I highly recommend this article to understand how Economy and Employment Statistics don't match people's reality
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-tricked-strong-economy-00203464
51-55, M
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-tricked-strong-economy-00203464
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
Governments use a commonly agreed set of statistics to measure economic performance and to allow comparisons with other economies. So long as the methodology is agreed in advance, compiled independently, and not amended without good reason, this is wholly legitimate. Beyond that, governments like to put a positive spin on their achievements, while large numbers will feel bad for falling short of the "average". Nothin unusual.
I cannot imagine that Trump will be deviating too far from these standards when he comes to measure his own government's performance. But beware any statistics quoted by DOGE.
I cannot imagine that Trump will be deviating too far from these standards when he comes to measure his own government's performance. But beware any statistics quoted by DOGE.
View 2 more replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@SumKindaMunster
The state statistics bureau here also publishes data about those who are neither working, in education, nor training (called NEETs in the UK I believe) and that is a pretty stable 18% of the working age population (defined as 20 to 66 years old).
Surely that statistic is also available in the US?
It's not the statistics that are the problem (at least not invariably) it is that politicians and media of all kinds are selective in their use of them and rely on the general public being ill-informed about (and often uninterested in) what is actually being measured.
a mere 4.2 percent
That's almost exactly the figure we have in Norway. And here it is regarded as a bit higher than it should be. But to be regarded as unemployed for this statistical purpose one must be actively looking for a jobThe state statistics bureau here also publishes data about those who are neither working, in education, nor training (called NEETs in the UK I believe) and that is a pretty stable 18% of the working age population (defined as 20 to 66 years old).
Surely that statistic is also available in the US?
It's not the statistics that are the problem (at least not invariably) it is that politicians and media of all kinds are selective in their use of them and rely on the general public being ill-informed about (and often uninterested in) what is actually being measured.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@ninalanyon Also, from the article:
What we uncovered shocked us. The bottom line is that, for 20 years or more, including the months prior to the election, voter perception was more reflective of reality than the incumbent statistics. Our research revealed that the data collected by the various agencies is largely accurate. Moreover, the people staffing those agencies are talented and well-intentioned. But the filters used to compute the headline statistics are flawed. As a result, they paint a much rosier picture of reality than bears out on the ground.
BizSuitStacy · M
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@Thinkerbell Exactly. I would guess they've been sitting on this article for months.
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@SumKindaMunster
And they publish it now, as if trying to say "See, see how balanced our reporting is?" 🙄
And they publish it now, as if trying to say "See, see how balanced our reporting is?" 🙄
