Comment Two points (Score 1) 121
Case in point: unemployment rate. It's only people who unemployed and are actively looking for employment. If you've managed to get on disability, you are no longer looking, so you don't count against that metric. Many states were, at one point (are?), seeking to get their unemployed people on federally-paid disability so they wouldn't qualify as "unemployed" anymore, so the state wouldn't have to pay unemployment benefits. Yes, that's states getting people on the federal dole so they won't have to be on the state dole. And we wonder why Social Security is so badly under-funded. If you've gotten discouraged and you've given up looking, you don't count. There are a lot of single-income families where another of the household members would love to have an income but they haven't been able to find work, so they've settled into being a full-time housewife or Mr Mom. And there are plenty of people who genuinely need full-time employment, with benefits, but are only able to find part-time work (no benes). They may be "underemployed" but they aren't "unemployed." And there are no official "underemployment" metrics.
Second point: we are, too frequently, chasing the wrong metrics.
Case in point: GDP per capita. That doesn't really tell you anything, especially if the 1% and 0.1% are skewing the hell out of the averages. If the vast majority of people are earning jack, but a handful are really raking it in, it makes it look like everyone is doing ok.
A metric we genuinely need: ratio of median income to median living expense. Medians are less-likely to be skewed by outliers, so median not mean / average. How much do people earn, in the median? How much does it cost to live, in the median? If the first divided by the second is < 1.0, people genuinely cannot afford to live there. Compute that metric for the USA, each state, each major metro, etc. Publish the numbers. If this area has a ratio that's > 1.0 (people CAN actually afford to live there) but that area has a ratio < 1.0, people need to be moving.
In the last election, the Democrats kept talking about how the economy is doing well, based on averages (means), while Biden was in the White House. They lost because the majority of the USA is experiencing the medians, not the means, and the vast majority of the US population is seeing things getting worse, not holding steady or getting better. If we had more metrics like this, it would be plainly obvious when the economy is going the wrong direction.
I suspect that, for the vast majority of the USA, the ratio is < 1.0. And people are feeling it. Which is why, when Democrats talked about how well the economy was doing (the 1% and 0.1% are doing really well, skewing the averages, while everyone else is getting a very-raw deal), the vast majority looked at that and asked "what the hell world are you living in? it sure as hell isn't the world I'm in!" And voted for the opposite.