4 ms·

AFAICT 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/63ba0d84fe

AFAICT 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.

lapcat 2y ago
I feel like you both may be missing the point. The article isn't just about the present. It takes a very long view: > The problem isn’t that some Americans didn’t come out ahead after four years of Bidenomics. Some did. It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks > The bottom line is that, for 20 years or more, including the months prior to the election, voter perception was more reflective of reality than the incumbent statistics. In other words, the official statistics have been misleading for a very long time, misleading in the sense of not showing the true hardships of the economy on the voters. "Year X is better/worse than Year Y" is not really the point.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  > It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks Then they should have made up a new number that proves that point rather than making up a new number that seems to imply the opposite. > In other words, the official statistics have been misleading for a very long time, misleading in the sense of not showing the true hardships of the economy on the voters. There is a relevant official statistic: the poverty statistic.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    But look at the charts in this whitepaper: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c7513595d6e/63c1bb4dc740e1acb5d3b6dd_TRU%20White%20Paper.pdf https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c7513595d6e/... Their proposed unemployment rate tracks the official rate fairly well; the difference is that their rate is a lot higher than the official rate at almost every point in time over the past 30 years. The author also notes that the rates can vary significantly by circumstances, such as geographical location, race, and educational attainment. Increasingly, in recent times, the Democrat/Republican voter divide is becoming a college degreed/non-degreed divide.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      You're saying U6 unemployment + poverty is greater than U6 unemployment which is greater than U3 unemployment. X + Y is generally higher than just X, yes.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        > You're saying It's the author's argument. I'm just trying to interpret it correctly. > X + Y is generally higher than just X, yes. The author's point is that their rate, the higher rate, is a better reflection of how the voters are doing economically and explains why their perception of the economy can be very different than the perception of many leaders in Washington, who are puzzled about why the voters are upset.
        gruez 2y ago
        >The author's point is that their rate, the higher rate, is a better reflection of how the voters are doing economically and explains why their perception of the economy can be very different than the perception of many leaders in Washington, who are puzzled about why the voters are upset. Right, but that doesn't explain why voters are suddenly mad now. American consumer sentiment has deviated from "fundamentals" since the pandemic[1]. [1] https://archive.is/ry4YC https://archive.is/ry4YC
        lapcat 2y ago
        Who says they're suddenly mad now? The voters have thrown out two incumbent Presidents in a row and switched political parties three Presidential elections in a row. Unfortunately for them, there's a political duopoly.
- sobellian 2y ago
  The proposed measure is highly correlated with U-3, so as time-series they should basically tell the same story. If the assertion is "U-3 doesn't predict this phenomenon but this other measure does" it's likely to be wrong since the signals are roughly equal to a constant factor. For the entire data range depicted in the paper this property holds. Is it possible that back in $GOOD_OLD_DAYS this isn't true? Well I'd like to see the data but I don't have time to chase it down and none has been offered to support that claim.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    The article isn't just about one statistic, unemployment. It's about multiple statistics, for example inflation too.
    - sobellian 2y ago
      Okay but we were talking about the unemployment statistic in this thread. Does it add any information? It likely does not.

lapcat 2y ago

I feel like you both may be missing the point. The article isn't just about the present. It takes a very long view: > The problem isn’t that some Americans didn’t come out ahead after four years of Bidenomics. Some did. It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks > The bottom line is that, for 20 years or more, including the months prior to the election, voter perception was more reflective of reality than the incumbent statistics. In other words, the official statistics have been misleading for a very long time, misleading in the sense of not showing the true hardships of the economy on the voters. "Year X is better/worse than Year Y" is not really the point.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
> It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks Then they should have made up a new number that proves that point rather than making up a new number that seems to imply the opposite. > In other words, the official statistics have been misleading for a very long time, misleading in the sense of not showing the true hardships of the economy on the voters. There is a relevant official statistic: the poverty statistic.
- lapcat 2y ago
  But look at the charts in this whitepaper: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c7513595d6e/63c1bb4dc740e1acb5d3b6dd_TRU%20White%20Paper.pdf https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c7513595d6e/... Their proposed unemployment rate tracks the official rate fairly well; the difference is that their rate is a lot higher than the official rate at almost every point in time over the past 30 years. The author also notes that the rates can vary significantly by circumstances, such as geographical location, race, and educational attainment. Increasingly, in recent times, the Democrat/Republican voter divide is becoming a college degreed/non-degreed divide.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    You're saying U6 unemployment + poverty is greater than U6 unemployment which is greater than U3 unemployment. X + Y is generally higher than just X, yes.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > You're saying It's the author's argument. I'm just trying to interpret it correctly. > X + Y is generally higher than just X, yes. The author's point is that their rate, the higher rate, is a better reflection of how the voters are doing economically and explains why their perception of the economy can be very different than the perception of many leaders in Washington, who are puzzled about why the voters are upset.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >The author's point is that their rate, the higher rate, is a better reflection of how the voters are doing economically and explains why their perception of the economy can be very different than the perception of many leaders in Washington, who are puzzled about why the voters are upset. Right, but that doesn't explain why voters are suddenly mad now. American consumer sentiment has deviated from "fundamentals" since the pandemic[1]. [1] https://archive.is/ry4YC https://archive.is/ry4YC
        lapcat 2y ago
        Who says they're suddenly mad now? The voters have thrown out two incumbent Presidents in a row and switched political parties three Presidential elections in a row. Unfortunately for them, there's a political duopoly.
sobellian 2y ago
The proposed measure is highly correlated with U-3, so as time-series they should basically tell the same story. If the assertion is "U-3 doesn't predict this phenomenon but this other measure does" it's likely to be wrong since the signals are roughly equal to a constant factor. For the entire data range depicted in the paper this property holds. Is it possible that back in $GOOD_OLD_DAYS this isn't true? Well I'd like to see the data but I don't have time to chase it down and none has been offered to support that claim.
- lapcat 2y ago
  The article isn't just about one statistic, unemployment. It's about multiple statistics, for example inflation too.
  - sobellian 2y ago
    Okay but we were talking about the unemployment statistic in this thread. Does it add any information? It likely does not.