site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25227 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I smell statistical bullshit.

My normal standard of living has taken a noticeable if not disastrous turn. My pay is roughly the same, my costs are a third higher to double on most normal expenses (energy, groceries etc.). My rent is up 30%, the value of my savings is down 20%, and the cost of buying a house is up 50%.

Three years ago I had a lot more disposable income. Now, all that might fit fine within the "economy is doing fine" narrative, but it doesn't feel fine to me. What I hear from posts like this is "economic metrics are bullshit statistical lies". I am noticeably poorer today than I was in 2020. All the statistics in the world aren't going to change that.

Most people have gotten raises, so if your pay is the same, of course your standard of living will have declined compared to most people. Also, most people's savings have gone up, not down. So of course your bad luck is making you worse off compared to most people. These facts just show that you've been unlucky. They don't say anything about how the average person is doing.

If you are doing worse, then you seem to be in the minority. And see here

Perhaps your personal situation is not representative of the norm, and that the cited data, rather than being "statistical bullshit," more accurately describes the norm than does your anecdote.

  • -14

Your sources are a yougov poll which says that people are financially coping... slightly less well as they were at the the worst point of covid disruption, and a low effort piece of blogspam with no data.
The same writer also has a piece with the exact opposite sentiment, because in that one she was pushing "struggling women need another 16 billion in government funding" rather than "dumb republicans are blinded to how amazing the economy is doing"

It is ridiculously and deliberately obnoxious.

Your sources are a yougov poll which says that people are financially coping... slightly less well as they were at the the worst point of covid disruption,

OP was claiming that his personal finances are far worse than three years ago,. The poll indeed indicates that that is a minority view, as I said.

And, isn’t "slightly worse" exactly how you would expect people would feel if inflation were precisely what the govt says it is?

and a low effort piece of blogspam with no data.

There is a link to a press release by the pollster in the blog.

I take it you are earning more than you were three years ago?

I think perhaps you are missing the point.

  • -11

Why didn't you say "Yes, but I think perhaps you are missing the point."? Is it because you are not earning more than you were three years ago?

No, it is because the point is that one person's income is not valid evidence, be it him, me, you, or someone else. Like I said, you are missing the point. As it happens, I quit the full time job I had three years ago because it was boring, and I am now working freelance, with fewer hours but at a higher hourly rate. Do you see how it is difficult to draw inferences about the norm from my personal experience?

Perhaps I am not trying to draw inferences about the norm. Perhaps the only thing that interests me about this topic is how perception of the economy is affected by personal circumstances.

Great! But the comment I was referring to was specifically about the accuracy of the official statistics

Great! But now I am missing your point, because as long as I follow the rules and stay on topic - which I am, just a different angle - I am not required to only post within the confines of the op's argument, am I?

More comments

Perhaps. That's one option.

Another is that economics is staffed by the same sort of experts who run our health care systems, legal systems and educational systems. They went to the same schools, drank the same koolaid, attend the same parties and conferences, belong to the same socioeconomic strata. Maybe Gell-Mann Amnesia is creeping up on you.

Anecdote is small data, but it's the only data I can be sure isn't horseshit.

it's the only data I can be sure isn't horseshit

But the problem is that no one else can know that.

Yeah, it sucks when your sense-making institutions don't have any more credibility than Reddit randos. An appeal to authority would go down really well about now.

except people in JTarrou situation, which I assume is a bigger crowd than the one composed of economic experts.

?? Surely you don’t believe that the government income data is based on an analysis of the income of economic experts.

considering how they calculate the cost of shelter, it wouldn't surprise me.

"Hey Gates! How much would you say would you increase the rent in your mansion if you were to rent it out"

"Dunno, a three fiddly?"

A lens I've found extremely useful for understanding this conflict is the one John Michael Greer proposes in this article from 2016 https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-01-21/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-resentment/

Here’s a relevant example. It so happens that you can determine a huge amount about the economic and social prospects of people in America today by asking one remarkably simple question: how do they get most of their income? Broadly speaking—there are exceptions, which I’ll get to in a moment—it’s from one of four sources: returns on investment, a monthly salary, an hourly wage, or a government welfare check. People who get most of their income from one of those four things have a great many interests in common, so much so that it’s meaningful to speak of the American people as divided into an investment class, a salary class, a wage class, and a welfare class.

...

The answer, of course, is that three of the four have remained roughly where they were. The investment class has actually had a bit of a rough time, as many of the investment vehicles that used to provide it with stable incomes—certificates of deposit, government bonds, and so on—have seen interest rates drop through the floor. Still, alternative investments and frantic government manipulations of stock market prices have allowed most people in the investment class to keep up their accustomed lifestyles.

The salary class, similarly, has maintained its familiar privileges and perks through a half century of convulsive change. Outside of a few coastal urban areas currently in the grip of speculative bubbles, people whose income comes mostly from salaries can generally afford to own their homes, buy new cars every few years, leave town for annual vacations, and so on. On the other end of the spectrum, the welfare class has continued to scrape by pretty much as before, dealing with the same bleak realities of grinding poverty, intrusive government bureacracy, and a galaxy of direct and indirect barriers to full participation in the national life, as their equivalents did back in 1966.

And the wage class? Over the last half century, the wage class has been destroyed.

In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury. In 2016, an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage is as likely as not to end up living on the street, and a vast number of people who would happily work full time even under those conditions can find only part-time or temporary work when they can find any jobs at all. The catastrophic impoverishment and immiseration of the American wage class is one of the most massive political facts of our time—and it’s also one of the most unmentionable. Next to nobody is willing to talk about it, or even admit that it happened.

This isn't true though. In 1966, the average person earned less than what is today minimum wage. You could support a family on that income today too, but you'd have to accept a big hit to your quality of life.

They went to the same schools, drank the same koolaid, attend the same parties and conferences, belong to the same socioeconomic strata.

And as such, are overwhelmingly to blame for the current situation in the first place.
Why anyone would trust their numbers, especially those that say "actually, we didn't fuck up, and you're just imagining it", is a mystery.

Because even small deviations of the official inflation or growth rates would become obvious over the long run, considering they are exponential. They would also show up in things like the exchange rate and interest rates. People who doubt the official statistics never sanity check themselves and consider what the world would look like if their skepticism was correct.

Because even small deviations of the official inflation or growth rates would become obvious over the long run, considering they are exponential.

Yeah, that happened. It's incredibly obvious, many people say it's incredibly obvious, and the experts just insist that's wrong anyway. People that say that they have personally experienced much sharper increases in prices than the official figures capture in the Covid Helicopter Money era are told that they just have to check the official figures to see that they're wrong. If you say it should be obvious if they're cooking the books, other people say that it is obvious, and you reply that this isn't what the books say, we're at an impasse.

Over the long run. They can hide the ball until someone they don't like can take the blame for it.

This is not only a non-falsifiable claim to dispute claims of skepticism with no limiting factors (it applies to all disputes over government claims if you do/cann not calculate alternatives), but it rests on the foundation being actualized- that the deviations between the official inflation or growth rate and reality is what is being claimed to be increasingly obvious by appearance.

Functionally, you've just said 'if they were lying, people would be noticing and saying something' to people who are saying 'I've noticed things that make me think they're lying.'

Functionally, you've just said 'if they were lying, people would be noticing and saying something' to people who are saying 'I've noticed things that make me think they're lying.'

Seconded and endorsed.

Furthermore, this is happening in the context of multiple instances where in the expert class has been caught lying or otherwise trying to manipulate the information flow for "the public good" regarding a great many things. Off the top of my head; Hilary's Emails, "Russian Collusion", Jeoffrey Epstein, all the shit during the pandemic about the effectiveness vs non-effectiveness of masks, Fauci's blatantly partisan flip-flopping on public gatherings, the lab leak theory, the effectiveness/non-effectiveness of covid vaccines vs natural immunity, Hunter Biden's Laptop, Musk's revelation of Twitter's incestuous relationship with the CIA and DHS, Transwomen in sports... you get the picture.

As I argued in a response to Scott's essay on "bounded distrust", I believe he's got the issue exactly backwards. The moral onus is not on the plebs/normies class to trust the experts. The moral onus is on the experts to be trustworthy, and what we are looking at is mounting evidence that most of them aren't.

You may well be poorer than you were three years ago. Most people are not - incidentally, much, certainly more than normal, of the wage growth of the recent period has gone to lower income workers, which perhaps indicates why this discourse of a bad economy is tolerated despite the evidence to the contrary. Not sure what else to tell you is that, surprisingly, number continue to the best means of measuring things.

There is no way anyone on this forum would tolerate for a second this kind of 'lived experience' rhetoric if it was about, say, racism.

Go ahead and not tolerate it, Harold.

Actually, there's a decent bit of evidence behind the claim that statistics aren't accurately measuring what's happening to people in their actual lives. What are family formation rates looking like? Education costs and student debt? Property/housing costs? Food quality/price shifts? Giant tent-cities full of homeless people? I mean, I'm not a trained economist, but the presence of hordes of homeless drug addicts in such huge numbers that famous cities have problems with street lamps collapsing due to so many homeless people urinating on them don't seem to me like an indication of a healthy economy. Hell, the most straightforward measure of economic activity, energy usage per capita, hasn't recovered either.

Would you be willing to stand behind the claim that official measures of inflation, cost-of-living etc accurately reflect what's happening in the economy as opposed to being massaged and shaped for political messaging purposes? My personal contention is that while costs in a lot of areas have been reduced, many of the things people consider essential for a satisfying life have been pulled out of reach for vast numbers of people, and various statistical shell-games have been played to obscure this.

How are homeless drug addicts evidence that the government is lying about inflation? How is a lack of family formation evidence of that?

Successful economies generally don't have large populations of homeless drug users terrorising major cities and rendering vast swathes of infrastructure/real-estate effectively worthless. At the same time, family formation is an extremely important life-goal for most people and one that's heavily tied to economic success (i.e. being able to support a home and raise children). It isn't necessarily a sign that the government is directly lying about inflation, but if the government is saying that the economy is in an extremely healthy state, these phenomena make the case that the government is being deceptive in some way. Maybe they're telling the truth about inflation but hiding the shortfalls elsewhere - I'd need to make this a full-time job to really get to the bottom of it from here.

Successful economies often have large populations of homeless drug users in their major cities. In fact, the wealth of these countries probably why so many people can afford to be homeless drug users. If we were poorer, there wouldn't be enough charity or social welfare to support them.

There is a very strong negative correlation between wealth and fertility on a societal level. In developed countries, the fertility rate has steadily fallen as we've gotten richer over the last 150 years. In Africa, people clearly living in extreme poverty have several times the number of children as we do. The problem is not that people cannot afford to have children.

Successful economies often have large populations of homeless drug users in their major cities. In fact, the wealth of these countries probably why so many people can afford to be homeless drug users. If we were poorer, there wouldn't be enough charity or social welfare to support them.

Often? I was unaware that the presence of giant groups of homeless indigents was a positive sign for an economy. I'm not going to try and argue on this point, but I'd like to see some more evidence that this is a good thing as opposed to a social problem, because I imagine that in an actually functioning economy these people would have jobs/homes/better things to do. If the economy generating large numbers of crazy hobos with knives who randomly assault passers-by in major cities is a sign that it is functioning well I think there are some problems with how we define "functioning well".

In Africa, people clearly living in extreme poverty have several times the number of children as we do. The problem is not that people cannot afford to have children.

African economies and countries are so incredibly different to the west that I don't think this is a good comparison. In extremely terrible economies having large numbers of children is heavily incentivised for a variety of other reasons - that's your replacement for medical technology, retirement savings, childcare, extra labour etc. In the modern west, most of the childless members of my cohort explicitly tell me that there are financial reasons behind their childlessness, and a lot of them tell me that they would prefer to have more children if they weren't limited by the costs of doing so. That seems to be borne out by the statistics I look at as well.

What are family formation rates looking like? Education costs and student debt? Property/housing costs? Food quality/price shifts?

Why would we use other statistics which are not the thing we are trying to measure to get an approximation of something we can, in fact, measure? To paraphrase Sir Humphrey, why are your family formation statistics facts but my real wage facts merely statistics?

energy usage per capita

Source?

Would you be willing to stand behind the claim that official measures of inflation, cost-of-living etc accurately reflect what's happening in the economy as opposed to being massaged and shaped for political messaging purposes?

Yes. Or rather, I have not yet seen any evidence of the latter, so I have no reason to believe it.

Why would we use other statistics which are not the thing we are trying to measure to get an approximation of something we can, in fact, measure?

Because I think that in terms of life satisfaction and happiness, those items listed are far more important and meaningful to people's actual lives than the cost of a replacement flat-screen TV. Real wages are important so far as they let people lead satisfying and meaningful lives, but they're not what actually make people happy or give them meaning in their lives. Family formation, getting onto the property ladder - these are much better indicators of human thriving than real wage numbers. You're totally right when you say that we should be measuring what we actually want to measure, which is why I look at the statistics I do.

Source?

Energy usage is the basis of almost all economic activity - and that number is DOWN. Technically if you go by energy usage rates the USA didn't actually recover entirely from the 2007 economic collapse. I find that fairly plausible, given that there weren't armies of fentanyl zombies and giant homeless tent cities before then.

Yes. Or rather, I have not yet seen any evidence of the latter, so I have no reason to believe it.

Why aren't people having children anymore? Why is there a giant fentanyl crisis? Why are people so miserable(women especially)? Why is political extremism and polarisation increasing at such a rapid clip? Why is there a massive illegal immigrant population and what are they doing to wages? Why is domestic infrastructure falling apart? Why are politics so hopelessly corrupt? There are giant blinking warning lights and sirens sounding all over society, and these things simply would not be happening if society was economically successful and doing well in the way that your real wage statistics are claiming. This is why I'm distrustful of statistics that claim that everything is hunky dory - because if I look at US society as a whole I see a society in crisis/collapse, and yet the statistics you're talking about are claiming that everything is better than fine.

This article is from 2016 and is more about Donald Trump than anything else, but the lens it uses to look at American society throws some of these issues into stark relief. I think it held up rather well, given the predictions made, but I'm just going to quote the relevant portions if you don't want to go read it. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-01-21/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-resentment/

Here’s a relevant example. It so happens that you can determine a huge amount about the economic and social prospects of people in America today by asking one remarkably simple question: how do they get most of their income? Broadly speaking—there are exceptions, which I’ll get to in a moment—it’s from one of four sources: returns on investment, a monthly salary, an hourly wage, or a government welfare check. People who get most of their income from one of those four things have a great many interests in common, so much so that it’s meaningful to speak of the American people as divided into an investment class, a salary class, a wage class, and a welfare class.

...

There’s a vast amount that could be said about the four major classes just outlined, but I want to focus on the political dimension, because that’s where they take on overwhelming relevance as the 2016 presidential campaign lurches on its way. Just as the four classes can be identified by way of a very simple question, the political dynamite that’s driving the blowback mentioned earlier can be seen by way of another simple question: over the last half century or so, how have the four classes fared?

The answer, of course, is that three of the four have remained roughly where they were. The investment class has actually had a bit of a rough time, as many of the investment vehicles that used to provide it with stable incomes—certificates of deposit, government bonds, and so on—have seen interest rates drop through the floor. Still, alternative investments and frantic government manipulations of stock market prices have allowed most people in the investment class to keep up their accustomed lifestyles.

The salary class, similarly, has maintained its familiar privileges and perks through a half century of convulsive change. Outside of a few coastal urban areas currently in the grip of speculative bubbles, people whose income comes mostly from salaries can generally afford to own their homes, buy new cars every few years, leave town for annual vacations, and so on. On the other end of the spectrum, the welfare class has continued to scrape by pretty much as before, dealing with the same bleak realities of grinding poverty, intrusive government bureacracy, and a galaxy of direct and indirect barriers to full participation in the national life, as their equivalents did back in 1966.

And the wage class? Over the last half century, the wage class has been destroyed.

In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury. In 2016, an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage is as likely as not to end up living on the street, and a vast number of people who would happily work full time even under those conditions can find only part-time or temporary work when they can find any jobs at all. The catastrophic impoverishment and immiseration of the American wage class is one of the most massive political facts of our time—and it’s also one of the most unmentionable. Next to nobody is willing to talk about it, or even admit that it happened.

The destruction of the wage class was largely accomplished by way of two major shifts in American economic life. The first was the dismantling of the American industrial economy and its replacement by Third World sweatshops; the second was mass immigration from Third World countries. Both of these measures are ways of driving down wages—not, please note, salaries, returns on investment, or welfare payments—by slashing the number of wage-paying jobs, on the one hand, while boosting the number of people competing for them on the other. Both, in turn, were actively encouraged by government policies and, despite plenty of empty rhetoric on one or the other side of the Congressional aisle, both of them had, for all practical purposes, bipartisan support from the political establishment.

Real wages are important so far as they let people lead satisfying and meaningful lives, but they're not what actually make people happy or give them meaning in their lives. Family formation, getting onto the property ladder - these are much better indicators of human thriving than real wage numbers. You're totally right when you say that we should be measuring what we actually want to measure, which is why I look at the statistics I do.

This is perfectly reasonable, but then you are straying considerably from the question of 'is this a good economy' as most Americans would conceive it. On the basis of home ownership and family formation, 1982 was better year than 1995, yet surely only a madman would suggest that the former year represented a 'better economy' than the latter year. Claiming that the economy is doing well at the moment doesn't mean one is claiming 'society', broadly construed, in improving, though I would argue that the latter is indeed true.

Energy usage is the basis of almost all economic activity - and that number is DOWN. Technically if you go by energy usage rates the USA didn't actually recover entirely from the 2007 economic collapse. I find that fairly plausible, given that there weren't armies of fentanyl zombies and giant homeless tent cities before then.

Well when I said source I meant a source for the fact that energy consumption is down, but doesn't matter now, I've found one. However, not only, it transpires, has energy consumption been flat since 2008, it was also flat (not even accounting for population) between 2000 and 2007/8, which is impossible to account for unless we accept that energy consumption is not a reliable indicator of prosperity from year to year. Over the long run of course more prosperity is usually accompanied by more energy consumption, but on a short-term basis it is evidently less than ideal as a measure.

Why aren't people having children anymore? Why is there a giant fentanyl crisis? Why are people so miserable(women especially)? Why is political extremism and polarisation increasing at such a rapid clip? Why is there a massive illegal immigrant population and what are they doing to wages? Why is domestic infrastructure falling apart? Why are politics so hopelessly corrupt? There are giant blinking warning lights and sirens sounding all over society, and these things simply would not be happening if society was economically successful and doing well in the way that your real wage statistics are claiming. This is why I'm distrustful of statistics that claim that everything is hunky dory - because if I look at US society as a whole I see a society in crisis/collapse, and yet the statistics you're talking about are claiming that everything is better than fine.

There are two things to add here. The first is the same point as above. It may indeed be that economic growth is no longer the best way to improve human happiness. However that is no reason to deny the fact that these are relatively good economic times now. The second is that I find this roundabout question-asking method of argumentation less than convincing; if you are going make a charge as serious as you do about economic statistics, I expect you to be able to point to where and how the statistics are being manipulated, or how they are wrong and misleading. Look at this way, how are your beliefs falsifiable? What evidence or statistics could I present that would make you change your mind? If the answer is nothing, then why shouldn't everyone just dismiss you as a hack?

In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury

If you want to live like a 1960s American, with a 1960s standard of living, you absolutely can still do this with much greater ease. Go to a regional mid/small-sized city and you can live a lot better on one income than the vast majority in the 1960s could. The grain of truth in this characterisation is the rapid increase in housing costs, but if that's the problem, your quarrel is with NIMBY local and state politicians and the people to whom they pander, not Biden.

Terribly sorry for the late reply - I fell ill and have been spending the last few days away from the internet. I totally understand if you don't want to continue this here and start a new topic, but I feel bad about leaving a substantive reply unanswered so I'm going to respond late anyway.

This is perfectly reasonable, but then you are straying considerably from the question of 'is this a good economy' as most Americans would conceive it. On the basis of home ownership and family formation, 1982 was better year than 1995, yet surely only a madman would suggest that the former year represented a 'better economy' than the latter year. Claiming that the economy is doing well at the moment doesn't mean one is claiming 'society', broadly construed, in improving, though I would argue that the latter is indeed true.

I think that the problem here comes when "the economy" gets increasingly decoupled from what's actually happening in the lives of the people involved. From the perspective of the individual person, I think that their ability to form a family and sustain themselves is one of the main reasons that they actually go and participate in the economy, and one of the main desired outputs they have of the system. As for 1982, wasn't that the ending of a minor recession and a significant year in financial policy? I don't know how much value there is in comparing individual years when what matters is the trendline as a whole, as this kind of data can be noisy on a year to year basis.

Well when I said source I meant a source for the fact that energy consumption is down, but doesn't matter now, I've found one.

Oh, my apologies. My mistake!

However, not only, it transpires, has energy consumption been flat since 2008, it was also flat (not even accounting for population) between 2000 and 2007/8, which is impossible to account for unless we accept that energy consumption is not a reliable indicator of prosperity from year to year. Over the long run of course more prosperity is usually accompanied by more energy consumption, but on a short-term basis it is evidently less than ideal as a measure.

I think there are two big countervailing factors here governing that period. The first is that a significant portion of energy was spent somewhere else during those years - something fairly important happened in 2001 and a lot of US energy consumption shifted overseas to places like Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't think overseas military activity is counted in a measure of domestic energy consumption, even though it obviously represents a significant investment of energy and fossil fuels. The second is that you're talking about the period largely recognised as the formation of the housing bubble. Speculative bubbles may indeed make economic numbers look a lot higher, but I don't think they're real productive activity in any way.

There are two things to add here. The first is the same point as above. It may indeed be that economic growth is no longer the best way to improve human happiness. However that is no reason to deny the fact that these are relatively good economic times now.

To use some statistics from April (I find no reason to believe that things have changed since)... https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/04/07/evaluations-of-the-economy-and-the-state-of-the-nation/

19% of Americans think that these are "good economic times". 46% of Americans think that the economy is getting worse not better, and 77% of them believe that the economy is unfairly arranged in order to benefit powerful interests. A majority of the population is concerned with the price of basic staple items and the cost of housing. If these are good economic times, why are they only perceived as such by a slim minority of people? My answer is that they're accurately perceiving the shifts in costs/income/value available to them - if you're in the 20 percent these are great times, if you're not then they really aren't.

The second is that I find this roundabout question-asking method of argumentation less than convincing; if you are going make a charge as serious as you do about economic statistics, I expect you to be able to point to where and how the statistics are being manipulated, or how they are wrong and misleading.

I expect you to be able to point to where and how the statistics are being manipulated, or how they are wrong and misleading.

Sure, but there's a big list. First of all - measures of inflation are altered and massaged in ways that make it less than accurate. This is done both for political messaging purposes and to keep inflation-indexed payments at a lower value. The second is that there's a lot of economic activity in the financial sector that doesn't actually relate to or account for any real tangible wealth creation - and in fact usually leads to wealth destruction and misallocation of capital. Third is that a lot of "economic activity" actually consists less of productive work and wealth generation than it does consumption - outsourcing and off-shoring included here. Someone who sells a productive asset (like a manufacturing base) to someone else (like China) would make economic indicators go up in several big ways in the short-term, but actually do so in ways that are negative for the economy from a longer-term outlook. Flooding the labour force with illegal immigrants saves costs in some ways and again artificially juices economic numbers, but a lot of the costs associated with them don't show up in easily measurable economic statistics.

Look at this way, how are your beliefs falsifiable? What evidence or statistics could I present that would make you change your mind? If the answer is nothing, then why shouldn't everyone just dismiss you as a hack?

There are absolutely statistics and evidence that would change my mind here, but they're going to be exceedingly annoying to find and generate. For my contention that inflation is understated, you'd have to go back over decades of economic data and re-calculate inflation measures using more accurate metrics. With regards to family formation, that's also falsifiable - if you can present a compelling and rigorous explanation for why people are no longer having children or forming families that doesn't involve economic concerns I'd absolutely admit to being wrong(but good luck making that case). For some of these claims I'm not sure exactly how you'd falsify them because the data you'd have to present is just totally at odds with the world we're living in - I will be extremely impressed if you can somehow demonstrate that selling the productive manufacturing base to China hasn't caused substantial problems for the US while the entire US government considers China to be their greatest current danger in no small part due to their incredible manufacturing capacity.

If you want to live like a 1960s American, with a 1960s standard of living, you absolutely can still do this with much greater ease. Go to a regional mid/small-sized city and you can live a lot better on one income than the vast majority in the 1960s could. The grain of truth in this characterisation is the rapid increase in housing costs, but if that's the problem, your quarrel is with NIMBY local and state politicians and the people to whom they pander, not Biden.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Take an American worker with no college degree and wage-based employment living in a mid-sized city and I think they're going to have a much harder time finding a job that pays enough to support a family in the same way that people in 1960s America could. I also think the phrase "1960s standard of living" also requires some interrogation, because while something like an internet connection very clearly isn't in the 1960s standard of living, it is also effectively a requirement to participate in polite society in the modern day given how closely tied it is to employment and government services etc. Somebody in the 1960s didn't have a smartphone but if you don't have even a shitty smartphone in the modern day you are just not employable in the wage economy.

As for Biden, I don't really have any problems with him per se - he's little more than an empty suit who is barely cognitively there at this point. He played a part in the economic reconfigurations which have caused so many issues, but I don't think he really makes any important decisions himself now. Sure he's nakedly corrupt and made vast amounts of money through influence-selling and corruption, but I don't think he had a particularly prominent or influential role during the time when the economy got hollowed out. I'm not sure you can even point to the direct decision-makers involved in a lot of these changes and I'm not suggesting a giant conspiracy either - a lot of the people involved in the process were taking steps which were exceedingly rational for them at the time. I don't blame a factory owner for outsourcing manufacturing when he faced with a choice between getting outcompeted by someone who did (and then going bankrupt) or making a gigantic temporary profit.

Whether people are happy is a different question than whether their purchasing power has gone up. It doesn't make sense to say that people's purchasing power has actually gone down because, even though it's gone up, they're actually less happy.

It's fine to say that there are more important things than the economy and that people's lives can be getting worse even if the economy is doing well, but that is not an argument that the economy is actually doing badly.

It's fine to say that there are more important things than the economy and that people's lives can be getting worse even if the economy is doing well, but that is not an argument that the economy is actually doing badly.

My perspective on this matter is that the purpose of the economy is to serve humans and make human life better, not the other way around. Assisting with family formation and human reproduction/flourishing is in fact one of the primary purposes of the economy, which is why the fact that it isn't actually doing that is important. To use a car metaphor, this would be a situation where the car's dashboard is reporting a speed of 80km\h while getting lapped by someone riding a skateboard - the car is very clearly not doing what it is supposed to even though the indicators say that everything is fine.

That's a great argument for saying that there is more to human happiness than the economy. It's not an argument that the economy is doing badly.

No, my argument is that the family formation rates etc are actually a better indicator of the economy than a metric like real wages. We're in a situation where the official measures of economic activity are saying one thing, but the actual actions undertaken by people living in that economy are saying another - and family formation is a much harder metric to game or artificially manipulate when compared to something like inflation.

Again, to return to the car analogy, we're in a situation where the car is moving at 10km\h no matter how hard you push the accelerator down, but the speedometer is behaving the way you'd expect if it was actually functioning. The fact that the car is barely moving is a better indicator of the actual state of the car than what the knowingly-manipulated dashboard is telling me.

I think the answer would be something like 'during that time you moved from being one of the people doing well to being one of the people doing poorly, but the total number of people doing well is the same/higher'.

Which of course gets to the fundamental issue with all standard economic indicators being aggregate snapshots in time that don't tell you much about individual's life trajectories and experiences.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats