4 ms·

Public perception matches people's experiences. That may or not match the measures that economists and rich people care about, like GDP or stock market gains.

Public perception matches people's experiences. That may or not match the measures that economists and rich people care about, like GDP or stock market gains. Down on main street, people are cutting back because they can no longer afford the lifestyle they used to afford. Edit: This has been discussed many times here, so I can only assume the downvoters don't care how "the other half" lives. Homes [for sale] “unaffordable” in 99% of nation for average American https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708109 Housing is now unaffordable for a record half of all U.S. renters https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39128859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39128859 US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37112604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37112604 But sure, there's another perspective that sees "the Best U.S. Economy Since the 1990s".

gruez 3y ago
>Public perception matches people's experiences. Going back to the crime example, was this true? People's perceptions contradicted crime statistics. Are you claiming that the crime statistics were wrong and people were somehow getting increasingly victimized?
- sudisjensobshs 3y ago
  Many urban areas saw an increase in crime starting around 2020. When it comes to crime (especially violent), it doesn’t take much to change your perception. 1 incident you’re personally involved in is usually 1 too many. Seeing near misses doesn’t help. The economy is similar - unnecessary stuff is still accessible, but major necessities (food, housing) are worse than ever. Trends are what influence perception - and rightly so. We’re the most technically advanced we’ve ever been and we’re regressing on the important things. Negative public reaction is (unfortunately) necessary to continue our overall positive trend.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Many urban areas saw an increase in crime starting around 2020 AFAIK crime statistics do show a small uptick during the pandemic, but people thinking crime is on the rise predates that (ie. during the 2000s and 2010s, despite statistics showing otherwise).
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  The FBI crime reports indicate that crime went down in 2022. The National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that crime went up in 2022. For example, the FBI reports state that total violent crime went down by 2% in 2022. The victimization survey states that it went up by 75%. The victimization survey also indicates that people are reporting a smaller percentage of crime to the police.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    See, this is a great example of how carefully selected data causes a false perception. The increase you cite is charted on https://ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov/quick-graphics https://ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov/quick-graphics. It looks like this: https://imgur.com/a/6dgFRrp https://imgur.com/a/6dgFRrp
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      That chart gives me the perception that crime went up in 2022, which is the perception I get from the victimization survey data I mentioned, and which is opposite of the perception I get from the FBI crime report data that says that violent crime went down in 2022. What is the false perception you think people get from "the FBI reports state that total violent crime went down by 2% in 2022. The victimization survey states that it went up by 75%"?
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        The chart reveals that the "violent crime victimization 'went up by 75%'" statistic reflects a level that is still historically among the lowest in decades. The same data also could be described as "back to 2018's already-low level" or "nearly 1/4th the amount of crime as the early 1990s".
throw0101d 3y ago
> That may or not match the measures that economists and rich people care about, like GDP or stock market gains. If you don't think that positive GDP growth is good, wait until you experience negative GDP growth. :) As someone who has a few more decades until retirement, I could personally go with cheaper stocks so I could buy more know for future use, but I'm sure my older (some-retired) relatives feel differently about market downturns. > Down on main street, people are cutting back because they can no longer afford the lifestyle they used to afford. Depending on the lifestyle (or parts thereof) in question, this may not be a bad thing. Certain lifestyle (aspects) may be imprudent, e.g., "How Much is That $70,000 Truck Costing You?": * https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/02/how-much-is-that-70000-truck-costing-you/ https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/02/how-much-is-that-70...
- CapitalTntcls 3y ago
  GDP is a monetary measure, it measures market value. So most of regular infrastructure does not add anything to GDP, public schools for example. Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people. > Depending on the lifestyle (or parts thereof) in question, this may not be a bad thing. Certain lifestyle (aspects) may be imprudent, I guess he was talking about people that cant afford a 70000 truck at first place. Some people on rich countries like Brasil, 11th GDP in 2022, were just not able to afford food.
  - throw0101d 3y ago
    > So most of regular infrastructure does not add anything to GDP, public schools for example. But building a new school, or bridge, or factory, or repaving a road to fix potholes, does add to GDP. GDP is a measure of economic activity, and having positive activity is generally a good thing. (Though some is not: if there's an oil spill, that will increase economic activity due to having to spend money on the clean-up measures.) > Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people. If you think poor people have a hard time with positive GDP, do you think they'll have a better time when it's negative?
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Public perception matches people's experiences. It really doesn't; confirmation bias, recency bias, propaganda, etc. all play significant roles. Eyewitness testimony is remarkably inaccurate.
- leereeves 3y ago
  You don't give people enough credit. Yes, there's a lot of gaslighting and propaganda, like cherry picking favorable economic statistics (as here), but people generally see through it. Interestingly, we also see both recency bias and confirmation bias here as well. This very recent statistic confirms what some people would like to believe.

gruez 3y ago

>Public perception matches people's experiences. Going back to the crime example, was this true? People's perceptions contradicted crime statistics. Are you claiming that the crime statistics were wrong and people were somehow getting increasingly victimized?

sudisjensobshs 3y ago
Many urban areas saw an increase in crime starting around 2020. When it comes to crime (especially violent), it doesn’t take much to change your perception. 1 incident you’re personally involved in is usually 1 too many. Seeing near misses doesn’t help. The economy is similar - unnecessary stuff is still accessible, but major necessities (food, housing) are worse than ever. Trends are what influence perception - and rightly so. We’re the most technically advanced we’ve ever been and we’re regressing on the important things. Negative public reaction is (unfortunately) necessary to continue our overall positive trend.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Many urban areas saw an increase in crime starting around 2020 AFAIK crime statistics do show a small uptick during the pandemic, but people thinking crime is on the rise predates that (ie. during the 2000s and 2010s, despite statistics showing otherwise).
rufus_foreman 3y ago
The FBI crime reports indicate that crime went down in 2022. The National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that crime went up in 2022. For example, the FBI reports state that total violent crime went down by 2% in 2022. The victimization survey states that it went up by 75%. The victimization survey also indicates that people are reporting a smaller percentage of crime to the police.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  See, this is a great example of how carefully selected data causes a false perception. The increase you cite is charted on https://ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov/quick-graphics https://ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov/quick-graphics. It looks like this: https://imgur.com/a/6dgFRrp https://imgur.com/a/6dgFRrp
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    That chart gives me the perception that crime went up in 2022, which is the perception I get from the victimization survey data I mentioned, and which is opposite of the perception I get from the FBI crime report data that says that violent crime went down in 2022. What is the false perception you think people get from "the FBI reports state that total violent crime went down by 2% in 2022. The victimization survey states that it went up by 75%"?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      The chart reveals that the "violent crime victimization 'went up by 75%'" statistic reflects a level that is still historically among the lowest in decades. The same data also could be described as "back to 2018's already-low level" or "nearly 1/4th the amount of crime as the early 1990s".

throw0101d 3y ago

> That may or not match the measures that economists and rich people care about, like GDP or stock market gains. If you don't think that positive GDP growth is good, wait until you experience negative GDP growth. :) As someone who has a few more decades until retirement, I could personally go with cheaper stocks so I could buy more know for future use, but I'm sure my older (some-retired) relatives feel differently about market downturns. > Down on main street, people are cutting back because they can no longer afford the lifestyle they used to afford. Depending on the lifestyle (or parts thereof) in question, this may not be a bad thing. Certain lifestyle (aspects) may be imprudent, e.g., "How Much is That $70,000 Truck Costing You?": * https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/02/how-much-is-that-70000-truck-costing-you/ https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/02/how-much-is-that-70...

CapitalTntcls 3y ago
GDP is a monetary measure, it measures market value. So most of regular infrastructure does not add anything to GDP, public schools for example. Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people. > Depending on the lifestyle (or parts thereof) in question, this may not be a bad thing. Certain lifestyle (aspects) may be imprudent, I guess he was talking about people that cant afford a 70000 truck at first place. Some people on rich countries like Brasil, 11th GDP in 2022, were just not able to afford food.
- throw0101d 3y ago
  > So most of regular infrastructure does not add anything to GDP, public schools for example. But building a new school, or bridge, or factory, or repaving a road to fix potholes, does add to GDP. GDP is a measure of economic activity, and having positive activity is generally a good thing. (Though some is not: if there's an oil spill, that will increase economic activity due to having to spend money on the clean-up measures.) > Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people. If you think poor people have a hard time with positive GDP, do you think they'll have a better time when it's negative?

ceejayoz 3y ago

> Public perception matches people's experiences. It really doesn't; confirmation bias, recency bias, propaganda, etc. all play significant roles. Eyewitness testimony is remarkably inaccurate.

leereeves 3y ago
You don't give people enough credit. Yes, there's a lot of gaslighting and propaganda, like cherry picking favorable economic statistics (as here), but people generally see through it. Interestingly, we also see both recency bias and confirmation bias here as well. This very recent statistic confirms what some people would like to believe.