this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
155 points (83.5% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2394 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago (3 children)

There is nothing arrogant about recognizing that your living conditions have regressed over the course of the past 5 years, nor is there anything wrong with basing your decisions around how you percieve things to be.

Its a headline and story that's been being trotted out for 2, almost 3 years. We keep being told the economy is 'booming' and yet the lived experience disagrees. I have the receipts that my live experience isn't lying (they are quite literally grocery receipts). Our money isn't going as far and wages have effectively stagnated since 2019. My power bill is twice what it was; no change in consumption. My grocery bill is also basically twice what it was. Again, no heads added or change in consumption. In fact, we cut out things. A couple of years ago, taking a big trip was totally reasonable. I don't even feel like I can take weekends off any more.

What you've got to start realizing is that their economy is not our economy. No one is giving credit because there is no credit to give. The stock market going up and to the right means jack shit when you can't afford groceries.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What you've got to start realizing is that their economy is not our economy.

I think you’ve really identified to crux of the matter here. The stock market is not the economy. To rich DC insiders, it’s everything, but to the other 99% of us, who gives a shit? Wake me up when we can do insider trading too I guess.

The meteoric rise of a select few chip manufacturers is what’s driving this “strong economy”, btw. How on earth is that considered sustainable economic success?

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think it's the wage growth, lower inflation, and longest sustained low unemployment of my lifetime that drive that economic success.

I do however agree that too much attention is paid to the stock market, and that wage growth isn't high enough.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago

Well considering wages have remained stagnant since the 1970’s, compared to skyrocketing productivity, I’m inclined to agree!

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No no no things are great please stop saying things aren't great have you tried picking up another job? We added a record number of new jobs last quarter, maybe you can help us beat it again!

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

This article and the Biden team are running real, "Reject the evidence of your eyes and ears" energy here.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Eyes and ears can be subject to propaganda.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yup, that's it. That's the problem. If only there was data out there about it, like in that other message chain you replied to me on.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

There is nothing arrogant about recognizing that your living conditions have regressed over the course of the past 5 years, nor is there anything wrong with basing your decisions around how you percieve things to be.

There is absolutely something wrong when you decide that your anecdotes trump statistical data, though. That's just flat-out defective and invalid.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Never claimed that it trumps their stats, simply that the character of the economy they describe does not mesh with reality. Kind of tired of the incessant gaslighting, when no significant changes to materially improve our living conditions have materialized.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In fact, I suspect slate is just making this up entirely, based on anecdotal experience.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ok Mr Obtuse - I’m saying they can cherry pick stats to support their narrative all they want, but at the end of the day material living conditions for the majority of Americans have declined in this time period. Over 62% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck today, and cannot afford an emergency $400 expense. That number is up from 40% pre-pandemic. If you live in a major metro, open your window and look outside to see how the size of tent cities are multiplying. These people simply aren’t counted by the new metrics. How is this the strongest economy we’ve ever seen?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

at the end of the day material living conditions for the majority of Americans have declined in this time period. Over 62% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck today, and cannot afford an emergency $400 expense. That number is up from 40% pre-pandemic.

See, now those are statistics! That's a very different -- and much more sound -- argument than you were making before.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Never claimed that it trumps their stats doesnt mesh with reality

your personal reality is the only perspective/experience, which everyone experiences, ergo that reality is right and trumps their stats

ill give you a personal experience. in the last decade in the UK I have made significant gains in my personal income. While living in a crumbling country determined to get everyone into poverty. My reality is good and comfortable but that is not the vast majority of “reality” as a whole. Im an outlier. As are you, in comparison to the stats.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

But which statistics?

The 1980 ones?

The 1990 ones?

The 2010 ones?

The ones I have in my budgeting software?

Should I believe ones I can make using my costco receipts or the ones whoever on the whatever show on MSNBC is repeating? What statistics we calculate, how we choose to include or exclude data in their formulation, and what we interpret them to mean are all subjective. Is it any more or less subjective than my lived experience?

You are being obtuse about how people make real decisions about their lives. They don't and shouldn't' base them on statistics because the world is varied and not monolithic in experience. Experience and memory are a form of data, if not a great one. Experience always trumps statistics. People aren't' going to be making their decision in November based on statistics. They'll be making them based on their lived experience.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That's not data that gives us information on standard of living or affordability though. They keep telling you about oranges and saying it means something about apples.