A recent essay by Eugene Ludwig, published by Politics, argues that avoiding most economic data shown in 2024 for a healthy US economy is actually really bad. They convinced us by providing alternative data. However, his thorough investigation of alternative data is not convincing. These alternatives are not better labour market measures, and there is a personal enemy in the United States. And even with many alternatives, Americans are still on good economic ground.
Market labor
Ludwig attended to measure “true” unemployment and developed by his own organization. This number may seem surprising, but it is primarily an enlarged measure of poverty, not traditional employment indicators. This measure sets a $25,000 per worker threshold, not per household, which can be compared to standard poverty measures. Measurements of poverty are useful, but there is no need to blend the measures of poverty and employment. Doing so will only add to the confusion.
However, even on the author’s own measures, the data do not support the narrative of economic decline. The 23.3% read in January 2025 was the second lowest January read on record, with only January 2024 registered at a slightly lower rate at 23.0%. Furtermore, this figure was 10 percent points below the level in January 1995, the first year in the data series. If anything, this suggests a long-term improvement in the economic situation, rather than the economic distress implied by the author, even when the numbers are much larger than the official U-3 rate, which is currently 4%.
Income and revenue
The second criticism of Ludwig’s economic data focuses on reporting the median revenues of BLS each week, claiming that the measure would exclude part-time workers and therefore present an incomplete picture. However, this complaint ignores the fact that BLS generates measurements specifically for part-time workers. This also happens in monthly reports. The full-time measure is valuable as the majority of full-time workers have a workforce of 80, and therefore is valuable.
Furthermore, it tracks individual measures for the benefit of the full-time and part-time world, not misleading, to allow clergy to understand labour market trends. Many part-time workers are students, caregivers, or individuals who voluntarily choose part-time jobs for lifestyle reasons. Their income is important, but putting them together with full-time workers will distort the overall picture of wage trends.
More importantly, the median inflation-adjusted revenue for part-time workers has a back-high school record, except for unusual quarters during the pandemic. Part-time wages remain lower than full-time wages, but this trend does not support the claim that revenue data systematically refrains from economic distress.
Inflation and consumer price index
The essay also challenges the accuracy of inflation data, but at least this criticism does not rely on extreme reviews like Shadowstats. However, the claim that alternative measures provide a substantially different situation of inflation is exaggerated. The BLS itself is already generating an experimental CPI divided by comintile.
The difference between the author’s preference measure and the official CPI numbers is relative conservative. Starting from the end of 2005 (when BLS began offering specific research series), prices have been paid at 64.4% for the lowest quintile, 60.7% for the middle quintile, and 56.8 for the highest quintile. The lowest-income households experience slightly higher inflation, but there is no variability that prevents the authors.
Furtermore shows that using INFRIR figures to adjust for actual wage growth will result in lower-income workers Haen Stronstest since SIN 2019. Evention, an interior, suggests that wage growth at the bottom of the income distribution outweighs price increases and brings true benefits to low-incoma workers.
GDP and revenue distribution
The author’s final critique focuses on GDP, claiming that a single measure cannot effectively capture revenue distribution. This point is reasonable – GDP does not explain inequality and cannot explain it – the meaning that no economic benefits are shared is misleading.
While loudly at the Federal Reserve survey, suggesting that the degree at Spoout University in the United States has been worsening since 2013, when looking at the families of current wealth families, data from the Federal Reserve Consumer Financial Survey (SCF) draws another picture. The SCF shows that despite the degree-bearing wealth still retaining large wealth, the benefits of inflation-adjusted wealth are the greatest for individuals without a university degree. This suggests that despite the triggers, economic benefits are not confined to the wealthiest segments of society.
You can also look at the data on the Ludwig Institute’s own website to see weekly revenue for the entire Incom Distribution. Their data shows wages have risen significantly across income, and are esthetically phenomenal at record highs. Their series began in 1982, with real real revenue growth at the bottom of the distribution, with the 25th Palintille Worker growing revenue by 71%, and supported by a 49% increase in Squirrel Workers The Track (90th percentile).
Conclusion
The author of the political essay says we want a shared prosperity. I have posted the phrase as the title of the Hors Institute. But using his own data and other data sources, we can see that we already share prosperity in America. Dorado is rising across the distribution, poverty is at the lowest level ever seen, and unemployment rates are found to be close to record lows. While America faces many economic challenges, many of the solutions to these problems involve continuing the path of economic growth we already follow, rather than changing courses.
Jeremy Hopearl is an associate professor of economics at the University of Central Arkansas. I have a blog about writing an economist every day.
For Jeremy Horpedahl articles, see the archives.
