Talk:Misery index (economics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's Bash Bush[edit]

Umm, why is President Bush (Jr.) ranked 5th before Truman, if the indicated average in the table is higher for his term? Besides, I went to the site and took the data, and the average (calculated by summing up the 67 months starting Jan 2001 and ending Jul 2001) is now 8.04 for President Bush. Did I calculate it right? If so, shouldn't the table be updated? Bravada, talk - 10:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per a BusinessWeek blog, the original Misery Index was invented by Arthur Okun. Please see http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/

Is there a source for the Misery Index-crime rate claim? Jamiem 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last entry is fast becoming out of date (14 months old). Unemployment is down to 4.7% (US Average). Can we update this? talk 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I noted this, and have taken a stab at calculating a current figure (as of 04 April 2008) for G. W. Bush. I am not certain if my calculations are done the same as the others. I calculated a monthly inflation rate for each month from Consumer Price Index data [1], then took that number, e.g., 1.00324, to the 12th power to calculate an effective annual rate, then subtracted 1 from that number, then multiplied by 100 for a percentage figure that goes from 0 to 100 (it can be and was in several instances a negative number). Then for each month I added the Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rate [2] percentage (a number like the inflation rate like 1 percent) to come up with the monthly MI. Then I averaged them over the entire period. This number comes out to be 8.01, with a minumum of -4.2 in November of 2005 (no other President presided over a month of deflation?) and a maximum of 20.8 in September of 2005.Weyandt (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Government Inflation Statistics Unreliable[edit]

Current inflation statistics are too cooked to make a historical comparison even remotely meaningful. If GWB used the same methods of calculating CPI as were used in Clinton years, it'd be over 10%. 70.61.22.110 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Newt[reply]

This Is Complete and Total Bullshit[edit]

This is complete and total bullshit. Okun should've lived in shame for his entire life for calling himself an economist. The fact of the matter is inflation at a relaxed and natural rate simply doesn't matter. It's only when it's accelerated and outweighs the increase in wage that it becomes a problem. The rule of thumb is one percent of cyclical unemployment (any percentage point above the natural rate of unemployment, which is now between 4 and 5 percent) is 67 times more harmful to our GDP than one percent of inflation. So let's look at it like this: Let's say for a given four years, President A has an unemployment rate of 6 percent and an inflation rate of 4 percent (on average). His misery index equals 10. Now, the next president, President B gets elected for the next 4 years, and his average unemployment rate is 3 percent, and average inflation rate is 9%. His misery index equals 12. In reality, President B has enjoyed a much more prosperous economy. GDP growth is at a much larger rate than President A, which really means the economy is TOO prosperous (because unemployment is lower than 4%). This whole misery index idea is a complete waste of intellectual effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.154.215 (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Deflation[edit]

I suppose they never thought about what to do when there is deflation do we add it to the index because it's bad or do we add it as a negative number - take it away - that seems wrong because it would then erase the amount added to the index by unemployment? --79.64.184.100 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all that I can tell, deflation is summed as a negative number. Bdelisle (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the summary date from the current primary source (miseryindex.us) it is simply added as a negative number. I personally think that the formula should either treat it as 0 when it goes negative, or the formula should be unemployment plus the absolute value of inflation. Deflation is not a necessarily a good thing either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytemaster (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama getting a pass?[edit]

Anyone tracking the misery index during this administration. Seems to be headed above 13.57%, driven just by actual unemployment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowellt (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No pass for the current President. The current data is incomplete and insufficient for proper ranking. There is some data but it will be a number of months before anyone has the hard numbers. Available info only through June, six months isn't a lot to go on. Bdelisle (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More like nobody cares to track such things, given that the "misery index" is a meaningless artificial construct. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that it doesn't have anything to do with good administratioon, otherwise they would have to put the government surplus and deficit in, because Bush jr has caused a lot of misery down the track with his policies HawkoChoco (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Actual unemployment"? What would that be? Oh, of course. Now that Obama's in office, we should create a new definition for unemployment in order to make him look worse. Brilliant! 24.214.230.66 (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent Metrics[edit]

The way inflation and unemployment is measured changed along the way, so 21st Century numbers are artificially low, and cannot be reliably compared to the numbers of the 1970's and 1980's. One should recompute the table to include the underemployment rate and the CPI including food & fuel prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.178 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Misery index (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misery_index_(economics)&oldid=1204023588"