Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Voters were right about the economy

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Voters were right about the economy

#91

Post by consumer451 »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #59

The 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…

> The article is pretty clearly politically motivated.

Supporting links as to why Politico would do something like this:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/axel-springer-politico-...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/politico...

Re: Voters were right about the economy

#92

Post by bell-cot »

radlad wrote: post #90
bell-cot wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Un-rounded, county-wide, it was a ~1.5% drop in votes for the Dem presidential candidate (from 2020 to 2024). Along with that, the voter turn-out dropped by ~2.2%, in a heavily Democratic County. Nationally, the Dem's went from Biden's 2020 51.3% of the popular vote, to Harris' 2024 48.3%. Darn close to what you'd get by extrapolating the county numbers. (I agree with your comments on A2's local issues - but from cov…

I just want to point out that 51.3% - 48.3% = 3%, which is twice the difference that appeared in Washtenaw County (1.5%.) I wouldn't consider that to be equivalent myself, though I'm not sure what it tells us exactly.

A 2.2% lower turnout, in a county where the Dem's get 71% of the votes, will disproportionately hurt them. Simplistic version -

-2.2% * 71% = -1.6% (D), vs. -2.2% * 29% = -0.6% (R)

- for a 1% "net gain" for the Republicans. Whether one says that 1.5% + 1% is 3%-ish, or assumes (plausibly) that turnout went up a bit in counties which lean heavily Republican, or something else - the extrapolation is fairly well in line with the delta in the national popular vote.

Re: Voters were right about the economy

#93

Post by latentcall »

maximusdrex wrote: post #69
spdgg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those economic gains are not felt by a majority of the population. That was clear by the election, and would be clear to you if you stepped out of your own echo chamber. Nobody wants to hear about U3 unemployment when they can't afford childcare, groceries, medicine, all of which have inflated significantly. For folks who were already living paycheck to paycheck, of which there are many, these explanations are both p…

I’d love to see some data supporting this argument because I’ve heard it over and over from people all over the political spectrum the past few years but it just doesn’t line up with any data. You act like they’re quoting abstract numbers which are meaningless compared to people’s “lived experience” but unemployment is a large part of people’s experience. Furthermore, inflation adjusted wages are up (with the highest…

You can just ask people instead of relying on some study or survey…

Re: Voters were right about the economy

#94

Post by nradov »

nothercastle wrote: post #86
nradov wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the CPI includes rent (and owner's imputed rent).

Poorly, because of the owners imputed rent it lags a lot.

Whatever. No inflation metric will ever be perfect. You can take the raw CPI input data and recalculate without owner's imputed rent if you want. The final result won't change much.

Re: Voters were right about the economy

#95

Post by gigatexal »

gigatexal wrote: post #4

So be it. But electing Trump to fix the economy is like opting to have the Joker operate on you instead of a competent doctor because you’re sick of incumbent doctors and their shit…

I hope you’re all very rich (you’ll benefit from proposed tax cuts) and don’t have anyone you love dependent on Medicaid …

https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2025-02-12-house-and-senat...

Re: Voters were right about the economy

#97

Post by radlad »

bell-cot wrote: post #92
radlad wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to point out that 51.3% - 48.3% = 3%, which is twice the difference that appeared in Washtenaw County (1.5%.) I wouldn't consider that to be equivalent myself, though I'm not sure what it tells us exactly.

A 2.2% lower turnout, in a county where the Dem's get 71% of the votes, will disproportionately hurt them. Simplistic version - -2.2% * 71% = -1.6% (D), vs. -2.2% * 29% = -0.6% (R) - for a 1% "net gain" for the Republicans. Whether one says that 1.5% + 1% is 3%-ish, or assumes (plausibly) that turnout went up a bit in counties which lean heavily Republican, or something else - the extrapolation is fairly well in line…

Well, I think we both agree that Democrats lost the most recent election because they got less votes than Republicans, and because some/many people who voted Democrat in 2020 voted Republican in 2024 (including in Washtenaw.)

I think we might just disagree about how impactful, or out of the ordinary, the swing in Washtenaw Co specifically was (or maybe I've just done a poor job of expressing myself or understanding your original comment.) See 2016 for further comparison: https://electionresults.ewashtenaw.org/electionreporting/nov...

Re: Voters were right about the economy

#98

Post by vaidhy »

nradov wrote: post #62
edmundsauto wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, the CPI includes rent (and owner's imputed rent).

CPI is not used for benefits calculation. Only OPM is used and OPM formula is 3x of USDA low-cost food plan. Nothing about rent, healthcare, age of the people etc. If they use CPI, it would be a much better scheme. SPM uses more variables, but it is not the official definition for poverty measurements.

Re: Voters were right about the economy

#99

Post by CRConrad »

maximusdrex wrote: post #69
spdgg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those economic gains are not felt by a majority of the population. That was clear by the election, and would be clear to you if you stepped out of your own echo chamber. Nobody wants to hear about U3 unemployment when they can't afford childcare, groceries, medicine, all of which have inflated significantly. For folks who were already living paycheck to paycheck, of which there are many, these explanations are both p…

I’d love to see some data supporting this argument because I’ve heard it over and over from people all over the political spectrum the past few years but it just doesn’t line up with any data. You act like they’re quoting abstract numbers which are meaningless compared to people’s “lived experience” but unemployment is a large part of people’s experience. Furthermore, inflation adjusted wages are up (with the highest…

> I’d love to see some data supporting this argument because I’ve heard it over and over from people all over the political spectrum the past few years but it just doesn’t line up with any data.

Wasn't one of the main points — perhaps the main point — of the article that the data is measured wrong?

> You act like they’re quoting abstract numbers which are meaningless compared to people’s “lived experience” but unemployment is a large part of people’s experience.

Yeah, and the article was in large part about how the unemployment measures in the data don't reflect what people’s lived experience of unemployment is. That's pretty much the definition of “abstract numbers which are meaningless”.

> Furthermore, inflation adjusted wages are up (with the highest gains in the lowest 50% of earners).

Again, that depends very much on how you measure inflation.

> If these statistics aren’t fully capturing people’s experiences, I’m sure every economist in the world would love to know what metrics are better.

That may be the reason the article suggested some new metrics. Honestly, did you even read it at all?

Re: Voters were right about the economy

#100

Post by CRConrad »

consumer451 wrote: post #91
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #59

The 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…

> The article is pretty clearly politically motivated. Supporting links as to why Politico would do something like this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/axel-springer-politico-... https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/politico...

N.B: This is the same Springer group that owns a (very) large share of the world’s scientific journals, including quite a few of the most prestigious ones.
Post reply on HN