Kip Ashlynn @Kip Ashlynn - 1mo
So, former govt economist here👋, it's actually depressingly easy to fake numbers. For example, the CPI reports now are not going to be accurate because the people who did the surveying for that were decimated so we won't get the nuances of broad and deep information, it will only be local (probably to an area that is lucky and doing good) and shallow, so it will be misleadingly positive. For labor statistics, it matters who you're getting information from. A great way to fudge employment numbers is to adjust the definitions of things. So for example, did that person find work after six months of looking? Or did them not being in the work force for six months move them to the category of discouraged workers who aren't looking? Or did they just willingly leave the workforce for reasons unknown because we didn't ask them, so they aren't discouraged or unemployed anymore they're just not in the work force because we didn't count them. The last option will make it look like our work force is stronger than it really is because we're being willingly blind so we can continue a certain narrative. A lot of executives think that the numbers should support the narrative, and a lot of people will take the money and not leave like I did. Eventually universities might pick up the slack but we're going to be flying blind for a while until that happens and forecasters models can be adjusted to reflect that. The level of uncertainty out there will almost certainly constrict business growth. I expect govt data will be all sunshine and roses while we're paying $20 for a couple of slices of roast beef and not able to find a job ok now I'm just whining but really it's a whineable situation 😭😭😭
It's true tho 😭😭😭😭
Oh no, I am! I was just agreeing with it 😅 When I was younger I was so excited to get into this field because it's actually really cool what we can do to get a realistic lay of the land... But no one actually wants that so now I'm just out here with the rest of the unemployed womp womp
