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
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the data doesn't match reality. I'm saying the data is reality, or are least the best measure of it we have.
You're the one insisting that your experiences are the only measure of reality, and since the data doesn't agree, it must be bullshit, instead of the much more likely explanation that your experiences aren't typical.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "6 months" thing, but if you're talking about the inflation rate spiking, the data wasn't wrong, the interpretation was. The data showed inflation up, every month, but the Fed thought it was "transitory". Eventually they realized "oh shit" it's not transitory and took action to bring it down while trying not to cause a recession at the same time. I'm no fan of the Fed in general, but credit where it's due, it looks like they did a damn good job.
I'm well aware of all the various measures of unemployment, and they're very good. Both short and long term unemployment are below what used to be considered maximum employment, and have been for a while. Underemployment is historically low. And after controlling for boomers aging out, workforce participation is trending upward. More people are working, more people are working full time, in jobs they're trained for (as opposed to having to take jobs they're overqualified for), and their wages are growing faster than inflation.
No, I don't think there is a vast conspiracy of thousands of federal workers, normal career employees, not political appointees, publishing fake numbers. The raw data is public and so is the origin. No one disagrees on what the numbers are, just what spin to put on it. Often, for political reasons, people will try to put a bad spin on good numbers, or a good spin on shitty numbers, but the numbers themselves are not in question.
I think you've been taken in by someone who wants to put a bad spin on good numbers. Numbers so good, if you had told me you thought we'd be here a year ago I would have laughed in your face.
Maybe, just maybe, the people doing well aren't lying to you, there isn't a conspiracy of government workers, and things are as all available data suggests.
Maybe your experiences just aren't typical.
Pffft, if you think the way the american gov measures the unemployment stat is very good, its maybe not me with the atypical experience. Hard to take you seriously with a statement like that, good lord
What else do you want? There are numbers for short-term, long-term, actively looking, stopped looking, workforce participation, and underemployed both part-time who want full-time and full-time in a low paying job because they can't find anything in their field. They also have trends and more granular breakdowns in each category.
Enlighten me, what else should be reported? People who wait tables but dream of being a movie star or pro athlete?