8 ms·

If purchasing power and minimum wage had kept up to pace then unemployment would not be so low. Though the numbers mean the same they have been artificially in

by pylua 3y ago

If purchasing power and minimum wage had kept up to pace then unemployment would not be so low. Though the numbers mean the same they have been artificially influenced by other factors and the ability to measure the economy through unemployment has been nerfed. Not to mention attrition is higher than the past so the jobs that are being created could be largely recycled.

rhelz 3y ago
You ok bro? I mean, lets put these two of your statements together: > If [yada yada] then unemployment would not be so low. Which seems to indicate that you do believe unemployment is low, but > the numbers mean the same they have been artificially influenced by other factors which seems to indicate that you disbelieve the evidence that unemployment is low... The reason I ask if you are OK is that this is exactly the kind of thing which happens--to me as much as anybody--when you are feeling depressed. Any reasons to be optimistic (e.g. unemployment is low) are immediately discounted (e.g. its low because minimum wage hasn't kept up), or even just flat-out denied (unemployment isn't even low, because the numbers are cooked.) Which is bad enough, but all the reasons for pessimism get magnified (e.g. purchasing power hasn't kept ups). The result is a self-reinforcing cycle of pessimism, which makes you completely immune to things which would ordinarily cheer you up and help you out of the trap. > artificially influenced...the ability to measure the economy through unemployment has been nerfed.... Yeah. The danger with this kind of skepticism is where does it stop? I mean, sure, if you want to use the unemployment numbers as a source of information, you should know what is being measured and how its being measured. But to just dismiss this metric out of hand--when every other economist in the world follows it closely and thinks its useful--is just too facile. You can doubt anything. And it can trap you in a bad place. I hope you are all right.
- pylua 3y ago
  Hey, I am fine. Thanks for checking in. I really do appreciate it. My primary issue is that thirty years ago jobs that you could take, such as my wife’s family did, such as minimum wage jobs could lead to you having a house and living with dignity. The majority of jobs created today do not seem to offer that for the reasons I stated above. I wish there were reasons to be optimistic here but we have to be realistic. I believe the numbers they are telling us are accurate. I also believe the numbers would be historically good, but the reality does not feel like it.

by pylua 3y ago

rhelz 3y ago

You ok bro? I mean, lets put these two of your statements together: > If [yada yada] then unemployment would not be so low. Which seems to indicate that you do believe unemployment is low, but > the numbers mean the same they have been artificially influenced by other factors which seems to indicate that you disbelieve the evidence that unemployment is low... The reason I ask if you are OK is that this is exactly the kind of thing which happens--to me as much as anybody--when you are feeling depressed. Any reasons to be optimistic (e.g. unemployment is low) are immediately discounted (e.g. its low because minimum wage hasn't kept up), or even just flat-out denied (unemployment isn't even low, because the numbers are cooked.) Which is bad enough, but all the reasons for pessimism get magnified (e.g. purchasing power hasn't kept ups). The result is a self-reinforcing cycle of pessimism, which makes you completely immune to things which would ordinarily cheer you up and help you out of the trap. > artificially influenced...the ability to measure the economy through unemployment has been nerfed.... Yeah. The danger with this kind of skepticism is where does it stop? I mean, sure, if you want to use the unemployment numbers as a source of information, you should know what is being measured and how its being measured. But to just dismiss this metric out of hand--when every other economist in the world follows it closely and thinks its useful--is just too facile. You can doubt anything. And it can trap you in a bad place. I hope you are all right.

pylua 3y ago
Hey, I am fine. Thanks for checking in. I really do appreciate it. My primary issue is that thirty years ago jobs that you could take, such as my wife’s family did, such as minimum wage jobs could lead to you having a house and living with dignity. The majority of jobs created today do not seem to offer that for the reasons I stated above. I wish there were reasons to be optimistic here but we have to be realistic. I believe the numbers they are telling us are accurate. I also believe the numbers would be historically good, but the reality does not feel like it.