politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's a pretty bad tactic because while it may let you take credit for improving some people's lives, you're also giving tacit permission for those worse off to blame you for it. This only works if the majority of people are better off than they were four years ago and recognize that they are. That's probably not a safe assumption when we've got record inflation and dipped close to, if not into, a recession. Just think of all the mass layoffs you heard about over the past four years.
I think most people are a little better off. They just don't feel like it, because most people still aren't doing "well." I.e. things aren't getting better fast enough. I looked at real-wage statistics a while back, and that seemed to confirm my beliefs (real wages have been improving across all four quantiles). I have not looked at those living on SSI, SSD, or retirement; and I imagine those people could be worse off.
The current job market is still very tight, unemployment is still very low (despite the Fed). Recent mass layoffs have mostly just been in tech and some white collar jobs, which is a small fraction of the workforce/electorate. The majority of people work "unskilled" jobs and those are still easy to get, and pay a little more in real wages now.
None of this really matters to the electorate though. I'm convinced elections are all vibes-based. And vibes are largely controlled by the media and algorithms. I've recently talked to a few people that want Trump to win, and they still parotted the line, "Trump is a business man, so he knows how to get the economy back on track." They also liked the checks they got during the lockdown. They don't really follow the news or politics, so all the information they get is incidental. One person recently started to get into red-pill content (Fresh + Fit, Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, etc), who I think also discuss political issues in a vibes-based way.
The problem is that while wages have been beating inflation this year, they aren't beating the last few years. Despite breathless headlines proclaiming so from left leaning sources.
It appears earnings have been beating inflation since 2014 (with some noise, and a big temporary spike during covid lockdowns). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
Really? Because everyone else disagrees. I wonder what numbers magic they used to make that particular line go up.
Oh look. Reagan redefined CPI and we've been getting gaslighted for decades.
But also the median household tells a different story. Just tracking wage doesn't tell the whole economic story unless you want to believe every American Human is working a wage job. I do admit it's my fault for using the word wages. But there's a reason we track median household and not actual wages to get a general look at the health of the Economy.
Good thing they changed the definition of a recession, so we definitely aren't in one lol. 😒
That was just bizarre. 2 neg quarters = recession. 4 = depression. Pretty clear what they mean. Then just tack on adjectives. A small recession. A deep recession. Changing the definition was just weird.
The definition of recession didn't changed. You didn't know how it was defined, and you thought the layman rule of thumb definition was the official definition. When you learned how it's really defined...did you say "wow, great I learned something new today."?
No you said "it's those pesky experts that are wrong!"
Not a big fan of history?
History? Not particularly a big fan. But not sure why that matters. I just pay attention and there was plenty of discussion in 2008 about how they define recession and depression because there was a lot of talk how we would know we were in the latter.
I guess youre not a big fan of learning?
It was rhetorical, I know you're not a history guy.
Paywalled, so I can't read it. And I can't get to via webarchive. You're hiding your evidence, probably because you realize you are wrong.
But let's see if you're a learning guy.*
From an IMF paper in 2009:
There is no official definition of recession, but there is general recognition that the term refers to a period of decline in economic activity. Very short periods of decline are not considered recessions. Most commentators and analysts use, as a practical definition of recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country’s real (inflation adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP)—the value of all goods and services a country produces (see “Back to Basics,” F&D, December 2008). Although this definition is a useful rule of thumb, it has drawbacks
*lol we both know you won't learn.
I'm not here for the argument. I just want to point out that I was able to get to the text of the article you said couldn't be read in one try. https://archive.ph/boO6q. You're welcome.
I didn't even realize that archive.today was another archive site. Thanks for that.
Wait, first he didn't know the official definition. Now there is no official definition. And your source here confirms the WSJ article that you refused to read. (The salient point is above the paywall line)
Dude.
Probably would have been more accurate to say how they determine how we are in a recession, rather than how they define it. But this seems pedantic nit picking to make me wrong, so you can ignore the fact that the definition didn't change. Which is, of course, ultimately the point.
Lmao, are you joking?
Now you're just not saying anything. Thanks for demonstrating that you won't learn.
Lol watching you is like watching kids argue in the playground
You come in with this empty childish comment, acting like you're above it. Hilarious.
I'm proud to be the only kid on this playground who can actually make a point.
I can tell. Lol
The fact that you have to blatantly misrepresent what I said to make your insults just exposes that even you realize how far out of your league you are right now.
It never ceases to amaze me how often people project their own shortcomings onto others.
And you keep answering. Lol
I was wondering when the inevitable "I am just trolling!" backtracking was coming. Impressively much more quickly than I expected. You really do realize how outmatched you are.
Woosh
Lol now just not saying anything. It's only you and me here, there's no reason for you to pretend that you made some high level thing that I missed. We both know it's BS.
No, I'm legitimately asking if you're joking or not.
You're citing an opinion piece, that vaguely references what yellen says. I just gave you a paper from the IMF, from over a decade before the definition "changed," that says the definition you use is not the definition.
You also have to realize that if they had claimed it was a recession, it would have bucked the trends of almost every (if not actually every) recession before it as well. Like employment was going up during the supposed recession. So the argue this person cuts both ways.
Yeah I guess you're right, the economy is doing better than ever. I have to choose between food and gas but thank fuck the dems are telling us we're not in a recession.
Yes, clearly by pointing out that the definition didn't change, im saying the economy is better than ever. You're truly a genius. Lol
Anything to avoid learning, as I predicted. Not that it was hard to predict.
🙄