Of everything in Economix
that Goodwin covers, something I personally relate to is the topic of
unemployment. My family, like a lot of other students’, was hit hard by the
2008 recession, and both my parents had lost their jobs by 2010 (although my
mom, luckily (but really not so luckily for my poor, sweet mom), worked two
more jobs at the time).
I’ve always seen the topic of unemployment treated simply as
a statistic in the news and everyday conversations, and although I had some
indirect, personal experience with what unemployment is like, what spoke to me
in Economix was Goodwin’s
contextualization of it. On page 207 in the bottom-right frame, Goodwin
explains, “each 1% rise in unemployment meant 495 more deaths from liver
cirrhosis, 628 more homicides, 920 more suicides, 3,440 more inmates in state
prisons, 4.227 more admissions to mental hospitals, 20,240 more fatal heart
attacks and strokes.” Each instance
of unemployment bears enormous stress on individuals and their families – and I
think that this sentiment often gets lost in a statement like “Unemployment
today is at 6%.” I think it’s also worth mentioning that the data referenced by
Goodwin here is from 1976 – and the U.S.’s higher population today would likely
mean even higher numbers.
Goodwin’s tone surrounding the matter of unemployment is
concerned and matter-of-fact, and he legitimates his claim by using the data
from the 1976 congressional study. I don’t think that anyone discussing or
reading about unemployment would take his position as seriously if he hadn’t
referenced a specific data set; and, notably, I think that this goes far in
assisting Goodwin’s claim that the harms of inflation can’t be justifiably juxtaposed
with those of unemployment. And while I don’t think that his explicit taking of
a political position necessarily brings what he writes closer to “truth”, I do
think that it makes it a lot easier to discern the book’s truths from its
opinions – since, to me at least, it’s more difficult to identify bias in texts
whose authors claim to present pure facts.
I really liked Economix
in the way that it presented information so thoroughly, yet palatably. But,
really, what I liked most was Goodwin’s seeming authenticity. It feels as
though he’s just giving you his opinion, but with a good amount of data and without
any pretension. This also means that he brings a touch of (what I think is)
much-needed humanism to an area as irrationally rational as economics. I hope
that the book, in addition to teaching some important economic principles and
historical circumstances, also got some other people to recognize the deeply
human consequences of questionable corporate and national interests.
I really understand your emotions about the numbers. When something bad happens and you see the description, you think: "Oh, it won't happen with me. It is somewhere else". 1% increase in the unemployment rate? It is a tiny change. But think: it means that 1 in 100 people just lost his job and now can't feed his family. 1 in 100 - it is 2 people in one of my classes. And then you see these numbers from the Economix: it is not 1 in 100, it is actually much more. And you start to doubt that it won't influence you and your family. It will, in one way or another. Maybe a shop next door will close, or your child friend won't go to the same school. These numbers can attract attention to that problem and show that is not a problem of a person who got fired, it is a community problem.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI too greatly appreciated the way the translated and contextualized the meaning of that 1% rise. Numbers are almost meaningless and they become easy to forget. Putting more context around it and defining what that 1% rise means makes it hard to ignore. These numbers strikes me as well, and to think that these sats are almost 40 years old and that "1% of population" is a much bigger number now is scary. Good win did a successful job of letting the evidence/ data speak for itself.
ReplyDeleteThough it is virtually impossible to keep all biased out of a piece of publications, he backed up his beliefs with complete evidence which made it hard to disagree with him