170
Why Americans are bummed out about the economy
(www.cnn.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
170 points (91.3% liked)
News
23310 readers
3674 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That is a shocking take in my opinion, one that borders on delusional. Statistics are the result of specific metrics collected by people who chose what specific data points to collect, the methods of collecting those metrics and chose the methods of presenting the data. They can reveal interesting aspects of reality that aren't otherwise obvious and can depict a fairly accurate representation of reality as a whole if they are created in ernest using sound data collection techniques, but I'm pretty sure that the most qualified data scientists will disagree with the statement that "statistics are reality". Especially if anyone in control of any part of that process has significant motivation for them to depict something specific.
Statistics are only meaningful when you put them into context of their intent, limitations and error rate.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
And even if the statistics hold true in aggregate, it's not the full picture and can't accurately describe or predict individual experiences. Perception is anecdotal, so it is not a perfect depiction of reality either. But if perception does not match the data, it's an indicator that the data might be suspect.
Only because scientists are absurdly cautious in nature.
Statistics are reality when compared with a different interpretation that is wildly diverging from all statistics. Fuck the equivocation and the "maybe" and the "suggest that possibly". On something this stark, we can use very clear language:
The statistics represent reality. The complaining about the economy represents perception.
I feel like you're putting me in a position to argue against the scientific method, but I don't think that's actually the case. Statistics can be scientific, they can also be wrong. The scientific process allows for skepticism. To not consider questioning the methods given opposing perspective is not scientific, it's dogmatic.
The statistics may very well be accurate, but your level of faith in them is disturbing.
You're suggesting that since statistics are fallible, it's entirely possible that the sun doesn't shine during the day, despite the wealth of evidence that the sun does in fact shine during the day.
No. Fuck that. The cautiousness of the "global warming is just a theory" scientists enabled the regressive anti-science bastards. I'm not placing the whole of the blame on the scientists. I'm just saying that equivocating when there is a preponderance of evidence can have real world harm by giving credence to fabrications.
If we were in a situation where we all agreed on a basic level about the general accuracy of the statistics, then we could drill down into what, specifically, is more accurate than others. I definitely have my qualms about how the CPI is calculated for example, and how the unemployment rate is calculated.
But when we're in a situation where bad faith actors are trying to discredit the broad findings that all the stats and scientists agree on, we need to close ranks and tell them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong.
Statistics also tell us that murder rates rise when ice cream sales go up.
So if there was a massive ice cream discount in the middle of winter, we should watch out for those murders!
Shh. Grown ups are talking.
Yes, we are. You can keep talking with us if you'd like. Was there something you'd like explained to you?
I get that CPI is a target for bad faith arguments from people with political agendas, this is because it has been politicized. It's an important metric for the incumbent to point at to justify their effectiveness if it is favorable. It's an election year, so that's even more so the case. It bothers me that it has become such a politicized metric because it can be used to dismiss issues that are of legitimate concern. If the perception doesn't match the statistics because people are watching doom and gloom on the news then yes, you're right the statistics are more important than the grumbling of infotainment warriors. However, if the perception differs from the statistics because of personal experience, then it doesn't matter how well the economy is doing by the numbers overall, the experience of those individuals is still valid. And I am saying from personal experience that it doesn't feel that my dollars go as far as they used to, enough so that it impacts my options.
The politicization of the statistics concerns me because it is in the best interest of the current administration (whoever that may be) and those advocating for them to dismiss those who are struggling as outliers or bad actors when any kind of national average is going to minimize local or regional factors. It is the politicization of the statistics that makes them more subject to scrutiny in my opinion, especially in a world where natural disasters and extreme weather events are becoming more common place. We may not need the same "basket of goods" as we once did.
I think you're making a distinction that isn't there in reality. The "alternative facts" perception isn't happening organically. People have been manipulated. It's not that infotainment warriors are doing the grumbling. It's that infotainment warriors have convinced low-information voters that this is true (and more worryingly for the long term, that they should distrust statistics).