The White House believes American workers have seldom had it so good. And lots of prestigious economists agree. But the voters aren’t buying. Maybe they know something?

[P]erhaps the voters are sensible and the economists are obtuse. And perhaps the indicators on which economists rely no longer mean what economists suppose them to mean.

  • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
    4·
    8 months ago

    The article tries to cite specific metrics to counter the headline metrics, but I’m not sure they paint a picture supporting the author’s points.

    Those days are long gone. Today’s typical American working household has several earners, sometimes in multiple jobs.

    Following the first link shows an article that paints a picture of life being better for dual earner households:

    This shift towards a dual-earner model presents challenges like fewer hours for home production, but also benefits like improved work-life balance satisfaction for husbands doing more housework. Personal savings rates have fallen from 15% to 5%, yet 71% of dual-earner families contributed to 401(k) accounts in 2015.

    Following the second link shows that multiple jobholders as a percent of the economy has been trending downward for decades, hitting a record low during the height of the pandemic, and climbing back up to around the average for the previous decade.

    The article continues:

    If one earner loses a job while the others keep theirs, she may leave the workforce for a time; there is the option of making do with less, and for some there is early retirement. She will not, in that case, count as unemployed—however difficult her life. A low jobless rate can mask a great deal of stress in such households.

    This is strange, because the hypothetical person in this category would be counted in metrics like U-6, which has also been at near record lows since the pandemic recovery.

    The employment-to-population ratio is still a bit below where it was in 2020, and far below where it was in 2000

    Well, the percentage of the population over 65 is much, much higher than it was in 2000. If you look at prime age labor force participation, the number is higher than it has been the previous 2 decades before that.

    The author should’ve focused on other metrics (housing prices, food prices) rather than choosing metrics that don’t actually support his hypothesis, or metrics that are themselves presented in this context. To that point, he could’ve expanded on how it is that individuals experienced what he describes as “sawtooth” economic fortunes, rather than just the brief mention he gives them: pandemic era relief actually went to real people, especially households with children.

    I mean, I actually like the author. He’s shaped a lot of ideas that formed my own political identity and view towards economic issues over the past 25 years. I just think this particular article is a miss.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      4·
      8 months ago

      The author should’ve focused on other metrics (housing prices, food prices)

      The author can’t present the numbers for the more clear and straightforward metrics you’re talking about, because as you noted, they show the exact opposite of what he’s trying to imply is happening.

      He’s constructing the article in such a way as to carefully assemble little individual facts to carefully create a facsimile of something that isn’t what’s actually happening. For what reason, I honestly don’t know. But it’s too precisely tailored skirting around the reality for it to be a simple mistake.