3 ms·

Perhaps we need better metrics actually tracking income inequality, because tracking employment rate without that seems pretty disingenuous as a metric of aggre

Perhaps we need better metrics actually tracking income inequality, because tracking employment rate without that seems pretty disingenuous as a metric of aggregate economic health. Or rather, we should be reporting such metrics that we surely must track already together.

blitzar 1y ago
This is akin to saying that we need a better metric than CPU temperature to track internet download speed.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  I don't follow at all. Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"? The problem is that unemployment, particularly U-3, is a bad signal for aggregate economic health by itself. As is GDP. You need an signal for wealth distribution to get a sense of how a given person can interpret to understand how well the economy is serving them. At the very least. EDIT: Of course, the ultimate issue is people wanting to cherry-pick metrics to push their polemic. If you have any solutions to that I'm all ears. We've been able to articulate an accurate understanding all along, but that doesn't make for easy headlines or simplistic campaign platforms.
  - kentm 1y ago
    > Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"? There's no single metric for aggregate economic health in the same way that there's no single metric for aggregate server health. There's a problem in expectations when people complain about U-3; its not supposed to be a measure of economic health. And thats the point being made here.
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      And yet, that's exactly how U-3 is used by everyone but the labor economists that define it. Hence why this conversation is happening in the first place.
      - kentm 1y ago
        Yes, and the fault is on the people using U-3 that way, not the economists. Talking about the problems with U-3 implies that the economists messed up. The issue is that everyone is looking for a quick 5-second way of making conclusions about a complicated topic. We don't need a new metric. There is no new metric that will satisfy that criteria. The only solution is to improve the way we talk about the economy.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > that's exactly how U-3 is used by everyone but the labor economists that define it No, it’s not. Enterprise demand planning, market research, hell even political analysis for donors and politicians——everyone who has a use for the data knows how to use them. If you want to see the contrast in treatment, compare the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal publications versus free media, e.g. CNBC or TV news.
jjk166 1y ago
Is it disingenuous to report obituaries without including birth announcements in the same article? Surely only reporting the one gives a skewed view of demographic health. News is about reporting new information in a timely manner. When a metric gets updated, it's good to let people know, especially if the new value is unexpected. Many people may have various different uses for this update. It is impossible to give every piece of data anyone could consider useful in a single article. Luckily, that is unnecessary. All that information is publicly available and people can go look it up for themselves at any time. If you don't care enough to look up the metrics that are reported, that's not a problem with the metrics or the reporting.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  > Is it disingenuous to report obituaries without including birth announcements in the same article? Surely only reporting the one gives a skewed view of demographic health. The point of obituaries is not to give any sense of demographic health. > News is about reporting new information in a timely manner. When a metric gets updated, it's good to let people know, especially if the new value is unexpected. Many people may have various different uses for this update. It is impossible to give every piece of data anyone could consider useful in a single article. Luckily, that is unnecessary. All that information is publicly available and people can go look it up for themselves at any time. Sure, but the issue is that the reporting treats the metric as meaningfully representative of accessibility of employment when it's actually representative of who is seeking the unemployment benefit. > If you don't care enough to look up the metrics that are reported, that's not a problem with the metrics or the reporting. This seems wildly naive.
  - jjk166 1y ago
    > The point of obituaries is not to give any sense of demographic health. And the point of unemployment statistics is not to give any sense of economic equality. > Sure, but the issue is that the reporting treats the metric as meaningfully representative of accessibility of employment Because it is a pretty good proxy for this. When unemployment is high, wages tend to stagnate and it takes longer on average for people to find new employment. When unemployment is low, wages go up and people tend to have a much easier time finding a job quickly. There is a remarkable correlation between people seeking unemployment benefits and accessibility of employment. Sure there are people who would rather take a low paying job than the benefits, but there have always been such people, and the proportion doesn't quickly change, so within reason you can compare the situation at time A with the situation at time B based on the metric which is measured the same way at both times and get a pretty good sense of what the difference is. It is not the end all be all, but nothing ever could be. It is one of countless metrics, all of which have their appropriate uses.

blitzar 1y ago

This is akin to saying that we need a better metric than CPU temperature to track internet download speed.

MangoToupe 1y ago
I don't follow at all. Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"? The problem is that unemployment, particularly U-3, is a bad signal for aggregate economic health by itself. As is GDP. You need an signal for wealth distribution to get a sense of how a given person can interpret to understand how well the economy is serving them. At the very least. EDIT: Of course, the ultimate issue is people wanting to cherry-pick metrics to push their polemic. If you have any solutions to that I'm all ears. We've been able to articulate an accurate understanding all along, but that doesn't make for easy headlines or simplistic campaign platforms.
- kentm 1y ago
  > Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"? There's no single metric for aggregate economic health in the same way that there's no single metric for aggregate server health. There's a problem in expectations when people complain about U-3; its not supposed to be a measure of economic health. And thats the point being made here.
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    And yet, that's exactly how U-3 is used by everyone but the labor economists that define it. Hence why this conversation is happening in the first place.
    - kentm 1y ago
      Yes, and the fault is on the people using U-3 that way, not the economists. Talking about the problems with U-3 implies that the economists messed up. The issue is that everyone is looking for a quick 5-second way of making conclusions about a complicated topic. We don't need a new metric. There is no new metric that will satisfy that criteria. The only solution is to improve the way we talk about the economy.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > that's exactly how U-3 is used by everyone but the labor economists that define it No, it’s not. Enterprise demand planning, market research, hell even political analysis for donors and politicians——everyone who has a use for the data knows how to use them. If you want to see the contrast in treatment, compare the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal publications versus free media, e.g. CNBC or TV news.

jjk166 1y ago

Is it disingenuous to report obituaries without including birth announcements in the same article? Surely only reporting the one gives a skewed view of demographic health. News is about reporting new information in a timely manner. When a metric gets updated, it's good to let people know, especially if the new value is unexpected. Many people may have various different uses for this update. It is impossible to give every piece of data anyone could consider useful in a single article. Luckily, that is unnecessary. All that information is publicly available and people can go look it up for themselves at any time. If you don't care enough to look up the metrics that are reported, that's not a problem with the metrics or the reporting.

MangoToupe 1y ago
> Is it disingenuous to report obituaries without including birth announcements in the same article? Surely only reporting the one gives a skewed view of demographic health. The point of obituaries is not to give any sense of demographic health. > News is about reporting new information in a timely manner. When a metric gets updated, it's good to let people know, especially if the new value is unexpected. Many people may have various different uses for this update. It is impossible to give every piece of data anyone could consider useful in a single article. Luckily, that is unnecessary. All that information is publicly available and people can go look it up for themselves at any time. Sure, but the issue is that the reporting treats the metric as meaningfully representative of accessibility of employment when it's actually representative of who is seeking the unemployment benefit. > If you don't care enough to look up the metrics that are reported, that's not a problem with the metrics or the reporting. This seems wildly naive.
- jjk166 1y ago
  > The point of obituaries is not to give any sense of demographic health. And the point of unemployment statistics is not to give any sense of economic equality. > Sure, but the issue is that the reporting treats the metric as meaningfully representative of accessibility of employment Because it is a pretty good proxy for this. When unemployment is high, wages tend to stagnate and it takes longer on average for people to find new employment. When unemployment is low, wages go up and people tend to have a much easier time finding a job quickly. There is a remarkable correlation between people seeking unemployment benefits and accessibility of employment. Sure there are people who would rather take a low paying job than the benefits, but there have always been such people, and the proportion doesn't quickly change, so within reason you can compare the situation at time A with the situation at time B based on the metric which is measured the same way at both times and get a pretty good sense of what the difference is. It is not the end all be all, but nothing ever could be. It is one of countless metrics, all of which have their appropriate uses.