As a matter of fact, economic growth and it's coverage during the Obama years was qualitatively and quantitatively different than it is now.  You can't possibly be attempting to debate that.  If you are,  I'll happily supply reams of data to support the fact.  Right after I supply data proving the sun rises in the east.

The NYT never disappoints.  It's a consistent propaganda rag of the left. They consistently bragged about the mediocre numbers during the Obama eco-reign of terror, and now that these same numbers have dramatically improved during the Trump years, they want new measures.   Something that somehow presents their reality.

They talk about the U3 unemployment rate as ignoring a large segment while ignoring things like U6 and employee participation.  Later in the article, the author grudging admits to their existence but claims they are not readily available.  How funny.

Now, they want a GDP that measures income to assorted percentile groups.  Too bad the data only goes to 2014, when Obama's policies were strangling the lower eco-percentiles.   Watch how quickly they abandon that measure when more recent data shows that the poor are actually doing much better than they were.  They'll need something else that they can cherry pick to show that the economy really really sux for all but the wealthy. Anyone who tries to prove that "income inequality" is a problem is starting with a flawed premise.  They need to come to terms with the fact that they never successfully resolved the internal conflict they had when Johnny showed up at the playground with a much nicer bike than they had.

Suppose you are CEO of a corporation with about 20,000 employees and between compensation and stock options your total annual earnings are 2 million.  Meanwhile,  the median income of the employees is :::::gasp:::   30,000.  You make a little over 66 and  a half times what the average employee makes.  How very unfair!!!

I know,  let's take all the CEO's money and add it to the employees salary.  Now things are more fair.  The median income goes all the way up to 30,100 dollars.  What a major quality of life issue that would be,  right?

I wasn't comparing Obama and Trump at all.  I think the trends have been in place for MUCH longer than that.  I was pointing out, and the article was too, that our economic data is far from complete as it is reported now.

Feel free to debate yourself.  You can give the liberal argument and then trash it with the conservative argument.  

Have fun!

Well,  let me ask you this.   Do you honestly think the times would have printed an op-ed like that during the Obama years? Did they?  I believe the correct answer to both is no. Suddenly, the numbers/measures they used to tout Obama's economic prowess are inadequate.

The article is attempting to make the case that the financial crisis is still with us.  

This from the paper that between 2012 and 2016 assured us that Obama had fixed everything.

The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of data/measures available if you care to look at them, that are more than adequate for measure the assorted prosperity of all the classes. No one is left out of employee participation rate; no one is left out of income percentile rankings and so on, and so on.

But now that the numbers are finally pointing to prosperity for more and more Americans,  the paper wants new measurements..  And as stated,  their favorite does not go beyond 2014..  Because it would do the opposite of proving their case today and become more of an argument against their "theory" as the economy progresses.

More tripe from the partisan hacks at the NYT.   The fact that you don't realize that just shows that you have drank long and hard from the koolaid bucket. 

and further to the point the "trends" were printed right here and every single significant economic trend was what? that's right down by the tail of Obama and immediately up with Trump's first year

interesting comments, Tim. Thanks

Thanks Gunter.

BTW, as I have re-read the thread,  JOJ's claim of not comparing Obama/Trump rings rather hollow with this quote.

"I can't recall who it was here on the forum that asked about the disconnect between economic health and Trump's approval numbers.  The response someone gave was that it was the medias fault.  Yeah right."

joj, you wrote  "....The response someone gave was that it was the medias fault.  Yeah right."

IMKO, the media has a quite significant input into how the People perceive reality. Just ask Josef Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda..... well, you can't.... he is dead.

Traders who visit this forum here are much more in tune with the economy and worldwide geo-politic  events.... not because we are more intelligent, but because the job of trading requires us to focus on such things, more than other people do.

Take the average Joe, who works an 8-5 job, and comes home in the evening... what does he do? He tunes into CNN, and CNN will then give him a description of the world as they want him to see it.

I still remember the 2016 campaign. Black people all over the country listened to their favorite news  media, and they all told them the same thing.... vote for the Democrats, we love Hillary, Trump is a racist. That's all they heard, that's all they knew. When I once mentioned, during a conversation, that Hillary's mentor was KKK, they looked at me in disbelief. They simply didn't know.... thanks to the media that controlled them.

Imagine, if you will, a world where the media put 1/10th of the effort into vetting Obama that they do Trump and Kavanaugh.  Imagine, they used the same level of skepticism in reporting "scandal" on Trump and Kavanaugh, et.al. as they do/did Obama and Hillary, et.al.

Nahhhhhhh,  sorry,  can't even think of such a thing with a straight face  :-)