4 ms·

To sum up the article: Some average (mean) economic indicators are up. The bottom several deciles of income are doing very poorly, and unemployment is up. I

To sum up the article: Some average (mean) economic indicators are up. The bottom several deciles of income are doing very poorly, and unemployment is up. I think the "visibility" problem actually mostly goes one way though. As one of the people WFH with simply reduced expenses, all I ever hear on the news are about the people who have been adversely affected, other than obvious winners like Zoom. Of course, "average savings rate is up" may not even be newsworthy, but I had no idea until recently this was the case. Also having talked to a few people adversely affected by the pandemic, I think a lot of people don't understand how not everybody is hurting. Everybody lives in their own bubble. Contrary to the author, I don't think the internet really demonstrates the vast swathes of white collar careers (nor blue collar, really) in a remotely representative way. So to a server, with lots of other young friends in the service industry, this is Armageddon itself, except for random ecelebs on instagram. To a tech worker, friends with mostly other techies or graduates of "good" colleges, this is a great opportunity to Work From Hawaii for everybody except the guy at the grocery store. Mai Tais anyone?

guerrilla 6y ago
Fruther, regarding visibility, as I understood the article, it's talking about people seeing individuals with more wealth than themselves, but I don't think this is the only factor. They may also consciously or intuitively understand that the gap between wages and productivity is still growing [1]. Crises like this only emphasize the difference. [1]. https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/1280x868/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F10%2Fwagescompensation-1200x1093.png https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/1280x868/https%3A%2F%2Fbl...
- dfilppi 6y ago
  Waiters aren't any more productive than they were in 2000 B.C.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    That isn't remotely true, especially with the invention of cash registers and credit card machines. It does grow slower than other sectors though. [1] [1]. https://www.brookings.edu/research/productivity-in-the-services-sector/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/productivity-in-the-servi...
failuser 6y ago
I'm not sure why people assume that social networks improve exposure to people from different bubbles. People follow either people with similar life experiences or public/popular figures. If you don't drive by the line to the food bank every morning you would be less knowledgeable about turmoil of others than before the total WFH era.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  It's not that it's universally true, but I quickly learned during my collegiate years that many people studying computer science came from mostly white affluent areas. When you come from a blue collar area, it isn't all that common to leave and go study STEM. These bubbles may be overstated, but they are real. And as a practical matter, it's quite easy to see how others in one's own profession are doing: are they being laid off, promoted, hired elsewhere, etc.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  I’m not sure how well we knew before. If I saw increased number of street homeless in 2018 I had no way of knowing just by that data point if that was because of a worsening economy or because of policy changes (as it happens it was policy changes but I only know that because of reading on the internet).
pdonis 6y ago
> Some average (mean) economic indicators are up. It's not even that good, because the indicators the article is using don't take into account that all of this new money that came with the stimulus, for example, was newly printed money. No actual wealth was created. It is true that the way the stimulus payments were made amounted to a wealth transfer to people less well off, so that (plus the fact that much of it was used to pay off debt) does represent an actual reduction in wealth inequality. But I think it's hardly the rosy picture the article paints, all things considered.
PeterisP 6y ago
Since large numbers of people (bottom several deciles) are doing very poorly, it means that if mean indicators would be stable, then someone else must be doing very good; and even more so if average indicators up.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  This assumes the denominator is fixed, ie., that there is no net change to the size of the economy; which is false.
  - jtolmar 6y ago
    Percentile and mean are both divided by the same number. The size of the economy has nothing to do with the point you're replying to.
    - mjburgess 6y ago
      Then you've misunderstood their point. Their claim is there's a zero-sum occurring. A + B + C = 0 So that if A goes to A+1, with the sum still zero; then B,C must reduce. This thinking is mistaken as applied to an economy. The stability of this mean (ie., that the rate of change of the mean is zero) does not imply that anyone is loosing out. It is entire possibly, and likely, that the effect is caused by different rates of loss and gain that are not competing with each other at all.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    What does "change in the size of the economy" actually mean? In real terms? As almost everyone knows, GDP doesn't correlate particularly well with productive activity.
dillondoyle 6y ago
Savings rate going up is actually another 'invisible indicators' of problems with the bottom 50%. The average goes way up when the low hourly wages disappear.
specialist 6y ago
> The bottom several deciles of income... Would it be so hard to use Gini coefficient, standard deviations, or... anything other than "average"? Typical bad faith response to simple observation of growing inequity is "Well, ya, but average income hasn't budged!!" As though 99/10 is morally and quantitatively equivalent to 50/50. Is innumeracy the kryptonite to rational discourse? If there's a more effective rebuttal, a better phrase, someone please share it.
d1zzy 6y ago
> As one of the people WFH with simply reduced expenses, all I ever hear on the news are about the people who have been adversely affected, other than obvious winners like Zoom. Of course, "average savings rate is up" may not even be newsworthy, but I had no idea until recently this was the case. One thing I'd like to make it clear is that although I am one of the lucky ones to hold a job in this pandemic economy and work from home, I'm actually spending more now than before on monthly expenses (for food, for example). Where major savings come from are from lack of travel expenses but I wouldn't consider not being able to spend money on travel as being a net positive, it's a tradeoff between unique life experience and some extra money, not really a great tradeoff for many people I imagine (and a tradeoff that would have been possible even before the pandemic, the pandemic just removed the choice now which is not great). And it's not like most people that can save some travel money now will invest it well, I would imagine most simply end up spending on stuff they wouldn't have bought otherwise (see the super high demand for latest PC hardware, high Amazon sales, etc).

guerrilla 6y ago

Fruther, regarding visibility, as I understood the article, it's talking about people seeing individuals with more wealth than themselves, but I don't think this is the only factor. They may also consciously or intuitively understand that the gap between wages and productivity is still growing [1]. Crises like this only emphasize the difference. [1]. https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/1280x868/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F10%2Fwagescompensation-1200x1093.png https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/1280x868/https%3A%2F%2Fbl...

dfilppi 6y ago
Waiters aren't any more productive than they were in 2000 B.C.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  That isn't remotely true, especially with the invention of cash registers and credit card machines. It does grow slower than other sectors though. [1] [1]. https://www.brookings.edu/research/productivity-in-the-services-sector/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/productivity-in-the-servi...

failuser 6y ago

I'm not sure why people assume that social networks improve exposure to people from different bubbles. People follow either people with similar life experiences or public/popular figures. If you don't drive by the line to the food bank every morning you would be less knowledgeable about turmoil of others than before the total WFH era.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
It's not that it's universally true, but I quickly learned during my collegiate years that many people studying computer science came from mostly white affluent areas. When you come from a blue collar area, it isn't all that common to leave and go study STEM. These bubbles may be overstated, but they are real. And as a practical matter, it's quite easy to see how others in one's own profession are doing: are they being laid off, promoted, hired elsewhere, etc.
bradleyjg 6y ago
I’m not sure how well we knew before. If I saw increased number of street homeless in 2018 I had no way of knowing just by that data point if that was because of a worsening economy or because of policy changes (as it happens it was policy changes but I only know that because of reading on the internet).

pdonis 6y ago

> Some average (mean) economic indicators are up. It's not even that good, because the indicators the article is using don't take into account that all of this new money that came with the stimulus, for example, was newly printed money. No actual wealth was created. It is true that the way the stimulus payments were made amounted to a wealth transfer to people less well off, so that (plus the fact that much of it was used to pay off debt) does represent an actual reduction in wealth inequality. But I think it's hardly the rosy picture the article paints, all things considered.

PeterisP 6y ago

Since large numbers of people (bottom several deciles) are doing very poorly, it means that if mean indicators would be stable, then someone else must be doing very good; and even more so if average indicators up.

mjburgess 6y ago
This assumes the denominator is fixed, ie., that there is no net change to the size of the economy; which is false.
- jtolmar 6y ago
  Percentile and mean are both divided by the same number. The size of the economy has nothing to do with the point you're replying to.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    Then you've misunderstood their point. Their claim is there's a zero-sum occurring. A + B + C = 0 So that if A goes to A+1, with the sum still zero; then B,C must reduce. This thinking is mistaken as applied to an economy. The stability of this mean (ie., that the rate of change of the mean is zero) does not imply that anyone is loosing out. It is entire possibly, and likely, that the effect is caused by different rates of loss and gain that are not competing with each other at all.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  What does "change in the size of the economy" actually mean? In real terms? As almost everyone knows, GDP doesn't correlate particularly well with productive activity.

dillondoyle 6y ago

Savings rate going up is actually another 'invisible indicators' of problems with the bottom 50%. The average goes way up when the low hourly wages disappear.

specialist 6y ago

> The bottom several deciles of income... Would it be so hard to use Gini coefficient, standard deviations, or... anything other than "average"? Typical bad faith response to simple observation of growing inequity is "Well, ya, but average income hasn't budged!!" As though 99/10 is morally and quantitatively equivalent to 50/50. Is innumeracy the kryptonite to rational discourse? If there's a more effective rebuttal, a better phrase, someone please share it.

d1zzy 6y ago

> As one of the people WFH with simply reduced expenses, all I ever hear on the news are about the people who have been adversely affected, other than obvious winners like Zoom. Of course, "average savings rate is up" may not even be newsworthy, but I had no idea until recently this was the case. One thing I'd like to make it clear is that although I am one of the lucky ones to hold a job in this pandemic economy and work from home, I'm actually spending more now than before on monthly expenses (for food, for example). Where major savings come from are from lack of travel expenses but I wouldn't consider not being able to spend money on travel as being a net positive, it's a tradeoff between unique life experience and some extra money, not really a great tradeoff for many people I imagine (and a tradeoff that would have been possible even before the pandemic, the pandemic just removed the choice now which is not great). And it's not like most people that can save some travel money now will invest it well, I would imagine most simply end up spending on stuff they wouldn't have bought otherwise (see the super high demand for latest PC hardware, high Amazon sales, etc).