So ignore April’s sharp drop in unemployment. Pay no attention to the creation of 288,000 jobs announced on Friday. The most important number in the latest jobs report did not change at all."
Average hourly wages for American workers held steady at $24.31 last month. They have increased just 1.9 percent over the previous 12 months. But after adjusting for inflation, real wages have increased by something like 0.5 percent." (read more)
***
3 of 3 - “So” demonstrates that you’re not 100% comfortable with what you’re saying.
Just as the “so” setup announces that this portion of the conversation will be very deliberate, it also demonstrates that you’re not as comfortable with your story as you think you are."Rather than just plainly answering their question, you’re relying on the crutch of a practiced blurb. Usually, whatever follows “so” is a carefully crafted sentence, evolved over many iterations and audience reactions."
There’s a reason we do it. In psychology, it’s what’s known as a “marker.” It’s a little cue to our cognitive mind that says, “Quick, call up that part that we practiced.”
Just like a speaking coach will tell you not to fill empty space with “um,” you should avoid framing your answer as a rehearsed pitch by starting with “so.”
NYT, FC
19 comments:
So?
How do you avoid hearing it?
Tune out NPR.
You know, I do hear it on NPR quite a bit.
There are two contexts where the word so is used, not counting the thought context from where so is conceived or conjured.
Writing and speaking.
The FC article is criticizing the use of "so" in dialog. Whereas the Times used it in writing.
But I do believe my premise connoting an uncomfortability/reluctance on the part of the Times, to say the economy is worst than the numbers show, still applies.
So, is not much unlike saying, damn!
Maybe I'm stretching. Going too far out on a limb.
The Upshot is renamed when an R is president. Downshot?
So, no upshot then.
Always an upshot during the shovel ready summer of recovery. Physicians everywhere agree. Lives are being saved!
I read that article yesterday about use of "so".
I just didn't get it. It seemed to me like the premise was just stretching for something to write about. I don't get that impression at all when I hear the word used, and it's not what I'm doing when I use it. To me, it's just a casual abbreviated substitute for "therefore", "consequently" or "furthermore" which I usually avoid because they feel pompous to a proud rube like myself.
A record 92.6 million in the labor force out of work, divide that into the population, it's 27% unemployed.
And even if you cut that in half to take care of stay-at-home moms, retirees, and kids in school, it's still double what the Choom Gang says.
There's your Great Stagnation.
The Obama admin really isn't interested in the economy, and they've got the support of the majority here.
Resentment over the great mortgage/derivatives scam dominates political consciousness and has since 2008.
The thinking sort of goes like this:
"The rich professional/managerial class stole everything and they didn't even give us a few crumbs."
Can't say I entirely disagree.
Now that the wealthy professional/managerial class has filled their pockets, why are we supposed to go back to work and play by the rules?
At least, it seems to me, this is the underlying resentment driving Obama's success, even as it appears that all his policies are failing.
One in five American households (two people or more) have NO ONE WORKING. But, ya know, FORWARD!
People are not in trouble because the rich stole everything from anyone. Lots of people made stupid greedy financial decisions, period. Nobody snuck into their bank accounts. They simply decided they wanted things they obviously could not afford to risk buying. The assets were clearly over-heated, the loans were very risky, and they didn't care, because they just plain wanted it and that's all that mattered. This is the root cause of most catastrophic financial failures in people lives, and always has been. Sometimes truly unanticipated things happen like natural disaster or war, but that is rare. If people blame anonymous rich villains instead of accepting their own greed and failure then they truly got nothing out of their mistakes, and will likely make them again.
I too am dangerously leveraged, but my assets can pay off my debts leaving me little, SO I'm prepared to be broke and accept that I set that up if it happens. I will also not feel guilty about getting rich if it doesn't.
You don't hear about it in the media, but somebody's considering what's been in the back of my head - the fact all these people out of work and scraping by on disability or food stamps or whatever because unemployment ran out still are used to a better life (new car, nice vacations, shopping someplace better than Wally World) and are starting to show their resentment at the Great Stagnation.
YMMV
Shouting Thomas said...
The Obama admin really isn't interested in the economy, and they've got the support of the majority here.
Resentment over the great mortgage/derivatives scam dominates political consciousness and has since 2008.
...
At least, it seems to me, this is the underlying resentment driving Obama's success, even as it appears that all his policies are failing.
Have to disagree. First, some people, at least, seem to be waking up. The Choom Gang's been in the low 40s for about 2 years now.
The Demos are playing off the standard constituencies they've used since the post-civil War era - the educationally and intellectually shortchanged who always figure somebody else "won life's lottery" (as Richard Gephart loved to put it), rather than looking at their own mistakes, augmented by enablers such as unions, government "workers", and the BoBo types.
ricpic said...
One in five American households (two people or more) have NO ONE WORKING.
Which would seem to put us around 20%, but, as ric says, ya know, FORWARD!
@bagoh
Yes, we all went on a bender.
Well, I didn't.
But, a hell of a lot of people did.
For example, nearly everyone I know who owned a house before the recession got an equity loan and built a pool, or an addition, or remodel, or bought a second home, or a new car, or some other bullshit. In nearly every case this was not supportable after the crash and was the primary reason for being upside down.
My home increased in value 400% and I did not take out a loan for any such crap. I saved my money, paid down my mortgage, and most importantly told myself "NO, you don't need that." After the recession, I was the only one of my friends who was not upside down, and I lost no ground at all from the recession. Just say "no".
I just read a pew poll that found that far more people trust Obama than the Republicans on on healthcare policy.
Now, sure there is no reason to trust Republicans particularly, but they have at least suggested some smart things to fix many of the problems in healthcare. The thing is though that Obama has failed spectacularly and most importantly, blatantly lied to everyone in the most public of ways, and has not delivered on anything promised.
How can such a performance leave you trusting him more than say your dog on healthcare. People are just stupid and don't learn from their mistakes, because today everyone believes they live with a safety net called the "taxpayers". Good luck with that.
bagoh20 said...
I just read a pew poll that found that far more people trust Obama than the Republicans on on healthcare policy.
You believe Pew?
Just as the “so” setup announces that this portion of the conversation will be very deliberate, it also demonstrates that you’re not as comfortable with your story as you think you are."
Nope. That's baloney. Like Bago said. When I use the word "So" to begin a thought or sentence it is in place of "therefore". I am drawing a conclusion. So, if you think it means that I don't mean what I am saying you need to think otherwise :-)
Calculating for inflation. Now there is a really loaded concept. What is actually used as factors to calculate for inflation. Cost of living? Actual cost. Or CPI? If you use or exclude certain items you can really skew the number. Is the index used weighted or not? That makes a big difference.
If the cost of buying a new car or new computer hasn't gone up much then the index will not show an increase. But REALLY? How many people buy a new car or a new house every year. Indexing the cost of living to items that are purchased infrequently is one way to hide the real pain.
A better cost of living index would weight for those items that everyone needs to buy or use every day or more frequently. Milk, bread, gasoline, toilet paper. Not only are those things, like food, going UP in price, dramatically, the size of the packaging and the quality of the goods is going down DRAMATICALLY. Example A loaf of bread (Ororwheat Oat Nut) is 2/3 the size it used to be and the cost of one loaf in my little store is $5.19. It used to be $2.99.
I wish the bureaucrats who devise these things would have live on the budget of an ordinary person for 3 months, with NO cheating. Let them go to the grocery store with $300 and try to feed a family of 4 for a month's worth of food. Buy gasoline ($4.59 a gallon for regular where we are. Yes. I know it is more expensive in the sticks, but the rise from previous pricing is shocking)
I like to start out with "Well,".
So,
La Ti Do.
Post a Comment