President Joe Biden is opening a new line of attack against former President Donald Trump this week, flipping the script on the classic Reagan-era “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” question to remind voters of life during his predecessor’s tenure.
Whatever you want to say about reality, the poll from a couple of days ago pointing out how deeply unhappy young adults are makes this a pretty questionable way of trying to engage that demographic.
I dunno. This demographic also suffered a lot from the pandemic. It seems like a lifetime ago, but the first lockdowns started almost exactly 4 years ago. I would think that reminding them will be beneficial.
It’s a pretty bad tactic because while it may let you take credit 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, 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.
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!”
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.
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)
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.
Whatever you want to say about reality, the poll from a couple of days ago pointing out how deeply unhappy young adults are makes this a pretty questionable way of trying to engage that demographic.
The unfortunate reality is young adults don’t vote in numbers worth courting.
What’s your age cutoff for young adult? Voters under 49 make up about half the electorate. Voters under 29 are comparable in number to those over 65. It makes about as much sense to court the youth vote as it does the elderly, but I’ve seen no one imply that it’s a waste to appeal to the latter.
Are you telling me that Democrats are once again maybe having a hard time connecting to the major demographics they need to win an election?
🥴
I dunno. This demographic also suffered a lot from the pandemic. It seems like a lifetime ago, but the first lockdowns started almost exactly 4 years ago. I would think that reminding them will be beneficial.
It’s a pretty bad tactic because while it may let you take credit 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, 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
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.
Lmao, are you joking?
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.
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.
Nailed it.