Hacker News Reader

Comment by leereeves | Hacker News Reader

Public perception matches people's experiences. That may or not match the measures that economists and rich people care about, like GDP or stock market gains.

Down on main street, people are cutting back because they can no longer afford the lifestyle they used to afford.

Edit: This has been discussed many times here, so I can only assume the downvoters don't care how "the other half" lives.

Homes [for sale] “unaffordable” in 99% of nation for average American

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708109

Housing is now unaffordable for a record half of all U.S. renters

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39128859

US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37112604

But sure, there's another perspective that sees "the Best U.S. Economy Since the 1990s".

View on HN

> Public perception matches people's experiences.

It really doesn't; confirmation bias, recency bias, propaganda, etc. all play significant roles. Eyewitness testimony is remarkably inaccurate.

You don't give people enough credit. Yes, there's a lot of gaslighting and propaganda, like cherry picking favorable economic statistics (as here), but people generally see through it.

Interestingly, we also see both recency bias and confirmation bias here as well. This very recent statistic confirms what some people would like to believe.

> That may or not match the measures that economists and rich people care about, like GDP or stock market gains.

If you don't think that positive GDP growth is good, wait until you experience negative GDP growth. :)

As someone who has a few more decades until retirement, I could personally go with cheaper stocks so I could buy more know for future use, but I'm sure my older (some-retired) relatives feel differently about market downturns.

> Down on main street, people are cutting back because they can no longer afford the lifestyle they used to afford.

Depending on the lifestyle (or parts thereof) in question, this may not be a bad thing. Certain lifestyle (aspects) may be imprudent, e.g., "How Much is That $70,000 Truck Costing You?":

* https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/02/how-much-is-that-70...

GDP is a monetary measure, it measures market value. So most of regular infrastructure does not add anything to GDP, public schools for example. Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people.

> Depending on the lifestyle (or parts thereof) in question, this may not be a bad thing. Certain lifestyle (aspects) may be imprudent,

I guess he was talking about people that cant afford a 70000 truck at first place. Some people on rich countries like Brasil, 11th GDP in 2022, were just not able to afford food.

> So most of regular infrastructure does not add anything to GDP, public schools for example.

But building a new school, or bridge, or factory, or repaving a road to fix potholes, does add to GDP.

GDP is a measure of economic activity, and having positive activity is generally a good thing. (Though some is not: if there's an oil spill, that will increase economic activity due to having to spend money on the clean-up measures.)

> Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people.

If you think poor people have a hard time with positive GDP, do you think they'll have a better time when it's negative?

The problem is that GDP doesn't measure the distribution of economic activity.

And reducing economic inequality might reduce GDP even as it improves the lives of poor people. Forcing people to work harder is good for GDP even if it isn't the best thing for the workers.

Can GDP be gamed and overemphasized? Yes.

Is America gaming and overemphasizing GDP? I don't think so. We have all kinds of economic measurements, and the one most people seem to be discussing today is inflation.

As long as we don't go stupid and braindead, and consider the overall economic picture, we'll do fine. We also can't ignore the best data that's collected or consider it conspiracy-laden fakes. But we also need to have enough skepticism to make sure our numbers are legitimate.

There's certainly people who fail on both sides. Overly trusting one number (ignoring all others) for the sake of their arguments. Or alternatively, ignoring inconvenient numbers (well, inconvenient for their side of the argument).

> Positive GDP is an important measure on Capitalist system but it does not reflect fully in the life of most poor people.

You can also measure GDP in less-than-capitalist systems.

You are right that GDP is a proxy for stuff we actually care about. But it tends to correlate really well with all the things we do care about.

>Public perception matches people's experiences.

Going back to the crime example, was this true? People's perceptions contradicted crime statistics. Are you claiming that the crime statistics were wrong and people were somehow getting increasingly victimized?

Many urban areas saw an increase in crime starting around 2020. When it comes to crime (especially violent), it doesn’t take much to change your perception. 1 incident you’re personally involved in is usually 1 too many. Seeing near misses doesn’t help.

The economy is similar - unnecessary stuff is still accessible, but major necessities (food, housing) are worse than ever.

Trends are what influence perception - and rightly so. We’re the most technically advanced we’ve ever been and we’re regressing on the important things. Negative public reaction is (unfortunately) necessary to continue our overall positive trend.

>Many urban areas saw an increase in crime starting around 2020

AFAIK crime statistics do show a small uptick during the pandemic, but people thinking crime is on the rise predates that (ie. during the 2000s and 2010s, despite statistics showing otherwise).

The FBI crime reports indicate that crime went down in 2022. The National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that crime went up in 2022.

For example, the FBI reports state that total violent crime went down by 2% in 2022. The victimization survey states that it went up by 75%.

The victimization survey also indicates that people are reporting a smaller percentage of crime to the police.

See, this is a great example of how carefully selected data causes a false perception. The increase you cite is charted on https://ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov/quick-graphics. It looks like this: https://imgur.com/a/6dgFRrp

That chart gives me the perception that crime went up in 2022, which is the perception I get from the victimization survey data I mentioned, and which is opposite of the perception I get from the FBI crime report data that says that violent crime went down in 2022.

What is the false perception you think people get from "the FBI reports state that total violent crime went down by 2% in 2022. The victimization survey states that it went up by 75%"?

The chart reveals that the "violent crime victimization 'went up by 75%'" statistic reflects a level that is still historically among the lowest in decades. The same data also could be described as "back to 2018's already-low level" or "nearly 1/4th the amount of crime as the early 1990s".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com