sound statistics that say people have it harder now finicailly then 50 years ago. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-does-current-cost-living-compare-20-years-ago.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-does-cu... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

rayiner 7y ago
It’s not conspiracy theory, but rather the fact that data analysis is hard when you’re trying to account for confounding factors, and the media has incentives to report figures that make things seem more significant than they are. Even things that are true are often reported in a way that obscures causal factors. For example, wages are stagnating, but total compensation (wages plus benefits) is not. Now, from an employee’s perspective, they might not care that their total compensation is growing because health insurance premiums are increasing but paychecks are staying the same size. But the employer has the exact opposite perspective: the employee is costing more money whether that money is going to to paychecks or benefits. Failure to articulate that distinction moreover leads you to the wrong conclusions. When you’re told about wage stagnation but growing corporate profits, you’re supposed to think employees are getting a smaller piece of the pie. That’s not true: https://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html https://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html > Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007.
- frankbreetz 7y ago
  The points you bring are certainly interesting, it seems to point to the fact that we are distributing healthcare very inefficiently and I would use this as an argument for government-run healthcare. Here is the conspiracy theory presented with no examples: >Inevitably, the income will be real income [inflation adjusted] and the prices nominal prices. This is what I take issue with and I don't think that a comparison between real nominal prices happens in order to trick people. This seems like something high school student wouldn't get away with.
sokoloff 7y ago
I'll give you one source: Read the headline on this NYT article "Why Wages Are Finally Rising, 10 Years After the Recession" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-growth-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-gro... Then look at the article: nominal wages rose every year (as indicated in the chart), but the breathless headline suggests the opposite to the average American. Do you believe that the omission of the word "real" in the headline was purely accidental or intended to drive outrage clicks?
- frankbreetz 7y ago
  That's not what you said before at all, they don't do an inconsistent comparison of real and nominal, which what I thought the problem to be >>" Inevitably, the income will be real income [inflation adjusted] and the prices nominal prices." They don't specify which in the title, but they do in the article. The biggest thing is there is no comparison between nominal and real prices. Acting like the nominal cost of things is not keeping up with real wages. If you don't want to get tricked maybe read the whole article instead of just the title. It is a somewhat complex topic and takes some thought to put into it if you want to know what is going on.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    I've seen the exact behavior I described; this was the fastest misleading headline I could find in a quick search. I'll reply on thread next time I see one, which is likely to not happen in the next 24 hours. Hopefully, you'll take an open minded read to see where social and mainstream media accounts are biased for outrage and clicks over information content and will notice these on your own as well.
    - frankbreetz 7y ago
      I always try to keep an open mind, I will admit if this happens regularly by mainstream media, but comparing real and nominal prices seems like a pretty difficult thing to get past people. This is a complex topic and it can sometimes be tricky to kept track of how much was a dozen eggs, how much was a college degree, how many people had college degrees, how much is healthcare, how much would we spend on healthcare if the government was in charge, and thousands of other factors. Newspapers and website are driven by viewership so there will not likely specific language in a headline, or even in the article sometimes.

rayiner 7y ago

It’s not conspiracy theory, but rather the fact that data analysis is hard when you’re trying to account for confounding factors, and the media has incentives to report figures that make things seem more significant than they are. Even things that are true are often reported in a way that obscures causal factors. For example, wages are stagnating, but total compensation (wages plus benefits) is not. Now, from an employee’s perspective, they might not care that their total compensation is growing because health insurance premiums are increasing but paychecks are staying the same size. But the employer has the exact opposite perspective: the employee is costing more money whether that money is going to to paychecks or benefits. Failure to articulate that distinction moreover leads you to the wrong conclusions. When you’re told about wage stagnation but growing corporate profits, you’re supposed to think employees are getting a smaller piece of the pie. That’s not true: https://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html https://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html > Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007.

frankbreetz 7y ago
The points you bring are certainly interesting, it seems to point to the fact that we are distributing healthcare very inefficiently and I would use this as an argument for government-run healthcare. Here is the conspiracy theory presented with no examples: >Inevitably, the income will be real income [inflation adjusted] and the prices nominal prices. This is what I take issue with and I don't think that a comparison between real nominal prices happens in order to trick people. This seems like something high school student wouldn't get away with.

sokoloff 7y ago

I'll give you one source: Read the headline on this NYT article "Why Wages Are Finally Rising, 10 Years After the Recession" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-growth-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-gro... Then look at the article: nominal wages rose every year (as indicated in the chart), but the breathless headline suggests the opposite to the average American. Do you believe that the omission of the word "real" in the headline was purely accidental or intended to drive outrage clicks?

frankbreetz 7y ago
That's not what you said before at all, they don't do an inconsistent comparison of real and nominal, which what I thought the problem to be >>" Inevitably, the income will be real income [inflation adjusted] and the prices nominal prices." They don't specify which in the title, but they do in the article. The biggest thing is there is no comparison between nominal and real prices. Acting like the nominal cost of things is not keeping up with real wages. If you don't want to get tricked maybe read the whole article instead of just the title. It is a somewhat complex topic and takes some thought to put into it if you want to know what is going on.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I've seen the exact behavior I described; this was the fastest misleading headline I could find in a quick search. I'll reply on thread next time I see one, which is likely to not happen in the next 24 hours. Hopefully, you'll take an open minded read to see where social and mainstream media accounts are biased for outrage and clicks over information content and will notice these on your own as well.
  - frankbreetz 7y ago
    I always try to keep an open mind, I will admit if this happens regularly by mainstream media, but comparing real and nominal prices seems like a pretty difficult thing to get past people. This is a complex topic and it can sometimes be tricky to kept track of how much was a dozen eggs, how much was a college degree, how many people had college degrees, how much is healthcare, how much would we spend on healthcare if the government was in charge, and thousands of other factors. Newspapers and website are driven by viewership so there will not likely specific language in a headline, or even in the article sometimes.