You seem to have missed the entire point of the Atlantic piece. It agrees with your assessment that the low levels of consumer confidence are irrational and not tied to reality. The fact that you think this is a "left" issue is, frankly, pulled out of thin air.
In fact, your biggest criticism seems to be of consumer confidence surveys in general which have been a leading indicator of consumer spending for many decades.
I realize you have a pet theory here, but reading an article like this through the lens of your pre-existing argument isn't helpful.
Yeah I understand, look if they wrote a headline that said something like "things are pretty good but people are unhappy" I wouldn't have commented. The "permanent" stuff has done so much damage to people I know personally that I'm tired of that framing and just think deeply unhelpful.
"Annie Lowrey at The Atlantic has combined both pathologies into a single 3,000-word essay titled in a way that infers all is doomed, forever."
Except that's not at all what she's doing. She's describing the current state of the American psyche vis-a-vis the economy. That she's articulating what people are feeling is not an endorsement of what they're feeling — it's just reporting.
I get that you're trying to dress her up as some sort of villain, but the actual villain isn't Annie: it's the people.
"You cannot simultaneously argue sentiment surveys are capturing some profound economic truth AND that social media is poisoning people's perception of economic reality."
Fair point on the reporting vs. endorsing distinction, though I'd push back just a little. The framing and word choice in a piece do a lot of work. Coining "permacession" and leading with doom signals is strongly editorializing. If she were purely describing the psyche, the piece would read differently. And it could def be her editors, not her, so we could probably blame the publication here.
On the villain point, agreed entirely that social media, partisan identity, and postmaterial affluence are doing this, not the economy.
On the simultaneous claim: you're right it's not a logical contradiction. The issue is leading with alarming sentiment data and then burying the "but social media distorts perception" caveat 15 paragraphs later. The numbers presented long before the asterisk arrives. I could be being pedantic here.
To note I have seen so many people materially and psychically harmed by the doom framing. The story itself wouldn't have irked me if it wasn't wrapped in that framing to begin.
Great piece, Adam. Reminds me of an episode of a podcast I recently watched, where Scott Galloway, one of the most outspoken prophets of doom we have today, was interviewing Morgan Housel. Prof G was trying to trick Morgan into saying that we're screwed, that nothing makes sense, and that it's a terrible time to be young in America. Morgan kept his cool and basically called Galloway's BS several times, very elegantly, and stating that the future is brighter than most people think and it's probably ever been, at which point Galloway ended the interview. Pretty funny. Must be hard to be a doomer these days.
There is a book by Hans Rosling, called Factfulness. I love giving it to people as a gift. But here is the rub: people read it, nod along, but still refuse to see the truth - that life is objectively better than 20 years ago. It boggles the mind. I do think that people should leave social media and stop reading most of the news, though. And I say this as someone who was a full-time journalist for a decade.
Fascinating piece, thank you. My one (mild) pushback is that 2008 never really ended: We're still dealing with the fallout. That said, I don't want to be too literal. I get that that's not really your point. On another note, I appreciate your look at the research on the effects of smart phones and social media. Am I correct that you attribute the general doom and gloom out there to technological more than economic changes?
yes that's right, the hyper-comparison of others (esp those miles away in far different markets than you) is a formula for unhappiness. But it's definitely not permanent. People will realize this is a silly way to live
None of my friends even check their phones when out in public anymore, I feel like we've turned a corner and people are realizing to compute at their desktop, then be together.
I constantly tell my 8th grade students (and increasingly, my colleagues) how lucky they are to live in the wealthiest time and place in human history. I am greeted with jaw-dropping disbelief and ridicule. It truly is a disease. I used to be a doomer. I know firsthand.
Best line:
"If people felt better when mortgages were at 18.6% and the unemployment rate was flirting with 15%, the obvious conclusion is that sentiment surveys are measuring something other than economic conditions."
It's the thrice-damned social media, people! You have the disease vector in your pocket and thank God, it comes with a delete button.
You seem to have missed the entire point of the Atlantic piece. It agrees with your assessment that the low levels of consumer confidence are irrational and not tied to reality. The fact that you think this is a "left" issue is, frankly, pulled out of thin air.
In fact, your biggest criticism seems to be of consumer confidence surveys in general which have been a leading indicator of consumer spending for many decades.
I realize you have a pet theory here, but reading an article like this through the lens of your pre-existing argument isn't helpful.
Yeah I understand, look if they wrote a headline that said something like "things are pretty good but people are unhappy" I wouldn't have commented. The "permanent" stuff has done so much damage to people I know personally that I'm tired of that framing and just think deeply unhelpful.
"Annie Lowrey at The Atlantic has combined both pathologies into a single 3,000-word essay titled in a way that infers all is doomed, forever."
Except that's not at all what she's doing. She's describing the current state of the American psyche vis-a-vis the economy. That she's articulating what people are feeling is not an endorsement of what they're feeling — it's just reporting.
I get that you're trying to dress her up as some sort of villain, but the actual villain isn't Annie: it's the people.
"You cannot simultaneously argue sentiment surveys are capturing some profound economic truth AND that social media is poisoning people's perception of economic reality."
Why not?
Fair point on the reporting vs. endorsing distinction, though I'd push back just a little. The framing and word choice in a piece do a lot of work. Coining "permacession" and leading with doom signals is strongly editorializing. If she were purely describing the psyche, the piece would read differently. And it could def be her editors, not her, so we could probably blame the publication here.
On the villain point, agreed entirely that social media, partisan identity, and postmaterial affluence are doing this, not the economy.
On the simultaneous claim: you're right it's not a logical contradiction. The issue is leading with alarming sentiment data and then burying the "but social media distorts perception" caveat 15 paragraphs later. The numbers presented long before the asterisk arrives. I could be being pedantic here.
To note I have seen so many people materially and psychically harmed by the doom framing. The story itself wouldn't have irked me if it wasn't wrapped in that framing to begin.
Great piece, Adam. Reminds me of an episode of a podcast I recently watched, where Scott Galloway, one of the most outspoken prophets of doom we have today, was interviewing Morgan Housel. Prof G was trying to trick Morgan into saying that we're screwed, that nothing makes sense, and that it's a terrible time to be young in America. Morgan kept his cool and basically called Galloway's BS several times, very elegantly, and stating that the future is brighter than most people think and it's probably ever been, at which point Galloway ended the interview. Pretty funny. Must be hard to be a doomer these days.
Morgan is a legend, big fan
There is a book by Hans Rosling, called Factfulness. I love giving it to people as a gift. But here is the rub: people read it, nod along, but still refuse to see the truth - that life is objectively better than 20 years ago. It boggles the mind. I do think that people should leave social media and stop reading most of the news, though. And I say this as someone who was a full-time journalist for a decade.
Fascinating piece, thank you. My one (mild) pushback is that 2008 never really ended: We're still dealing with the fallout. That said, I don't want to be too literal. I get that that's not really your point. On another note, I appreciate your look at the research on the effects of smart phones and social media. Am I correct that you attribute the general doom and gloom out there to technological more than economic changes?
yes that's right, the hyper-comparison of others (esp those miles away in far different markets than you) is a formula for unhappiness. But it's definitely not permanent. People will realize this is a silly way to live
Agreed, it's no way to live. Like you, I hope we wake up to this reality sooner rather than later.
None of my friends even check their phones when out in public anymore, I feel like we've turned a corner and people are realizing to compute at their desktop, then be together.
I constantly tell my 8th grade students (and increasingly, my colleagues) how lucky they are to live in the wealthiest time and place in human history. I am greeted with jaw-dropping disbelief and ridicule. It truly is a disease. I used to be a doomer. I know firsthand.
Best line:
"If people felt better when mortgages were at 18.6% and the unemployment rate was flirting with 15%, the obvious conclusion is that sentiment surveys are measuring something other than economic conditions."
It's the thrice-damned social media, people! You have the disease vector in your pocket and thank God, it comes with a delete button.
It's a voluntary prison you can walk away from at any point, easy peasy
I know you're right because I did it, and it's the best decision I ever made.
Thanks.