I’ve been a fairly progressive or at least liberal my whole life. I also like to look at what the data tells us.
I’m not certain that looking at “data” means we have real facts. At best, we have some quantitative representation that fits the narrative being pushed by its creators.
Within progressive circles, I’ve seen data showing that the new generations are placing family on hold because they can hardly afford things, despite having “well paid” jobs. Other data shows that these millennials are all living with their parents. But then there’s another study saying something completely different. People slice and dice whatever information they have to fit whatever narrative.
I’ve personally become less willing to engage in conversation or debate when someone comes in and claims to have the data refuting what everyone is seeing with their own eyes and living day to day.
It’s like in Seattle. We have homicides, shootings about every week. A woman was recently beaten with a baseball bat at a transit station. But then the local government and its outsourced “activist” advisors say we cannot and should not lock up the suspect (who confessed) because he’s a minority, and minorities have faced systemic racism, etc etc. and the real solution is to increase taxes on billionaires. “I have some data, therefore I know more and I’m right and everyone else is wrong.” No thanks.
First, often I've had situations where the other party uses the "support it" refutation in some way. In an online environment, the time between the "support it" reply and my response gets responses like "[crickets]" suggesting that the other person won the argument - and that any who see the "support it" being the last post supports the position that I am wrong.
Second, it moves the burden of the previous "support it" refutation to the person without the data and telling a just so story ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story ) or working off of personal anecdotes. A refutation of my post needs data of comparable weight.
Third, sometimes I am wrong. There have certainly been times when I was tracking down the information that would support my position only to find that I was in the wrong. By providing the data up front, I save myself from this possible loss of face from posting an unsubstantiated narrative that runs counter to what the numbers present.
It's true that data must be judged for relevance & validity, but to just discard it in preference of your opinion is really egotistical.
Also, statistical data doesn't offer solutions; it only presents a broader perspective than one's collection of anecdotes.
So your example of Seattle choosing what you consider to be the wrong solution is not a very persuasive argument against collecting & using data itself.
Not at all.
I’m simply saying that anyone can fudge the numbers and claim to have “data” to support their argument.
> Also, statistical data doesn't offer solutions; it only presents a broader perspective than one's collection of anecdotes.
It offers an easily distortable “perspective”, and the same dataset is often misrepresented and twisted for convenience.
It’s a recurring theme, especially in leftist politics. Using “data” to spin a narrative and tell people the sky is pink when they can clearly see it’s blue.
This is why reproduction & peer review of methodology are such important steps of the scientific method.
You're not supposed to take a single person's word on what data is.
This is also why certain fields like psychology have something of a credibility crisis, because so many "discoveries" have not been able to be reproduced.
I'm curious though: Can you actually recall specific events of a "leftist" using a false data set or are you just engaging in general slander against your political opponents?
In many parts of jobs that have public facing people, the perceived increase in the lack of civility has made those jobs much more difficult to accept for any length of time.
The combination of job loss, retraining for jobs that don't deal with the public, and acceptance of austerity (including moving back in with one's parents in some cases) to have an extended duration of no income means that you don't need to accept a job that pays poorly or deals with uncivil people.
I'm going to point to https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate that shows the unemployment rate equal to what it was in December 2019.
People want to work and are working - they've just changed what they're working.
If one wants to place blame on the "no one wants to work" I would suggest reading https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2022/03/03/are-boom... and https://wapo.st/39vvXxP
> service speed has fallen off a cliff
This has resulted in a reduction of capacity in many parts of the service industry.
> staff shortages are still in effect
A lot of people upskilled in the past two years and those staff shortages will remain until a new cohort of workers exists in that area that lack the skills to get the better paying jobs that don't interact with the public.
> nobody wants to have kids/get married
While the marriage rate has dropped precariously, I'll point to https://www.statista.com/statistics/195951/marriage-rate-in-... and point out that the chart ends in 2020 and that weddings weren't things that were easily held in the past two years either. However, the trend that is shown in that graph is one that has lasted for three decades - not three years.
However, https://www.statista.com/statistics/183663/number-of-married... also shows an interesting chart where the number of married people has increased fairly consistently though the recessions are evident in there - I suspect we'll see another one.
The "no one wants to have kids" needs to also be put into context of the percent of the cost of raising a child against the income and wealth for the generational cohort.
https://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/pf/cost_raising_child/index... shows a substantial increase in cost in the 2000 to 2010 timeframe. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cost-of-child-care-... puts it in a different light.
Still, if one is paying off their own college loans it is difficult to think of adding to that putting away money for a child's college costs. If a household is living pretty much paycheck to paycheck or has significant debt that they're paying down for whatever reason, having a child with an additional amount of cost would be considered to be unwise for people who have a fiscally responsible mind.