5 ms·

Why am I not convinced?

by adamsea 6y ago

refurb 6y ago
Because the data doesn’t fit your world view, so you’re fine just ignoring the data?
- anemoiac 6y ago
  The comment you responded to above poses a valid question - what should we do if empirical data seems to contradict our own lived experience? "The data" is not homogeneous or infallible, nor can it fully describe all phenomena it's applied to. At best, data can provide us with a rough approximation of the landscape it attempts to describe. In this particular case, I think that landscape is smaller than the territory established by the OP's linked blog post (which seems to transcend the easily-measurable world of simple economic indicators). Would you consider it prudent to dismiss one's lived experience offhand, at the mere site of a few quickly-pasted links to tweets containing simple, decontextualized data points? What, then, if another commenter subsequently provides contradictory data? Scrolling through a typical HN thread would turn into a nauseating ride on some sort of intellectual see-saw. If the commenter you responded to is "not convinced" by some tweeted factoids claiming that Americans are working less and making more than ever, does that imply that they're ideologically motivated? I don't think so, no more than I think your reply to them implies that your own motivation is ideological. Without additional context, those "facts" don't significantly imperil any specific worldview.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Lived experience, while important, should be treated like anecdotes. While anecdotes are valuable, the plural of anecdote != data. Should we help people whose lived experience is worse than ours? Absolutely. Does the mere existence of people whose lived experience contradicts that of the aggregate majority suggest that we ought to upend our systems? No, and that's the point. In general, when we see (overwhelming) empirical outcomes that don't confirm our priors, we ought to shift our priors. We do this in the context of climate change, there's no reason we shouldn't also do this in the context of the economy and labor markets.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      For sure. I think the question is what does the empirical evidence say in this case. And, for complex issues where drawing conclusions from data is nontrivial, using judgement.
    - anemoiac 6y ago
      Lived experience is certainly anecdotal, and I agree that anecdotes don’t simply transform into data when aggregated. That’s not the point I was trying to make. You ask, “Does the mere existence of people whose lived experience contradicts that of the aggregate majority suggest that we ought to upend our systems?” First of all, I’ve said nothing regarding “upending our systems.” More importantly — just as anecdotes != data, neither can data replace the role of lived experience. If many people feel like they’re struggling today, that doesn’t contradict data saying that they should be making more money in less time - to me, it suggests that there may be more to the “equation” of positive lived experience than income. In other words, while I don’t think that it’s feasible to precisely compare the “difficulty” of living across different eras, it’s certainly possible that people can be making more money than ever before and also struggling en masse. The whole of life can’t be explained by simple economic data. Scratch that - the whole of economic life can’t even by explained by economic data... I expanded on this concept in a reply to another comment of yours, but you may not have seen it.
- adamsea 6y ago
  Well, I draw informed, qualitative conclusions which take quantitative data into account. I think everyone who read my comment understood what I left unsaid, even if they didn't agree with it. And, as the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Just because an argument is logical and has facts doesn't mean it's correct. There are multiple ways to shape, work with, or interpret data. But, speaking of data, is the guy who's tweets you referenced - Ernie Tedeschi, a reliable source? Better or worse than, say, Alan Greenspan? What are his general biases? Same with the Bloomberg article. That article itself said "A rising but uneven tide - the late '10s weren't equally beneficial to all Americans." Plus, let's use Occam's razor. Which way does it cut? - Rent prices in major cities / economic hubs for non-tech workers. - Cost of healthcare in the US - Cost of higher education in the US - Cost of home ownership by major cities in the US. - Job security and availability of well-paying work for non-tech workers? - Is the economy benefitting those who need it most? - How equitably have the fruits of economic growth been distributed?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > There are multiple ways to shape, work with, or interpret data. This is correct, but no matter how you look at it, the data tells largely the same story. Maybe you think that the median paints an insufficient picture or you want to consider all quintiles including the bottom 2 -> https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-households/h01ar.xlsx https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-ser... — there's been a real increase across all 5 quintiles, adjusted for inflation. Maybe you think that this doesn't account for housing/healthcare/education. But no matter which inflation index you use (each put different weights to housing, medical costs, education, etc), the adjusted median personal income is up. (And YES, this all accounts for all those things -> https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1308799186301747200 https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1308799186301747200) Maybe you think this is attributable to dual-income households. But when you ignore those and focus on single-income households, it's still up, and higher than boomer counterparts -> https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1308775197311467520 https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1308775197311467520 Maybe you think this is attributable to working more hours instead of actual wage increases. But hours worked is actually decreasing -> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG Maybe this is all well and good, but the lower wages have stagnated, and that's what we should be talking about...except that has also not been true in the 2010's -> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bigger-raises-than-bosses/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bi... After a certain point, it's worth reflecting on whether you're imposing new constraints / explanations on the data for the sake of intellectual curiosity, or just because you really don't want to revisit prior conclusions. > But, speaking of data, is the guy who's tweets you referenced - Ernie Tedeschi, a reliable source? What are his general biases? He's a policy economist https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernie-tedeschi-74ba48b/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernie-tedeschi-74ba48b/ who's worked for the US Treasury, who's focus is labor markets. His biases are no different from Piketty, Saez, or Zucman, who also have biases. What's more important is what to make of the data they cite.

Why am I not convinced?

refurb 6y ago

Because the data doesn’t fit your world view, so you’re fine just ignoring the data?

anemoiac 6y ago
The comment you responded to above poses a valid question - what should we do if empirical data seems to contradict our own lived experience? "The data" is not homogeneous or infallible, nor can it fully describe all phenomena it's applied to. At best, data can provide us with a rough approximation of the landscape it attempts to describe. In this particular case, I think that landscape is smaller than the territory established by the OP's linked blog post (which seems to transcend the easily-measurable world of simple economic indicators). Would you consider it prudent to dismiss one's lived experience offhand, at the mere site of a few quickly-pasted links to tweets containing simple, decontextualized data points? What, then, if another commenter subsequently provides contradictory data? Scrolling through a typical HN thread would turn into a nauseating ride on some sort of intellectual see-saw. If the commenter you responded to is "not convinced" by some tweeted factoids claiming that Americans are working less and making more than ever, does that imply that they're ideologically motivated? I don't think so, no more than I think your reply to them implies that your own motivation is ideological. Without additional context, those "facts" don't significantly imperil any specific worldview.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Lived experience, while important, should be treated like anecdotes. While anecdotes are valuable, the plural of anecdote != data. Should we help people whose lived experience is worse than ours? Absolutely. Does the mere existence of people whose lived experience contradicts that of the aggregate majority suggest that we ought to upend our systems? No, and that's the point. In general, when we see (overwhelming) empirical outcomes that don't confirm our priors, we ought to shift our priors. We do this in the context of climate change, there's no reason we shouldn't also do this in the context of the economy and labor markets.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    For sure. I think the question is what does the empirical evidence say in this case. And, for complex issues where drawing conclusions from data is nontrivial, using judgement.
  - anemoiac 6y ago
    Lived experience is certainly anecdotal, and I agree that anecdotes don’t simply transform into data when aggregated. That’s not the point I was trying to make. You ask, “Does the mere existence of people whose lived experience contradicts that of the aggregate majority suggest that we ought to upend our systems?” First of all, I’ve said nothing regarding “upending our systems.” More importantly — just as anecdotes != data, neither can data replace the role of lived experience. If many people feel like they’re struggling today, that doesn’t contradict data saying that they should be making more money in less time - to me, it suggests that there may be more to the “equation” of positive lived experience than income. In other words, while I don’t think that it’s feasible to precisely compare the “difficulty” of living across different eras, it’s certainly possible that people can be making more money than ever before and also struggling en masse. The whole of life can’t be explained by simple economic data. Scratch that - the whole of economic life can’t even by explained by economic data... I expanded on this concept in a reply to another comment of yours, but you may not have seen it.
adamsea 6y ago
Well, I draw informed, qualitative conclusions which take quantitative data into account. I think everyone who read my comment understood what I left unsaid, even if they didn't agree with it. And, as the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Just because an argument is logical and has facts doesn't mean it's correct. There are multiple ways to shape, work with, or interpret data. But, speaking of data, is the guy who's tweets you referenced - Ernie Tedeschi, a reliable source? Better or worse than, say, Alan Greenspan? What are his general biases? Same with the Bloomberg article. That article itself said "A rising but uneven tide - the late '10s weren't equally beneficial to all Americans." Plus, let's use Occam's razor. Which way does it cut? - Rent prices in major cities / economic hubs for non-tech workers. - Cost of healthcare in the US - Cost of higher education in the US - Cost of home ownership by major cities in the US. - Job security and availability of well-paying work for non-tech workers? - Is the economy benefitting those who need it most? - How equitably have the fruits of economic growth been distributed?
- bhupy 6y ago
  > There are multiple ways to shape, work with, or interpret data. This is correct, but no matter how you look at it, the data tells largely the same story. Maybe you think that the median paints an insufficient picture or you want to consider all quintiles including the bottom 2 -> https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-households/h01ar.xlsx https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-ser... — there's been a real increase across all 5 quintiles, adjusted for inflation. Maybe you think that this doesn't account for housing/healthcare/education. But no matter which inflation index you use (each put different weights to housing, medical costs, education, etc), the adjusted median personal income is up. (And YES, this all accounts for all those things -> https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1308799186301747200 https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1308799186301747200) Maybe you think this is attributable to dual-income households. But when you ignore those and focus on single-income households, it's still up, and higher than boomer counterparts -> https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1308775197311467520 https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1308775197311467520 Maybe you think this is attributable to working more hours instead of actual wage increases. But hours worked is actually decreasing -> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG Maybe this is all well and good, but the lower wages have stagnated, and that's what we should be talking about...except that has also not been true in the 2010's -> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bigger-raises-than-bosses/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bi... After a certain point, it's worth reflecting on whether you're imposing new constraints / explanations on the data for the sake of intellectual curiosity, or just because you really don't want to revisit prior conclusions. > But, speaking of data, is the guy who's tweets you referenced - Ernie Tedeschi, a reliable source? What are his general biases? He's a policy economist https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernie-tedeschi-74ba48b/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernie-tedeschi-74ba48b/ who's worked for the US Treasury, who's focus is labor markets. His biases are no different from Piketty, Saez, or Zucman, who also have biases. What's more important is what to make of the data they cite.