02-14-2025, 11:44 PM
I had already read it, and (to me), it was the SOS. (Same ol’ shit).
Are there different measures of unemployment? Absolutely. But this argument that Well, yes, the standard measure of unemployment is low, but this other, more lax/inclusive measure is higher! Sure average wages are up, but if you include unemployed people, who aren’t earning anything, the average isn’t as high (duh.)
Well, yes, that’s right. It always like that. That alternate unemployment measure was also higher than the headline number under Trump as well. But comparing apples to apples, per the agreed-upon long-standard unemployment measure, under Biden it was historically low - the longest lowest persistent level of unemployment in, like 50 or 60 years. This was particularly striking considering all of the experts were predicting an imminent recession almost throughout his tenure. But somehow the economy suprised everyone. (BTW, this SO argument (in my memory) seems to reappear every time a Dem occupies the WH.)
Basically, this guy (who’s pushing his book, honestly, and his “Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity”) is saying it’s not great for everyone.
That’s true. It never is. And there are a number of new challenges - you can’t make raise a family by getting a job at the local plant any more, but that hasn’t changed in years. And housing in particular is historically expensive, making home ownership a real challenge.
But the job market is not one of those challenges, at least in the aggregate. And compared to the past, using the same standard measure, the economy (and specifically unemployment) was empirically, based-on-data, better than under Trump, under Obama, and under Bush.
Are there different measures of unemployment? Absolutely. But this argument that Well, yes, the standard measure of unemployment is low, but this other, more lax/inclusive measure is higher! Sure average wages are up, but if you include unemployed people, who aren’t earning anything, the average isn’t as high (duh.)
Well, yes, that’s right. It always like that. That alternate unemployment measure was also higher than the headline number under Trump as well. But comparing apples to apples, per the agreed-upon long-standard unemployment measure, under Biden it was historically low - the longest lowest persistent level of unemployment in, like 50 or 60 years. This was particularly striking considering all of the experts were predicting an imminent recession almost throughout his tenure. But somehow the economy suprised everyone. (BTW, this SO argument (in my memory) seems to reappear every time a Dem occupies the WH.)
Basically, this guy (who’s pushing his book, honestly, and his “Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity”) is saying it’s not great for everyone.
That’s true. It never is. And there are a number of new challenges - you can’t make raise a family by getting a job at the local plant any more, but that hasn’t changed in years. And housing in particular is historically expensive, making home ownership a real challenge.
But the job market is not one of those challenges, at least in the aggregate. And compared to the past, using the same standard measure, the economy (and specifically unemployment) was empirically, based-on-data, better than under Trump, under Obama, and under Bush.