10 ms·
Voters were right about the economy
- jhp123 2y ago> I don’t believe those who went into this past election taking pride in the unemployment numbers understood that the near-record low unemployment figures — the figure was a mere 4.2 percent in November — counted homeless people doing occasional work as “employed.” But the implications are powerful. If you filter the statistic to include as unemployed people who can’t find anything but part-time work or who make a poverty wage (roughly $25,000), the percentage is actually 23.7 percent. In other words, nearly one of every four workers is functionally unemployed in America today — hardly something to celebrate. But U6 unemployment is also near a 20-year low[0], as is the poverty rate[1]. [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPAAUS00000A156NCEN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPAAUS00000A156NCEN
- lapcat 2y agoGiven the discrepancy in measures—24% vs. 7%—I'm guessing that the "poverty wage" factor is the crucial difference? The official US poverty definition is about $13k for a 1 person household and $26k for a 4 person household. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-01-17/pdf/2020-00858.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-01-17/pdf/2020-0...
- bryanlarsen 2y agoAnd poverty levels are essentially at record low levels: https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-s...
- bryanlarsen 2y agoYeah, let's call their number U7. It seems like it's U6 + those on a poverty wage. It's a fairly reasonable argument that U6 is a better measure of unemployment than U3. And I'd accept a similar argument for their U7, or the other U7's out there that add people like the discouraged. But I suspect that their U7 is likely at a 20 year low, just like U3 and U6 are. Which would invalidate their argument, in my opinion.
- lapcat 2y agoI think it's extremely unlikely that this team, led by a U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, just messed up something obvious: https://www.lisep.org/team https://www.lisep.org/team
- tensor 2y agoThe "data" either supports their claim or it doesn't. They've defined a new metric, now they can back up their claim by showing how this metric has changed over the last 20 years.
- lapcat 2y agoTheir website has white papers, methodology, and data.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoIt's likely the problems are all in the politico framing of it. U7 seems useful. U7 being 24% feels right-ish. That's on Ludwig. Implying that 24% is worse than normal when it's likely one of the best values we've had in decades? That's on Politico.
- lapcat 2y agoThe article with authored by Eugene Ludwig, so I'm not sure there's any separate Politico framing.
- sobellian 2y agoAFAICT the article was written by the guy that germinated the concept in the first place. You can see the paper at https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c7513595d6e/63c1bb4dc740e1acb5d3b6dd_TRU%20White%20Paper.pdf https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c7513595d6e/... tl;dr It is very highly correlated to U-3. The paper doesn't include 2024 in the data series but the figure the article cites, 23.7%, is very near all-time best. That's pretty deceptive framing IMO.
- vaidhy 2y agoIt is even worse if you consider the actual reality. US poverty measures OPM and SPM both underestimates the actual poverty. OPM is set to 3x USDA "low cost" food plan and was created in 1960s. It has only been adjusted for inflation. SPM is better, but is not official. If you tie poverty as the bottom quartile (adjusted per person + addl. impact of children), you are likely to have a poverty wage of around $32,000 (a bit higher than SPM and much higher than OPM). That makes the functionally unemployed much higher. Add to the fact that your benefits like SNAP have a steep drop-off.. you earn $5 more per hour and suddenly, you lose all the benefits and you can see this in the making.
- gruez 2y ago>It has only been adjusted for inflation. What else are you expecting? Raises every couple of years for a job well done?
- edmundsauto 2y agoInflation doesn't typically cover cost of living, does it? A poverty line basket of goods is different than someone wealthy. And is rent/real estate cost increases and insurance covered?
- nradov 2y agoYes, the CPI includes rent (and owner's imputed rent).
- nothercastle 2y agoPoorly, because of the owners imputed rent it lags a lot.
- nradov 2y agoWhatever. No inflation metric will ever be perfect. You can take the raw CPI input data and recalculate without owner's imputed rent if you want. The final result won't change much.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gigatexal 2y agoSo be it. But electing Trump to fix the economy is like opting to have the Joker operate on you instead of a competent doctor because you’re sick of incumbent doctors and their shit…
- theandrewbailey 2y agoI'd like to point out that 2019 was a very good year for the economy. It worked well the first time, so why not again?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aweiland 2y ago2019 things started slowing down followed by a brief pre-lock down recession in 2020. I don't think things were as good as you remember.
- atmavatar 2y agoEven if they were, I find it interesting that Trump gets a total pass on COVID, while Biden's held to a standard as if he didn't have to deal with COVID's aftermath. In some cases, it's actually worse: I've had to listen to some people complain about price increases, citing artificially low prices deep in the heart of the COVID lockdowns as if they were the benchmark for a great days' past economy they wish we could return to.
- 8note 2y agoit wasnt particularly different from 2015, but also, the things being done are very different now from in 2019
- diffeomorphism 2y agohttps://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-th... https://www.salon.com/2018/02/12/thom-hartmann-how-the-gop-used-a-two-santa-clauses-tactic-to-con-america-for-nearly-40-years_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2018/02/12/thom-hartmann-how-the-gop-u... In brief: It worked very badly the first time and the only reason you were conned into thinking differently was massive debt.
- thinkingtoilet 2y agoI think this applies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- smitty1e 2y agoRule of seven also would seem applicable: https://www.brainbok.com/guide/pm-study-notes/rule-of-seven-control-charts/ https://www.brainbok.com/guide/pm-study-notes/rule-of-seven-... Look at which way the numbers went under the previous regime.
- nuancebydefault 2y agoThe statements in the article are as good as impossible to verify, no clear metrics, no formulas, no charts. Also the pretext that 'voters' vote around 'the economy' is hard to qualify nor quantify. What's clear to me is that a lot of voters believed someone who repeats things over and over and promises to 'fix' things with zero evidence to show for. It tells us more about effectiveness of repeating, fear mongering and blaming 'the others' than about economics.
- lapcat 2y ago> The statements in the article are as good as impossible to verify, no clear metrics, no formulas, no charts. The author's bio links to https://www.gene-ludwig.com/ https://www.gene-ludwig.com/ which has a number of whitepapers.
- bdangubic 2y ago[flagged]
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago> "Also the pretext that 'voters' vote around 'the economy' is hard to qualify nor quantify." It's not that difficult to Google for poll results: Pre-election: "As concerns around the state of the economy and inflation continue, about eight-in-ten registered voters (81%) say the economy will be very important to their vote in the 2024 presidential election." (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-t...) Post-election: "Among 2024 voters, the state of the national economy and the level of inflation were seen as reasons to support Trump by double digits." (https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-reasons-for-voting-for-trump-and-harris/ https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-...) There's plenty of other polling data from the November 2024 election. What is it that people are finding it difficult to quantify or qualify?
- nuancebydefault 2y agoI did not search for such polls, thanks for that. If it is true, what I still find hard to believe is that there is a link between yelling 'I fix it' and the effect on the economy. Economic history teaches that starting a trade war on terms of 'they are treating us badly' or not, has consequences that are bad for the economy. One of the Bushes has tried the same thing and had to roll it back because the heavy backfiring. Yelling 'I will stop this and that war using my charms' doesn't appear to have successful precedent either.
- bell-cot 2y agoSounds right. I'm in a major university town in SE Michigan. In recent years, apartment rents rose by ~4X the "official" gov't rate of inflation. Supposedly, the townies and students are diehard Democratic liberals. But especially around campus, voting statistics show Trump getting many more votes last November (and Harris many fewer) than the stereotypes would suggest.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoAre you sure the Socialist party candidate didn't siphon off Harris voters?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bell-cot 2y agoIn the official results, the vote totals for all the 3rd party candidates add up to ~2%. And Green Party is the by-far largest piece of that.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoThat was for all of Michigan though, not Ann Arbor.
- bell-cot 2y ago(No - I was looking at the Washtenaw Co. totals.) Here are the official precinct-by-precinct vote counts, in Ann Arbor: https://electionresults.ewashtenaw.org/electionreporting/nov2024/indexprecinctreport.html https://electionresults.ewashtenaw.org/electionreporting/nov... While you can find a precinct where the Greens got 3.5%, there are 52 precincts, and that number is an obvious outlier. There are far more where the Greens didn't even get 1%. Interestingly, looking back at the County-wide results, the down-ticket Green candidates did much better than their Presidential candidate. That would suggest Green voters splitting their tickets - to vote against (presumably) Trump.
- decremental 2y ago[dead]
- tensor 2y agoThis is wildly misleading. You can argue that we should use a different metric, sure, but then you must look at all of history using that metric to compare "the economy now, to the economy before." The data was not wrong just because you choose to use a new metric. The data would be "wrong" if it was collected in a way that introduced errors.
- kazinator 2y agoStory says that the data gathering is good, but interpretations are flawed and have been consistently so for decades.
- taylodl 2y agoGoes back to the Reagan era. They needed to hide the data in order to hide the fact their policies were decimating America's manufacturing base. That's when America transitioned to a so-called "service economy." We've been getting poorer ever since.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- more_corn 2y agoThere are two economies. The one inhabited by wealthy owner class (they own homes, stock, have paid off cars and disposable income) their economy is great. For everyone else it sucked. The metrics tend to focus on the former and ignore the “outlier data” caused by the latter.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoThe problem is the electorate is angry and impatient. The only way for wages to go up is organizing, unionizing, and to further take advantage of structural demographics compressing the working age population cohort. The only way for prices to go down is a deep recession. Instead, they believed what someone told them (“I will make prices go down”). And when they get the obvious outcome (price levels remain where they are at, or more inflation with tariffs), they are still going to be mad. Facts and data are no anecdote for bitterness and anger, which has been decades in the making (since Ronald Reagan).
- jsbisviewtiful 2y ago> they are still going to be mad. Historically it seems like they will be happier despite no change or worse change as long as their "team" won.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoYeah, fair. Tribalism and all that.
- tzs 2y agoWe could raise the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25/hour to somewhere in the $13-16/hour range. That would help a lot of people in lower paying jobs. I picked $13-16/hour because that is what the minimum wage from 1980 would be if it were adjusted to today's dollars and wages. It was $3.10/hour then which becomes around $12.60/hour if it were adjusted to now based on the CPI. If it were adjusted using the same method the Social Security Administration uses to adjust past earnings when trying to figure your average monthly earnings over you career it would by about $16.50/hour today. I note that there are several states where the minimum wage is in that range including California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona on the west, Florida in the south, most of the Northeast except Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Looking at a map of minimum wage by states and a map of who won the states in the 2024 election, I think every state where the minimum wage is $7.25/hour went to Trump. In states where it is at least $13/hour it looks like most went Harris except for Florida, Arizona, and Missouri. Speaking of minimum wage and Social Security, the fact that the federal minimum wage has not kept up with inflation has an interesting consequence. Normally when you retire your SS benefit is a significant cut from your working pay. For someone whose retirement age is 67 and retiring this year their benefit is the sum of: 90% of the first $1000 of the AIME 32% of the their AIME over 1000 but less than $6000 15% of the AIME over $6000 where AIME is "average indexed monthly earning". It is simply you average monthly pay over the 35 working years where you earned the most, with each year's pay indexed to current dollars. For example if your AIME is $6000 your benefit would be 90% of $1000 + 32% of $5000 = $2500, so half of your average, which is probably around 1/3 or 1/4 or less of what you were making in your later years. Big drop. If you didn't manage to save/invest a fair amount for retirement this can mean a big drop in your standard of living. If you had been earning minimum wage all those years though your AIME now would be $1982 ($11.89/hour) which is more than you would be currently earning in your $7.25/hour job. Your SS benefit would be 90% of $1000 + 32% of 982 = $1214/month. That's $14570/year, which is $70/year more than you would be making at 2000 hours/year @ $7.25/hour. (And that $14570 is all take home. Your $14570/year working minimum wage would be $13391 after SS and Medicare taxes). So for someone who has worked minimum wage all their life at least their SS will be enough to continue their current lifestyle when they retire. They aren't screwed if they were not able to save/invest much.
- anonymousiam 2y agoAnd then there's this to consider too: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/behind-todays-stunning-jobs-report-record-surge-government-workers https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/behind-todays-stunning-j...
- TMWNN 2y ago"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it" —Jeff Bezos <https://sports.yahoo.com/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-explains-212315127.html https://sports.yahoo.com/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-explains-2123...>
- k310 2y agoI'm not believing one iota of info from the current government, especially as much of existing data is disappearing. The Ministry of Truth (social) is here. So science has to go underground, reminiscent of the dark ages.
- from-nibly 2y agoThe government has always been the ministry of truth.
- from-nibly 2y agoThe government reporting on economic prosperity is a conflict of interest. They print money that the economy sits on. It's their dollar that suffers when people don't believe in it. This is just the government proclaiming how many boots we've made while everyone walks barefoot.
- binary132 2y ago[flagged]
- BoiledCabbage 2y agoThe article is pretty clearly politically motivated. Thr argument is XYZ number doesn't capture everything and the absolute number is higher. Which may be true, but for U3 unemployment that has always been true! The fact is every unemplpyment metric you look at is at a historical low. So regardless of what they are or aren't capturing they are all better than they've been in decades. In relative terms the economy has been doing well. The difference is two thing. In 2020 half the world shut down and it caused inflation. Our inflation was also much better handled than most of the developed world. And number two, there is a very strong echo chamber that wanted to convince they country the economy was bad, and they were successful. I'll have to find the link, but there was a reputable poll right around the election that asked people in all the swing states how the economy was doing. They all rated it poorly. They then asked how the economy was doing in their state, they all rated it well. Voters in every swing state saw up front with their own eyes the economy was doing well in their states and said so in the poll, but were sure the economy was doing poorly because of what they heard about all the other states. Mission accomplished for the echo-chamber.
- vannevar 2y agoYes, saying "the voters were right" is not really justified by the evidence presented. According to the article, economic reality isn't reflected in the government numbers and has not been for many years. But since the gap was present in both the Biden Administration and the first Trump term, it doesn't explain the voters' preference for Trump. When you factor in the economic impact of the pandemic and the strength of the US recovery, then regardless of the systematic gap the record actually suggests a much better economic record for Biden than Trump. A more plausible explanation is that the Republicans were able to persuade many Americans that the economic problems caused by the pandemic were the fault of the Democrats. Blaming the other side for historical accident is a tried-and-true campaign strategy, and the pandemic provided a perfect opportunity to put it to use for 2024.
- spdgg 2y agoThose economic gains are not felt by a majority of the population. That was clear by the election, and would be clear to you if you stepped out of your own echo chamber. Nobody wants to hear about U3 unemployment when they can't afford childcare, groceries, medicine, all of which have inflated significantly. For folks who were already living paycheck to paycheck, of which there are many, these explanations are both patronizing and out of touch with the lived experience of most of the population.
- trod1234 2y agoDidn't they just fail payroll because of the frozen payments from USAID which they said they weren't receiving?
- shadowvoxing 2y agoI'm convinced most HN readers only read left-leaning mainstream publications, and they were all funded by USAID.
- zimpenfish 2y agoNo. https://www.thefp.com/p/the-internet-mob-comes-for-politico https://www.thefp.com/p/the-internet-mob-comes-for-politico
- trollcoaster 2y ago[flagged]
- knifeapu 2y ago[flagged]
- mastermold 2y ago[flagged]
- zimpenfish 2y agoNo. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/06/trump-politico-usaid-subcriptions https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/06/trump-politi...
- mastermold 2y agohttps://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-tricked-strong-economy-00203464 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]