How is the economy doing?
Quite well - but not for me and many like me.
A year ends and i say, wow how did i get through that. What a terrible year.
Problem is I've been saying it every year.
Barely hanging on here.
How's the economy doing for you?
Quite well - but not for me and many like me.
A year ends and i say, wow how did i get through that. What a terrible year.
Problem is I've been saying it every year.
Barely hanging on here.
How's the economy doing for you?
7
So if the Republican National Committee calls and offers a dollar for correctly answering the question "Is unemployment higher today than it was when Obama took office?", does a yes or a no get the money?
1
Weird how they don't ask "Is the debt and deficit higher or lower than when Obama took office?"
3
I don't remember anyone, in 2005, saying that Bush was "cooking the numbers." He was doing a lot of things -- taking the country to war, refuding to allow coverage of the deaths of the men and women killed during the war, etc. -- but few suggested that BLS cooked the numbers. Instead, people were saying, "virtually ALL of the growth stems from housing debt." And those people were exactly right.
8
it's not so much 'cooking the books' as 'unprecedented tons of people have given up on searching for jobs, period'. Which considering that we have no jobs left, foreign labor flowing in, and a solid welfare system, why the hell wouldn't they?
3
Is the author kidding - the answer you get may be anecdotal!! What other answer would you get since the people being called are not professional economists. Mr. Erwin is rather naive to believe that respondents wouldn't answer based on their experiences from their little part of the world.
3
Yesterday the Times had an article about how impossible it is to find a job after 50; so today you ask how the economy is doing???
7
There is no doubt that the economy is not doing good, except in Washington DC and New York. As we have seen, Obama's policies benefit the rich and hurt the poor and middle class. Median incomes are down since he took office. Food stamps have skyrocketed. Income inequality has increased dramatically. Hillary or Bernie will make this trend worse. If you are part of the 1%, the Democrats have been your greatest benefactors. That's why Wall Street gives so much to Hillary.
3
The "truth" is that there's usually enough evidence on either side of a question to suit your needs. Yes, the unemployment rate is down. But so is the share of the population that is employed. Wages are up, but growth is much slower than in prior decades. The economy has improved since 2008, but there's no clear connection between that and the policies Obama backed.
The truth is that there is very little commonality between those on the left, and those on the right. People in the Democratic party want a vastly different America from those in the Republican party. To give the enemy any credit at all becomes incredibly dangerous.
The truth is that there is very little commonality between those on the left, and those on the right. People in the Democratic party want a vastly different America from those in the Republican party. To give the enemy any credit at all becomes incredibly dangerous.
6
There are people that go by facts and then there are people that go by emotion. Unfortunately there are way more people that go by emotion. That's why we have so many problems. As an example, was Obama, a man with little experience or accomplishment, a rational choice for President?
4
Compared to John McCain? Of course Obama was a rational choice for president at a time when the country was seven years into a two wars.
9
Objectivity, none of us is objective, dollar or no dollar. My thought is that we respond and react from various experiences, past and present in our lives, subject in part to genetic propensities. Most of us do what we can with information we seek out and information we receive from others and our environments, in attempt to define our truths, internal and external responses and reactions, physical and emotional, to our local, and the larger world.
3
obama has driven the economy Ito the ground with his job-killing taxes and regulations. Even 0% interest rates cannot save the economy from Obama. Congress has tried to impose sanity, but obstructionist Obama and the Dems can only say No, No, No, No
4
What a perfect example of the "Partisan Rant" that the article describes.
15
you are exactly what this article is about.
13
'How can people judge whether a party is effective if there is no sense of objective truth?'
This is a question that could be answered quite effectively by consulting with a group of Madison Avenue marketing specialists.
Distortions of reality to sell a product/service is their game...
This is a question that could be answered quite effectively by consulting with a group of Madison Avenue marketing specialists.
Distortions of reality to sell a product/service is their game...
2
Integrity has a price, but $1? We are cheap!
5
The GOP has done all that it could to sabotage this president's agenda and economic recovery plans. The Democrats fixed this economy, but they both allowed our jobs to be shipped over seas, starting with APPLE, which is why I will never buy any APPLE products, ever.
6
The president got his agenda and it has made the economy worse than it would have been had he done nothing. The Democrats only fixed the economy for the 1%, and made it worse for everyone else.
2
You'll recall that the economy tanked after those treasonous saboteurs Reid and Pelosi seized power, and then they obstructed every attempt to fix it.
So you want iPhones to be made in America and cost $5000 each????
So you want iPhones to be made in America and cost $5000 each????
1
Several studies have suggested that political betting sites (like the Iowa Electronic Markets or PredictWise) have a better track record when it comes to political forecasting than surveys (with or without a $1 incentive). That is because when real money is involved, people tend to view politics more broadly and, perhaps, more objectively.
But, what is the implication of this? If the economy has improved for the party in power, then do they automatically get re-elected (and conversely, they get thrown out if the economy has not improved)? If so, then there is no need for elections since the changes in the economy (as measured; there is always error) is the determining factor. Does this mean that if we all agreed on the facts, there would be no democracy? The implications are a little sobering. Perhaps there is a role for tribalism after all?
But, what is the implication of this? If the economy has improved for the party in power, then do they automatically get re-elected (and conversely, they get thrown out if the economy has not improved)? If so, then there is no need for elections since the changes in the economy (as measured; there is always error) is the determining factor. Does this mean that if we all agreed on the facts, there would be no democracy? The implications are a little sobering. Perhaps there is a role for tribalism after all?
1
So close to great insight, but then failure through generalization.
Party loyalists do in fact vote for their party regardless of results (they believe in the long term result of their ideology), however, the unaffiliated middle swings based on objective results - they're thinking short-term, and agnostic.
Party loyalists do in fact vote for their party regardless of results (they believe in the long term result of their ideology), however, the unaffiliated middle swings based on objective results - they're thinking short-term, and agnostic.
1
I'm sorry but the premise of this article is just plain stupid. That anyone at the upshot, aware of comments on the editorial page would know that democrats are very unhappy with the economy while there is a sitting democratic president. In fact, the only people happy with the economy and arguing that inflation is eminent so interest rates should be raised are hardened republicans.
3
A previous commenter, David Eisenberg, points out how the author, Neil Irwin, displays his political bias with his gratuitous global warming example. Perhaps the hypothetical energy executive must respond to political exigencies, not supposedly scientific certainties about the future? A major problem holding back economic growth is that companies must spend increasing resources not on worthwhile investments but rather on responding to and attempting to sway politicians and the regulatory leviathan.
Barry Long's response to Mr. Eisenberg is de rigeur leftist argument. A "majority" of scientists agree and "ordinary people" are convinced? How about some proof for a change? Every doomsday climate prediction is strictly according to the computer models the doomsayers have devised. A decent test of the models is how accurately they have predicted the current state of the climate, based on factors observed in the past. That the models have failed this test speaks for itself.
Barry Long's response to Mr. Eisenberg is de rigeur leftist argument. A "majority" of scientists agree and "ordinary people" are convinced? How about some proof for a change? Every doomsday climate prediction is strictly according to the computer models the doomsayers have devised. A decent test of the models is how accurately they have predicted the current state of the climate, based on factors observed in the past. That the models have failed this test speaks for itself.
8
Wrong, sir. It is true that models are fallible. According to the models the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling. Check. The poles are warming faster than the tropics. Check. Sea level is rising. Check. Virtually all continental glaciers are melting. Check. Temperatures are rising in parallel to emissions. Check. Species are moving toward the poles. Check. Nights are warming faster than days. Check. The agreement among climate scientists over the last decade is 99.7%. The data show the truth of global warming! The models are consonant. This is just regular science, like what all scientists do.
12
Indri apparently doesn't get it. His rant about possible failure of climate computer models illustrates the whole point of the Upshot discussion. What would he do if he were living in a forest fire prone location and was told to evacuate his home but on looking outside he notes that he is upwind from the fire. Leaving will cost him money but if his instinct is wrong it may save his or his family's lives. Or, what if there was a threat of radiatiion exposure. Would he decide to evacuate if so advised by a Republican president but risk all if advised by a Democrat? Similarly the insistence that the threat of global warming is non-existent because of a question or belief that it may be incorrect places our entire species at risk. Mr Indri should be given a couple of bucks and allowed a second chance to consider this question.
7
If only I could count the lies in your post. Every single statement in your post is a lie. It is a proven scientific fact that there has been zero crease in the earth's temperature over that past 18 years, as accurately predicted by zero of the infallible computer models. Not one prediction made by the warm-mangers has come to pass. Climate scientists now realize their models have dramatically overstated their claims
2
"How can people judge whether a party is effective if there is no sense of objective truth?"
Sure, and there's objective truth and there's deeper objective truth.
For example, not everything that happens is determined by the party holding the presidency.
Such as the "truth" that the budget deficit declined under Clinton. The deeper objective truth is that _Congress_ _determines_ the budget, not the President...and Congress was controlled by Republicans for much of Clinton's tenure. Just saying.
Even with "objective truth" there can still be a lot of _subjective_ cherry picking from among the "objective truths". And cherry picking "objective truths" can still lead to SUBJECTIVE conclusions.
Sure, and there's objective truth and there's deeper objective truth.
For example, not everything that happens is determined by the party holding the presidency.
Such as the "truth" that the budget deficit declined under Clinton. The deeper objective truth is that _Congress_ _determines_ the budget, not the President...and Congress was controlled by Republicans for much of Clinton's tenure. Just saying.
Even with "objective truth" there can still be a lot of _subjective_ cherry picking from among the "objective truths". And cherry picking "objective truths" can still lead to SUBJECTIVE conclusions.
5
Maybe we should look at Terrill G. Bouricius ideas to overcome the deadlock of western democracies in which some dominant parties are spending more energy and money in fighting each other in stead of working together on a better fortune of their nation.
In his publication "Democracy Through Multi-Body Sortition: Athenian Lessons for the Modern Day" in Public Liberation he Roland his ideas of a democracy based on selection by lot in stead of electing people on a party list, most of whom are so called professional politicians who's main objective is to safeguard their "jobs" on capitol hill. If we have representatives elected by lot, there is no need for parties and we can expect these representatives to look at the well being of the nation in stead of their own well being.
When I read studies like this NYTimes article, this sounds as the only solution to me to overcome the increasing erosion of our way of democracy.
http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art11/
In his publication "Democracy Through Multi-Body Sortition: Athenian Lessons for the Modern Day" in Public Liberation he Roland his ideas of a democracy based on selection by lot in stead of electing people on a party list, most of whom are so called professional politicians who's main objective is to safeguard their "jobs" on capitol hill. If we have representatives elected by lot, there is no need for parties and we can expect these representatives to look at the well being of the nation in stead of their own well being.
When I read studies like this NYTimes article, this sounds as the only solution to me to overcome the increasing erosion of our way of democracy.
http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art11/
2
A good indication of the economy is the unemployment rate, after factoring the actual doctored numbers. Folks cook the books on crime, visa overstays, tax rates, tax breaks, government spending to infinity, the failur war on drugs, even school grades and benghazi type scandals, so of course they doctor the economy numbers in many ways/areas (it worked for JP Morgan so long ago).
We need to stop counting people when they apply for assistance but don't provide anything themselves as this is called full-welfare. We also need to count people who say they want to work but can't find it. They want to work but can't find it, yet we say they are not "technically unemployed?" that seems dishonest in reporting (not that it's a surprise).
We need to stop counting people when they apply for assistance but don't provide anything themselves as this is called full-welfare. We also need to count people who say they want to work but can't find it. They want to work but can't find it, yet we say they are not "technically unemployed?" that seems dishonest in reporting (not that it's a surprise).
4
I'm not sure it matters whether voters believe in reality, since according to that OTHER study, what voters want has no effect on what Congress does anyway.
4
let's carry this to the next logical conclusion.........that politicians get paid a lot of money to think a certain way and that payment seemingly justifies their opinion and vote!
otherwise I enjoyed the article, especially how even $1 can make people think harder and be more objective.
otherwise I enjoyed the article, especially how even $1 can make people think harder and be more objective.
1
After reading this article, the question I have is "to what magnitude is this my party or the highway" position held by those of each party? In my experience, asking conservatives why they vote republican almost elicits a knee jerk response of "I've always voted republican and will always vote republican". If this same zealotry exists in the "liberal" realm it would seem to me to be antithetic.
The minority of people who are not firmly committed to a party often do vote on major economic trends and these votes often decide elections. What happens in the few months before the election may be very important, if there is drastic change. The people who do decide elections in these cases just attribute the economy to the President and his party (most people do) and usually have little or no understanding of the actual reason for economic trends. Paying such people a dollar is not going to improve their understanding, nor of course is it going to change the votes of the majority who are committed to parties.
The actions of politicians usually have little short-term direct effect on the economy, and so they may either follow partisan dogma themselves - they can't afford to lose their base - or the dictates of their financial backers.
The actions of politicians usually have little short-term direct effect on the economy, and so they may either follow partisan dogma themselves - they can't afford to lose their base - or the dictates of their financial backers.
3
On the issue of small payments to obtain better results, market researchers learned this decades ago. I remember being involved in market research projects in the 70's and using this trick so it's hardly a revelation. As to the gap between reality and voting behavior, reality plays little part for most voters unless conditions are desperately bad and even then the effect is fairly marginal. The phenomenon of red state blue collar workers voting against their own interests is a widely remarked upon and things were fairly desperate in late 2008 but McCain still got about 45% of the vote and even Hoover got 40% in 1932. As Raymond Aron observed it's the denial of the experience of the last 100 years to suppose men will sacrifice their passions for their interests.
6
The conclusion seems less nuanced than it should be. Elections are decided by centrists. Whether elected officials' choices impact the loyal voters is irrelevant. What matters is how they swing the voters in the middle. This sort of conclusion signals a larger problem with drawing conclusions from social science experiments. Often we focus on central tendencies (means, medians), and we forget about distributions and heterogeneity. Inferences drawn from experiment results are often much more nuanced than the conclusion sections of the studies suggest.
2
@ KZ
Actually elections today are decided by base turnout. The center, to the extent it was ever crucial, has been shrinking for decades. Thus Republicans were able to win decisively in the mid terms of 2014 on a turnout of only 36% but were beaten equally decisively in the 2012 presidential on a turnout of about 58%, Clinton's chances of securing the presidency later this year are entirely dependent on Democratic turnout not moving the center, and it's possible within a margin of error of about 2% to predict what the size of the Republican vote will be.
Actually elections today are decided by base turnout. The center, to the extent it was ever crucial, has been shrinking for decades. Thus Republicans were able to win decisively in the mid terms of 2014 on a turnout of only 36% but were beaten equally decisively in the 2012 presidential on a turnout of about 58%, Clinton's chances of securing the presidency later this year are entirely dependent on Democratic turnout not moving the center, and it's possible within a margin of error of about 2% to predict what the size of the Republican vote will be.
7
That's because all economies are personal. Overall data is the macro, but my paycheck is micro, and eventually the nation votes accordingly.
3
Eureka !
1
The city's employment to population ratio is at an all-time high.
After FALLING during the 12 years of the Bloomberg administration, the rate has spiked since deBlasio has taken office.
I've attached the article with the data as proof. Notice that this article is from Bloomberg View. As in Mayor Bloomberg View ...
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-18/midwest-and-plains-stat...
Remember this article the next time a Republican wants to insist that the labor participation rate is the only valid measure of unemployment.
After FALLING during the 12 years of the Bloomberg administration, the rate has spiked since deBlasio has taken office.
I've attached the article with the data as proof. Notice that this article is from Bloomberg View. As in Mayor Bloomberg View ...
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-18/midwest-and-plains-stat...
Remember this article the next time a Republican wants to insist that the labor participation rate is the only valid measure of unemployment.
1
The way I see the graph, there has been a steady increase in the employment to population ratio from the lows of the recession(54%) to 58% now. That includes the last 5 years of the Bloomberg administration. This recovery has continued now with Bill de Blasio as the mayor which started under Bloomberg. And Bloomberg is an independent who wants to regulate soda intake and who supported Obama. He most definitely is not a Republican. Infact, the high tax rates instituted by democrats in New York state is driving way businesses and jobs out of the state.
2
Sal,
Bloomberg was mayor for 12 years, 2002-2013. If you don't see a decrease over that period, look again. Eventually you will see it.
And as a resident of New York, I can tell you with 100% confidence that he ran for mayor as a Republican. If you think that was just a ruse and that he isn't a Republican, you may be on to something, but he most definitely was a Republican inside the voting booths, which is where it counts.
Bloomberg was mayor for 12 years, 2002-2013. If you don't see a decrease over that period, look again. Eventually you will see it.
And as a resident of New York, I can tell you with 100% confidence that he ran for mayor as a Republican. If you think that was just a ruse and that he isn't a Republican, you may be on to something, but he most definitely was a Republican inside the voting booths, which is where it counts.
As a resident of NY you should be aware that Bloomberg ran as a Republican because he couldn't get on the Democrat ballot, and he now calls himself an independent.
Asking an open ended question like employment under Reagan and expecting objective answers is a fool's errand. Defining improvement as more jobs without thinking about the quality of those jobs, financial security, and the general outcomes for workers is to attempt to limit the terms of engagement in a way that is impossible. So, "the right answer" you tout is right only if you already hold a bias in support of total jobs as a goal, whether than well laying or secure jobs.
6
"How can democracy function when there is no objective truth?"
Authors, meet Candidate Trump.
Authors, meet Candidate Trump.
10
I am sure there are those out there that believe that as long as there's a black man in the White House, nothing can go right. And, since cable news is biased, a portion of the electorate will always find the answers that suit their narrative, even though they are fabrications or half truths. This is the game politics has become. It is not about the truth, it's about my team vs your team and whatever it takes to win is fair game.
17
Economists & Survey Researchers are lucky if they can get close to “truthiness.” They come up with theories to explain the recent past, but they do not predict very much because they cannot. Take the Reagan years & the idea of an “objective truth” that the economy had gotten better by 1986. First it is not hard to jump start and economy that you have saved from inflation by throwing tens of millions out of work with the Volker approach and then writing 3 trillion dollars of new national debt. Reagan was able to spend that massive amount of future taxpayers’ money on military hardware & research that profited a small collection of defense contractors & their highly skilled work forces. This helped push stocks up & fostered churning & derivative based pyramid schemes. Deregulation led the S&L sector to run up billions of bad debt in fraudulent loans to development corporations. We will be funding this bailout for another 15-20 years. Plenty of other efforts generated income & wealth for the few & caused some areas to prosper. Deregulation encouraged the export of factory jobs by the millions. Asked about the economy in 1986 all I did was look at my home town in LaSalle Co. IL & see the “official” unemployment rate of 15% that held in that general area from 1982 to 1997 & plunged again in 2008-9. The “objective truth” about the state of the economy shows the author is missing something, namely the "small picture" of millions doing worse.
8
You left out the fall of the USSR and the Berlin Wall, and the "peace dividend."
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
2
years ago I worked in the Marketing Research Department of Coca-Cola USA and many departments with money wanted to prove one of their favorite theories so they could get more money to pursue this particular marketing activity.
We had to be very aware of who wanted this research done because if it was one of the big bosses, we would approach them and tell them what the risks were. There were large research companies that would bend the research to fit their clients with one of the largest and offering to provide what ever numbers/results was headquartered in NYC with a couple of others in the Chicago area.
So it is really good to see how some people are actually looking at how political research is influenced by how the research is done.
Thank you NYT - as usual adding light to a very complex issue.
Thanks
We had to be very aware of who wanted this research done because if it was one of the big bosses, we would approach them and tell them what the risks were. There were large research companies that would bend the research to fit their clients with one of the largest and offering to provide what ever numbers/results was headquartered in NYC with a couple of others in the Chicago area.
So it is really good to see how some people are actually looking at how political research is influenced by how the research is done.
Thank you NYT - as usual adding light to a very complex issue.
Thanks
11
you will notice if you bother to look, aside tx where the money shoots out of the ground, red states do less well and take more welfare from the hated central government than do blue states.
In fact 100% governments of the deep south red states, which should be a model of gop success, are on welfare. getting vastly more from the rest of us than they contribute.
but thats a fact, and facts are baaad
In fact 100% governments of the deep south red states, which should be a model of gop success, are on welfare. getting vastly more from the rest of us than they contribute.
but thats a fact, and facts are baaad
25
"Similarly, people who hate the Affordable Care Act and think it is a disastrous public policy will nonetheless take advantage of it to obtain health insurance." Nothing contradictory here. You might think the ACA is bad for the country yet still think it benefits you.
8
I grew up watching Walter Chronkite, a true professional journalist who told both sides of the story. Today, many are brainwashed on FOX news which is owned by billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch learnt in the UK that he could keep radical unions out of his company by electing Thatcher. He has figured out he can keep his taxes low in the US by brainwashing low income voters to vote against their own their own economic well being and vote for republicans.
19
Hey, thanks for the "Fox News is the Anti-Christ" comedy, like the theory of how terrible "Citizens United" is.
Which Eric Cantor and Jeb! make it look just flat-out stupid.
Which Eric Cantor and Jeb! make it look just flat-out stupid.
1
I didn't know there was a "theory" of how terrible is "Citizens United". Citizens United is a misnomer, it should have been Corporations United! But I guess I'm splitting hairs as "Corporations are people". Right?
2
Or is this study simply pointing out the obvious in a very round about way. To paraphrase, with skin in the game the responders became more objective in their answers. In other words when people do not feel that the system (economy, politicians, etc) is working on their behalf they revert to their prejudices.
2
One half of the voting public is clueless.
Where do I pick up my dollar?
Where do I pick up my dollar?
17
"One half of the voting public is clueless"--at any given time. Based on the results described in paragraph four, both halves take turn being wrong. Ultimately, perhaps all the voting public is clueless.
3
you will notice if you bother to look that, aside from tx where the money shoots out of the ground, red states do less well and take more welfare from the hated central government than do blue states.
In fact 100% of the governments of the deep south red states, which should be a model of gop success, are on welfare. getting vastly more from the rest of us than they contribute.
but thats a fact, and facts are baaad
In fact 100% of the governments of the deep south red states, which should be a model of gop success, are on welfare. getting vastly more from the rest of us than they contribute.
but thats a fact, and facts are baaad
15
So. People act like idiots until doing so will lose them money. Huh?
2
This note essentially says that a small reward is enough to remove ideological bias in surveys. This interesting fact basically says that people are more willing to allow their rational minds to kick in if they can immediately benefit from it. This fascinating finding raises interesting questions.
Would a Republican who doesn't believe in evolution, suddenly change his belief if the genetics-based treatment he needs to save his life were not available to those who don't believe in genetic mutations, which are the basis of evolution?
Would those affected by massive flooding, many of whom do not believe in climate change, change their views if insurance on their property were made contingent on their acceptance of climate science findings?
The fact that a commitment to an ideology can be broken with a small bribery is almost too good to be true. Imagine if the members of ISIS could be made to see the light with a small payment in cash.
Would a Republican who doesn't believe in evolution, suddenly change his belief if the genetics-based treatment he needs to save his life were not available to those who don't believe in genetic mutations, which are the basis of evolution?
Would those affected by massive flooding, many of whom do not believe in climate change, change their views if insurance on their property were made contingent on their acceptance of climate science findings?
The fact that a commitment to an ideology can be broken with a small bribery is almost too good to be true. Imagine if the members of ISIS could be made to see the light with a small payment in cash.
7
"There is an objective reality we can agree upon" - wow, tell that revolutionary message to the GOP presidential candidates.
I am not convinced: if people were able to vote according to "objective data", the GOP today would be on the way to extinction. There is still a vast number of voters out there who do not understand, do not want to understand or are simply oblivious to reality through a mix of disinformation, ignorance and inflexible sets of beliefs (aka religion).
I am not convinced: if people were able to vote according to "objective data", the GOP today would be on the way to extinction. There is still a vast number of voters out there who do not understand, do not want to understand or are simply oblivious to reality through a mix of disinformation, ignorance and inflexible sets of beliefs (aka religion).
27
A resident of the state of Illinois, which has been a (D) strong-hold for 50+ years and whose state employee pension fund is teetering on bankruptcy, echoes the party line.
Yes, hurry for the home team, well-done home team! /eye-roll/
Yes, hurry for the home team, well-done home team! /eye-roll/
4
Very interesting article, though the claim that "there is an objective reality we can agree upon on how the economy is performing," simplifies the "objective reality" that the economy performs differently for different sectors and stakeholders. Despite the propensity for economists and politicians to look at aggregate statistics (statistics which ARE objective measurements of the particular aspects of a complex economy that they measure), we all know that the rhetoric of "a rising tide raises all ships" obscures internal economic machinations that produce winners and losers in the same nation. Individual economic measures, such as an unemployment rate, the CPI, the Dow Jones index, etc. are all "objective" markers...but "how the economy is performing" simply isn't, unless we ask "for whom?"
13
The problem with Irwin's thesis is that it ignores the complexity of economic conditions.
For instance, private employment is up, but wages for the vast majority are down significantly from before the crash and have stagnated since. This doesn't consider that government employment--with higher union membership and its attendant increased benefits and stability is significantly lower than before the crash and the new jobs for so many who lost theirs in the crash are less stable without benefits.
That employment overall was up during Reagan's regime doesn't speak to the huge redistribution of wealth from the many to the few that occurred because of the change in the tax structure that happened then as well.
Simplistic questions, with or without payment, do not give useful answers.
For instance, private employment is up, but wages for the vast majority are down significantly from before the crash and have stagnated since. This doesn't consider that government employment--with higher union membership and its attendant increased benefits and stability is significantly lower than before the crash and the new jobs for so many who lost theirs in the crash are less stable without benefits.
That employment overall was up during Reagan's regime doesn't speak to the huge redistribution of wealth from the many to the few that occurred because of the change in the tax structure that happened then as well.
Simplistic questions, with or without payment, do not give useful answers.
7
"Simple" is Harry Reid, falsely claiming "Mitt Romney doesn't pay taxes." Thereupon a photo appears of Romney in line, paying his state taxes.
And the blunt truth being, Mitt has paid so much more in taxes than BHO, it is not funny.
And the blunt truth being, Mitt has paid so much more in taxes than BHO, it is not funny.
3
I wonder how you even manage to get accurate survey results these days. With all the illegitimate and legitimate but harassing telemarketing, political and non-profit fund raising phone calls, I know very few who answer the phone unless they recognize the number/person calling.
19
Fasinating--but a dubious conclusion.
I vote for, and root vociferously for, the Tweedledums no matter what. You spend a lot of care researching the the underlying facts. Are you better off?
It depends.
Maybe I spend the saved time loving my kids, or making money to give to charity, or doing something else that we both agree is worthwhile. What have you gained from the time you spent in research? Only the ability to best me in an argument, if we have one.
Big deal.
Your opinion doesn't noticeably affect any outcome--unless, as the story points out, your opinions are really going to shape outcomes.
In New York State, the time I spend researching presidential candidates is sheer waste -- unless we consider it entertainment.
I vote for, and root vociferously for, the Tweedledums no matter what. You spend a lot of care researching the the underlying facts. Are you better off?
It depends.
Maybe I spend the saved time loving my kids, or making money to give to charity, or doing something else that we both agree is worthwhile. What have you gained from the time you spent in research? Only the ability to best me in an argument, if we have one.
Big deal.
Your opinion doesn't noticeably affect any outcome--unless, as the story points out, your opinions are really going to shape outcomes.
In New York State, the time I spend researching presidential candidates is sheer waste -- unless we consider it entertainment.
1
Very insightful article. But, I do wonder why the author, as so many in media do, repeatedly refers to "democracy" when in fact the United States is a Constitutional Republic.
7
I wish the USA was still a Constitutional Republic. It has devolved into a crony capitalist oligarchy guided into lawlessness by executive order. The masses are swayed by the media-of-the-moment non-news and mesmerized with technological toys. God help us. Of course, I'm an ignorant bumpkin for even contemplating the possibly of metaphysical forces interacting with humanity. Nonetheless, God help us.
7
"Constitutional Republic" has become a term popular among the political right in an effort to obscure the fact that our nation is a democratic Republic...and that is why the author and so many others in the media correctly refer to our "democracy".
6
You seem to be confused on a couple points...In our democratic republic our President is allowed under the Constitution the use of executive orders which can be removed by subsequent executive orders.
As to the "media", which is the source of this and other misinformation, you can look to the political right.
As to the "media", which is the source of this and other misinformation, you can look to the political right.
3
"How can people judge whether a party is effective if there is no sense of objective truth? And it could even have implications for the economy itself if, for example, conservative-leaning business executives freeze hiring or investment when the president doesn’t share their politics."
When the Times asked us our opinions about the greatest challenge for 2016, I responded, political polarization and the inability to come together on any sort of national consensus. I still feel that way, despite other very good answers about income inequality, money in politics, climate change and others.
This study of perceptions vs objective truth does little to calm me, dollar or no dollar. I still maintain that political bias rears its ugly head in discerning the truth.
There is no truth today, when even our news outlets have left and right bias. Truth is what you think, not what is. Oh, sure, one can cite statistics and memorize factoids, but try telling that to a person who doesn't want to believe it.
Political polarization: a willingness to suspend belief when the facts don't jibe with our opinions.
When the Times asked us our opinions about the greatest challenge for 2016, I responded, political polarization and the inability to come together on any sort of national consensus. I still feel that way, despite other very good answers about income inequality, money in politics, climate change and others.
This study of perceptions vs objective truth does little to calm me, dollar or no dollar. I still maintain that political bias rears its ugly head in discerning the truth.
There is no truth today, when even our news outlets have left and right bias. Truth is what you think, not what is. Oh, sure, one can cite statistics and memorize factoids, but try telling that to a person who doesn't want to believe it.
Political polarization: a willingness to suspend belief when the facts don't jibe with our opinions.
20
I guess we should thank Stephen Colbert for the concept of truthiness.
11
"'Yes, people are less deluded about objective conditions than we imagined, but that also implies that peoples’ belief about objective conditions matters less for how they vote than we thought,' he said."
I think it's clear that for a significant segment of the electorate positions on a variety of issues are not a product of objectivity. For too many, data, evidence, and applied logic has little to do with the views carried to the ballot box. For example, Trump's minions likely do not sit around discussing the fine points of public policy; their support is more visceral, more from the gut, more emotional.
Thus, voting is often not an intellectual exercise that involves careful weighing of pros and cons of various important subjects; rather it is an emotional act that typically has local cultural roots (e.g. long lasting and widespread support for segregation in the Jim Crow south). And that's why views change only slowly, if at all -- people's beliefs involving "objective conditions" commonly are not objective.
I think it's clear that for a significant segment of the electorate positions on a variety of issues are not a product of objectivity. For too many, data, evidence, and applied logic has little to do with the views carried to the ballot box. For example, Trump's minions likely do not sit around discussing the fine points of public policy; their support is more visceral, more from the gut, more emotional.
Thus, voting is often not an intellectual exercise that involves careful weighing of pros and cons of various important subjects; rather it is an emotional act that typically has local cultural roots (e.g. long lasting and widespread support for segregation in the Jim Crow south). And that's why views change only slowly, if at all -- people's beliefs involving "objective conditions" commonly are not objective.
8
I think how the economy is doing is not that complicated. Median earnings, the earnings at which half are above and half of the people are earning less is 28,800 which can be verified at the SSA website. People got about 800 extra from the year before. So for half of all the workers, 150 million, that is how much they get. The average wages are about 42,000 -- but this is skewed by very high earners. Those wages are higher than up to 70% of all workers. The BLS seems to have gotten median and average wrong this year by computing average hourly wage by average hours worked, 35 hours by 25 dollars coming up with 42,000 for the median worker. That is a mistake, the real way people feel is around 29,000. Another way to put this, is the workers in the USA earn about 15 an hour approximately.
If you go to the SSA website you can see the median is losing to the average each year. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html
They seem to have enough for the basics but groceries, healthcare, rent,
are increasing just look around. They owe on their college loans. I would guess that the economy does not feel great to the American worker as these numbers paint that picture IMO (:-
If you go to the SSA website you can see the median is losing to the average each year. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html
They seem to have enough for the basics but groceries, healthcare, rent,
are increasing just look around. They owe on their college loans. I would guess that the economy does not feel great to the American worker as these numbers paint that picture IMO (:-
17
The delicious irony of seeing and reading this article, adorned with graphic art portraying Barack Obama, the superior liberal intellectual and George W. Bush, the bumbling red state neocon as sides of the same coin.
Obama's bombast of being beyond "Red State, Blue State" partisan politics and intellectually superior to his predecessors has evaporated.
2008: Yes We Can.
2012: Forward.
2016: Yeah b-b-but Bush did it too
Oh the Obama presidency...how the mighty have fallen.
Obama's bombast of being beyond "Red State, Blue State" partisan politics and intellectually superior to his predecessors has evaporated.
2008: Yes We Can.
2012: Forward.
2016: Yeah b-b-but Bush did it too
Oh the Obama presidency...how the mighty have fallen.
6
I completely agree with the main premise - partisanship makes people a little crazy, but they can become more sensible with a dollar on the line. But, at the end the author reveals what seems like political bias towards the left. His global warming example means either you believe as he do or you are "wrong" (I wonder if the people in his example actually exist). He also says that the study results explains people who criticize Obamacare yet use it. How silly. In the study the subjects had a choice and it was over small potatoes - a dollar. But you have no choice (at least in my state) if you want health care but to use Obamacare if you aren't employed or get health care in some other way. And it's a big deal. This is like saying because someone calls the police, then they agree that there is no such thing as police abuse or if you pay your taxes you agree with the federal budget and whatever war is being fought. The author could have said that it was similar to people who are against gun rights, but would use a gun if they thought their child's life was threatened or are for tax and spend policies but keep to a budget at home and put away savings too (also bad examples), but those apparently wouldn't square with his political philosophy. The author exposes the problems of partisanship, but then shows he means it applies only to those on the right.
Author bias? I'm not sure.
With an overwhelming majority of scientists, leaders of countries, ordinary people agreeing that climate change is real, it's as close to reality as you're going to get.
Why would anyone take advantage of the Affordable Care Act to obtain health insurance if they really thought it was disastrous public policy? If they thought that, then surely they would think that they would be better off without it.
The examples used as counter-argument in the comment are purely fictional (using a gun, police abuse, budgets, etc) and not results of a survey and therefore cannot be used as something upon which a valid point can be made.
With an overwhelming majority of scientists, leaders of countries, ordinary people agreeing that climate change is real, it's as close to reality as you're going to get.
Why would anyone take advantage of the Affordable Care Act to obtain health insurance if they really thought it was disastrous public policy? If they thought that, then surely they would think that they would be better off without it.
The examples used as counter-argument in the comment are purely fictional (using a gun, police abuse, budgets, etc) and not results of a survey and therefore cannot be used as something upon which a valid point can be made.
5
In "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion," NYU professor Jonathan Haidt talks about how our unconscious beliefs determine what we say. What we think and say consciously is simply to justify our unconscious biases. Thus it's very hard to change someone's mind through rational argument.
We think we're reasonable, rational creatures, but we ain't.
Which is why political ads use emotional appeals, rather than rational arguments. Republicans are better at this than Democrats. Trump is a natural.
We think we're reasonable, rational creatures, but we ain't.
Which is why political ads use emotional appeals, rather than rational arguments. Republicans are better at this than Democrats. Trump is a natural.
9
In a country where people running for president are able to get away with baldfaced lies over and over again, this is old news. The people of this country are not being taught the most critical skill of all: critical thinking.
13
I beg your pardon. Don't you mean when the president, himself, is able to get away with boldfaced lies?
Americans with critical thinking skills tried to explain how their costs would go up under Obamacare and that they would not be able to keep their doctors and plans, as promised by the president.
There weren't many critical thinkers around when that was being sold to the public. Heck, even the programmers weren't involved in critical thinking. If they had been, they might have realized a system, like an assembly line, needs to have gone through a trial run through before it's rolled out.
Americans with critical thinking skills tried to explain how their costs would go up under Obamacare and that they would not be able to keep their doctors and plans, as promised by the president.
There weren't many critical thinkers around when that was being sold to the public. Heck, even the programmers weren't involved in critical thinking. If they had been, they might have realized a system, like an assembly line, needs to have gone through a trial run through before it's rolled out.
In deciding your presidential vote, ask who do you want to make Supreme Court nominations?
10
Also ask what countries would you like the US to bomb and/or destabilize and/or invade.
3
Actually, that is what determines my vote, as I see little difference between the two parties when it comes to the White House.
I would like to know - although it's likely that we can't know - how well voters perceived reality in the days when objective accuracy served as the prime directive for news media. There was a time when we could rely on the likes of Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley and Chancellor to tell us the truth.
The advent of Fox "News" (and MSNBC's miserable attempts to become the "Fox of the left") has had a tremendously corrosive effect on what Thomas Jefferson trusted would be an informed electorate.
The advent of Fox "News" (and MSNBC's miserable attempts to become the "Fox of the left") has had a tremendously corrosive effect on what Thomas Jefferson trusted would be an informed electorate.
2
Political polling has been around now for decades, and I've wondered if it's as valuable as it once was. The "skin in the game" finding seems to bear out my concerns. Might it be that people no longer have a collective sense of respect for pollsters? Can polling be one more crumbling institution? Can it be getting harder to measure what people are thinking because people want it to be hard?
What this really points out is that while people may know the objective, honest answer, they care far less about the success of a policy than whether the accomplishment was achieved through policies that align with their political or ideological preferences. In essence, it is a question of whether the person sees the means as a valid way of achieving the ends. This is a bigger problem with Republicans, who tend to be far more monolithic in their thinking than are Democrats.
5
Modern polling is often part of marketing programs. The survey helps the marketer learn what the consumer is thinking, what he likes, and what he responds to. At the same time, the survey can be designed to influence the respondent as much as to learn from her.
3
For those who fall for the "two parties equal democracy" scam, fostered by the wealthy along with their media and politicians, it would be surprising if they didn't filter their opinions through their party's ideology.
For those who see through the scam, it is obvious that neither party meaningfully represents anyone but the rich on economic matters. On foreign policy and economic issues, there is not much daylight between the parties, which is why:
both parties seize on social issues, even issues in which only small portions of the public have any personal interest, abortion, gay rights etc.,
both parties seek to make mountains out of the molehill-level differences between them on economic issues. For instance, the Republicans want to privatize Social Security or cut benefits, the Democrats say "no", we must keep the system as it is (while the public clearly wants an increase in SS's meager benefits. Both parties acknowledge the mostly imaginary fiscal problems of the system, but predictably, neither party wants to raise the payroll withholding ceiling in order to strengthen SS - their wealthy masters would protest),
both parties fear "outsider" candidates and they have put in place huge road blocks for third party candidates, often not allowing them into the sound-bite extravaganzas which they refer to as "debates".
The "sensible middle ground", achievable through compromise, is encouraged by sensible pundits, in effect a compromise between the right and center right
For those who see through the scam, it is obvious that neither party meaningfully represents anyone but the rich on economic matters. On foreign policy and economic issues, there is not much daylight between the parties, which is why:
both parties seize on social issues, even issues in which only small portions of the public have any personal interest, abortion, gay rights etc.,
both parties seek to make mountains out of the molehill-level differences between them on economic issues. For instance, the Republicans want to privatize Social Security or cut benefits, the Democrats say "no", we must keep the system as it is (while the public clearly wants an increase in SS's meager benefits. Both parties acknowledge the mostly imaginary fiscal problems of the system, but predictably, neither party wants to raise the payroll withholding ceiling in order to strengthen SS - their wealthy masters would protest),
both parties fear "outsider" candidates and they have put in place huge road blocks for third party candidates, often not allowing them into the sound-bite extravaganzas which they refer to as "debates".
The "sensible middle ground", achievable through compromise, is encouraged by sensible pundits, in effect a compromise between the right and center right
15
This is the best comment bar none.
But the comment with the most "recommends" is all about how evil Republicans are.
People need to wake up.
But the comment with the most "recommends" is all about how evil Republicans are.
People need to wake up.
3
You can fool the public into thinking they have democracy by encouraging vigorous debate but within the narrow consensus of the powerful. The media can be counted on to set the boundaries.
If the answers are to oversimplified questions, how can they be anything but inaccurate and biased? Most questions of that type are best answered by "It depends." If we could just get free of this opinion-on-a-bumper-sticker mentality, there might be a discussion. Are things looking good or bad? It depends, for example, on whether you think the stimulus actions taken since the financial meltdown of 2008 were adequate or not.
It depends on whether the Congress is unseated in 2016, on who wins the Presidential election, and of course, if the answer to the first question is "no." , then it depends on whether the Congress intends, as it has since November 2008, to keep the President from accomplishing
ANYTHING. Or, G-d help us, Congress intends to HELP the President with whatever he plans to do. Which, of course, depends on who gets elected to the Presidency. Canada will need to build a border wall.
It depends on whether the Congress is unseated in 2016, on who wins the Presidential election, and of course, if the answer to the first question is "no." , then it depends on whether the Congress intends, as it has since November 2008, to keep the President from accomplishing
ANYTHING. Or, G-d help us, Congress intends to HELP the President with whatever he plans to do. Which, of course, depends on who gets elected to the Presidency. Canada will need to build a border wall.
5
John G. Bullock is quoted as saying: “We’ve always thought that how people vote depended a lot on the state of the economy and the state of war. But maybe those objective realities matter less than we thought.”
It's not that simple. There are long and variable leads between when policies are enacted and their effects manifest themselves -- and between when policies are ended and their effects disappear.
For example, if a survey asked in 2010 "are you better or worse off than you were four years ago?" most people would answer "worse off". Yet it was George W. Bush's policies and the financial crisis of 2008, not Barack Obama's policies, that were the cause. A rational person, not swayed by ideology, who realized that would have voted for Democrats in the 2010 Congreesional elections. Yet the Republicans gained six seats in the Senate and 63 in the House -- where they became the majority party.
It's not that simple. There are long and variable leads between when policies are enacted and their effects manifest themselves -- and between when policies are ended and their effects disappear.
For example, if a survey asked in 2010 "are you better or worse off than you were four years ago?" most people would answer "worse off". Yet it was George W. Bush's policies and the financial crisis of 2008, not Barack Obama's policies, that were the cause. A rational person, not swayed by ideology, who realized that would have voted for Democrats in the 2010 Congreesional elections. Yet the Republicans gained six seats in the Senate and 63 in the House -- where they became the majority party.
80
michael - There might be some solace in remembering how few of our fellow citizens actually show up to vote on election day (meaning it's a somewhat skewed slice of American opinion) and keeping in mind that the 2010 voter turnout was an example of what a motivated opposition party can cause with high turnout by pandering lies about ACA through Koch Bros.-funded groups, etc.
3
You left out 9/11.
You are welcome.
You are welcome.
An even more rational person would realize that the federal government has limited power to affect the economy and the President even less so. In the short term the economy is dependent on Federal Reserve policy, the economies of our trading partners, the weather, the price of oil and other commodities: all factors largely out of the federal government's control. In the medium and long term, the economy is dependent on tax policy, appropriations bills, deficit spending, stimulus packages, etc., which the President cannot produce by executive order. All spending bills must, constitutionally, originate in the House of Representatives and be approved by the Senate. The President's only powers are to veto legislation and to interpret how bills are to be executed. He cannot increase spending on highways. He cannot cut taxes. He cannot extend unemployment benefits or expand eligibility for food stamps.
And, yes. This means the Republican congress deserves some of the credit for the Clinton boom.
And, yes. This means the Republican congress deserves some of the credit for the Clinton boom.
This article underscores that a healthy democratic republic requires a voting electorate that takes responsibility to be factually informed.
We can not rely on disinformation and pundit's--often uninformed--opinions. Rather, we must take responsibility to read or view primary sources of information. What are primary sources of information? https://www.facebook.com/steveh721/posts/3635238514871
Planet and People Over Profit!
We can not rely on disinformation and pundit's--often uninformed--opinions. Rather, we must take responsibility to read or view primary sources of information. What are primary sources of information? https://www.facebook.com/steveh721/posts/3635238514871
Planet and People Over Profit!
3
The only group that have a grasp on reality are Independents. Anyone with a "D" or "R" carved in their foreheads see only what supports the rhetoric issued from their side.
4
That is simply not true. Many people are registered in a party so that they can vote in the primaries. But, in addition, since the reality is that at least for now we have a two party system and there are clear differences in worldview and their platforms, we are more or less glued to the party that most closely reflects our views. There is never a perfect candidate. That said, a thinking person can vote across party lines in a general election. They do not have to be an "Independent". They just have to be discerning and an independent thinker.
6
People need to realize it does not matter who gets in office because in reality the wealthy elite own the govt and until Americans are willing to get out in the streets and do a Tahrir square. This country won't change at all it will just steam ahead towards an oligarchy type govt that we fought to get away from and now it is here once again. We have the most uninformed people on planet earth too.
4
The reason why people generally refuse to see reality, is that they want their static beliefs and visions to be realized by who they vote for. We want someone else to establish a world based on how we believe the world ought to be or the way we believe they should be, even when our own actions in reality are sometimes totally opposing that which we preach.
2
30 years and about 5 Nobel Prizes in Economics, specifically in the field of "Behavioral Economics" have shown us, simplifying a bit, that people don't act rationally. Most people are goofballs. Most people don't even know how to help themselves, or vote for candidates who really would help them. Hence, republican extremist NRA members on SSI disability for bogus claims who want to keep that damn obama out of my bidniz. Keep the govmint out of my mother's Medicare. I want your tax money for me, but I don't want to pay taxes.
10
"[People} have political preferences that stay in place regardless of how the country is doing. That implies that political parties won’t be rewarded for delivering good performance, or punished for bad performance."
So politics is like religion: whether your deity rescues you from a storm or (in your opinion) appropriates rewards your good behavior will not necessarily shape whether you continue to worship that deity.
So politics is like religion: whether your deity rescues you from a storm or (in your opinion) appropriates rewards your good behavior will not necessarily shape whether you continue to worship that deity.
3
I am sure there are those out there that believe, as long as there is a black man in the White House, nothing can go right. And, since cable news is biases, they will always find the answers they seek, even though they are fabrications or half truths. This is the game politics has become. It is not about the truth, it's about my team vs your team.
4
One likely factor not noted in this article might be the effect of the TV News we watch: MSNBC vs Fox News.
3
This survey seems to say that a money, no matter how little, makes a difference on how people will vote. Promise a chicken in the pot and you may just get their vote.
1
Maybe the poll takers are asking the wrong question. Ask people if ammunition for their respective weaponry is available and cheap. Gas and ammo prices are the only thing that matters, isn't it?
1
At least we can be thankful that ISIS waited for the economy to recover before going on the attack. And waited until election season.
2
The problem is how politically polarized the issue of the economy has become. Fox news has painted Obama as an abject failure, economy included, so that surveys feed that closed end loop despite the fact that the respondent has seen a pickup in construction and bought a new Ford truck to service his trade.
50
Well, then why didn't the Fed raise interest rates, at a higher rate?
Answer: because they don't believe the alleged "recovery" is very strong.
Res ipsa.
Answer: because they don't believe the alleged "recovery" is very strong.
Res ipsa.
What is sad is support for a candidate based on politics that flies in the face of reality. See today's article on staffers just now quitting the Ben Carson campaign .... Because they just figured out he hasn't a clue? Sorry, "not prepared for the US Presidency." The Onion knew this for how long?
6
This is not surprising. Research has long shown that political views are formed early in adulthood and party allegiances rarely change over a lifetime.
People also vote based on the vision of the future they like better, rather than based on current or passed performance. After all, one can always blame the opposition for the bad years.
People also vote based on the vision of the future they like better, rather than based on current or passed performance. After all, one can always blame the opposition for the bad years.
I believe the same people that complain about the "poor economy" are also the same people we saw in shopping malls on "Black Friday" queueing in lines waiting for stores to open so they can buy the newest trendy gadget or gizmo. These are the same people that appear at Apple stores when the new I-phones are released to the public. These people whine about the economy and still seem to find money to buy buy buy. It's all based on partisan politics. It has nothing to do with facts.
3
When you say “cooking the numbers”, that sounds ominous; a paranoid conspiracy theory. As the body of the story notes, most people understand that the official unemployment rate has declined since 2007, but perchance believe that it represents an exercise in lying with statistics. The responses might result from an unstated belief that the UE numbers don’t relate an accurate story. And that belief would be correct.
A person who denies that the economy improved under – and because of – Reagan is delusional. A person who asserts that the employment picture has not improved under -- or because of -- Obama is correct.
So, too, denying the deficit declined under Clinton, in 1997, would be delusional. But it says nothing about who should get the credit: did WJC’s policies, or those of the GOP Congress which prevented him from doing what he wanted to do, produce the salutary result? Ditto BHO: is the present meager growth the result of the Prez’s policies, or the product of the GOP’s “obstruction” of higher taxes, more spending, and bigger government?
What your results might show is simply that the people dispute the assumptions underlying the questions: that a POTUS deserves credit – or blame – for things which happen on his watch. Sometimes things just happen, or happen in spite of presidential policy.
Perhaps the solution rests in reframing the questions.
A person who denies that the economy improved under – and because of – Reagan is delusional. A person who asserts that the employment picture has not improved under -- or because of -- Obama is correct.
So, too, denying the deficit declined under Clinton, in 1997, would be delusional. But it says nothing about who should get the credit: did WJC’s policies, or those of the GOP Congress which prevented him from doing what he wanted to do, produce the salutary result? Ditto BHO: is the present meager growth the result of the Prez’s policies, or the product of the GOP’s “obstruction” of higher taxes, more spending, and bigger government?
What your results might show is simply that the people dispute the assumptions underlying the questions: that a POTUS deserves credit – or blame – for things which happen on his watch. Sometimes things just happen, or happen in spite of presidential policy.
Perhaps the solution rests in reframing the questions.
The economy only SEEMED to improve under Reagan. The appearance of prosperity was due to the unprecedented deficit spending which occurred during those years.
4
The economy is almost always a function of rearview policies and action. The question that would be interesting to track would be, "how do you believe the economy will be in the next 1(?) year?
1
So what's new about this? People are not rational. This explains religion and Donald Trump's success...
5
If anyone doubts the power of money in politics, this article should wake them up. What the article also does is reinforce the stupidness of the American electorate. How is that? Well, the idea that any political party can make a real difference in their lives. What can make a real difference in each individuals economic future is what they do, not what the government does. Only the delusional could believe otherwise. Hope and change, how is that working out for the average American, you know the one with the $51,000 in household income? Best way to descrie it is 'born to be conned'.
"that offering a $1 payment for a correct response and a 33-cent payment for an answer of “Don’t know” eliminated the entire partisan gap between Democrats and Republicans on questions about the economy."
1. how did this article fly with Prof Krugman?
2. This is totally moronic.
3. How is John Q Public supposed to know the "correct" answer. That is for the statistics and data people to provide. I don't anything except the data I am given--and that is the problem, From my real-world seat at the table, I would say that the government is not very forthcoming--and that is being extremely nice about it.
On any given day in MY TOWN, the roads are overflowing with cars in what are normally work hours. We are growing some but NOT THAT MUCH that people would be driving around. Stores are full, shoppers abound, and this town does not have that many businesses with graveyard or night shift work. I see people from 18 to 60 driving around, back roads nearly bumper to bumper. 5% unemployment can't possibly be happening. Calif is a bit higher that the national average but what I see every day is NOT 5% unemployment.
If you pay people to give you the "right" answer they will--it is the answer that the POLL taker wants--not necessarily the reality.
1. how did this article fly with Prof Krugman?
2. This is totally moronic.
3. How is John Q Public supposed to know the "correct" answer. That is for the statistics and data people to provide. I don't anything except the data I am given--and that is the problem, From my real-world seat at the table, I would say that the government is not very forthcoming--and that is being extremely nice about it.
On any given day in MY TOWN, the roads are overflowing with cars in what are normally work hours. We are growing some but NOT THAT MUCH that people would be driving around. Stores are full, shoppers abound, and this town does not have that many businesses with graveyard or night shift work. I see people from 18 to 60 driving around, back roads nearly bumper to bumper. 5% unemployment can't possibly be happening. Calif is a bit higher that the national average but what I see every day is NOT 5% unemployment.
If you pay people to give you the "right" answer they will--it is the answer that the POLL taker wants--not necessarily the reality.
here is your answer. you can get the correct answer if you care to access facts
you can not get the answer if you get your information from right wing hate media.
you can not get the answer if you get your information from right wing hate media.
1
What a great article, what great insights from research. All it takes is a dollar to pull our heads out of the dogma do do. And here I was thinking that the problem is pretty much hopeless.
Kalidan
Kalidan
If Romney had won in 2012 we'd be hearing all the GOP rhetoric how the unemployment rate is 5.0% and the Republicans had finally fixed the slow Obama recovery. By every single metric our economy is better than it was when W! left office and took the failed GOP policies with him. If W! had been the president of a private corporation instead of our Nation we would have paid him tens of millions in severance pay to please stop.
5
While I agree that Republicans would tout a 5.0% unemployment rate, I have to add that if Romney were President, the unemployment rate would be well above 5.0% by now.
1
Psychologists have a term to describe people who think they know more than everyone else, yet, in fact, know significantly less: it's called pseudo-certainty. They're also known as Republicans, and some other terms not appropriate for a family newspaper. Think modified gerund expletives.
From my knowledge of history, the world has never seen a bigger group of lying hypocrites. And their lies are constant. As constant as global warming and their denial of it.
What can you say about an entire political party that not only doesn't believe in science, reason, or logic, but is actually proud of that fact?
"Raise your hand if you think the world was created 6,000 years ago.", seriously?
I don't think the entire right wing has an aggregate IQ over 16.
I guess being a reality challenged pathological liar are all the credentials a Republican needs to run for the highest political office in the land.
2 + 2 = "Who really knows right?! After all math is just someones opinion. And one opinion is just as good as any other."
Brain dead the lot.
From my knowledge of history, the world has never seen a bigger group of lying hypocrites. And their lies are constant. As constant as global warming and their denial of it.
What can you say about an entire political party that not only doesn't believe in science, reason, or logic, but is actually proud of that fact?
"Raise your hand if you think the world was created 6,000 years ago.", seriously?
I don't think the entire right wing has an aggregate IQ over 16.
I guess being a reality challenged pathological liar are all the credentials a Republican needs to run for the highest political office in the land.
2 + 2 = "Who really knows right?! After all math is just someones opinion. And one opinion is just as good as any other."
Brain dead the lot.
5
Since the question, "How is the economy doing?" is inherently subjective, the answer to that question can't be anything BUT subjective. To expect to glean some objective truth from such a survey is naive and misleading.
As the saying goes, "When your neighbor is out of work it's a recession. When you're out of work it's a depression."
As the saying goes, "When your neighbor is out of work it's a recession. When you're out of work it's a depression."
32
no it is not "subjective" that's why we have"major economic indicators" facts and figure upon which we base at least a semi accurate conclusion.
Not "i hate the black guy so the economy stinks"
Not "i hate the black guy so the economy stinks"
2
I never tell the truth on surveys because I'm suspicious of methodology, bias, and motives. But if were to accept even $1 I would feel compelled to be truthful.
2
Hmm, so this suggests that picking and sticking with a political party doesn't necessarily make you stupid, but does make you more likely to be a liar.
2
Doesn't give you much hope for the future.
Oh, I don't know. I think that the electorate is not any MORE stupid than in the past. That's sorta hopeful, isn't it?
1
A follow-up study might include questions about information sources. Where do the respondents get their "news"? Then do fact-checks on those news sources. Ever since "news" became more propaganda than information, Americans have become more ignorant, angry, and polarized. As billionaire Republicans buy up news outlets, a democracy of informed voters has gone the way of the dinosaur.
3
I certainly wouldn't trust anyone who got his facts only from The Times' Editorial Board opinions or even Mr. Krugman's opinion pieces. They are getting highly skewed and partisan viewpoints only.
"Mr. Krugman's opinion pieces. They are getting highly skewed and partisan viewpoints only."....Which is exactly why opinions always need to be supported by facts, evidence, and examples; other wise they nothing but someones bias opinions.
Pew already does this, and only NPR and PBS consumers are routinely considered 'highly informed'. Daily Show Colbert Report viewers were 2nd place, but that era could be over since Noah and Wilmore filled those slots.
Interesting twist on poll taking. In the end, though, it doesn't matter. Once they get in the voting booth, they won't even think of that survey and how $1 changed their mind. They'll still vote as they'd intended all along.
19
Not sure if I agree with this deduction. Answering a question in a poll is not the same as walking into a voting booth. One would hope that pulling the lever follows more consideration than answering a question during an unsolicited phone call.
“Suppose it is dinnertime, and the phone rings. It is a polite survey taker with a simple question for you: How is the economy doing?”
I don’t answer the phone. My thoughts on the subject are not registered in the survey data. I suspect I’m like many Americans, which may explain why many poll results seem to reflect skewed reality.
I don’t answer the phone. My thoughts on the subject are not registered in the survey data. I suspect I’m like many Americans, which may explain why many poll results seem to reflect skewed reality.
2
'... the unemployment rate’s dip to 5 percent, I received vehement responses from conservatives...'
Plenty of liberals know that the unemployment rate is based on people applying for unemployment insurance and that tens of millions of people no longer qualify, as they have been out of work for years upon years.
That neither political party cares about them - their lives do not make a good photo op - is the one thing everyone can agree on.
Plenty of liberals know that the unemployment rate is based on people applying for unemployment insurance and that tens of millions of people no longer qualify, as they have been out of work for years upon years.
That neither political party cares about them - their lives do not make a good photo op - is the one thing everyone can agree on.
7
How the published unemployment rate is calculated is one of the few definite facts in this discussion, and you have gotten it wrong.
The unemployment rate is based on a household survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that covers random households in all census blocks. The definition of being unemployed is that you are available to work right now, you have not have a job right now, and that you have taken any step whatsoever to find work in the last four weeks. This could be as simple as looking on Craigslist or asking your brother-in-law if he knows of any openings.
This method allows them to count people who have never held a job, and would not be eligible for unemployment compensation, as unemployed.
You can read their full write-up at their web site:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
The unemployment rate is based on a household survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that covers random households in all census blocks. The definition of being unemployed is that you are available to work right now, you have not have a job right now, and that you have taken any step whatsoever to find work in the last four weeks. This could be as simple as looking on Craigslist or asking your brother-in-law if he knows of any openings.
This method allows them to count people who have never held a job, and would not be eligible for unemployment compensation, as unemployed.
You can read their full write-up at their web site:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
1
Polling now misses everyone who doesn't answer robocalls.
1
Quite a lot of bloviation here about the well-known phenom of confirmation bias -- as applied to political domain.
1
Given the Global Financial Crisis of 2007, maybe some of those skeptical Dems back in 2005 had a point.
4
From the article:
“We’ve always thought that how people vote depended a lot on the state of the economy and the state of war. But maybe those objective realities matter less than we thought.”
From George Orwell, "1984", published 68 years ago:
“For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”
“We’ve always thought that how people vote depended a lot on the state of the economy and the state of war. But maybe those objective realities matter less than we thought.”
From George Orwell, "1984", published 68 years ago:
“For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”
3
It is extraordinarily interesting that commenters and readers all ask a question which in it's fundamental premise is totally and completely flawed. Political party has zero to do with how the economy is doing. The world's and especially the US's economy, is twisted and convoluted by bastardized ever changing influences of Hedge funds, Tax Policies, Lobbyists, uber-wealthy power brokers, back door politicians funding their careers legislatively, and International non-economic influences. Any person who really believes there is some overarching predictable Party determinant of the economy, also probably believe's that the price of a stock is the true value of a company.
6
And then there are people like me who don't trust the objective of a pollster when they call, so choose not to participate.
3
I have fundamentalist "Christian" relatives who believe that Democrats are evil people who are in league with the devil and who are more dangerous to the U.S. than ISIS terrorists. They believe this country was founded by Christians for Christians, and the answer to all of our problems is to elect a fundamentalist "Christian" to the presidency because God is mad at us for allowing abortions and tolerating "the gays". The economy barely enters the picture, they think they're "fighting" for God.
I've read the Bible, too, and it seems to me to say something totally different than these "Christians" claim. In fact, Jesus sounds like a leftist to me. But they're convinced they're right because Fox News and their church leaders tell them so.
I've read the Bible, too, and it seems to me to say something totally different than these "Christians" claim. In fact, Jesus sounds like a leftist to me. But they're convinced they're right because Fox News and their church leaders tell them so.
13
Excellent, Glassyeyed !
Your Christ R Us relatives are nearly identical twins with ISIS soldiers.
If only they could see themselves in their own diabolical mirror.
Your Christ R Us relatives are nearly identical twins with ISIS soldiers.
If only they could see themselves in their own diabolical mirror.
7
Those "Christians" are more dangerous than ISIS. They are closer and there are more of them. And they serve the needs of ISIS and every other evil opponent so well. It is offensive that they call themselves Christian.
4
Question: for those people paid the $1 and gave a more realistic answer - if they were repolled later in time but not offered the $1 would they continue to be more truthful or revert to their political bias. I am wondering if once you conciously acknowledge the truth if you are now more likely to admit it.
3
As to inbred bias: A majority of the Reader's Comments (14 to date) agree with the basic premise of the article...and then go on to criticize Republicans by name or by party.
3
because reps are more clearly guilty of drawing conclusion based on nothing
for instance. 195 countries (all of them) for the first time ever agree on one thing---- "Man Made Climate Change Is Real". All the scientific support each govt accesses says the same thing. 97% of earth scientists agree.
But to reps "the jury is still out"
right now its the GOP, and its extraction industry owners, against the entire planet on a life threatening challenge.
Keeping in mind that we already know internal exxon reports agree with the entire planet, and not the GOP, where do you come down?
if you say the gop and the oil/coal companies - you can look in the mirror for the problem
Where do you stand?
for instance. 195 countries (all of them) for the first time ever agree on one thing---- "Man Made Climate Change Is Real". All the scientific support each govt accesses says the same thing. 97% of earth scientists agree.
But to reps "the jury is still out"
right now its the GOP, and its extraction industry owners, against the entire planet on a life threatening challenge.
Keeping in mind that we already know internal exxon reports agree with the entire planet, and not the GOP, where do you come down?
if you say the gop and the oil/coal companies - you can look in the mirror for the problem
Where do you stand?
2
“We’ve always thought that how people vote depended a lot on the state of the economy and the state of war. But maybe those objective realities matter less than we thought.”
Odd statement from an academic. I am mere high school government teacher, but for the past 25 years I have tuaght the same thing I learned in GVPT 440 - American Political Parties. Dr. Margaret Conway drove home the point that party ID was the number one factor in determining voter behavior.
Odd statement from an academic. I am mere high school government teacher, but for the past 25 years I have tuaght the same thing I learned in GVPT 440 - American Political Parties. Dr. Margaret Conway drove home the point that party ID was the number one factor in determining voter behavior.
3
no really. I'm a democrat forever but I have voted for the best person for the office and I have sometimes voted for a republican. Isn't that what democracy and voting are all about. We elect the person who will best represent the PEOPLE--not the party. Parties now are ideologies that actually get in the way of governing. Those people in congress are full-time members of a political machine--NOT representatives of the people, by any stretch of the imagination (except for Sanders and Warren), so far as I can tell. follow the money, look at their voting records which are publicly available.
1
Looks like you have to pay conservatives, including their right to life holy roller class, to tell the truth. Hey, it even works for business executives. Who'd a known?
5
Interesting study. Now if we could just get politicians to be honest with us when we pay them.
This recalls Hastorf's and Cantril's famous study of football fans. Many voters are biased by a belief in what there parties represent, rather than a factual analysis. The people in this nation are only so intelligent, lacking the ability, or even the desire, for rational thought. But it looks like if you give them a buck, you'll wring a little more out of them.
The next step from this study is to examine the inordinate polarity in politics today. There are irrational statements (political correctness says I have to recognize both sides) from both Republican and Democratic politicians. Accusing President Obama of being a "baby killer" is from a Texas congressman that does not do much to illustrate intelligence in Texas.
And the current crop of Republican presidential primary candidates leaves something to be desired. Republican voters can't recognize the intelligent candidates, such as Kasich and Graham, who are out. They instead prefer Carson, and Cruz, who has two cum laude degrees from Ivy League schools, panders to their emotionality.
This is why "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time," as Churchill stated. We choose candidates with the electoral capability that we have. Give voters a buck to get them to think better. We're also a capitalist nation.
This recalls Hastorf's and Cantril's famous study of football fans. Many voters are biased by a belief in what there parties represent, rather than a factual analysis. The people in this nation are only so intelligent, lacking the ability, or even the desire, for rational thought. But it looks like if you give them a buck, you'll wring a little more out of them.
The next step from this study is to examine the inordinate polarity in politics today. There are irrational statements (political correctness says I have to recognize both sides) from both Republican and Democratic politicians. Accusing President Obama of being a "baby killer" is from a Texas congressman that does not do much to illustrate intelligence in Texas.
And the current crop of Republican presidential primary candidates leaves something to be desired. Republican voters can't recognize the intelligent candidates, such as Kasich and Graham, who are out. They instead prefer Carson, and Cruz, who has two cum laude degrees from Ivy League schools, panders to their emotionality.
This is why "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time," as Churchill stated. We choose candidates with the electoral capability that we have. Give voters a buck to get them to think better. We're also a capitalist nation.
3
Our media shapes what we should and should not think about politics. You cannot trust anything that is said from either side/party. I was in the DC area over the holidays and the place is BOOMING. I have never seen so many new stores, restaurants, shopping centers, etc. The shape of reality inside the beltway is so far off from reality it is scary. The economy is not good where I live (about 3 hours away). Good jobs are nonexistent, houses are not selling and the schools are terrible so anyone coming out of school has no chance in the real world.
31
you have as republican governor and house?
you will notice if you bother to look, aside tx where the money shoots out of the ground, red states do less well and take more welfare from the hated central government than do blue states.
In fact 100% governments of the deep south red states, which should be a model of gop success, are on welfare. getting vastly more from the rest of us than they contribute.
but thats a fact, and facts are baaad
you will notice if you bother to look, aside tx where the money shoots out of the ground, red states do less well and take more welfare from the hated central government than do blue states.
In fact 100% governments of the deep south red states, which should be a model of gop success, are on welfare. getting vastly more from the rest of us than they contribute.
but thats a fact, and facts are baaad
2
That is why it is known as the "elite establishment", which is made up of government elected officials and employees, lobbyists and the media.
@ shrinking food:
Texas is also the largest recipient of FEMA dollars and receives massive energy subsidies for a multitude oil conglomerates.
Small government indeed.
Texas is also the largest recipient of FEMA dollars and receives massive energy subsidies for a multitude oil conglomerates.
Small government indeed.
The median family income is now $ 51,000. Which has gone down over the years. That means that the so called middle class, the people at the median, is getting smaller and smaller, while the impoverished and wealthy groups get larger and larger. This is what colors the reality of the economy. Neither of our political parties cater to the median group. They cater to where their money comes from- corporate, banks, Wall Street . Follow a US senator or rep around for a week and you will find that these folks are constantly fund raising for their next election. (10 million for a senate seat, 2-3 million for a house seat. ) In other words, don't depend on the parties to tell you your economic status- they are always wrong.
45
was clinton wrong about the 93 deficit reduction act which gave us the best econ in history? was he wrong with full employment, a surplus, peace, and the first payments against the debt in decades?
Or, were the reps wrong when they voted against it 100% telling us it would create a depression?
Or, were the reps wrong when they voted against it 100% telling us it would create a depression?
4
we are better off considering the "national wage" which the last time it was reported was about 29000.00, quite a bit off from the median. The high-paying jobs really skew things. A month of so ago, the Times has a great chart about PEAK EARNINGS and most places peaked in the 1980's/90's. Some places peaked in the 60's. Earnings for everyone (except the 1%) are declining, not just the middle class.
2
I wish the NYTimes wouldn't select blatant factual lies such as the one uncorked here by Haitch76 as a "NYTimes Pick". According to the data published by the Census Bureau, the median household income last stood at $51,000 (in 2015 dollars) in 1993, when Clinton took office.
The census bureau only publishes the median household income for the previous year, in September of the following year (only the average for 2014 is available). Advisor's Perspective (an organization that supplies info to financial advisors) provides a more updated version of the median household income with monthly data.
Haitch76 claims that household income has "gone down over the years". Wrong.
Using the monthly reported data, median household income peaked at $59.7k in 2001 (Clinton's last fiscal year). By the end of Bush's last fiscal year, the median income was falling fast at around $54k, and finally bottomed at around $52k. Currently the median income has risen for the last four years, and stands at $56.7k, just 2% from the Clinton peak.
The breakdown by household income levels provides even more clarity. The top two quintiles have already hit all-time highs, and at the current trend, the middle quintile will hit an all-time high in 2016. So over 60% of households are at or above record highs. All of the underperformance is in the bottom 40%, the households that got hammered due to state government fiscal austerity carried out in the name of "balanced budgets" during the Great Recession.
The census bureau only publishes the median household income for the previous year, in September of the following year (only the average for 2014 is available). Advisor's Perspective (an organization that supplies info to financial advisors) provides a more updated version of the median household income with monthly data.
Haitch76 claims that household income has "gone down over the years". Wrong.
Using the monthly reported data, median household income peaked at $59.7k in 2001 (Clinton's last fiscal year). By the end of Bush's last fiscal year, the median income was falling fast at around $54k, and finally bottomed at around $52k. Currently the median income has risen for the last four years, and stands at $56.7k, just 2% from the Clinton peak.
The breakdown by household income levels provides even more clarity. The top two quintiles have already hit all-time highs, and at the current trend, the middle quintile will hit an all-time high in 2016. So over 60% of households are at or above record highs. All of the underperformance is in the bottom 40%, the households that got hammered due to state government fiscal austerity carried out in the name of "balanced budgets" during the Great Recession.
What surveys? I have never participated in a national survey that is independent of a request for money, even though I am 73. I have wondered who makes up the sample groups? Do you have to live in NY or Washington DC to participate?
2
This is a muddled article -- or, at best, a summary of two muddled academic articles. You say that Democrats believe Republicans cook the books, and vice versa. In other words, many, depending on their political persuasion, apparently don't believe the reported numbers from the other side regardless of whether said numbers are 'correct' as reported.
Then you go on to cite two studies that find that a modest payment elicits a 'correct' response, i.e., a response closer to the reported numbers.
So what exactly does the payment elicit? A response that says "I'll take the couple of bucks from this pollster who is willing to give it to me, to say what I think he thinks is correct, even though I think it's garbage"!?
Who is the fool here?
Then you go on to cite two studies that find that a modest payment elicits a 'correct' response, i.e., a response closer to the reported numbers.
So what exactly does the payment elicit? A response that says "I'll take the couple of bucks from this pollster who is willing to give it to me, to say what I think he thinks is correct, even though I think it's garbage"!?
Who is the fool here?
2
It is the perception of how the economy is doing that determines voting patterns, in the main. That perception can be heavily influenced by many factors, but the most important is losing your own job or fear of the same. If people you know, people all around you have lost jobs or are highly fearful, then it is hard for good news to get through the noise. I call this observational prejudice: what I see, or think I see, is ten times more important that what someone else sees or experiences. It is very difficult to clear out the clutter from this prejudicial view because it is human/animal nature to trust instincts for survival and success.
The problem in American political society should not be labeled liberal nor conservative. The great source of our current divisions is excessive partisanship, the deep desire to see everything "our" president does, representing our party, as wonderful while the opposite applies to the other political party. Thus, it was just fine for G.W. Bush to blow through close to 3 trillion dollars on two wars, but anything Obama proposes that might involve much smaller higher spending is seen as ultimate evil. We eagerly accept lies and detest the truth.
Long before the professors got involved, the Doobie Brothers said it best: "What a fool believes, he sees". "Evidence" to confirm our beliefs is conjured from whatever source is available. Meanwhile, the Brother's song itself is worth listening to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBwyEqas6U
The problem in American political society should not be labeled liberal nor conservative. The great source of our current divisions is excessive partisanship, the deep desire to see everything "our" president does, representing our party, as wonderful while the opposite applies to the other political party. Thus, it was just fine for G.W. Bush to blow through close to 3 trillion dollars on two wars, but anything Obama proposes that might involve much smaller higher spending is seen as ultimate evil. We eagerly accept lies and detest the truth.
Long before the professors got involved, the Doobie Brothers said it best: "What a fool believes, he sees". "Evidence" to confirm our beliefs is conjured from whatever source is available. Meanwhile, the Brother's song itself is worth listening to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBwyEqas6U
5
That's the way democracy is supposed to work. Each voter votes his particular interests, basing his vote on his own problems, and not the general situation of the country. We add up the votes and find out what is bugging the most people. It's crude but effective.
1
Never mind a dollar. Think of the billions that people are paid to trash the economy, demonize the current administration and, generally sow the seeds of discontent. This is a full time, very profitable, enterprise that obfuscates every bit of good news for their political and financial gain. Christopher hitchens, famously said "Religion ruins everything". From a political standpoint, that should read "FOX ruins everything, for a profit".
6
"People are not telling you what they actually believe in ordinary surveys"
I'm shocked, of course. And it won't matter to people who use survey claims as their argument, because that's exactly what they need. All the time anti-GMO folks use the NYT survey as evidence that 90% of people want labels. I dare you to try that again with the money incentives.
But it plays out in real life too. The cage-free eggs are a good example. http://modernfarmer.com/2013/06/voting-one-way-eating-another/ People voted for an appealing idea. But then with their money they behave differently.
I'm shocked, of course. And it won't matter to people who use survey claims as their argument, because that's exactly what they need. All the time anti-GMO folks use the NYT survey as evidence that 90% of people want labels. I dare you to try that again with the money incentives.
But it plays out in real life too. The cage-free eggs are a good example. http://modernfarmer.com/2013/06/voting-one-way-eating-another/ People voted for an appealing idea. But then with their money they behave differently.
1
Remember what Churchill said about Americans and I am paraphrasing him...Americans always get it wrong in the beginning but eventually in the end they get it right.., meaning never underestimate the power of Americans to be their own worst enemies until they eventually wise up...
1
the takeaway for me is that we need to pay people to NOT vote?
In other words, never underestimate the dumbness of people in large groups.
2
This method of an incentivizing an accurate answer also applies to the philosophical as well.
"Does God exist?" will elicit a different answer than "For one million dollars does God exist?" Many people who say "Yes" to the first question will answer "I don't know" to the second question if know they are guaranteed $333,333.
"Does God exist?" will elicit a different answer than "For one million dollars does God exist?" Many people who say "Yes" to the first question will answer "I don't know" to the second question if know they are guaranteed $333,333.
This sounds like a failure of the news media to educate the public about which facts, from which sources, can be trusted.
2
Is there a corollary here: we should be following the Election Markets?
https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres16_quotes.html
https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres16_quotes.html
We humans are so tribal! Hard to escape it and see things objectively, but understanding those tendencies and biases is a start.
1
there is NO "objectively". We can only see and know what is in our own minds (at least those of us who are sane enough to realize that). My "reality" is filtered through what has stuck in my head after I tossed out what I thought was the chaff. Who knows, I might have tossed out the wrong stuff. some people are just sponges and take in and keep everything that they are "given" throughout their lives. There is an awful lot of mumbo jumbo out there
A meme attributed this to Neil deGrasse Tyson: "I dream of a world where truth is what shapes people's politics, rather than politics shaping what people think is true." In an uneducated, unapologetically partisan, and often rabidly bigoted America today, I am afraid Mr. Tyson's dream is more a fantasy.
5
Let's see the facts. Unemployment way down, stock market way up, home prices stabilized etc. Problems are the tax code skewed towards the one percent, medical care still is too expensive and the GOP mindset continues to push us on the path to third world status.
Tom in midwest, you are correct. I see the myopia here in Cincinnati from too many. The country is going down the toilet, we're giving "freebies" to everyone and you know the rest of the drill. Luckily, only about 24% of Americans now identify as Republicans. Don't give up hope as demographics are solving the problem and Donald Trump is helping to speed the death of the GOP, as we know it, along.
Tom in midwest, you are correct. I see the myopia here in Cincinnati from too many. The country is going down the toilet, we're giving "freebies" to everyone and you know the rest of the drill. Luckily, only about 24% of Americans now identify as Republicans. Don't give up hope as demographics are solving the problem and Donald Trump is helping to speed the death of the GOP, as we know it, along.
2
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-we...
Have a look at this interactive graphic. WHITE People born in 1975 are 54% republican. people born in 1980 are 51% republican. very interesting graphic how birth year influences political party affiliation .
Have a look at this interactive graphic. WHITE People born in 1975 are 54% republican. people born in 1980 are 51% republican. very interesting graphic how birth year influences political party affiliation .
I hate to say this, but if paying people a small amount actually leads to greater objectivity, maybe we should pay people a dollar to vote!
1
no. some people will do anything for a buck, and "be careful what you wish for" still holds.
Maybe we should pay people $1 to vote for a candidate and $0.33 to obstain.
1
The same is true of perceptions of "racism", "sexism", "bias" and other societal problems.
Both parties actively encourage discontent to suit their political needs. They paint a dismal picture, identity a culprit(s), then ride to the rescue. Like a political extortion scam.
Both parties actively encourage discontent to suit their political needs. They paint a dismal picture, identity a culprit(s), then ride to the rescue. Like a political extortion scam.
1
very interesting.
but not at all surprising.
but not at all surprising.
Moral hazard is a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost. What political party is exempt? Do we even discuss the ramifications of it or do we just poll in under-informed voter?
1
Neil Irwin concludes we could all be smarter, wiser, and more sensible, if we try harder, "to understand the world as it is, not as our political views suggest we want it to be". What about functional, self-governing democracies, with a competitive free press, where not just the wealthiest are represented? Weren't they invented because they work better, than telling people to try harder? These studies underscore our need for a less corrupted democracy.
Irwin's speculation that motivated reasoning affects more than survey responses applies to reporters, not just big donors or voters. Krugman often reminds us we can rely on how well or poorly predictions prove, to ignore a lot of the best funded economists, think tanks, pundits, politicians, etc. Non-monetary incentives matter, since we can't just pay off climate denier CEO's enriched in fossil fuels, nor more than voters.
The Bullock study concluded that in the presence of partisan cues, not just who's in the White House, people cheer lead for the "facts" narrative of their preferred political team, and act more certain of their preferred narrative's facts than than they are.
http://huber.research.yale.edu/materials/39_paper.pdf (this version of the study is formatted to be more readable than Neil Irwin's)
Prior, Good, and Khanna did a study showing the same cheer leading and expressed over certainty, on how well the economy is doing, depending upon the survey respondents' support for the incumbent president's party.
Irwin's speculation that motivated reasoning affects more than survey responses applies to reporters, not just big donors or voters. Krugman often reminds us we can rely on how well or poorly predictions prove, to ignore a lot of the best funded economists, think tanks, pundits, politicians, etc. Non-monetary incentives matter, since we can't just pay off climate denier CEO's enriched in fossil fuels, nor more than voters.
The Bullock study concluded that in the presence of partisan cues, not just who's in the White House, people cheer lead for the "facts" narrative of their preferred political team, and act more certain of their preferred narrative's facts than than they are.
http://huber.research.yale.edu/materials/39_paper.pdf (this version of the study is formatted to be more readable than Neil Irwin's)
Prior, Good, and Khanna did a study showing the same cheer leading and expressed over certainty, on how well the economy is doing, depending upon the survey respondents' support for the incumbent president's party.
3
I wonder if you consider the political bias regarding the economy might be more based in individuals' reality than you assume. Perhaps President Obama enacts policies that lower unemployment in a manner skewed to Democrats, and Reagan or Bush for Republicans. I'm sure peoples' answers are biased based on who is in charge, but who is in charge may also affect who is winning and who is losing and thus the party-driven answers on the economy may be rooted in some reality.
1
"what you don't know determines what you think you know, in ways that aren't completely known to you" Howard Rheingold " Excursions to the Far Side of the Mind. Beech Tree Books (1980's)
Other research has shown that people behave differently when acting in a social sphere or an economic sphere. For example, my son might shovel the snow from an elderly person's sidewalk for free. But, if the person offers him $5 then he might flip to the economic sphere and decide it isn't worth his time. When people are offered even $1 they are not getting more "sincere". Rather, they are treating the question like a task they are getting paid for, and consequently, they answer objectively.
1
Many people are aware that the official unemployment rate has many grave deficiencies in measure what is really going on. Discouraged workers, part-time workers who want full time jobs, people who have gotten disability primarily because they can't find work, people who are struggling with low wages, people who work jobs for cash - there are many factors. The government is necessarily in the business of promoting how great everything is and minimizing voter dissatisfaction, but everyone will not agree that the official numbers reflect what is really going on at the bottom levels of the economy.
5
The failed presidency of GW Bush (9/11, failure in Iraq, failure in Afghanistan, failed response to Katrina, the great recession) was a great success if you ask most republicans, who seem to function in deep political denial. Obama's success at reducing the deficit, ending the recession, creating more jobs than during the entire Bush administration, and reducing unemployment to pre-recession levels makes him a failure in the eyes of most republicans. If you vote GOP, facts don't matter, and racism, guns and pseudo-christianity are all that counts.
9
It seems you just proved the author's point.
1) At the time of Obama's inauguration, the employment/population ratio for 16+ year olds was 60.6% it is now 59.3%. (Bureau of Labor Stat.)
2) Median household income 2008 $55,313 in 2014 $53,657 in 2014 dollars (US Census)
3) Total deficit spending under Bush $3.4T, Obama (projected) $7.7+T (WhiteHouse.gov)
1) At the time of Obama's inauguration, the employment/population ratio for 16+ year olds was 60.6% it is now 59.3%. (Bureau of Labor Stat.)
2) Median household income 2008 $55,313 in 2014 $53,657 in 2014 dollars (US Census)
3) Total deficit spending under Bush $3.4T, Obama (projected) $7.7+T (WhiteHouse.gov)
2
the problem with the newly minted jobs is that they are either in high tech which leaves a lot of people out, or they are "mow and blow" jobs at the bottom of the skills list. It is the in=between jobs that we have lost, and they are never to come back.
And one question we don't address is what happens to the children born this year and following years who will have perhaps nothing to look forward to as they become "adults". We have not really accounted for the increase in robotics in all fields--we are simply kicking THAT can down the road, as we do so many cans. It is starting to look like space junk in my town there are so many cans to avoid.
And one question we don't address is what happens to the children born this year and following years who will have perhaps nothing to look forward to as they become "adults". We have not really accounted for the increase in robotics in all fields--we are simply kicking THAT can down the road, as we do so many cans. It is starting to look like space junk in my town there are so many cans to avoid.
I can't pay, but here is a simple T - F test to see how much you know:
1. Significantly (say, no deficits for more than 3 years) paying down the federal debt has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about ,50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
1. Significantly (say, no deficits for more than 3 years) paying down the federal debt has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about ,50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
3
Please give citations for these statements or they are meaningless.
1
Well, you didn't provide the answers, but as with most surveys, carefully deconstructing the questions reveals the biases of the questioner as well as ferreting out the "recommended" answers.
1
tory, if I give citations, I will also give the answers. BUt to get you started, for 10. see Piketty's book, "Capitalism in the 20th Century" which is 800 pages chock full of citations.
Jason, these are all factual statements, not opinions. For example for 1., we have eliminated deficits for more than 3 years exactly 6 times in our history. Each period ended with a depression.
Balanced Budgets and Depressions
Thayer, Frederick C., The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Jason, these are all factual statements, not opinions. For example for 1., we have eliminated deficits for more than 3 years exactly 6 times in our history. Each period ended with a depression.
Balanced Budgets and Depressions
Thayer, Frederick C., The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
3
The saddest part is that both political parties are complicit in the looting of America by Global Billionaires. Corporate Media spins a yarn about a war between "extreme" partisans, while both parties manage to deliver enough votes to pass what the Global Corporations want almost all of the time.
The real middle of the country is not halfway between Democrats and Republicans. Despite differences in rhetoric, both Trump (with his description of the economy anyway) and Bernie are closer to the real middle than Clinton and Bush. This is why their insurgent campaigns are doing well despite hostility from the Establishment.
Let's create a functioning democracy and then we can argue about policy specifics.
The real middle of the country is not halfway between Democrats and Republicans. Despite differences in rhetoric, both Trump (with his description of the economy anyway) and Bernie are closer to the real middle than Clinton and Bush. This is why their insurgent campaigns are doing well despite hostility from the Establishment.
Let's create a functioning democracy and then we can argue about policy specifics.
6
When conducting surveys, any survey, it is all about how the question is asked and what the respondents wants as an outcome, not necessarily what is the correct answer. For example, I noticed that Wolf Blitzer on CNN, a genius in asking questions, sometimes expects a certain answer he wants in mind. If he doesn't get that answer, he will continue to ask the same question in different ways till he gets it, or he will argue with the respondent in such a way that his answer appear to the observer to be wrong. Either way, he get the answer he wants. In any event, let's hope that surveys is as far as the deception game goes.
3
Yes.
And CNN also likes to do things like survey people about their thoughts on terrorism only after terrorist attacks.
And CNN also likes to do things like survey people about their thoughts on terrorism only after terrorist attacks.
It would be interesting to know how Independents do on surveys. Does payment of money also improve their accuracy when responding to questions with factual answers.
2
" Does payment of money also improve their accuracy when responding to questions with factual answers. "
since most people get their "data" from the media, factual has nothing to do with it. We get percentages that are largely meaningless e.g. deaths increased 200% on New Years day i.e from 1 death to 2. If the media said 2 deaths, nobody would care, but 200%--there is all sorts of noise about it. Unless you have constant access to official data---little of which is actually current--what people say is worse than factual--it is OUTDATED.
since most people get their "data" from the media, factual has nothing to do with it. We get percentages that are largely meaningless e.g. deaths increased 200% on New Years day i.e from 1 death to 2. If the media said 2 deaths, nobody would care, but 200%--there is all sorts of noise about it. Unless you have constant access to official data---little of which is actually current--what people say is worse than factual--it is OUTDATED.
The position of the US economy is stated mostly by various departments of the Federal Government. With that said, most of their stats don't mean anything to the majority of the people. My opinion is, how a person views the economy is based on how their individual requirements are working for them and their family. Economies don't stay structured the same over time. Once well paid auto workers, cannot enjoy such wages and benefits anymore. Pilots, Physcians, etc. etc., all experiencing changes in their income and taxes. If you have a decent income with benefits, the economy could be viewed acceptable. If your on welfare and can't find work, it is bad. As we know many in the middle of these two levels are losing ground and always blame it on one of the two political parties. For now we rely on a macro level for western Central bankers to manage economies by printing debt as a interim solution to recession or even a depression.
2
"The position of the US economy is stated mostly by various departments of the Federal Government. With that said, most of their stats don't mean anything to the majority of the people."
And, very often the data is years old as you often read, this is "based on data from 2012, the most recent year avilable". A lot goes on in 3 or 4 years--I was working 4 years ago, now I'm NOT. It is important that people use current data. Last weeks stock prices are USELESS.
And, very often the data is years old as you often read, this is "based on data from 2012, the most recent year avilable". A lot goes on in 3 or 4 years--I was working 4 years ago, now I'm NOT. It is important that people use current data. Last weeks stock prices are USELESS.
I must say I have contempt for people who color their opinions of objective facts because of their political beliefs. In 1988, I was working in the Dukakis for President campaign, yet if you'd asked me if the economy had improved under Reagan, I'd have been in the 30% of Democrats who said yes. In 1980, the inflation rate and the unemployment rate were much higher than in 1988; I don't see how any rational person could not have seen that.
Whether the President can do very much to affect the economy is debatable. In my opinion, it was Fed chairman Paul Volcker, appointed by Jimmy Carter and supported and reappointed by Ronald Reagan, who brought inflation down. Anyone who walked the streets of Manhattan or drove around South Florida in both 1980 and 1988, as I did (and I expect that held for everywhere in the US) and spoke to people and knew the experiences of their friends and family could tell things were better in 1988.
Human beings disgust me with their willful ignorance.
Whether the President can do very much to affect the economy is debatable. In my opinion, it was Fed chairman Paul Volcker, appointed by Jimmy Carter and supported and reappointed by Ronald Reagan, who brought inflation down. Anyone who walked the streets of Manhattan or drove around South Florida in both 1980 and 1988, as I did (and I expect that held for everywhere in the US) and spoke to people and knew the experiences of their friends and family could tell things were better in 1988.
Human beings disgust me with their willful ignorance.
5
Actually it was the King of Saudi Arabia that brought inflation down.
While this is a very interesting survey, is it relevant, if people don't have access to or avail themselves of accurate information? For instance Pew Research has found high percentages of Fox New viewers held many inaccurate beliefs based on stories they'd viewed on Fox News. How can we answer a question accurately and realistically, with or without a reward, if we don't have correct information to begin with and we don't get our information from multiple sources? Sources of information have become entwined with our political prejudices, rending too many of us ignorant or easily propagandized.
5
We have to make clear that competition for ratings has made the news equivalent to reality TV. We therefore have to choose our sources of information carefully if we want accurate information. Unfortunately, most Americans can't be bothered.
2
Have to chuckle at this. "Inaccurate" as defined by whom? I see plenty of inaccuracies repeated right here among the NYT cognoscenti.
Raise your hands. How many here believe Obama increased deportations?
Raise your hands. How many here believe Obama increased deportations?
1
There are millions of people whose skills and labor will not be needed for the foreseeable future, and we are trying to work out a way to avoid carrying them without feeling guilty and without arousing them so they make trouble for us. Telling ourselves and them that their predicament is their own fault and would be fixed if they tried harder, is working both for us and for them, at least for now.
2
"We are trying to work out a way to avoid carrying them"? Who is 'we' and what do you mean 'carrying them'?
How is globalization, automation and artificial intelligence the fault of those who lose their jobs?
How, exactly, is blaming 'them' for circumstances that are clearly out of their control working for 'them'?
How is globalization, automation and artificial intelligence the fault of those who lose their jobs?
How, exactly, is blaming 'them' for circumstances that are clearly out of their control working for 'them'?
1
I suppose one could say that when workers started giving up on unions, globalization was in part their fault, because they gave up on a strong base of support nationally. AI and automation might have been tempered as it was between automated presses and typesetters, who were eventually PHASED out, if I remember correctly. AI may have been stopped had we all honored the "sabot".
It is always possible to find at least a small group of extremists on the one side to "balance" a very large group of extremists on the other side. This is the problem with journalistic "balance". As a liberal Democrat I am reluctant to believe that there is the equivalent denial on the left of what the facts, what science, what pragmatic results demonstrate as there is an ideological rigidity on the political right to deny hard evidence.
6
Which "science" might that be? Ultrasounds don't lie, which is why so many extremists on the left resort to "case closed" or "it's private" in their arguments.
1
Nice try - but...
.
First...the American economy has a significant flywheel effect. Always interesting to watch you guys credit Clinton for the effects of something Reagan put in place five years earlier - and give Obama a pass by blaming Reagan for things put in place twenty-five years earlier.
Second...Five percent unemployment and zero percent interest rates go together like a mirage of an ice castle in the middle of the desert. One isn't real - you figure out which.
Consumer demand isn't being created by long-term consumer wealth accumulation and consequent spending. It's being created by printing free money, subprime lending, and/or confiscatory policy (the mandates, co-payments, and deductibles on that part of the middle class that actually pays taxes).
It can't go on much longer - but it's surprised me how long it has.
The economics are positively Greek, to me.
For clarity, I was a (fiscal) Republican. But I know very well how good a president (the other) Clinton was - and how bad a president (the other brother) Bush was.
Pay me a dollar, and I'll give you the long answer.
.
First...the American economy has a significant flywheel effect. Always interesting to watch you guys credit Clinton for the effects of something Reagan put in place five years earlier - and give Obama a pass by blaming Reagan for things put in place twenty-five years earlier.
Second...Five percent unemployment and zero percent interest rates go together like a mirage of an ice castle in the middle of the desert. One isn't real - you figure out which.
Consumer demand isn't being created by long-term consumer wealth accumulation and consequent spending. It's being created by printing free money, subprime lending, and/or confiscatory policy (the mandates, co-payments, and deductibles on that part of the middle class that actually pays taxes).
It can't go on much longer - but it's surprised me how long it has.
The economics are positively Greek, to me.
For clarity, I was a (fiscal) Republican. But I know very well how good a president (the other) Clinton was - and how bad a president (the other brother) Bush was.
Pay me a dollar, and I'll give you the long answer.
7
I think you just proved their point: you are not answering the question they asked, but allowing your own strong feelings to cloud how you frame your answer. The answer is simple: unemployment *is at* 5% right now. There's no debate, and yet you insist on twisting the argument because of a belief that you have that "it can't go on much longer."
But that's not what they asked, is it?
But that's not what they asked, is it?
1
Actually five years before 1997 HW Bush was president. He raised taxes and got voted out for it.
3
I disagree with the characterization "bad for surveys, good for democracy". People aren't paid to vote for the best outcome. In fact, it appears that they vote along the lines of "Bush v. Obama". Yet, they should have great "skin in the game" - elections dictate so much of future outcomes. In fact, that so many can make a more fact-based assessment when paid suggests that people willfully prefer political bias to facts. And what kind of 'payment' scheme could be applied to address this?
These investigations are very illuminating, but do not as yet suggest any way in which to correct political bias when push comes to shove.
These investigations are very illuminating, but do not as yet suggest any way in which to correct political bias when push comes to shove.
As with most of the article, there is less there than meets the eye, largely conclusions that support common sense and evident examples, not merely anecdotes. For instance, the author writes, "... people who hate the Affordable Care Act and think it is a disastrous public policy will nonetheless take advantage of it to obtain health insurance." It does not take an exotic and indirect study to see what is clear from looking at Kentucky, where individual decisions to participate in the fruits of the Act have been diametrically opposed to the way voting has gone.
4
Well, you're required by law to do that. Many people disagree with various laws, but most of these obey these laws anyway. If the government says you are required to have health insurance, then you'd better sign up.
3
This entire article and the research it cites are great evidence of why the "social sciences" are not sciences at all - and can be largely ignored. In the 80s "scholars" argued that white men set the agendas for the social sciences and so quantitative positivist approaches should be supplanted with qualitative and much more subjective methodologies. Of course, they've now decided that pseudo-science is fine if it supports their world view: very small effect sizes are cited again and again to support the positive effects of diversity on teams and organizations - small effects identified with contorted manipulations that are at best weakly supported by the statistical analysis - or that conservatives are ignoring a wonderful economic boom. And they wonder why the public sector has withdrawn support for large research universities that pass this tripe off as "scholarship."
8
The problem is not so much social science methodology. Answers to surveys are still answers. The problem is understanding why an answer was given. The motivations of the respondent are almost impossible to fix for any individual in any situation. The best we can hope to ascertain are trends and patterns. This is why they are "soft" sciences.
1
I could teach an economics class using a three hundred year old text, I don't think a biologist could do that. How many planets are there this week?
1
I only wish that I could recommend this comment a thousand times. It is better, and more insightful, than the article to which it responds.
2
I don't think most surveys are used to determine whether or not people know the "right" answer to the questions. I thought surveys were more often to determine peoples' opinions. Thus there is no right or wrong answer. What is the right answer to the question "Is President [Obama/Bush] doing a good job managing foreign relations?"
On economic issues one person my see the headline unemployment rate and say the economy is doing better, while another person may see labor force participation rates and say the economy is doing worse. Based on the specific facts they deem most important, both are right.
So the author's comments are appropriate for the few surveys that are used to determine citizen knowledge of an issue, but are meaningless for opinion surveys.
On economic issues one person my see the headline unemployment rate and say the economy is doing better, while another person may see labor force participation rates and say the economy is doing worse. Based on the specific facts they deem most important, both are right.
So the author's comments are appropriate for the few surveys that are used to determine citizen knowledge of an issue, but are meaningless for opinion surveys.
5
I hope people make decisions and form decisions based on fact. If not, we are not acting as a well informed democracy. But it is hard to do when we get our supposed facts from each political party and their mouthpieces. Fox News shows open disgust for President Obama while Chris Matthews supports him.
We need the real facts somehow!! It would be great for opinions to be based on facts! It would also be great if many more people voted!!
We need the real facts somehow!! It would be great for opinions to be based on facts! It would also be great if many more people voted!!
The author suggests people who view the current 5% unemployment rate negatively do so out of their own political bias (conservative meaning). Ironically he overlooks his own left leaning bias by conveniently ignoring the historic low labor participation rates (and millions out of work) that undermines the current unemployment rate. It's not political bias that causes people to feel the economy isn't good - it's the fact that millions of American have been forced out of the work force and are suffering.
19
That is true. But the questions used in the paid survey were very specific, and were influenced by the payment. The question was not how the overall economy was doing or what the labor participation rate was, but the unemployment rate. And apparently those responding could come up with an accurate answer if paid a bit to do so.
5
Yes, but many if not most of those lost jobs are due to hysterical and baseless conservative "austerity" and "anti-gubment" policies that cost tens of thousands of local, state and even federal jobs.
2
RE: When I wrote articles recently about the unemployment rate’s dip to 5 percent, I received vehement responses from conservatives convinced that the Obama administration was cooking the numbers.
The average American's experience is more shaped by the labour participation rate, than the U3 unemployment figures. They do have a point.
That, likely is the cause for the disagreement.
CNS News 9/4/2015
(CNSNews.com) - A record 94,031,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- 261,000 more than July -- and the labor force participation rate stayed stuck at 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, for a third straight month in August, the Labor Department reported on Friday, as the nation heads into the Labor Day weekend."
That is a smaller fraction of American was employed than in 38 years,
The U3 unemployment rate you wrote does not count the Americans that have given up or are underemployed.
As discussed at nauseam in the NY Times, many of those are blue collar workers who's jobs were eliminated due to globalization, automation, immigration and outsourcing.
Once a staple of the Democratic Party, these discouraged workers have deserted the Democratic party because it favors the very factors that took their jobs : immigration, legal and illegal, international trade agreements (NAFTA under Clinton, TPP under Obama) and low interest rates that they can not tap into , being not credit worthy, but that does encourage companies to replace workers with robots.
The average American's experience is more shaped by the labour participation rate, than the U3 unemployment figures. They do have a point.
That, likely is the cause for the disagreement.
CNS News 9/4/2015
(CNSNews.com) - A record 94,031,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- 261,000 more than July -- and the labor force participation rate stayed stuck at 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, for a third straight month in August, the Labor Department reported on Friday, as the nation heads into the Labor Day weekend."
That is a smaller fraction of American was employed than in 38 years,
The U3 unemployment rate you wrote does not count the Americans that have given up or are underemployed.
As discussed at nauseam in the NY Times, many of those are blue collar workers who's jobs were eliminated due to globalization, automation, immigration and outsourcing.
Once a staple of the Democratic Party, these discouraged workers have deserted the Democratic party because it favors the very factors that took their jobs : immigration, legal and illegal, international trade agreements (NAFTA under Clinton, TPP under Obama) and low interest rates that they can not tap into , being not credit worthy, but that does encourage companies to replace workers with robots.
23
The Democratic Party not only "favors the very factors that took [discouraged workers'] jobs," but Democrats have increasingly lost interest in populist economic issues, as they, themselves, have become more affluent.
Democrats have turned their backs on the white working class, and now focus on fashionable, ascriptive issues such as transgender bathrooms and Black Lives Matter. This is not to devalue such issues, but merely to point out how Democratic values have changed.
As a result, the white working cIass feel vulnerable and abandoned. Is it any wonder that they gravitate to the facile appeal of Donald Trump?
Democrats have turned their backs on the white working class, and now focus on fashionable, ascriptive issues such as transgender bathrooms and Black Lives Matter. This is not to devalue such issues, but merely to point out how Democratic values have changed.
As a result, the white working cIass feel vulnerable and abandoned. Is it any wonder that they gravitate to the facile appeal of Donald Trump?
8
When you talk about employment, any attempt to stimulate the economy by Democrats is blocked by the Republican lead Congress. Democrats are smart enough to know that other social issues stand more of chance of succeeding than reducing unemployment rates.
2
CNS News is a rabid right-wing website that is parroting the bogus 94 million figure, same as Breitbart, Fox and all the other right-wing disinformation websites.
You can find the real story here, with actual facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-post...
You can find the real story here, with actual facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-post...
1
It is conventional wisdom among politicians that how the economy is doing in the months leading up to a presidential election usually decides the outcome of that election. So obviously voters are making a judgment call about the economy, and an accurate one at that.
Of course, half the voters are Independents in an election, and presumably have less are no partisan bias. And the stakes are much higher in a presidential election than in a survey.
Of course, half the voters are Independents in an election, and presumably have less are no partisan bias. And the stakes are much higher in a presidential election than in a survey.
5
Hundreds of thousands of GOP-worshipping Kentuckians enjoying ACA expanded Medicaid health insurance still hate 'Obamacare' and the humane President who helped.
There simply is not - and never has been - that type of cognitive dissonance, detachment from reality and tribal spite on the Democratic side of the political aisle.
Republicanism is more of a political religious fantasy than anything connected to reality, replete with propaganda pastors and priests poisoning the masses with doses of intellectual brain damage, spite and ill will toward 'others'.
The false equivalence of this article simply aids and abets the serious national brain damage inflicted by the American right wing upon American humanity.
There simply is not - and never has been - that type of cognitive dissonance, detachment from reality and tribal spite on the Democratic side of the political aisle.
Republicanism is more of a political religious fantasy than anything connected to reality, replete with propaganda pastors and priests poisoning the masses with doses of intellectual brain damage, spite and ill will toward 'others'.
The false equivalence of this article simply aids and abets the serious national brain damage inflicted by the American right wing upon American humanity.
314
There was cognitive dissonance, detachment from reality, and tribal spite aplenty among the Democrats of the Solid South, who are now, of course, Republicans. These factors, or at least their virulence, can be traced to the largely successful Confederate attempt to reverse the military loss in the Civil War by a nationwide ideological and propaganda campaign, of which the idea of the Solid South was a part. The South that was Solid was the white South, and the black South often could not vote and was defined into nonexistence by categories that were used nationwide to understand our politics.
2
Socrates, you write, "There simply is not - and never has been - that type of cognitive dissonance, detachment from reality and tribal spite on the Democratic side of the political aisle."
What do you call the hatred toward the white, working class that you spew out regularly in your comments? You seem incapable of empathy for these Americans, and for their feelings of betrayal and abandonment by the Democratic party. http://tinyurl.com/ngvzmz9
You seem devoted only to stirring up left-wing anger at a time in our history when more than ever we need to bridge the red-blue divide.
"[C]ognitive dissonance, detachment from reality and tribal spite" depend on where you stand.
What do you call the hatred toward the white, working class that you spew out regularly in your comments? You seem incapable of empathy for these Americans, and for their feelings of betrayal and abandonment by the Democratic party. http://tinyurl.com/ngvzmz9
You seem devoted only to stirring up left-wing anger at a time in our history when more than ever we need to bridge the red-blue divide.
"[C]ognitive dissonance, detachment from reality and tribal spite" depend on where you stand.
7
"There simply is not - and never has been - that type of cognitive dissonance, detachment from reality and tribal spite on the Democratic side of the political aisle."
Pish-posh.
For the Left, capitalism is a cruel institution, barely advanced beyond slavery or cruel forced labor.
Yet millions of people who will condemn capitalism's representations, from Wal-Mart to McDonalds, from Lockheed Martin to Monsanto, will gladly save up their retirement fortunes, college funds, and house downpayments in these equities or diversified mutual funds and ETFs comprised of the same, so very happy to collect their reward with no reflection on themselves as modern day slave masters.
Either that or the Left's investments in socialist solidarity funds investing in Venezuela to Vietnam must really be paying off more handsomely than I'm aware!
Pish-posh.
For the Left, capitalism is a cruel institution, barely advanced beyond slavery or cruel forced labor.
Yet millions of people who will condemn capitalism's representations, from Wal-Mart to McDonalds, from Lockheed Martin to Monsanto, will gladly save up their retirement fortunes, college funds, and house downpayments in these equities or diversified mutual funds and ETFs comprised of the same, so very happy to collect their reward with no reflection on themselves as modern day slave masters.
Either that or the Left's investments in socialist solidarity funds investing in Venezuela to Vietnam must really be paying off more handsomely than I'm aware!
5
The differences between political parties are illusions designed to keep us plebes fighting amongst each other while the 1%ers of both parties serve the oligarchy.
That truth is slowly taking hold across the country, though not among most older folks (who grew up when parties were different) and the shallow-minded who believe what people say instead of watching what people do.
Anyone with an objective mind sees that we are all working harder and longer for less while the billionaires thrive at our expense. Our schools and roads are falling apart, the billionaires support open borders to drive down wages and healthcare is practically unaffordable.
Our only hope is that the voting generation will demand an end to the oligarchy and vote in Bernie.
That truth is slowly taking hold across the country, though not among most older folks (who grew up when parties were different) and the shallow-minded who believe what people say instead of watching what people do.
Anyone with an objective mind sees that we are all working harder and longer for less while the billionaires thrive at our expense. Our schools and roads are falling apart, the billionaires support open borders to drive down wages and healthcare is practically unaffordable.
Our only hope is that the voting generation will demand an end to the oligarchy and vote in Bernie.
59
Tell me one job Bernie has created and I can counter thousands that Trump has.
Thats the power of Trump.
Thats the power of Trump.
2
I would consider voting for Sanders if the poverty rate of Vermont was not so very high.
Proof=pudding
Proof=pudding
2
Not to mention Vermont's failed experiment with single-payer. It turned out when the costs were accurately calculated (versus calculated by liberal economists) and people had to actually pay for it (versus shift costs onto others) the costs were too high.
Whose economy is the survey taker asking about? Or does it even matter?
It's not even a question about something, it's a question only about someone's perception of something, which has nothing to do with the actual thing itself.
Our opinions have been turned into our own worst enemies, something after a while we start to even regret having because they're always thrown back in our faces or as a weapon to beat us over our heads with and into submission.
Frankly, who cares what we think anymore. Let's just let nature take its course and be done with it - sparing us all a ton on self-inflicted pain and suffering.
On that note, a New Year's resolution has just come to mind . . . Just writing this - in this format - is a pointless self-indulgence and I could only serve myself better if I learned how to overcome the urge to. Who cares what I think.
It's not even a question about something, it's a question only about someone's perception of something, which has nothing to do with the actual thing itself.
Our opinions have been turned into our own worst enemies, something after a while we start to even regret having because they're always thrown back in our faces or as a weapon to beat us over our heads with and into submission.
Frankly, who cares what we think anymore. Let's just let nature take its course and be done with it - sparing us all a ton on self-inflicted pain and suffering.
On that note, a New Year's resolution has just come to mind . . . Just writing this - in this format - is a pointless self-indulgence and I could only serve myself better if I learned how to overcome the urge to. Who cares what I think.
11
"Who cares what I think?" I care, Iver - because I value your contributions even when I may not agree with them.
1
I have come to think that "economic reality" is inherently meaningless, not just because of political preferences.
4
There is NO reality. Every life is only subjective. We are containers of "stuff" fed to us since birth, some of which we weed out over a lifetime, but much, and maybe too much, of what we know is false.
Truth, Justice and the American Way. Let's ask everybody to define that. There may be some scientific truths or mathematical truths but I don't know enough about either to say for certain. Justice--that's a real bugaboo , and the American Way--there are probably 309 million versions of that.
Truth, Justice and the American Way. Let's ask everybody to define that. There may be some scientific truths or mathematical truths but I don't know enough about either to say for certain. Justice--that's a real bugaboo , and the American Way--there are probably 309 million versions of that.
3
It seems as some individuals are quite cynical use gross oversimplification to characterize those that are in government. Are there members in Congress that are less than genuine? Of course there are, on both sides of the aisle. However, to suggest that we cannot trust anything that congressmen and congresswomen say isn't really speaking to the point of this article. From what I've gathered from this piece, the author encourages constituents to gather their own information and to answer questions objectively. There are two sides to this issue, those that others have mentioned that exploit America's ignorance and ambivalence regarding politics, as well as the constituents that refuse to seek out answers to questions that directly affect their lives. This dance has been going on for a long, long time. People are just as accountable as those that they vote (or don't vote) into public office.
1
But how will survey respondents know objectively if the economy is doing well or doing badly? Are they suppose to rely on media reports? It seems to me that if CNN says the economy is improving under a Democratic Administration, right-leaning people will have some doubts, but a reverse report may have the opposite effect on those who lean right. A similar analysis should hold for left-leaning people watching FOX News. The trend answer might depend on independents--the same people who are said to determine the outcomes of elections.
4
"improving economy" is not a very specific or precise term. Thus individuals, media and political parties are free to interpret as they wish. More specific questions, however, do have factual answers. The unemployment rate (one or more of the several measures determined and reported by various official sources) either is or is not higher today than 5 years or 7 years ago. The article suggests that monetary incentives might remove some of the tendency to respond dogmatically to fact-based questions. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether and how that insight could be deployed in ways that could help our society overcome the horrific effects of those who choose to yell or lie from the extremes.
1
Democracy is an illusion...America has two main political parties, a very limited range of options, indeed.
The conservative one claims to preserve social and economic freedom by means of money, guns, police, and a military empire but only about 1% of the population actually benefits from that system.
The liberal one clams to preserve social and economic justice by means of a bureaucratic regulatory system requiring near total government, but all it has preserved is the disenfranchised underclass that is its raison d'etre.
Both parties and their minions love government rules and both are blinded by their own hypocrisy.
The rules are designed only to protect their respective rackets and their money and their power.
There is only one option available to those who truly love freedom and that to opt out but that is a treacherous path. Life on the social and economic margins offers few perks.
One of those perks is that one need not waste time voting. If my choices are both unthinkable, I can opt out and I am free.
I can emigrate inward into the realm of my imagination, where the tiny bit of land under my limited control becomes my kingdom and the land of my ancestors becomes a vaguely alien entity.
I am a stranger in a strange land...
Frankly, I do not care who wins the next so-called election.
The conservative one claims to preserve social and economic freedom by means of money, guns, police, and a military empire but only about 1% of the population actually benefits from that system.
The liberal one clams to preserve social and economic justice by means of a bureaucratic regulatory system requiring near total government, but all it has preserved is the disenfranchised underclass that is its raison d'etre.
Both parties and their minions love government rules and both are blinded by their own hypocrisy.
The rules are designed only to protect their respective rackets and their money and their power.
There is only one option available to those who truly love freedom and that to opt out but that is a treacherous path. Life on the social and economic margins offers few perks.
One of those perks is that one need not waste time voting. If my choices are both unthinkable, I can opt out and I am free.
I can emigrate inward into the realm of my imagination, where the tiny bit of land under my limited control becomes my kingdom and the land of my ancestors becomes a vaguely alien entity.
I am a stranger in a strange land...
Frankly, I do not care who wins the next so-called election.
7
A fascinating and perceptive analysis. The problem with the conclusion it has led you to is that opting out, ignoring the growing insanity around you, and living in your own tiny domain will result (sooner rather than later) in the plutocracy that America has become taking everything you "own" and enslaving you to be used as cannon fodder (economic or literal, depending on your age) for its future adventures in greed.
1
@KC Yankee: No one can enslave a free mind...
"I am unconcerned, though not indifferent." Man Ray (epitaph)
"I am unconcerned, though not indifferent." Man Ray (epitaph)
The correct way to answer the question is
1 Personal experience of the economy
2 what one reads/hears on the news about economic indicators (this is why an Honest and Objective Press is so important to our nation)
3 what one hears anecdotally from neighbors and friends.
From those factors one would come to a conclusion about their perception of the state of the economy. That perception is only as good as the information in the factors that added up to it.
Ones perception of reality does not depend on ones politics it is actually the reverse which is true.
Ones political POV is a sum total of ones experiences and thoughts thus how one perceives objective reality steers the conclusions one arrives at and bases ones politics on.
Political leaders can take over from their and by the usual manipulations of grammar and language create an altered perception of what an objective fact is and by that steer willing listeners toward conclusions they would not have come to on their own.
1 Personal experience of the economy
2 what one reads/hears on the news about economic indicators (this is why an Honest and Objective Press is so important to our nation)
3 what one hears anecdotally from neighbors and friends.
From those factors one would come to a conclusion about their perception of the state of the economy. That perception is only as good as the information in the factors that added up to it.
Ones perception of reality does not depend on ones politics it is actually the reverse which is true.
Ones political POV is a sum total of ones experiences and thoughts thus how one perceives objective reality steers the conclusions one arrives at and bases ones politics on.
Political leaders can take over from their and by the usual manipulations of grammar and language create an altered perception of what an objective fact is and by that steer willing listeners toward conclusions they would not have come to on their own.
4
How did they control for the differences in demand characteristics? If a participant is asked whether the economy is improving (without a monetary incentive), I would expect them to assume that what they are being asked for is their *opinion*. The experimenter need not have any idea of what a correct answer looks like. There need not even *be* a correct answer. But if a participant is offered some money for getting the "right" answer, then I expect the participant to first try to guess the experimenter's standard of correctness and then try to give an answer that agrees with that standard. If a participant thinks, "The government is cooking the books," and also thinks, "The experimenter is using the government's numbers for this task," then even though the participant really thinks the employment numbers are different from what the government reports, she will try to guess something close to what the government reports. But she will not be guided by her knowledge of the government's numbers in her political actions. Far from it!
4
People tend to believe things that validate their biases. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the realm of politics. That fact raises doubts about the value of political polls generally. But I don't think it is my own bias speaking when I say that polls of republicans tend to show a stark disparity between their perceptions of reality and logical, historical or empirical facts. A significant number of Louisiana republicans think Obama was responsible for the Katrina disaster. Others think he created the budget deficit, wrecked the economy and bailed out the banks. Some still want to believe he is Muslim or foreign born. Those who persist in believing the economy is worse today than it was seven years ago take self-delusion to a new extreme. It makes one wonder how constructive political discourse is even possible with people whose perception of reality is so defective.
166
That's silly for anyone to think Obama was responsible for Katrina or the creation of the budget deficit. Intelligent people know Katrina was a natural disaster that no human could have stopped, and the budget deficit goes back to the Clinton years. As for the wrecking of the economy, that too was started during the Clinton years. As for bailing out the banks, it's true that OBama is responsible for it.
Interesting that cherry picking is so acceptable and easily done when it comes to republicans but would be met with outrage were it done with, say, Muslims or African-Americans.
That, itself, is a form of self-delusion.
That, itself, is a form of self-delusion.
So a person facing a one dollar reward might answer more factually, but will they use that factual knowledge to guide their voting or the emotional political preference? Does getting a person to admit their party is doing a sloppy job in one area, just send them searching for a reason the other party is sabotaging their efforts?
It is an interesting essay but leaves the reader with more questions than answers.
It is an interesting essay but leaves the reader with more questions than answers.
7
It would help if more people understood the difference between objective and subjective. (and between news and editorial, and fact and opinion) Too many of us do not, thus belief is chosen over objective reality.
20
But the difference, if any, between so-called objective and subjective is precisely what's at issue here. Objectivity doesnt necessarily equate to impartiality. We are dealing in constructions based (or biased) on our rules of evidence and inference. How did Ludwig put it: The world is the totality of facts, not things. anyway...
There is an alternative interpretation for the skeptical responses people have to political/economic questions: Administrations of both parties are cooking the books. There are no objective truths available to us. To think that today's unemployment rate is 5% in any meaningful sense is absurd. Those who have given up looking for work are not counted, even though they remain unemployed. thus nullifying the meaning of the numbers. We, the people, cannot trust anything told to us by any government of either party. They consistently lie, that is, cook the books, no matter which party. They do this (a) for partisan political reasons, and (b) because they both work for Wall Street, which depends on cooking the books. It's what they do. That's how they get away with cheating and stealing from the rest of us.
27
By saying that the government is "cooking the books," you are insulting the hard workers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other government agencies who do honest work, regardless of the party controlling the Executive Branch. The criteria for unemployment, GDP, etc., has been consistent, and when it is changed, the agencies are very circumspect to give two sets of figures, past and present, accounting for the change.
You may not like the way criteria for economic statistics, but if they are consistent, they will show a reliable pattern of economic growth or decline.
Americans need to think rationally and stop letting their paranoid fantasies about federal government conspiracies rattle their judgment. Stop insulting hard-working people trying to do their jobs honestly!
You may not like the way criteria for economic statistics, but if they are consistent, they will show a reliable pattern of economic growth or decline.
Americans need to think rationally and stop letting their paranoid fantasies about federal government conspiracies rattle their judgment. Stop insulting hard-working people trying to do their jobs honestly!
5
Nonsense. If the unemployment rate is calculated using the same methodologies year after year, then it isn't cooking the books, it's just using a methodology you disagree with. Since you say you aren't looking for work, you shouldn't be considered unemployed, since you are no longer in the workforce.
1
Your comment isn't so much the alternative interpretation you suggest. Rather, it is further proof of what the study shows. The primary difference is that your beliefs reflect a set of political beliefs that are neither Republican nor Democratic in origin but very firmly held by many Americans. At least some of your beliefs are not objectively true, but you hold them firmly to be true. In this way, your thought process is little different from the thought processes of a run of the mill partisan. Your generalized attitude has a long history in American political thought. It existed on the part of some before the Revolution and has existed since.
To me politics and party has nothing to do wit it.
I measure how the economy is doing, by something a simple as, my pay check has gone up 2% each year since 2010, but my trip to the grocery store, raises in property taxes, condo fees, health care costs, utility bills, energy (until 2015), all have gone up exceeding whatever raise I did get.
At the kitchen table, when you are paying bills, this is how you measure how good the economy is.
Our politicians, most in the 1%, do not see how the average American is struggling. So, if there is any politics, or political affiliation in my answer, is that we, the people, are being ignored and cast aside. As the politicians only listen to those who pay to keep, or put, them in office.
I measure how the economy is doing, by something a simple as, my pay check has gone up 2% each year since 2010, but my trip to the grocery store, raises in property taxes, condo fees, health care costs, utility bills, energy (until 2015), all have gone up exceeding whatever raise I did get.
At the kitchen table, when you are paying bills, this is how you measure how good the economy is.
Our politicians, most in the 1%, do not see how the average American is struggling. So, if there is any politics, or political affiliation in my answer, is that we, the people, are being ignored and cast aside. As the politicians only listen to those who pay to keep, or put, them in office.
84
Agreed. The politicians also criticize ordinary people's reality-based perception as motivated by party affiliation. Yet it is ridiculous researchers buy into this interpretation of their data too.
7
The Affordable Care Act is a perfect example of this. The Obama Administration uses "numbers insured" to tout its success; meanwhile, those who already had insurance have seen their options more narrowly defined and out-of-pockets increase.
Is it better or worse? Just don't ask a politician.
Is it better or worse? Just don't ask a politician.
No, the politicians will tell you themselves that they pay attention only to those percenters who can pay the freight. In other words, we ordinary folks have no representation in government.
As far as our representatives/congresspersons are concerned, we can stand out in the rain looking through the window til the cows come home or we drop dead, whichever comes first. They do not care.
We need to understand that - most of them do not care.
As far as our representatives/congresspersons are concerned, we can stand out in the rain looking through the window til the cows come home or we drop dead, whichever comes first. They do not care.
We need to understand that - most of them do not care.
2
People do not vote to improve their situation as much as they to to validate their own identity. (i.e. They don't do it for the dollar). If they see themselves as fiercely independent and, say, fundamentalist Christian, they will vote Republican while they work for the state and send their kids to public schools. Similarly, if a voter fancies themself as a socially conscientious environmentalist, they will vote democratic while driving their kid 30 miles in an SUV to a private school with a good Ivy League placement rcord.
49
This article has a rather naive notion of "objective reality." The official unemployment rate is not a fact of nature but a human creation that depends on definitions that are somewhat arbitrary. We know that there are many jobless who are not measured by this statistic. As to whether the economy is good or bad, this is a value judgement, and at best answerable only in relative terms - better than seven years ago, worse than fifty years ago, probably. So I'd have to answer "I don't know," or just give Obama my vote of support and answer "better - but not good."
12
And the scary thing is that this notion of objective reality comes from an economic journalist on the economics blog of our premier news organization. Yikes.
The hard work of empirical analysis is to figure out which measures are good ones that can help us understand how things are ('reality'); essential to that is understanding the limitations of measures.
The hard work of empirical analysis is to figure out which measures are good ones that can help us understand how things are ('reality'); essential to that is understanding the limitations of measures.
If, as this research suggests, paying people for their answers leads to more accurate and less biased responses, how about taking the next step and paying voters to cast ballots in federal elections?
Say, $3, or perhaps a coupon good at McDonalds. Would the makeup of the dysfunctional Congress change? Would political parties no longer have any weight or influence on policy choices? And what sort of man or woman would we be willing to elect as President if we're going to be paid?
We all take about too much money in politics. Why not go all the way, and pay people for their votes? Perhaps it will boost turnout, if nothing else.
Say, $3, or perhaps a coupon good at McDonalds. Would the makeup of the dysfunctional Congress change? Would political parties no longer have any weight or influence on policy choices? And what sort of man or woman would we be willing to elect as President if we're going to be paid?
We all take about too much money in politics. Why not go all the way, and pay people for their votes? Perhaps it will boost turnout, if nothing else.
11
There are many ways to increase voter participation rates; this is one of them. All but 7 states have lotteries; they can give each voter (but no one else) a ticket for a million bucks, appropriated by the state legislature. Voter rates would shoot up, I, er, bet.
The seven states without lotteries might face a clamor to follow, but all they'd need to do is make a side deal with Powerball for a voters-only edition in their jurisdictions. To collect, take your ticket to the state treasurer's office. Winners would be the envy of all their friends.
The seven states without lotteries might face a clamor to follow, but all they'd need to do is make a side deal with Powerball for a voters-only edition in their jurisdictions. To collect, take your ticket to the state treasurer's office. Winners would be the envy of all their friends.
4
People have been paid for their vote by various methods including cash long before you were born.
As Yogi said "you can look it up."
As Yogi said "you can look it up."
This article is in confluence with my observation that people have significantly improved performance upon solving math questions when the $ symbol is attached to key constants.
8
As the NYT has previously reported, the economy is doing great mainly for the 1%. This is due primarily to a Reagan (a Republican) who lowered tax rates for the wealthy, and Obama (a Democrat) who suppressed labor participation and wages by transferring trillions of tax dollars and lost interest on savings from the middle classes to Wall Street during the past 7 years. So if "politics will answer", the politics is based on money, not "party".
25
Income inequality is largely a result of generous tax cuts given to the wealthy investor class during the Reagan and Bush administrations, and flat wages for the working class as a result of the long recession caused by reckless deregulation of the financial industry, initially by congressional republicans during the Clinton years but taken to a disastrous extreme by the republicans during the Bush/Cheney years. The long standing republican drive to destroy labor unions and export American jobs to countries with very low wages (again for the benefit of the investor class) has further undermined the American working class. The low labor participation rate republicans are fond of talking about is a consequence of an aging workforce and the availability health insurance for people who prefer to retire for health reasons. The very low minimum wage is another factor by providing little incentive to work. Many of the working poor have given up on jobs that provide less than basic subsistence. The republicans can be blamed for that too.
42
Your answer proves the unreliability of right wing responses to reality. "Obama" did not transfer money to Wall Street in the last 7 years. The government, fully dominated by the GOP right wing Congress and Supreme Court did. Did you not notice the horsetrading that went on (had to be done) in order for Obama and (some of) the Dems to get anything at all for the non 1%?
5
Please provide evidence supporting your statement that "Obama suppressed labor participation and transferred money to Wall Street.
4
Lots of food for thought here. One inference to be drawn is that, notwithstanding all the dramatic political rhetoric filling the airwaves, the average voter doesn't really believe that how he or she votes will have any real impact on his or her daily life. Understandable but distressing. It's as if national elections have become like voting for high school class president - it won't really change anything so you may as well just vote for someone you like. (That would also explain our typically abysmal voter turnouts.)
16
Or maybe people are more aware than we think that the parties in power have less influence over the economy and state of world affairs than survey-takers seem to think, and vote based on more specific policy preferences.
2
To the contrary, there is evidence that one set of policies (Republican supply-side policies) do not help the economy ( for example, Kansas experiment). So, the party in power does matter.
49
I also believe that corporate fiscal and employment policies influence the activities of Congress, including tax policy. We all notice that no congressperson is suffering a lack of resources. 5% unemployment is a hoax. Most of the new jobs are part-time, where the newly "employed" are worse off than when they were collecting unemployment insurance benefits. This serves the corporations, who want lower tax rates, no employment benefits, and no minimum wage.
16
The economy is barely breathing. There is little or no economic growth according to any measurable standard. Meanwhile Obama keeps spouting off about how much better things are than they were 7 years ago. When you instruct the Fed to keep interests at near zero for your entire presidency, and then increase the federal debt from less than $11 trillion to more than $18.5 trillion to artificially stimulate the economy, you are simply deceiving the American pubic with your rhetoric. Obama will leave office with a $20 trillion federal debt. Taxpayers will face extraordinary interest payments on that debt, and it will drag the economy down for decades to come. If that is the definition of success, what is the definition of failure?
11
1. ".... the interest to GDP ratio is currently at a crushing 1.3 percent, near the post World War II low. However this figure overstates the burden somewhat. Last year the Federal Reserve Board refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. This was interest earned on government bonds and other assets it now holds. That leaves a net interest burden of 0.8 percent of GDP, by far the lowest of the post World War II era."
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-devasting-interest-bur...
2. As a percentage of GDP the public debt was about 50% higher in 1946. Not only did it not "drag the economy down", but from 1946 to 1973 GDP growth averaged 3.8% and real median household income surged 74%. In addition we INCREASED the debt in dollars by 75%.
3. The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 36% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
I wonder what you would say if ai gave you $3?
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-devasting-interest-bur...
2. As a percentage of GDP the public debt was about 50% higher in 1946. Not only did it not "drag the economy down", but from 1946 to 1973 GDP growth averaged 3.8% and real median household income surged 74%. In addition we INCREASED the debt in dollars by 75%.
3. The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 36% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
I wonder what you would say if ai gave you $3?
8
Paul,
Safe to say Paul, you'll be happy to pay the extra war tax that is needed to pay for our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those two wars that Bush put upon credit card and never paid for?!? Those two wars that have cost us $10 trillion and counting, that were not put on the books till the current POTUS put them on the books?!? How about the huge crater that the last Republican Pres, left of the economy? It takes money to bail out and restart the world. But Republicans still don't want to pay for their malfeasance. Instead they are still promoting cutting taxes and Soc. Services while paying more to the MIC. It is a proven fact, the economy does better under a Dem. Pres. than a Rep. Pres.
Do you really believe we aren't better off than we were 7yrs. ago.?!? SMH!
Safe to say Paul, you'll be happy to pay the extra war tax that is needed to pay for our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those two wars that Bush put upon credit card and never paid for?!? Those two wars that have cost us $10 trillion and counting, that were not put on the books till the current POTUS put them on the books?!? How about the huge crater that the last Republican Pres, left of the economy? It takes money to bail out and restart the world. But Republicans still don't want to pay for their malfeasance. Instead they are still promoting cutting taxes and Soc. Services while paying more to the MIC. It is a proven fact, the economy does better under a Dem. Pres. than a Rep. Pres.
Do you really believe we aren't better off than we were 7yrs. ago.?!? SMH!
3
I wonder what your opinion would be if we asked you questions for $1 each.
You might be more realistic in your response.
You might be more realistic in your response.
3
The lead of this article is, "Suppose it is dinnertime, and the phone rings. It is a polite survey taker with a simple question for you: How is the economy doing?"
This survey has no statistical validity because it relies on a highly skewed population who will actually interrupt their dinner to participate in a survey. This population is weighted towards older, lonely people who jump at a chance to talk to someone - anyone! I get about 20 junk calls a day, some of which I have blocked by entering the numbers on a "call block list". The others I hang up on or sometimes explain that they are interrupting my dinner; I ask them for their home phone number and explain that I will be free sometime after midnight, at which time I can return their call. I've never had a taker.
This survey has no statistical validity because it relies on a highly skewed population who will actually interrupt their dinner to participate in a survey. This population is weighted towards older, lonely people who jump at a chance to talk to someone - anyone! I get about 20 junk calls a day, some of which I have blocked by entering the numbers on a "call block list". The others I hang up on or sometimes explain that they are interrupting my dinner; I ask them for their home phone number and explain that I will be free sometime after midnight, at which time I can return their call. I've never had a taker.
67
You need caller ID with an announce feature. You won't regret it.
1
Try nomorobo. Great product. Won't block surveys which are from actual human beings, but we haven't gotten one call from "Karen from credit card services " since signing up. And it's free.
1
"How can people judge whether a party is effective if there is no sense of objective truth?".....When you look at comments in NYT for example you can quickly tell which ones are worth reading by whether the author includes examples or facts to support their statements. People often remark that ACA is a disaster, without citing any evidence; or that Obama has been terrible for the economy without providing relative numbers; or that the U.S. has been negligent in foreign policy in Middle East, until you find they haven't a clue about what should be done. Supporters of Trump are classic - Trump will do all these great things for the country; but how he will accomplish these great things without a substantive plan?
128
That's rather closed minded of you. I've noticed that when people include their personal experiences that contradict popular views here, they are accused of being shills, ignorant, lying, or of "spouting Faux News talking points."
The Affordable Care Act (once again) perfectly illustrates this. People who claimed their situations would get worse when it was enacted were told they had lousy insurance to begin with. To those of us with platinum plans, that was a nonsensical response.
Readers who respond this way would be better served if they read more of those comments and considered fewer "unworthy" of their attention. This would lessen the echo chamber effect of only reading likeminded viewpoints.
The Affordable Care Act (once again) perfectly illustrates this. People who claimed their situations would get worse when it was enacted were told they had lousy insurance to begin with. To those of us with platinum plans, that was a nonsensical response.
Readers who respond this way would be better served if they read more of those comments and considered fewer "unworthy" of their attention. This would lessen the echo chamber effect of only reading likeminded viewpoints.
5
True ... and then the analysis must continue. Let's take the ACA.
Poorly written law? Yes.
Corrected after 6 yrs with a Technical Corrections Act? No
Why? Intransigence by both sides
Is the GOP cutting up or defeating the ACA in other ways? Yes
How? Decreasing the Pool, backing out of supporting insurance co who are taking losses, so those companies go under
Why isn't the ACA working as it should? People are lazy and stubborn, and ideological instead of pragmatic, or show an inability to work for normal Mr and Mrs American. Why?
Is Congress bought and sold?
Poorly written law? Yes.
Corrected after 6 yrs with a Technical Corrections Act? No
Why? Intransigence by both sides
Is the GOP cutting up or defeating the ACA in other ways? Yes
How? Decreasing the Pool, backing out of supporting insurance co who are taking losses, so those companies go under
Why isn't the ACA working as it should? People are lazy and stubborn, and ideological instead of pragmatic, or show an inability to work for normal Mr and Mrs American. Why?
Is Congress bought and sold?
When you look at comments in NYT for example you can quickly tell which ones are worth reading by whether the author uses words like 'ignorant', 'racist', 'fascist', 'xenophobe', and other slurs to describe Trump supporters (of which I am not one).
And since the majority of readers and commenters are Far Left, there is always a lot of name-calling of anyone who does not parrot the NYTs liberal slant.
Those comments will inevitably 'Reader's Picks', but I never bother to read them, as I prefer to keep an open mind to different points of view.
But then I am interested in more than just having my own opinions validated.
And since the majority of readers and commenters are Far Left, there is always a lot of name-calling of anyone who does not parrot the NYTs liberal slant.
Those comments will inevitably 'Reader's Picks', but I never bother to read them, as I prefer to keep an open mind to different points of view.
But then I am interested in more than just having my own opinions validated.
1
This year I have received survey after survey following questions with requests for money, no dollar sent for response to questions. And each time I receive one of those surveys, I send a dollar to the Sanders campaign.
Recently, unsolicited, I began to receive emails from Mrs. Clinton, her husband and their daughter. Yesterday I received a total of six emails from their campaign by the end of the day, each email asking for a dollar.
My response is to delete the numerous emails from the Clinton campaign ( the Sander's campaign doesn't send emails so numerous that I begin to feel harassed by their campaign ) and to then contribute half the total of the sum the Clinton machine asks from me each day, to Senator Sanders. This response cuts into my grocery budget but it is worth the time and expense to me.
And due to the undeniable fact that the DNC has treated Sanders unfairly in effort to elect Clinton, and the big boys and girls who send the surveys make no mention of Senator Sanders, and mainstream media regularly practices tactics to obscure his campaign, Senator Sanders receives a little more to aid him in reaching the presidency from my relatively small household.
Recently, unsolicited, I began to receive emails from Mrs. Clinton, her husband and their daughter. Yesterday I received a total of six emails from their campaign by the end of the day, each email asking for a dollar.
My response is to delete the numerous emails from the Clinton campaign ( the Sander's campaign doesn't send emails so numerous that I begin to feel harassed by their campaign ) and to then contribute half the total of the sum the Clinton machine asks from me each day, to Senator Sanders. This response cuts into my grocery budget but it is worth the time and expense to me.
And due to the undeniable fact that the DNC has treated Sanders unfairly in effort to elect Clinton, and the big boys and girls who send the surveys make no mention of Senator Sanders, and mainstream media regularly practices tactics to obscure his campaign, Senator Sanders receives a little more to aid him in reaching the presidency from my relatively small household.
174
I too have been doing the same thing
Every time the DNC asks me for money (9x yesterday) I respond how disgusted an disappointed I've become since they have decided to anoint Hillary and ignore Bernie. I also have told them I am one who will write in Bernie no matter if they are successful installing Hillary.
Every time the DNC asks me for money (9x yesterday) I respond how disgusted an disappointed I've become since they have decided to anoint Hillary and ignore Bernie. I also have told them I am one who will write in Bernie no matter if they are successful installing Hillary.
1
@gardener You are living proof of the article's point, seeing only what you wish to see. The Sanders campaign stole Clinton's data in a brazen criminal act worthy of Watergate. And yet his aura of sainthood remains intact among his supporters, who have bought into the amoral notion that the burglary should have no consequences.
1
Fact: Sanders is from a very small, rural state that few care about. A state, BTW, that rejected Sanders' single-payer theory as financially bankrupting.
Fact: Sanders' theories could raise all taxes 600%, say some. Which many think is financially insane.
Fact: Before running for president, Sanders publicly admitted that Fox News gave him up to 300% more air-time that CNN, because Fox is talk-oriented. (And, IMHO, that's all Sanders, HRC, and BHO have ever done -- talked.)
IMHO, Sanders has gotten an excessive amount of publicity.
Fact: Sanders' theories could raise all taxes 600%, say some. Which many think is financially insane.
Fact: Before running for president, Sanders publicly admitted that Fox News gave him up to 300% more air-time that CNN, because Fox is talk-oriented. (And, IMHO, that's all Sanders, HRC, and BHO have ever done -- talked.)
IMHO, Sanders has gotten an excessive amount of publicity.
Mr. Bullock assumes that voting is analogous to answering an uncompensated survey -- and that therefore people will decide how to vote without regard to their "belief about objective conditions" -- but there is no evidence that this is so. If the responses to the compensated (for $1) survey are more honest because the respondents have "skin in the game," it is plausible that they will feel the same way about real elections with real consequences. Another way of stating this is that surveys -- at least uncompensated ones -- serve an expressive function: respondents may say what makes them feel good rather than what they really believe. That may be why large numbers of Republican survey respondents assert that there is no such thing as global warming, that President Obama is a Muslim, and so on.
6
Interesting study idea and results. Just wanted to suggest that while economy/war are significant issues that people may consider in political party/candidate decisions (historically, for sure, as well as now), they're not the only aspects to consider. Within the scope of economy alone, you may see that people are steadfast to their political parties as suggested, or there could be a decision factor outside of this scope. There are significant, persistent social thought divides (gun control, abortion, race/gender gaps, immigration, even public school funding) between political parties in this country. Perhaps sometimes a voter feels strongly about one or more of these social issues, and with such divide between parties on these issues, that's why they are so attached to a party: social thought identification rather than economy status/plans. Perhaps it's an even more strong tie to a political decision, since these social issues can very immediately impact the voter's life while the economy is more indirect.
6
I think the conclusions here take massive liberties with assumptions.
Yesterday, I read the nth batch of product reviews on Amazon that had been corrupted by the seller or manufacturer by the simple expedient of giving the reviewer a kickback or a "small discount" on the purchase of the item in return for the review. I can now identify products with salted reviews before reading them, simply by knowing the product category, the normal ratings range for products in it, and seeing an outlier brand or new entry with a lot of ratings and an above-mean--often nearly perfect--star average.
The compensated reviews are usually much longer than normal reviews, and the reviewers seem to deliberate and apologize when reporting any negatives. Their star ratings are often higher than their comments would lead one to expect.
The conclusion I've drawn from this is that when one is being compensated for one's opinion, the task becomes secondary; one simply tries to please the payer.
Reading this article with that in mind, I concluded that while the querents all probably knew what the consensus was on the economy ("it's doing better"), when they weren't paid they could speak freely and choose whether to give the interviewer the "right" answer or express dissatisfaction with a negative response. Commercializing the relationship with payment invokes the need to please the payer and give the interviewer the party line, rather than what the querent really feels. No victory there.
Yesterday, I read the nth batch of product reviews on Amazon that had been corrupted by the seller or manufacturer by the simple expedient of giving the reviewer a kickback or a "small discount" on the purchase of the item in return for the review. I can now identify products with salted reviews before reading them, simply by knowing the product category, the normal ratings range for products in it, and seeing an outlier brand or new entry with a lot of ratings and an above-mean--often nearly perfect--star average.
The compensated reviews are usually much longer than normal reviews, and the reviewers seem to deliberate and apologize when reporting any negatives. Their star ratings are often higher than their comments would lead one to expect.
The conclusion I've drawn from this is that when one is being compensated for one's opinion, the task becomes secondary; one simply tries to please the payer.
Reading this article with that in mind, I concluded that while the querents all probably knew what the consensus was on the economy ("it's doing better"), when they weren't paid they could speak freely and choose whether to give the interviewer the "right" answer or express dissatisfaction with a negative response. Commercializing the relationship with payment invokes the need to please the payer and give the interviewer the party line, rather than what the querent really feels. No victory there.
12
This entire response is nonsensical. You put the word 'right' in quotes, why? There are objective measures of the economy. Is unemployment lower than at the beginning of Obama's presidency only has one right answer.
1
Still, the questions were not about feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction (like an Amazon review), nor were they about what the "consensus" was. The questions were about reported, provable, quantifiable statistics. Not "who's your favorite team", but rather "what was the score of last night's game?"
It is your post that takes liberties and makes assumptions.
It is your post that takes liberties and makes assumptions.
Political beliefs are also tied up with group affinities. A huge portion of the posts I see on Facebook are about expressing solidarity with one "side," and/or disparaging the other. Perhaps, for many, an expression of ideological preference is really a declaration of group membership.
42
Exactly Dan...group membership is a powerful force, it trumps(pun intended) what is best for the person and their country. A prime example of this are the Donald Trump supporters...ie a bigoted, racist, idea bankrupt, egoist demagogue but he sounds good to a certain group of people.
3
It would be interesting to know if this also applies to issues beside the economy. What do people really think about climate change, creationism, racism, birtherism, health care and abortion? Do they answer truthfully to questions about these issues or do they just "vote their party." In the case of climate change, perhaps, you could get at the truth more easily since there are so many hard facts involved. But I have a feeling it might be harder to sort out most of these issues than it is to sort out people's opinions about the economy.
14
I decided to "recommend" this comment because I like Charlie's face. What do you make of that, academics?
1
Apart from the points raised in this article, the world's economies are rapidly evolving, driven by new technologies and new realities and the intertwining of ideologies (globalism). Many of those with a world view based on ignorance and fear and limited to their way of life will align themselves with the political, cultural and religious (or absence thereof) views shared by those in positions of power and influence.
How is U.S. the economy doing? Much better than it was when Obama took office.
How is U.S. the economy doing? Much better than it was when Obama took office.
60
Really? Paul Ryan not involved? Pelosi? Fred Upton?
BHO is like a kid with a stick-shift Corvette -- herky-jerky, clumsy, inexperienced. Now that's he's finally leaving, there are very tiny improvements. Many think it would have been much better, if BHO had left in 2012, and will be terrible if HFC is elected.
BHO is like a kid with a stick-shift Corvette -- herky-jerky, clumsy, inexperienced. Now that's he's finally leaving, there are very tiny improvements. Many think it would have been much better, if BHO had left in 2012, and will be terrible if HFC is elected.
Its certainly nothing new to learn that people's political views shape their perception of reality. It is highly surprising to read that for as little as a buck people are willing to put those biases aside and see things clearly!
P.S. With respect to those energy executives and climate change, the LA Times had a great story yesterday about how all the while those oil company executives were funding climate change denial propaganda they were spending money to beef up their infrastructure to survive the consequences of climate change.
P.S. With respect to those energy executives and climate change, the LA Times had a great story yesterday about how all the while those oil company executives were funding climate change denial propaganda they were spending money to beef up their infrastructure to survive the consequences of climate change.
120
There's no such thing as a "political economist?" Really?
NYT Sunday magazine, 25+ years ago, had a cover story with the opinions of 50 "economists," including one from old USSR. Many had different economic forecasts -- imagine that. /eye-roll/
NYT Sunday magazine, 25+ years ago, had a cover story with the opinions of 50 "economists," including one from old USSR. Many had different economic forecasts -- imagine that. /eye-roll/
Everyone should read Daniel Kahneman's "thinking Fast and Slow" to better understand the findings posited in this article. When in default mode, we will come up with the quickest and most intuitive answer, and make up the story which justifies our views. It is only when we need to take a step back (if only with $1 at stake) that we engage our analytic capabilities to sort through options for the best answer. So perhaps the best medicine is to get the constant media soundbites out of the system (think Citizens United), improve the educational system to have more people connect with their civic responsibilities, and condemn thoughtless media circuses and reality TV debates (think The Donald).
188
Great ideas, but impossible to put forward in our society, where money equals power, and where those on top intend to keep it that way.
3
Patricia, I wholeheartedly agree with your endorsement of Kahneman's "Fast and Slow" dichotomy in thought. I'm amazed that the toll booth between Systems 1 and 2 charges as little as $1.
I have only one bone to pick with you. Citizens United, it turns out, is vastly overrated, especially by left-of-center voters who instinctively distrust money, and very deeply distrust corporate money. If Citizens United and the corporate spending it unleashed were that powerful, Scott Walker and Jeb! Bush would be slugging it out for the Republican presidential nomination. I suggest that a sober assessment of Citizens United — or any other controversial political development, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (worth calling by its proper name, just as intact dilation and extraction should not be deprecated with a medically unsupported epithet ending in "abortion") — likewise depends on our willingness to set aside the political heuristics of System 1 and adopt even a tiny amount of sober, rational System 2 thought.
That said, I wholeheartedly endorse your sentiment regarding Donald Trump. Trumpus delendam est! Say it over and over, till it happens!!!
I have only one bone to pick with you. Citizens United, it turns out, is vastly overrated, especially by left-of-center voters who instinctively distrust money, and very deeply distrust corporate money. If Citizens United and the corporate spending it unleashed were that powerful, Scott Walker and Jeb! Bush would be slugging it out for the Republican presidential nomination. I suggest that a sober assessment of Citizens United — or any other controversial political development, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (worth calling by its proper name, just as intact dilation and extraction should not be deprecated with a medically unsupported epithet ending in "abortion") — likewise depends on our willingness to set aside the political heuristics of System 1 and adopt even a tiny amount of sober, rational System 2 thought.
That said, I wholeheartedly endorse your sentiment regarding Donald Trump. Trumpus delendam est! Say it over and over, till it happens!!!
2
Four word response to the claim of the "all powerful Citizens United" --
Eric Cantor.
Also -- the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett "educational reform" effort in Colo. that out-spent its foes 25 to 1 -- lost big.
So much for "money buys elections." That's a big a joke as "there is no election fraud in Chicago."
Eric Cantor.
Also -- the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett "educational reform" effort in Colo. that out-spent its foes 25 to 1 -- lost big.
So much for "money buys elections." That's a big a joke as "there is no election fraud in Chicago."
"It appears that people will respond objectively to questions when they know the answer, but revert to their partisan biases when they don’t." is the core of the issue. The actual facts don't matter to many people and they will shoot the messenger rather than admit they don't know the answer or it disagrees with their preconceived opinion. The best solution is
“Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.”
― Benjamin Franklin
“Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.”
― Benjamin Franklin
61
The article could just as easily cite left-learning people who choose not to work out of a perceived grudge against rich corporations. In fact, this viewpoint is at least as reasonable given the labor participation rate (which hit 62.7%, the lowest since 1977) and the increased benefits for not working (e.g. Obamacare, waivers of welfare work requirements).