Your outlook is exceedingly negative based on a few obscure indicators. Plus, the new post-pandemic trend lines are steeper than the pre-pandemic ones, indicating we are in our way back to the levels that were in reach before. Your point about trend lines basically ignores the new trend line, and just relies on the old one, as if it’s the pre-ordained “correct” one that all future trends should soring back to immediately. Any time period in question will produce its own unique trend line, your choice of trend line was completely arbitrary.
You are clearly not living in the same reality as the rest of us are. Pretty much every small business you talk to have not been able to recover fully since the pandemic. Ability to find labor is exceedingly difficult compared to pre-pandemic. On the ground indicators clearly point to something that isn’t being shown in “official statistics.” This article does a good job of pointing out why the official unemployment figures being touted by the government do not tell the whole post-pandemic story.
Nothing about what I said had anything to do with real-world effects or perceptions regarding the economy. It was purely a critique of the article's arguments, which were sloppy and incorrect. It's insistence on using an arbitrary trendline to use as a gold standard to compare another arbitrary trendline is just bad math, and produces a nonsensical argument.
And what "indicator" did the author use here to prove their point? The trendline argument is not an "indicator". And the "modified" unemployment percentage point the author raised was also pointless, as they included numbers that aren't part of the official unemployment calculation. This was the only "indicator" the author used, and it was one they just made up on the spot.
This article was just one person's biased take on why the economy is worse than what most indicators say. But it's based on arbitrary nonsense and made-up indicators, not real-world issues. This article is what's not based on reality, not my resistance against it.
Had to cancel Xmas Eve dinner at one the best steakhouses in the city. Report from fam was 40% full, two waiters and no valet parking. There you go…best economy ever.
If I didn't know any better, I would think part of the reason the government jobs in the last bar graph grew is because government absorbed all those lost information jobs (and turned them into the government's censorship agency.)
steep recovery? If you had a fair response to the pandemic forced firings it would be even steeper. It should have raced back as quickly as it dropped and reconnected with the old trend line....
Completely subjective 👎🏼
Your outlook is exceedingly negative based on a few obscure indicators. Plus, the new post-pandemic trend lines are steeper than the pre-pandemic ones, indicating we are in our way back to the levels that were in reach before. Your point about trend lines basically ignores the new trend line, and just relies on the old one, as if it’s the pre-ordained “correct” one that all future trends should soring back to immediately. Any time period in question will produce its own unique trend line, your choice of trend line was completely arbitrary.
You are clearly not living in the same reality as the rest of us are. Pretty much every small business you talk to have not been able to recover fully since the pandemic. Ability to find labor is exceedingly difficult compared to pre-pandemic. On the ground indicators clearly point to something that isn’t being shown in “official statistics.” This article does a good job of pointing out why the official unemployment figures being touted by the government do not tell the whole post-pandemic story.
Nothing about what I said had anything to do with real-world effects or perceptions regarding the economy. It was purely a critique of the article's arguments, which were sloppy and incorrect. It's insistence on using an arbitrary trendline to use as a gold standard to compare another arbitrary trendline is just bad math, and produces a nonsensical argument.
And what "indicator" did the author use here to prove their point? The trendline argument is not an "indicator". And the "modified" unemployment percentage point the author raised was also pointless, as they included numbers that aren't part of the official unemployment calculation. This was the only "indicator" the author used, and it was one they just made up on the spot.
This article was just one person's biased take on why the economy is worse than what most indicators say. But it's based on arbitrary nonsense and made-up indicators, not real-world issues. This article is what's not based on reality, not my resistance against it.
Had to cancel Xmas Eve dinner at one the best steakhouses in the city. Report from fam was 40% full, two waiters and no valet parking. There you go…best economy ever.
If I didn't know any better, I would think part of the reason the government jobs in the last bar graph grew is because government absorbed all those lost information jobs (and turned them into the government's censorship agency.)
steep recovery? If you had a fair response to the pandemic forced firings it would be even steeper. It should have raced back as quickly as it dropped and reconnected with the old trend line....