I'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.
Voters were right about the economy
51–60 of 103 posts
Re: Voters were right about the economy
#52There 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.
The 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…
We 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
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.
Re: Voters were right about the economy
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure the Socialist party candidate didn't siphon off Harris voters?
In 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.
That was for all of Michigan though, not Ann Arbor.
Re: Voters were right about the economy
#54The 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.
Re: Voters were right about the economy
#55I'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.
The government has always been the ministry of truth.
Re: Voters were right about the economy
#56[flagged]
Re: Voters were right about the economy
#57> 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 po…
It 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 (…
>It has only been adjusted for inflation.
What else are you expecting? Raises every couple of years for a job well done?
Re: Voters were right about the economy
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 upse…
>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].
Re: Voters were right about the economy
#59The 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.
Re: Voters were right about the economy
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
It 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 (…
>It has only been adjusted for inflation. What else are you expecting? Raises every couple of years for a job well done?
Inflation 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?