4 ms·

> 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 numbe

> 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.

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.