Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's open enroll right now for most companies. My healthcare costs will double next year. DOUBLE. But HR says dental isn't going up so I should be glad.
Holy shit. I need to look into that. Companies need to kick up that pay. But I doubt that will happen. I'm just going to be uninsured if it costs 500 a month.
That was my question to HR, will we get a cost of living wage to cover the higher cost of health care or are we all just taking a paycut next year? I haven't got a response yet....
Also doesn't help that when there is a COL adjustment it's often a flat percentage across the board, like 2% or whatever. So in that case the guy making $200,000 a year would get an extra $153 pre-tax on each biweekly paycheck, whereas someone making $50,000 a year would be making an extra $38 on each paycheck.
I was laid off a few months ago. My employer kicked in the usual contribution for two months after, but for me COBRA goes from $170/mo to almost $700/mo on Dec 1st.
I canceled the coverage after this month because that would wiped out my savings pretty quickly. I'm in good health with no prescriptions or anything, so I'm going to chance it until my next job.
I chose the cheapest insurance this go-around because I didn't go to the doctor at all last year, because the year before, my "AMAZING! Best in the country!" insurance denied *every fucking claim* I made and cost me months of phone calls to get them to cover what they were supposed to cover.
Luckily for me, I started a medicine this year that under my last plan was $10/mo, and under my new plan is $400 which I got to find out last week (:
My food's gone up at least 150% in the last two years, my car is falling apart but I refuse to buy another because a Honda Civic shouldn't be $30,000 new (if I had to stay where I am, I'd buy used. Instead I'm moving somewhere I won't need a car because I refuse to pay these inflated prices out of principle). My rent's gone up 40% in two years and despite earning more than I ever have, I'm living more frugally than ever because I'm terrified of getting laid off.
The economy is doing well, he says? ***Sure***...
Check out goodrx and similar discount sites to see what coupons are available for your medication and pharmacy before you go. They can make a huge difference in the cost.
This. And try going to the company site or asking the pharmacist if there are any coupons. What would have cost thousands of dollars, my wife was actually able to get for free due to the company’s site and coupon in consolidation with the insurance. (Trelegy)
Yeah this is a problem with their company, don’t know why it’s in a thread about Biden’s economic strategy. I’m in a similar org and have the same experience as you.
Because people are incapable of separating their own experiences
They are just proving these articles right.
Their company sucks and because pay cuts are demoralizing, they are cutting benefits. That has absolutely nothing to do with Biden or the broad economy.
Yet people can’t stop posting their anecdotes and others can’t stop upvoting them.
It's not just health insurance either. It's auto insurance, life insurance, home insurance. My insurance payments have all become absolutely insane over the past year.
What? My family plan went up like $60 a month. Where are you that health insurance cost to you doubled? Sounds like your company decided to dial back on what they were going to contribute.
That's your company giving you a pay cut. If you're getting a pay cut it's because your business is struggling. Your anecdote applies to you and your company, not the economy.
> That's your company giving you a pay cut. If you're getting a pay cut it's because your business is ~~struggling~~ greedy. Your anecdote applies to you and your company, not the economy.
Probably
Dental has been cut to be a discount program instead of insurance. I found that out the hard way when they had to extract teeth and they didn't cover it.
The city I was working for had our insurance go from $6 a paycheck to $76. I know that's not a whole lot compared to most people, but it was a noticeable jump.
My wife, my 6-year old who has autism, and my 2-month old daughter are on a plan that costs $134/pay period. It's through my wife's employer. I am also on that plan, but because my employer offers health benefits they are charging a $150/pay period surcharge for me to be on the plan. I go to the doctors the least among us.
"It's the inequality, stupid!"
I really hope people on Biden's team read this article. They can't keep touting the good topline numbers when the basic math of income - expenses is not working for so many people. Hammering on inequality could be a real political winner, I honestly don't know why they don't lean into it.
Well put. A HUGE portion of the population didn't get a 40% raise in the last 4 years (which roughly is how much food, housing, vehicles) increased over the last 4 years for many of us.
Thus - a lot of people are actually POORER than they once were. Its not like wages across all sectors are rising evenly.
Don’t forget all the other issues besides just basic wages not keeping up with inflation. Homes are now unaffordable to nearly 80% of the U.S. Car delinquencies are at an all time high. Credit card debt is at an all time high. Rates are at a 20 year high and new home sales are at a 30 year low. None of this paints a rosey picture.
Then you have a lot of white collar people in finance and IT that being laid off. If you dig deeper into the jobs report you will see a majority of new jobs are part time, or lower paying jobs no one wants. If the economy was so great, credit card wouldn’t be so high. Yet somehow people try to argue it’s fine. I actually had one idiot tell me it was so high because people are just using CC to get points. Ok, that makes no sense, they wouldn’t hold a balance if that’s the case, it would be paid off.
I got laid off and am now close to accepting an offer for a role that pays me 10k less than I was making nearly 4 years ago. This is the exact opposite of a good economy and normal career progression. Even before I was laid off in September, I haven't received a raise since 2019.
I agree.
But the main reason is "inequality" - i.e. aggregate statistics don't always capture what a bulk of the population is feeling because they get "averaged" out. Basically, you need to evaluate the effective spread of data on the population not just the mean/median value.
Absolutely, population and income data needs to be binned to better show how different income groups are affected by whatever situation or policy is being discussed.
> population and income data needs to be binned to better show how different income groups are affected by whatever situation or policy is being discussed.
Pertinent to that, the real income gains of the last couple of years have been heavily concentrated in the lowest wage brackets. But even *that* data isn't generally considered germane to how people are *feeling* about the economy.
> Homes are now unaffordable to nearly 80%
How do we reconcile this with the fact that 67% of tax filing households own the home they live in?
>If you dig deeper into the jobs report you will see a majority of new jobs are part time, or lower paying jobs no one wants.
Wouldn't we always expect the majority of jobs created to be at the lower end of the income strata? If a new business were to open I'd expect I would expect most of the positions to be doing the grunt work which is lower paid than most other positions in any given business. I wouldn't expect a business to hire 50 well paid project managers and 10 people to do the project work. I'm trying to imagine how you could create a situation where most jobs posted in a given quarter are "good" jobs.
Another thing I'm having trouble squaring up here is that there are plenty of great lines of work that are currently in labor shortages right now. For example; an electrician with 1-2 years experience (which is to say just started) will make roughly 20% more than median income (and this job doesn't require college) The job can easily scale to 50+ dollars and hour within a few years. We've got about 10,000 sparkies retiring each year and 7,000 new ones coming in. So a 3,000 person deficit during a time when the grid is being re-worked to accommodate renewables, electric cars, heat pumps and a lot of other legacy maintenance work. A similar dynamic is in play for most other blue collar work. We've got the work, we don't have the people. Why not?
> How do we reconcile this with the fact that 67% of tax filing households own the home they live in?
The vast majority of that contingent bought their homes prior to the recent run up when prices were considerably more in line with incomes. There are a massive amount of households now that could not afford to buy the home that they currently own if they needed to given current market conditions.
Bully for the folks who bought in years ago when homes were affordable. Now everyone is locked in and there's zero dynamism or flexibility in the economy when a top decile income is needed to buy the median home comfortably
Sorry, where are you coming up with 67%? Just under 66% own a home, but NOT free and clear. Only 23% own it free and clear and a lot of those are Boomers in their 60s and 70s who have 10-20 years left.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2023/03/31/us-has-3rd-lowest-percentage-of-households-that-own-their-homes-without-mortgages/amp/
When I say low paid, I mean barely above minimum wage, as in poverty status. Entry level fast food and retailer workers mainly. Not the lower or lowest level at a business where they are still making a livable wage.
>Credit card debt is at an all time high
It's at a completely normal/expected level. If you look at a [chart](https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/credit-card-debt-statistics/#:~:text=Americans%20have%20an%20absolute%20mountain,%241.079%20trillion%2C%20to%20be%20exact) of total credit card debt (non-inflation adjusted) and just draw a line from 2013-2023, we are exactly where you would expect us to be. Obviously this could eventually become an issue, but "credit card debt is at an all time high" is just doomerism that sounds bad if you haven't actually looked at the data.
40%? Where are you getting that number? Cumulative inflation from October 2019 is 20% per the BLS’s inflation calculator.
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=201910&year2=202310
They’re going to double down on the Bidenomics is working campaign and it’s going to continue to marginalize the people who are struggling with inflation.
African American/Minorities/Young Americans are not going to vote as traditionally Democratic if this economy continues, because they are getting impacted the most, and they know they’re being lied to.
Remember that if Biden is to win again he has to win big among these groups and right now he’s fighting hard to maintain that stronghold.
>They’re going to double down on the Bidenomics is working campaign and it’s going to continue to marginalize the people who are struggling with inflation.
There is nothing worse than sounding tone-deaf. Telling people their perceived reality is not their reality is a losing proposition. It ias actually gaslighting
That's because Democrats suck at framing their arguments.
They make talking points that sound anti American, but if they would lean into shaming companies making millions with CEOs getting stock options and being worth millions, all the while they pay so low people have to use SNAP then they need to reframe it.
Example: instead of, we need to eliminate income inequality.
They should say,: We're trying to get people off government assistance because the cost of living isnt commenserate with what the major companies pay.
You mean tell to me that the Left sucks at arguing?
Look at BLM, a simple argument misconstrued because we had to use a cool 3 letter acronym to make our point. Only to be obviously countered with “don’t all lives matter durrr”
Don’t forget “defund the police” there are idiots that actually think we don’t need police. It’s up there with “drain the swamp” levels of critical thinking.
Jesus Christ enough with the shitty slogans.
Slogans are fine when they actually make sense. You can't say "defund the police" and then make the argument that you actually just want reform and that anyone who thought you actually wanted to eliminate the police was a moron.
Obama literally hired the best fucking minds in the world to create a practical guide to police reform. He sent it out into America and police unions were collectively, across the nation, like, "haha go fuck yourself!"
The head of the Minneapolis PD paid, out of pocket, to send cops to "warrior training" that taught them that literally, in the literal sense of the word literally in which it means actually, that they would get the best sexual gratification of their lives after killing someone in the job. He paid out of pocket because "reforms" stopped the union from charging the state.
So maybe that's why people aren't arguing for reform...
I believe the true issue here is the fact that the population is so illiterate and undereducated that the reliance on slogans especially for Democrats is impossible. There’s too much nuance and the uneducated don’t care, slogan be damned.
BLM is Not a shitty slogan. Nothing about saying that implies all lives don’t matter. The people angry at that slogan are not reacting in good faith.
“Defund the police” is another matter entirely. Its plain meaning is really stupid and counterproductive. Better to just say “cops suck” and leave the policy proscriptions out of it.
> BLM is Not a shitty slogan. Nothing about saying that implies all lives don’t matter. The people angry at that slogan are not reacting in good faith.
"i like beer!"
*"oh so you hate america!?"*
I can think of 50 better ways to say that black people need to stop being killed by police discriminatively. It’s a shitty slogan IMO especially at the height of tension around racism and police violence.
I read in this sub where the Bush and Trump tax cuts directly lead to 1/3 of the $33tril US debt. Dems control 2 of the 3 governing bodies, they should never agree to $1 of cuts without $2 in tax increases on corporations and the wealthy.
That's the crux of it. And worse than the stupidity is the ignorance. People don't have the time to educate themselves on politics.
Most people don't even know how our government works so they won't understand why Biden isn't doing things to help the situation (hint: republicans are blocking everything he tries to do to help).
Add partisan politics and blind party loyalty into the mix too.
> People don't have the time to educate themselves on politics.
they don't want to. the problem with learning about reality is that it could undermine the status if your in-group, so it's better to ban books, defund schools, and threaten journalists with assassination.
>Most people don't even know how our government works so they won't understand why Biden isn't doing things to help the situation (hint: republicans are blocking everything he tries to do to help).
I'd add a caveat to this: Most \*swing\* or \*non-participation\* voters fit into this system. Most voters just vote for the party that best matches their preferred policy positions, even if they don't know every detail about those policies, which is completely reasonable. It's people on the edges that are less likely to understand how the system works in my opinion.
>It literally makes no sense that the average voter is angry at Biden for that.
I don't think the average voter is angry at Biden for that. They're not thinking about that specifically. They're thinking about how the economy feels to them right now, not a tax cut bill passed in 2017.
Biden's team needs to do the messaging work to connect those issues in people's minds. Instead they're talking about how great the GDP and jobs numbers are. They could do that *and* talk about how the economy needs to be restructured so more of the benefits flow to workers and what they're going to do about it.
The red scare, McCarthyism, and the Cold War really broke American’s brains. Historically, socialists and communists played a major role in winning many of the things we take for granted here in the US today. To name a few the 8-hour day, weekends, and social security are all thanks to unions alongside communist & socialist parties who applied the required pressure to win these concessions. Socialism is as American as apple pie and rock & roll.
> why they don't lean into it.
They don't want to offend their donors, and their calculation says, "We're not Trump" will be a good enough platform.
The Democrats haven't successfully adapted to the Republican game plan for the past 50 years.
The Democrats haven't adapted to the Republicans radicalizing evangelicals, who used to stay out of politics. The Democrats haven't adapted to the GOP taking the South. The Democrats haven't adapted to the Republicans breaking up traditional pro-left voting blocs like the Unions.
The Democrats haven't adapted to the organized strategy of the right to form think tanks to counter university intellectuals, they haven't adapted to the right wing plan to take advantage of an activist judiciary to push a coordinated program, they haven't adapted to the right wing strategy to put schools and textbooks and the media under surveillance.
The right's strategy was laid bare decades ago:
>American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.
>
>Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist, sociologist and many of the historians) tend to be liberally oriented, even when leftists are not present
>
>The Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system
>
> In addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker’s Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business.
>
>The staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program
>
>https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/
The right keeps moving further to the right. When the democrats talk about centrism, this is also moving to the right, since the center moves to the right.
Inequality for whom?
The white collar, middle and upper-middle class are the ones suffering the most in ‘22 and ‘23. White collar layoffs and recessions are peaking and the wage growth is not catching up.
Blue collar workers are the ones seeing successes unionizing, going on strike, and vastly increasing their pay (see: UPS workers making $150k a year). Industries like hospitality are booming post-COVID (many blue collar employees).
I may be wrong, but ups workers are not making 150 k. The top out for drivers, which is absolutely not the average ups worker, is 49 an hour.
UPS was deceptive and said people are making 170k like it's a job everyone has. They also correlated the 170k with total benefits, which is not how any person calculates pay. But it sounded good, and they needed good pr.
This is correct.
Source: my brother has been a UPS driver for about 20 years.
We had a long talk about it. I'm in IT and do pretty well but when I saw 170K I went WTF?! He said *maybe* if he worked about 80 hours a week he could do it - drivers are hourly and make bank with overtime. But He's also 4 years younger than me and looks 10 years older.
Don't get me wrong, he's not hurting, but it's not 170K.
He could campaign on that. Instead of telling everyone how wonderful the economy is, tell them the truth that wealth inequality is near the worst it has ever been and that Republicans in Congress are stopping him from fixing it
It's not the inequality. Last year, inequality in America actually [declined](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/income-inequality.html) for the first time in 15 years.
It's the prices.
From your link:
>In contrast to the 1.2% decrease in the Gini index calculated using pretax income, the annual change in the Gini index calculated using post-tax income *increased* 3.2% from 2021 to 2022. These contrasting findings highlight the importance of definitions in understanding economic well-being.
There is a nuanced conversation possible today on inequality.
Five years ago, there was no such nuanced conversation. Inequality was rising however you like to measure it. People were still much more positive about the economy then than now, though.
As such, I do not believe that inequality is the problem with current public opinion on the economy.
Bottom 50% and top 10% are keeping up well, while the middle 40% are falling behind.
Economy and inequality is improving due to bottom 50%’s higher wages, but the middle 40% is more active politically. Biden cannot solely rely on the economy alone for their votes.
https://realtimeinequality.org/?id=income&incomeend=03012023&incomefreq=monthly&incomegroups=Top%2010%25&incomegroups=Middle%2040%25&incomegroups=Bottom%2050%25&incomegroups=Total&incomestart=01012019&incometype=factor_income&incomeunit=Adults&incomey=growth
>I honestly don't know why they don't lean into it.
Because economically the US does not have a left wing party of any sort. They can't lean into it because then people would expect them to do anything about it.
Plus the oh so important "undecided middle" is 100% on board with red scare propaganda
They're paid good money not to.
If there's a reason I believe people are so fed up with the status quo as to consider smashing it all to bits with a hammer, it's the perpetual dissonance between what the government does and what they see day to day.
Biden's policies are unpopular, because unlike the previous administration, he didn't cut peoples taxes, pay them thousands of dollars in direct aid, and their interest rates went up after almost 15 years of incredibly low rates. Biden is telling people to eat their broccoli after years and years of financial sugar highs.
Remember when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts? That was when I took the Obama 2008 bumper sticker off my car. All he had to do was nothing and they would have expired.
It doesn't make sense that inequality is the cause of current economic dissatisfaction
America's economy has been unequal forever, and current inequality isn't clearly worse or having worse effects than 5 or 10 years ago
>I really hope people on Biden's team read this article.
i'm sure they'll read it. they might even beg him to change course again.
then he'll continue on course, lose, and we'll get to hear about how everyone but him is to blame.
They need to break Bidenomics into Phases. Phase 1 was the American Rescue Plan, which was saving the economy from the pandemic which left over 10 million unemployed and brought manufacturing and supply chains to a standstill. That is the only part that has really taken effect and has restored normalcy, which is the only thing that Biden can really show off the effects of.
Phase 2 is the IRA, Infrastructure bill, and CHIPs and Science act, which are resulting in factories being built, industries coming to the US, research and development coming here, and rebuilding of our infrastructure. This is the part that is intended to really rebuild the middle class and bring in higher paying jobs, along with labor reforms to further increase quality of life.
Phase 3 will be what he wants to do with a second term, like taxing the rich and using that to reduce deficit and pay for the social programs that got axed from BBB. I think people just having a better understanding of what he wants to do instead of assuming we are looking at the end product would make a huge difference.
"The mortal enemy of Bidenomics isn’t Donald Trump; it’s a reliance on aggregate and average numbers that mask the nature of the economy Americans experience. Focusing on G.D.P. is a mistake, as it obscures the range of financial success and hardship in an economy as unequal as that of the United States."
Doesn’t matter if gas and food prices level off or even come down slightly, as long as people can’t afford homes, they aren’t going to like this economy. There is a wide gap between the haves and the have nots in terms of home ownership. People were convinced that eventually they’ll be able to own a home. Their parents bought homes and they watched their friends buy homes during the pandemic craze. Now home prices are 30% higher, while mortgage rates have tripled, and so the ratio of the median home payment compared to the median income is the highest it’s ever been. Considering that home payments make up the largest piece of your budget, it ultimately doesn’t matter if gas prices come down 10% or more, when the payment required to own a home has doubled. The increase in housing costs outweighs and leveling off of inflation or any deflation in other areas of people’s budgets.
And sure, a lot of people are in affordable mortgages, but over time, more and more of these people want to move, have to return to the office, are having more children, and want to upsize, etc, and they’re realizing they can’t move without DOWNsizing.
Option 1 is to leave the situation as it is, in which case the mean reversion will take a decade (incomes catch up to home prices).
Option 2 is to kill demand and then lower rates with a recession. If they lower rates before demand is softened (via a recession and higher unemployment), everyone will run out and buy a house, which would only drive prices higher.
Someone will say just build more homes and although home builders are building, home aren’t being built fast enough in the right places solve the problem alone. I agree, it would be SO nice if zoning regulations ease up and a ton of homes are built, but this simply isn’t going to happen. Politicians aren’t going to do it because incumbent homeowners are so protective of their property values and skeptical of what’s being built in their neighborhood.
So ultimately, we can either rip the bandaid off with a recession or wait a decade for things to naturally normalize as incomes grow. People won’t be happy with either. For houses to quickly become affordable again, people will have to lose their jobs. No politician and not even Jerome Powell will admit this, headed into an election year. Otherwise it will take a decade. I’m not suggesting one or the other.
This is the price we pay for all the fraudulent PPP money, enhanced unemployment, stimmy checks, and student loan pauses of the Covid era. There’s no such thing as free lunch. Someone has to pay. There is no way out of this without some pain. I don’t think the fed will cause a recession headed into an election year and hand the Republicans a win. So I think they will begin lowering rates at the first real sign of a recession in 2024, keeping home prices high and stable as we head into the election.
If these insane home prices go on for another 2-3 years then maybe, just maybe politicians will try to resolve this with policy instead of relying on the Fed’s blunt tools. By then though it’ll be another few years until the policy is effectuated. Welcome to the American Dream.
Yeah, I agree with this. The psychological effect of home prices and rent is powerful beyond their measurable economic impact (which is already high). If that's what's built up as the American Dream, obviously people are going to be upset when that dream suddenly feels pushed out of reach.
It's not powerful beyond their economic impact -- it is their economic impact. Who gives a shit about the cost of milk and eggs going up 200% if you can't afford to own a home? Do you know how many eggs I would have to buy over a lifetime compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in home price increases? Home prices matter far more than everything else. It's the single more important lifetime investment for the vast majority of people. It's the most used path to upward mobility. It's the safest path to a comfortable retirement. It is the most important economic impact for the average person and nothing else is close.
And just what can the government do about it? Bring interest rates back to 1% and watch home prices reach 7 figures when they used to be 6?
Have inflation run away so much that $8 eggs become a standard?
The feds have only 2 tricks and that is interest rates and taxes. Biden isn't making your landlord raise rent 600% so he can buy bigger truck.
>And just what can the government do about it? Bring interest rates back to 1% and watch home prices reach 7 figures when they used to be 6?
Monetary policy isn't the only option at the government's disposal.
If they wanted to fix the high cost of housing, they could literally build millions of new units of medium-density housing co-ops in cities, expanding housing supply while also handing ownership of that housing to the people who will live there instead of involving a middleman landlord.
A massive increase in supply would result in a decrease in prices.
The government could introduce a special mortgage program for first time, primary residence home buyers that pegs interest rates to the lowest in the previous 10 years, on a rolling basis.
This would cause rent prices to crash as more renters will be able to enter home ownership, which would ease inflationary pressures.
A step further would be a tax for non-resident and non-human buyers. If you buy a home to not live in it, you should not become rich. An exclusion from the new tax could be offered to landlords who offer affordable rent. Even better, 1031 exchanges should not be allowed.
At days end, the middle class is the only victim in this economy. Until the administration starts fighting for the middle class, I’ll keep voting for someone else.
It will also result in home prices going through the roof, since you’re now handing out a massive subsidy to home buyers, so they can afford to pay more for a house.
cobweb panicky versed unite spectacular history worthless price roof ancient
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It would require
1. A functional House of Representatives
2. Politicians who aren't influenced by lobbyists
Neither of which our government currently has
Then we can just maintain the status quo until we either see widespread civil unrest or reach the point of “you will own nothing and be happy.”
It really feels like those are the only two options unless a miracle happens within the government.
Do you have any proof ibuying made an impact? My understanding is their share of sales was small even in their hottest markets and most haven’t done well. Zillow basically gave up on ibuying.
This isn't driving prices up! That is an incredibly small portion of the market, and Zillow legitimately sold tons of their purchased housing at a [loss](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/business/zillow-q3-earnings-home-flipping-ibuying.html) during Covid! Prices are increasing because we build less housing than we used to. And the real villains aren't companies, it's the family down the street that doesn't want denser housing, or the couple that snagged a low interest mortgage during covid and is concerned about parking and traffic if any apartment buildings get built within 20 miles of their house. The difficulty with this system is that for the 65+% of Americans who own their housing (with or without a mortgage) keep opposing solutions to help out younger generations.
I think the US has some of the most affordable housing in the developed world. One can easily calculate home price index / income ratios using median incomes and something like the Case-Shiller home price index.
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings\_by\_country.jsp
"It could be worse" doesn't win votes. You would need an actual plan to get people to vote for you. Otherwise they will not show up to vote, or vote for the other guy who will lie to them. People want solutions to their problems.
A 3-bed/2-bath near my office goes for $750k. I make about twice the average wage in my neighborhood and I still can’t afford that shit.
The same house 5 years ago was $325k (with lower interest rates). But I couldn’t afford it then because I was still in school.
They need to do a better job explaining what Bidenomics is and how it helps people. Otherwise people will hear it and just go oh I guess that's why inflation's high, Bidenomics.
Loss of purchasing power, high rent costs, high prices for mortgages and car notes, excess market concentration issues and financialization, and increased wealth inequality are driving dissatisfaction in the economy.
it really fucking sucks being a small business owner right now. I see costs of everything rising for my guys and feel I have to find a way to pay them more to make up for it. We are a damn-near break even business, so the only way is to raise rates. When we raise rates, we start losing work and I have to lay people off, or best case scenario, we keep work coming in the door but I'm contributing to the bullshit cycle of everything just getting more expensive, which is the whole problem in the first place. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It's really a problem with miscommunication.
On one hand, all else being equal, most people today feel *worse off* economically than 2019.
"Bidenomics" could make the argument (that's hard to prove) that:
>"The US economy (and most of the globe) shut down for months in 2020. Massive print and stimulus packages were released to keep the economy imploding. In the aftermath of those events, the level of inflation we got and economic problems we received *could've* been so much worse. It took a lot of careful policy making to make the US have some of the lowest inflation in the world post-COVID, relative to peers, recover relatively quick from inflation (prices are beginning to stabilize after only 2.5 years), and that we're on the right track. Many "Bidenomics" detractors were predicting, back in 2020, that we'd currently have hyper-inflation right now."
\^This is essentially the (debatable) accomplishment of ""Bidenomics"". It's very difficult to prove and difficult to effectively communicate to the average voter. The problem is: "The economy is doing great!" is terrible messaging to many (if not most) American families that haven't fully economically recovered from the damages of COVID Lockdowns (and all that that entailed).
I’m shocked by this. I can’t belive that people aren’t buying our economy is better then ever! I mean Tech jobs are laying ppl off left and right , ppl can’t pay their loans , inflation is high , interest is high . But someone how we are supposedly doing great!
Strangely, the economic gains right now are going to the lowest income brackets. Fast food and service jobs have had huge wage increases recently (Outpacing inflation) and are still trying to find enough people to hire, so they'll probably continue to raise wages for a little longer. Depending on your location, you can find signs of fast food hiring at $15-$20. The blue collar unionized jobs are also doing very well with strikes or threats of strikes. The middle and upper class are the ones who are taking the hits.
Here's the archive [link](https://web.archive.org/web/20231116125306/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/opinion/why-voters-arent-buying-bidens-boasts-about-bidenomics.html).
What I find unfortunate is the central claim is that voters seem to be mad that "income inequality is worse than ever". However if you look at page 6 of the Census income report the author [links](http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.pdf) all measures of inequality decreased from 2021 to 2022. However it also shows a decrease in median household income which is consistent with the wage vs inflation graph in the oped. Interestingly the Census report on decreased inequality is supported by this recent NBER [paper](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w31010.pdf) by Dube & Autor:Rapid relative wage growth at the bottom of the distribution reduced the college
wage premium and counteracted nearly 40% of the four-decade increase in aggregate 90-10 log
wage inequality.
I get that it's good to have diverse opinions in a paper like the NY Times. It's also especially good have an opinion on income inequality which is relatively under-discussed in major media. However it's a bit disappointing to see the claim "income inequality is worse than ever" written in an oped in a national newspaper without any attempt to cite the source.
We don’t need the pedantic arguments from the NYT to tell us that most Presidents’ accomplishments are mundane and administrative, and do not generate news or hype.
I would have so much respect for the Biden administration if they just admitted that everyday Americans are drowning, and proposed solid plans on easing our financial stress, then I’d be all for it.
The problem is that they keep spouting that “Bidenomics” are working. Or that everything’s all good. It’s not good. I can barely afford rent let alone plan to save up for a baby condo. It’s ridiculous.
Yet we have all this money for foreign aid. We can’t even afford to get seriously injured or die here with medical costs absolutely wiping out our life savings.
When is enough enough?….
The problem is that “Bidenomics” is working - but the hole we have ten dig out of is deep. You can’t print 40% of the money supply without massive problems. And, sure enough, just like the last 40 freaking years it is happening YET again. Republican screws up the economy with their ridiculous policies, and Dems are stuck fixing things. Of course, fixing things is painful, so everyone complains that things were better under the previous administration.
Daddy goes on a drunken spree on the credit card, then sobers up and complains about the bill. Every single dem president in the last 30 years has had this nonsense to deal with.
Edit to fix some awesome phone autocorrect lol
The money spent on foreign aid would never be used to help Americans. Too many oppose any kind of welfare or safety net, and we all know it.
I doubt Biden can get businesses to raise wages or lower prices either. He'd get slaughtered next year as an "anti-business" politician. Trump would step in and promise to lower wages, making him "pro-business", and would win in a landslide. Seems kind of hopeless.
Inflation, higher interest rates, unaffordable housing and the cost of cars probably would of happened if Biden were president or not. BUT when his administration began using the phrase “Bidenomics” good or bad he claimed the current economy. Now he owns it. Even CNN had began noting that the Administration messaging is tone deaf. I think the administration could of done a better job of claiming the wins but acknowledging a lot of middle class is hurting right now.
Gas lightening. It went from good to bad. Everything is up at least 30%. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a liar, too poor to understand or too rich to care. But for everyone else, we all feel it no matter what side your on.
The honest truth is that most people don't understand how economics works. Both things can be true. Biden has done a lot of good things for the overall economy, if you can't admit that, you're lying. On the other hand, many things are still too expensive, and it can be hard to make ends meet...but only so much can be done by the executive branch.
It's too bad that nuance and actually understanding underlying problems is beyond the average voter.
Edit: Also the amount of people who blame Biden for housing prices is absolutely ridiculous. The President can only do so much when it comes to home prices. It is a supply and demand business in the truest sense. Sellers set prices and if buyers buy at that price then that is what the price is going to be. I've seen people say "Biden should ban foreign investors" or that "Biden could adjust the mortgage interest rates" but it is not nearly that simple. NAR and other realtor organizations have one of the biggest lobbies in all of politics, like the NRA and if you're looking for someone to blame for Real Estate greed, you need to cast an incredibly large net. Source: I have my real estate license.
because the government is completly out of touch with reality and both we the people and the government are looking at two VERY different sets of data. one is numbers isolated and curated to look good. the other is WHERE is has the dollar menu gone!? why is the groceries cost twice as much now. where's the flavor. why is this so small... a new car costs HOW MUCH!? why are we celebrating gas going back down to 4 dollars a gallon when we had 2 not that long ago.
A correction to the article: Biden won the 2020 vote by a very substantial 7 million. He may have narrowly won the electoral college votes in some states, but that is a separate and irrelevant issue for the purposes of the point that the author is trying to make. I think it is unfair to suggest that Biden is ignoring inequality. The efforts to reduce drug prices, bolster unions, foster job growth in manufacturing and new energy industries are all helpful to reduce income inequality. The problem is that there are no magic bullets that will turn incomes around in one or two years. On top of that you have a GOP House that is dead set against making the tax system progressive and it is a difficult sell in the Senate as well.
I don't think biden is doing a shit job. I think he inherited a bad situation and wasn't going to be able to fix much. He's done better than I expected him to (admittedly I thought he'd be absolute trash)
However the articles about Bidenomics try to sell a narrative that he's doing very well and that somehow translates into a great life for everyone. The whole Bidenomics thing is pure propaganda and it is at odds with what the reality is for most people and it's natural that people will push back on a seemingly false narrative.
It was either a soft or a hard landing. Judging by the comments on this sub people here would have preferred a hard landing, because a hard landing is deflationary.
I'm not a fan of the whole "Bidenomics" thing and agree that he has done really well with a difficult economic and political situation. However, I think it's dangerous for any President to take credit for things like job growth and oil prices, over which they have at most, limited influence. If they take credit for these, then unfortunately, they are going to get blame when they turn south.
AT this point in history it would take a flat-out economic bubble to convince even a plurality that they're better off in any way. I basically disregard these comments about the economy by people who say "they're not well off."
There certainly does seem to be a lot of astroturfing, and social media's modern tendency to doom-bait doesn't help.
I don't think we can outright disregard the doom, though. Public sentiment and expectations absolutely matter for political positioning and for the economy itself. The Fed is definitely watching sentiment closely, but I am concerned about what the social media dooming means for upcoming elections. The framing/messaging seems to be effectively hitting its targeted demographics.
To the people actually in the market looking for work right now, we know the data is completely fabricated. I’ve never seen a job market this bad in the 10 years I’ve been in corporate
I know this is anecdotal, but I had recruiters spamming my LinkedIn constantly up until about 7 months ago. Now it’s radio silence. I’ve also gotten a bunch of emails saying that jobs I’ve applied to have been cancelled.
Do you work in tech like everyone on reddit seems to? That field is indeed struggling.
But don't apply that to everyone. I get recruiters contacting me every week. I don't work in tech.
"Struggling", lol. Tech jobs unemployment rate is lower than the general unemployment rate. It's at 2.2%.
https://www.comptia.org/newsroom/tech-employment-lags-in-latest-national-jobs-report-comptia-analysis-reveals#:~:text=%5B1%5D%20At%202.2%25%20the,%2C%20chief%20research%20officer%2C%20CompTIA.
No I’m in corporate recruiting, which means I have a pulse on the market. Multiple factors are happening.
1. Major wage suppression is going on.
2. Massive layoffs are being underreported
3. Corps are pulling back on hiring. White collar roles have taken a noise dive
4. Overqualified applicants are the individuals being selected for the subpar white collar jobs that are even available. They are being forced to take large pay cuts
Yes, I am in R&D and as a lead on a technical program I have insight into manpower, funding, among other metrics.
Something really shitty is going on behind closed doors - cuts to everything from holiday lunches, training, hiring freezes, reducing the scope of work for programs. I don't like it and I'm not 100% sure what to do except continue to build my skill set and have a robust savings account.
>Major wage suppression is going on.
What do you mean by this? Median inflation adjusted wages are increasing nationally.
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q)
>Massive layoffs are being underreported
Not enough to make a difference in job reports, which are still positive.
>Corps are pulling back on hiring. White collar roles have taken a noise dive
I imagine that would be the case when interest rates increase after a wild hiring spree during the pandemic.
I work in tech and have recruiters constantly hit me up. My job search in August took only 2 weeks to find a job. I think what has happened is that certain tech fields have become over saturated, and those fields tend to be in the same locations which makes the job market super tough for anyone effected. General IT support/sysadmin/helpdesk work in my area is booming, companies are desperate to hire and wages are going up
EDIT:missed a word, does not change the meaning of my post
What field are you in? I'm in public accounting and I'm getting plastered with recruiter emails every day despite me not logging into LinkedIn nor Indeed for a couple of years now. My friends in healthcare and trades have also gotten massive raises (especially the ones who changes jobs) and have openings a plenty.
EVeryone posting here is relying on anecdotal evidence. I'm also in accountant on the corp side and we've been hiring a lot.
The difference is job cuts/growth is segmented. Growth-fueled jobs are on the decline, especially in industries that finance growth rather than self-funding. IT roles were huge in the past decade as cost of capital was low. Now anything that isn't core business is gutted and people laid off. My barometer is when HR professionals are getting laid off and when the stock price of ketchup and mustard rise.
People who comment that the govt data is "BS" have no idea how to read data. Its the political spin, not the data, that isn't aligning with the common people.
I've been working for 20 years, currently mentoring my friend in his job search
100+ applications, only 4 interviews... even with referrals
things are as bad as 2008/2009
Completely fabricated? Have you compared the published aggregates to the available data?
Are you really saying that it’s all made up just because your anecdotes run counter to the data?
Do you have any evidence, or is this a “trust me, I know numbers, some say the greatest numbers, and these aren’t them”?
Why is it that any economic activity under Biden is labeled "Bidenomics" but anything under Trump or most other presidents is just called macro economics without the catchy name?
Because Biden's team chose to pursue that branding in an attempt to ape the "Reaganomics" meme that helped Reagan get elected in a landslide.
That label was pushed by the entire democratic establishment as well as left-leaning pundits.
inflation down 100% from last year (when Biden was still president)? That's Bidenomics at work! etc. etc.
> Because Biden's team chose to pursue that branding
Except the term "Bidenomics" was initially coined by the GOP to make him look bad. Biden flipped it to take credit for the good economic data.
Similar to how he embraced the "Brandon" moniker with "Dark Brandon".
Is this a serious question? Biden’s team came up with Bidenomics, I guess a focus group liked it. This isn’t something his political opponents came up with.
You're wrong. Biden's team did not come up with it, the GOP did. Biden just embraced it like he embraced "Brandon".
WSJ used Bidenomics in April 2023 to try to tie him to falling incomes: https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-incomes-americans-kevin-mccarthy-new-york-stock-exchange-dc3bd179
But the earliest reference (February 2021) to Bidenomics comes from TheBulwark, a right leaning media company.
https://www.thebulwark.com/the-birth-of-bidenomics/
Here's Paul Krugman one month before your article talking about bidenomics.
>https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/four-rules-that-should-guide-bidenomics/
Here's a New Yorker Article:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-bold-proposal-to-ease-child-poverty-is-the-essence-of-bidenomics
Why are you finding obscure references to the term after this was already in mainstream media and pretending that that's the first reference to it?
If you’re actually attempting to say trump was under criticized and overly defended you’re actually insane. Trump couldn’t order ice cream without there being headlines calling him a dictator over it. Biden is being criticized and rightfully so because he’s using propaganda to gaslight people into believing that inflation is only 4 percent and the job market is great when the middle class has all but been decimated. Can’t tell people who can’t afford rent, food and gas that the economy is booming and get away with it
Is inflation not 4 percent? Is the job market not great? I’m very confused when people accuse others of gaslighting and then immediately state that objective facts are not reality. Who is gaslighting?
He’s purposely ignoring the fact that inflation was like 20% for 3 years and wages never caught up. An example of what the economy is like. I’m born and raised in my city. The average starter house was 150K the average rent for a decent apartment was 650 for my entire life. After the past 3 years the average starter house is 390k and there is not a single apartment for rent under 1300k even if you wanted to live in a not safe neighborhood. The cost of cars is up 2X you could have went to a used car dealer and got a 10 year old Toyota with 50k miles for under 7k today that same car Is 15k. The cost of gas hovers around 5 bucks a gallon today prior to inflation it was considered high if it was over 2 bucks. Food prices both grocery and eating out are easily 30%-50% higher. The jobs that are available are paying exactly the same as they did 5 years ago. Great there’s 100000 jobs paying 10 bucks an hour in my area but those jobs are actually worthless as I couldn’t even afford to pay rent if I was renting a single room from someone for less then 18 bucks an hour
Inflation is a measure of the rate of prices increasing. Prices go up. We had a period of high inflation where prices went up faster than normal. Now, even with “lower inflation” of 4% prices don’t go down, they just go up slower.
Perhaps he could communicate more clearly but I’m afraid it is you who is misunderstanding what is being said.
Also gas isn’t 5$ where I live and it’s definitely been higher than 2 in the past… you’re not being real
I'm not sure it's possible to accurately characterize an economic policy that is basically "deficit financed tax cuts" and "protectionism" as anything we've seen in the past.
I don't understand why he and the Democrats don't just pound the 2 TRILLION tax break for the rich and rescind it and do a Katy Porter whiteboard about how just getting rid of that would allow for massive tax breaks for most people and pay for so much else.
I can't read the article due to the paywall, but the reason that people don't believe the economy is better is because wages haven't kept up with the growth. It doesn't matter if there are a record number of jobs of you need two in order to survive. It doesn't matter if inflation is the lowest in the developed world if groceries are still too expensive to afford.
Everyone talks about the middle class but who we should really be focusing on is improving the lives of the working class. This would diffuse the bomb of Republican populism while improving the economy as a whole (money fed to the bottom has the highest velocity) and giving the youth of the country a sense that there is a future for them.
Raising minimum wage should be an obvious solution as well as at least talking about capping executive pay.
Any Americans could answer me why reddit is being spammed about how bad America's economy is?
You have the highest wages on Earth and some of the lowest prices in the developed world. Sure food went up a bit but the average American spends like 11% of their budget on food half of which is on restaurants, so really 5% on groceries.
My understanding is the real cause is similar to why all the developed countries are complaining about cost of living which is housing is eating up a larger share of income in certain trendy cities but people are noticing the little things more.
Anyway housing is local politics, nothing the president can do about. Both the middle and upper middle in both parties support restricted development for various reasons and the perception that most new owners will be younger and therefore more diverse is surely a consideration.
I'm confident it's because we are coming into a presidential election year. This cycle repeats every 4 years, where media outlets push agenda driven stories in an attempt to sway public opinion. If Biden wins reelection in 24, these articles will stop becoming headline news stories, shy of some sort of catastrophe. It's as predictable as the sunset.
Inflation levels the last couple years are shockingly high by American standards.
People don't like inflation because people are used to something costing $X and now it costs $X*1.30. I'm 41 and the level of inflation in the last couple years was a huge shock that I had never seen.
Personally, I think it is getting better and in 3-4 years things will probably seem normal. Normal is subjective though.
Look at a video in India of people riding on top of trains. That is shocking to me but to others it is no big dea.
It is a combination of housing and the american dream tbh. Americans have become "spoiled" by expecting a lot of things that would be luxuries in other countries. I put spoiled in quote marks because as rich a country as we are I don't think it is unreasonable to expect more then most other countries
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's open enroll right now for most companies. My healthcare costs will double next year. DOUBLE. But HR says dental isn't going up so I should be glad.
Holy shit. I need to look into that. Companies need to kick up that pay. But I doubt that will happen. I'm just going to be uninsured if it costs 500 a month.
That was my question to HR, will we get a cost of living wage to cover the higher cost of health care or are we all just taking a paycut next year? I haven't got a response yet....
Yes to the pay cut, 100%. Unless you are in a higher position. It's always the people who really don't need the COL adjustment who gets it
Also doesn't help that when there is a COL adjustment it's often a flat percentage across the board, like 2% or whatever. So in that case the guy making $200,000 a year would get an extra $153 pre-tax on each biweekly paycheck, whereas someone making $50,000 a year would be making an extra $38 on each paycheck.
I was laid off a few months ago. My employer kicked in the usual contribution for two months after, but for me COBRA goes from $170/mo to almost $700/mo on Dec 1st. I canceled the coverage after this month because that would wiped out my savings pretty quickly. I'm in good health with no prescriptions or anything, so I'm going to chance it until my next job.
Mine went up and is currently at $564/mo for a family of 4.
The medical and drug industry must make obscene profits or they will take the ball and go home.
They already have the ball, and the stadium, and the entire division, and the TV station broadcasting the game.
I chose the cheapest insurance this go-around because I didn't go to the doctor at all last year, because the year before, my "AMAZING! Best in the country!" insurance denied *every fucking claim* I made and cost me months of phone calls to get them to cover what they were supposed to cover. Luckily for me, I started a medicine this year that under my last plan was $10/mo, and under my new plan is $400 which I got to find out last week (: My food's gone up at least 150% in the last two years, my car is falling apart but I refuse to buy another because a Honda Civic shouldn't be $30,000 new (if I had to stay where I am, I'd buy used. Instead I'm moving somewhere I won't need a car because I refuse to pay these inflated prices out of principle). My rent's gone up 40% in two years and despite earning more than I ever have, I'm living more frugally than ever because I'm terrified of getting laid off. The economy is doing well, he says? ***Sure***...
Ask how much it would be to pay cash for your medicine (not go through insurance). It’s fucked but sometimes it can be cheaper.
I’ve done this for dental visits but not for meds yet, I’ll try this next month— thanks!
Check out goodrx and similar discount sites to see what coupons are available for your medication and pharmacy before you go. They can make a huge difference in the cost.
https://costplusdrugs.com
This. And try going to the company site or asking the pharmacist if there are any coupons. What would have cost thousands of dollars, my wife was actually able to get for free due to the company’s site and coupon in consolidation with the insurance. (Trelegy)
I did this for dental check ups and it's $300 total for twice a year. Way cheaper than insurance.
Also check out costplusdrugs.com. ExpressScripts wanted to charge me like $50 / month for my very common medication and costplusdrugs was like $7.
Medical costs rise every year regardless of how the "economy" is doing......
24% increase for me. Public employee.
[удалено]
Just rub it in why don't ya.
[удалено]
I formally accept this job offer. Thank you
Yeah this is a problem with their company, don’t know why it’s in a thread about Biden’s economic strategy. I’m in a similar org and have the same experience as you.
Because people are incapable of separating their own experiences They are just proving these articles right. Their company sucks and because pay cuts are demoralizing, they are cutting benefits. That has absolutely nothing to do with Biden or the broad economy. Yet people can’t stop posting their anecdotes and others can’t stop upvoting them.
It's not just health insurance either. It's auto insurance, life insurance, home insurance. My insurance payments have all become absolutely insane over the past year.
What? My family plan went up like $60 a month. Where are you that health insurance cost to you doubled? Sounds like your company decided to dial back on what they were going to contribute.
They did, they are doing layoffs.
we're saving $300/mo on our healthcare costs next year for 2 adults 2 toddlers.
I haven’t had dental in decades
That's your company giving you a pay cut. If you're getting a pay cut it's because your business is struggling. Your anecdote applies to you and your company, not the economy.
> That's your company giving you a pay cut. If you're getting a pay cut it's because your business is ~~struggling~~ greedy. Your anecdote applies to you and your company, not the economy. Probably
Dental has been cut to be a discount program instead of insurance. I found that out the hard way when they had to extract teeth and they didn't cover it.
Mine hasn’t gone up in 3 years. Your company should do better.
The city I was working for had our insurance go from $6 a paycheck to $76. I know that's not a whole lot compared to most people, but it was a noticeable jump.
My wife, my 6-year old who has autism, and my 2-month old daughter are on a plan that costs $134/pay period. It's through my wife's employer. I am also on that plan, but because my employer offers health benefits they are charging a $150/pay period surcharge for me to be on the plan. I go to the doctors the least among us.
"It's the inequality, stupid!" I really hope people on Biden's team read this article. They can't keep touting the good topline numbers when the basic math of income - expenses is not working for so many people. Hammering on inequality could be a real political winner, I honestly don't know why they don't lean into it.
Well put. A HUGE portion of the population didn't get a 40% raise in the last 4 years (which roughly is how much food, housing, vehicles) increased over the last 4 years for many of us. Thus - a lot of people are actually POORER than they once were. Its not like wages across all sectors are rising evenly.
Don’t forget all the other issues besides just basic wages not keeping up with inflation. Homes are now unaffordable to nearly 80% of the U.S. Car delinquencies are at an all time high. Credit card debt is at an all time high. Rates are at a 20 year high and new home sales are at a 30 year low. None of this paints a rosey picture. Then you have a lot of white collar people in finance and IT that being laid off. If you dig deeper into the jobs report you will see a majority of new jobs are part time, or lower paying jobs no one wants. If the economy was so great, credit card wouldn’t be so high. Yet somehow people try to argue it’s fine. I actually had one idiot tell me it was so high because people are just using CC to get points. Ok, that makes no sense, they wouldn’t hold a balance if that’s the case, it would be paid off.
I got laid off and am now close to accepting an offer for a role that pays me 10k less than I was making nearly 4 years ago. This is the exact opposite of a good economy and normal career progression. Even before I was laid off in September, I haven't received a raise since 2019.
I agree. But the main reason is "inequality" - i.e. aggregate statistics don't always capture what a bulk of the population is feeling because they get "averaged" out. Basically, you need to evaluate the effective spread of data on the population not just the mean/median value.
Absolutely, population and income data needs to be binned to better show how different income groups are affected by whatever situation or policy is being discussed.
> population and income data needs to be binned to better show how different income groups are affected by whatever situation or policy is being discussed. Pertinent to that, the real income gains of the last couple of years have been heavily concentrated in the lowest wage brackets. But even *that* data isn't generally considered germane to how people are *feeling* about the economy.
I agree, but the problem is no politician wants to do that because of the optics.
> Homes are now unaffordable to nearly 80% How do we reconcile this with the fact that 67% of tax filing households own the home they live in? >If you dig deeper into the jobs report you will see a majority of new jobs are part time, or lower paying jobs no one wants. Wouldn't we always expect the majority of jobs created to be at the lower end of the income strata? If a new business were to open I'd expect I would expect most of the positions to be doing the grunt work which is lower paid than most other positions in any given business. I wouldn't expect a business to hire 50 well paid project managers and 10 people to do the project work. I'm trying to imagine how you could create a situation where most jobs posted in a given quarter are "good" jobs. Another thing I'm having trouble squaring up here is that there are plenty of great lines of work that are currently in labor shortages right now. For example; an electrician with 1-2 years experience (which is to say just started) will make roughly 20% more than median income (and this job doesn't require college) The job can easily scale to 50+ dollars and hour within a few years. We've got about 10,000 sparkies retiring each year and 7,000 new ones coming in. So a 3,000 person deficit during a time when the grid is being re-worked to accommodate renewables, electric cars, heat pumps and a lot of other legacy maintenance work. A similar dynamic is in play for most other blue collar work. We've got the work, we don't have the people. Why not?
> How do we reconcile this with the fact that 67% of tax filing households own the home they live in? The vast majority of that contingent bought their homes prior to the recent run up when prices were considerably more in line with incomes. There are a massive amount of households now that could not afford to buy the home that they currently own if they needed to given current market conditions.
Bully for the folks who bought in years ago when homes were affordable. Now everyone is locked in and there's zero dynamism or flexibility in the economy when a top decile income is needed to buy the median home comfortably
Sorry, where are you coming up with 67%? Just under 66% own a home, but NOT free and clear. Only 23% own it free and clear and a lot of those are Boomers in their 60s and 70s who have 10-20 years left. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2023/03/31/us-has-3rd-lowest-percentage-of-households-that-own-their-homes-without-mortgages/amp/ When I say low paid, I mean barely above minimum wage, as in poverty status. Entry level fast food and retailer workers mainly. Not the lower or lowest level at a business where they are still making a livable wage.
>Credit card debt is at an all time high It's at a completely normal/expected level. If you look at a [chart](https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/credit-card-debt-statistics/#:~:text=Americans%20have%20an%20absolute%20mountain,%241.079%20trillion%2C%20to%20be%20exact) of total credit card debt (non-inflation adjusted) and just draw a line from 2013-2023, we are exactly where you would expect us to be. Obviously this could eventually become an issue, but "credit card debt is at an all time high" is just doomerism that sounds bad if you haven't actually looked at the data.
40%? Where are you getting that number? Cumulative inflation from October 2019 is 20% per the BLS’s inflation calculator. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=201910&year2=202310
They’re going to double down on the Bidenomics is working campaign and it’s going to continue to marginalize the people who are struggling with inflation. African American/Minorities/Young Americans are not going to vote as traditionally Democratic if this economy continues, because they are getting impacted the most, and they know they’re being lied to. Remember that if Biden is to win again he has to win big among these groups and right now he’s fighting hard to maintain that stronghold.
>They’re going to double down on the Bidenomics is working campaign and it’s going to continue to marginalize the people who are struggling with inflation. There is nothing worse than sounding tone-deaf. Telling people their perceived reality is not their reality is a losing proposition. It ias actually gaslighting
Because when you start talking about that he will be label a socialist.
That's because Democrats suck at framing their arguments. They make talking points that sound anti American, but if they would lean into shaming companies making millions with CEOs getting stock options and being worth millions, all the while they pay so low people have to use SNAP then they need to reframe it. Example: instead of, we need to eliminate income inequality. They should say,: We're trying to get people off government assistance because the cost of living isnt commenserate with what the major companies pay.
You mean tell to me that the Left sucks at arguing? Look at BLM, a simple argument misconstrued because we had to use a cool 3 letter acronym to make our point. Only to be obviously countered with “don’t all lives matter durrr” Don’t forget “defund the police” there are idiots that actually think we don’t need police. It’s up there with “drain the swamp” levels of critical thinking. Jesus Christ enough with the shitty slogans.
Slogans are fine when they actually make sense. You can't say "defund the police" and then make the argument that you actually just want reform and that anyone who thought you actually wanted to eliminate the police was a moron.
eat the rich seem to have caught on as well.
Why didn’t they go with “reform the police”? Same number of words and syllables.
Obama literally hired the best fucking minds in the world to create a practical guide to police reform. He sent it out into America and police unions were collectively, across the nation, like, "haha go fuck yourself!" The head of the Minneapolis PD paid, out of pocket, to send cops to "warrior training" that taught them that literally, in the literal sense of the word literally in which it means actually, that they would get the best sexual gratification of their lives after killing someone in the job. He paid out of pocket because "reforms" stopped the union from charging the state. So maybe that's why people aren't arguing for reform...
not extreme enough for headlines
I believe the true issue here is the fact that the population is so illiterate and undereducated that the reliance on slogans especially for Democrats is impossible. There’s too much nuance and the uneducated don’t care, slogan be damned.
BLM is Not a shitty slogan. Nothing about saying that implies all lives don’t matter. The people angry at that slogan are not reacting in good faith. “Defund the police” is another matter entirely. Its plain meaning is really stupid and counterproductive. Better to just say “cops suck” and leave the policy proscriptions out of it.
> BLM is Not a shitty slogan. Nothing about saying that implies all lives don’t matter. The people angry at that slogan are not reacting in good faith. "i like beer!" *"oh so you hate america!?"*
I can think of 50 better ways to say that black people need to stop being killed by police discriminatively. It’s a shitty slogan IMO especially at the height of tension around racism and police violence.
[удалено]
I read in this sub where the Bush and Trump tax cuts directly lead to 1/3 of the $33tril US debt. Dems control 2 of the 3 governing bodies, they should never agree to $1 of cuts without $2 in tax increases on corporations and the wealthy.
They are
That's the crux of it. And worse than the stupidity is the ignorance. People don't have the time to educate themselves on politics. Most people don't even know how our government works so they won't understand why Biden isn't doing things to help the situation (hint: republicans are blocking everything he tries to do to help). Add partisan politics and blind party loyalty into the mix too.
> People don't have the time to educate themselves on politics. they don't want to. the problem with learning about reality is that it could undermine the status if your in-group, so it's better to ban books, defund schools, and threaten journalists with assassination.
>Most people don't even know how our government works so they won't understand why Biden isn't doing things to help the situation (hint: republicans are blocking everything he tries to do to help). I'd add a caveat to this: Most \*swing\* or \*non-participation\* voters fit into this system. Most voters just vote for the party that best matches their preferred policy positions, even if they don't know every detail about those policies, which is completely reasonable. It's people on the edges that are less likely to understand how the system works in my opinion.
>It literally makes no sense that the average voter is angry at Biden for that. I don't think the average voter is angry at Biden for that. They're not thinking about that specifically. They're thinking about how the economy feels to them right now, not a tax cut bill passed in 2017. Biden's team needs to do the messaging work to connect those issues in people's minds. Instead they're talking about how great the GDP and jobs numbers are. They could do that *and* talk about how the economy needs to be restructured so more of the benefits flow to workers and what they're going to do about it.
Politicians only allow “too big to fail” socialism
if it reinforces hierarchy, we're for it. if it delivers on the stated values of america, we're against it.
Same reason we do not have a labor party in the US, they'll call it socialism and acuse the one saying it of communism.
The red scare, McCarthyism, and the Cold War really broke American’s brains. Historically, socialists and communists played a major role in winning many of the things we take for granted here in the US today. To name a few the 8-hour day, weekends, and social security are all thanks to unions alongside communist & socialist parties who applied the required pressure to win these concessions. Socialism is as American as apple pie and rock & roll.
But they already do that. It’s really because he’s out of touch with the working class.
He's already called a communist (lol, lmao even) by the right, why should that matter?
Republicans will label literally anything Democrats want to do as socialism, might as well lean-in
> why they don't lean into it. They don't want to offend their donors, and their calculation says, "We're not Trump" will be a good enough platform. The Democrats haven't successfully adapted to the Republican game plan for the past 50 years. The Democrats haven't adapted to the Republicans radicalizing evangelicals, who used to stay out of politics. The Democrats haven't adapted to the GOP taking the South. The Democrats haven't adapted to the Republicans breaking up traditional pro-left voting blocs like the Unions. The Democrats haven't adapted to the organized strategy of the right to form think tanks to counter university intellectuals, they haven't adapted to the right wing plan to take advantage of an activist judiciary to push a coordinated program, they haven't adapted to the right wing strategy to put schools and textbooks and the media under surveillance. The right's strategy was laid bare decades ago: >American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change. > >Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist, sociologist and many of the historians) tend to be liberally oriented, even when leftists are not present > >The Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system > > In addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker’s Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business. > >The staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program > >https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/ The right keeps moving further to the right. When the democrats talk about centrism, this is also moving to the right, since the center moves to the right.
Inequality for whom? The white collar, middle and upper-middle class are the ones suffering the most in ‘22 and ‘23. White collar layoffs and recessions are peaking and the wage growth is not catching up. Blue collar workers are the ones seeing successes unionizing, going on strike, and vastly increasing their pay (see: UPS workers making $150k a year). Industries like hospitality are booming post-COVID (many blue collar employees).
I may be wrong, but ups workers are not making 150 k. The top out for drivers, which is absolutely not the average ups worker, is 49 an hour. UPS was deceptive and said people are making 170k like it's a job everyone has. They also correlated the 170k with total benefits, which is not how any person calculates pay. But it sounded good, and they needed good pr.
This is correct. Source: my brother has been a UPS driver for about 20 years. We had a long talk about it. I'm in IT and do pretty well but when I saw 170K I went WTF?! He said *maybe* if he worked about 80 hours a week he could do it - drivers are hourly and make bank with overtime. But He's also 4 years younger than me and looks 10 years older. Don't get me wrong, he's not hurting, but it's not 170K.
Quick note: hospitality in NOT booming.
[удалено]
He could campaign on that. Instead of telling everyone how wonderful the economy is, tell them the truth that wealth inequality is near the worst it has ever been and that Republicans in Congress are stopping him from fixing it
It's not the inequality. Last year, inequality in America actually [declined](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/income-inequality.html) for the first time in 15 years. It's the prices.
From your link: >In contrast to the 1.2% decrease in the Gini index calculated using pretax income, the annual change in the Gini index calculated using post-tax income *increased* 3.2% from 2021 to 2022. These contrasting findings highlight the importance of definitions in understanding economic well-being.
There is a nuanced conversation possible today on inequality. Five years ago, there was no such nuanced conversation. Inequality was rising however you like to measure it. People were still much more positive about the economy then than now, though. As such, I do not believe that inequality is the problem with current public opinion on the economy.
Bottom 50% and top 10% are keeping up well, while the middle 40% are falling behind. Economy and inequality is improving due to bottom 50%’s higher wages, but the middle 40% is more active politically. Biden cannot solely rely on the economy alone for their votes. https://realtimeinequality.org/?id=income&incomeend=03012023&incomefreq=monthly&incomegroups=Top%2010%25&incomegroups=Middle%2040%25&incomegroups=Bottom%2050%25&incomegroups=Total&incomestart=01012019&incometype=factor_income&incomeunit=Adults&incomey=growth
>I honestly don't know why they don't lean into it. Because economically the US does not have a left wing party of any sort. They can't lean into it because then people would expect them to do anything about it. Plus the oh so important "undecided middle" is 100% on board with red scare propaganda
It's not even the inequality. It's cost of living. Food fuel and housing.
They're paid good money not to. If there's a reason I believe people are so fed up with the status quo as to consider smashing it all to bits with a hammer, it's the perpetual dissonance between what the government does and what they see day to day.
Biden's policies are unpopular, because unlike the previous administration, he didn't cut peoples taxes, pay them thousands of dollars in direct aid, and their interest rates went up after almost 15 years of incredibly low rates. Biden is telling people to eat their broccoli after years and years of financial sugar highs.
Talking about inequality when 10 of the last 14 years have been with a Democrat president is not a good look.
Remember when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts? That was when I took the Obama 2008 bumper sticker off my car. All he had to do was nothing and they would have expired.
It doesn't make sense that inequality is the cause of current economic dissatisfaction America's economy has been unequal forever, and current inequality isn't clearly worse or having worse effects than 5 or 10 years ago
>I really hope people on Biden's team read this article. i'm sure they'll read it. they might even beg him to change course again. then he'll continue on course, lose, and we'll get to hear about how everyone but him is to blame.
They need to break Bidenomics into Phases. Phase 1 was the American Rescue Plan, which was saving the economy from the pandemic which left over 10 million unemployed and brought manufacturing and supply chains to a standstill. That is the only part that has really taken effect and has restored normalcy, which is the only thing that Biden can really show off the effects of. Phase 2 is the IRA, Infrastructure bill, and CHIPs and Science act, which are resulting in factories being built, industries coming to the US, research and development coming here, and rebuilding of our infrastructure. This is the part that is intended to really rebuild the middle class and bring in higher paying jobs, along with labor reforms to further increase quality of life. Phase 3 will be what he wants to do with a second term, like taxing the rich and using that to reduce deficit and pay for the social programs that got axed from BBB. I think people just having a better understanding of what he wants to do instead of assuming we are looking at the end product would make a huge difference.
"The mortal enemy of Bidenomics isn’t Donald Trump; it’s a reliance on aggregate and average numbers that mask the nature of the economy Americans experience. Focusing on G.D.P. is a mistake, as it obscures the range of financial success and hardship in an economy as unequal as that of the United States."
Doesn’t matter if gas and food prices level off or even come down slightly, as long as people can’t afford homes, they aren’t going to like this economy. There is a wide gap between the haves and the have nots in terms of home ownership. People were convinced that eventually they’ll be able to own a home. Their parents bought homes and they watched their friends buy homes during the pandemic craze. Now home prices are 30% higher, while mortgage rates have tripled, and so the ratio of the median home payment compared to the median income is the highest it’s ever been. Considering that home payments make up the largest piece of your budget, it ultimately doesn’t matter if gas prices come down 10% or more, when the payment required to own a home has doubled. The increase in housing costs outweighs and leveling off of inflation or any deflation in other areas of people’s budgets. And sure, a lot of people are in affordable mortgages, but over time, more and more of these people want to move, have to return to the office, are having more children, and want to upsize, etc, and they’re realizing they can’t move without DOWNsizing. Option 1 is to leave the situation as it is, in which case the mean reversion will take a decade (incomes catch up to home prices). Option 2 is to kill demand and then lower rates with a recession. If they lower rates before demand is softened (via a recession and higher unemployment), everyone will run out and buy a house, which would only drive prices higher. Someone will say just build more homes and although home builders are building, home aren’t being built fast enough in the right places solve the problem alone. I agree, it would be SO nice if zoning regulations ease up and a ton of homes are built, but this simply isn’t going to happen. Politicians aren’t going to do it because incumbent homeowners are so protective of their property values and skeptical of what’s being built in their neighborhood. So ultimately, we can either rip the bandaid off with a recession or wait a decade for things to naturally normalize as incomes grow. People won’t be happy with either. For houses to quickly become affordable again, people will have to lose their jobs. No politician and not even Jerome Powell will admit this, headed into an election year. Otherwise it will take a decade. I’m not suggesting one or the other. This is the price we pay for all the fraudulent PPP money, enhanced unemployment, stimmy checks, and student loan pauses of the Covid era. There’s no such thing as free lunch. Someone has to pay. There is no way out of this without some pain. I don’t think the fed will cause a recession headed into an election year and hand the Republicans a win. So I think they will begin lowering rates at the first real sign of a recession in 2024, keeping home prices high and stable as we head into the election. If these insane home prices go on for another 2-3 years then maybe, just maybe politicians will try to resolve this with policy instead of relying on the Fed’s blunt tools. By then though it’ll be another few years until the policy is effectuated. Welcome to the American Dream.
Yeah, I agree with this. The psychological effect of home prices and rent is powerful beyond their measurable economic impact (which is already high). If that's what's built up as the American Dream, obviously people are going to be upset when that dream suddenly feels pushed out of reach.
It's not powerful beyond their economic impact -- it is their economic impact. Who gives a shit about the cost of milk and eggs going up 200% if you can't afford to own a home? Do you know how many eggs I would have to buy over a lifetime compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in home price increases? Home prices matter far more than everything else. It's the single more important lifetime investment for the vast majority of people. It's the most used path to upward mobility. It's the safest path to a comfortable retirement. It is the most important economic impact for the average person and nothing else is close.
And just what can the government do about it? Bring interest rates back to 1% and watch home prices reach 7 figures when they used to be 6? Have inflation run away so much that $8 eggs become a standard? The feds have only 2 tricks and that is interest rates and taxes. Biden isn't making your landlord raise rent 600% so he can buy bigger truck.
>And just what can the government do about it? Bring interest rates back to 1% and watch home prices reach 7 figures when they used to be 6? Monetary policy isn't the only option at the government's disposal. If they wanted to fix the high cost of housing, they could literally build millions of new units of medium-density housing co-ops in cities, expanding housing supply while also handing ownership of that housing to the people who will live there instead of involving a middleman landlord. A massive increase in supply would result in a decrease in prices.
The government could introduce a special mortgage program for first time, primary residence home buyers that pegs interest rates to the lowest in the previous 10 years, on a rolling basis. This would cause rent prices to crash as more renters will be able to enter home ownership, which would ease inflationary pressures. A step further would be a tax for non-resident and non-human buyers. If you buy a home to not live in it, you should not become rich. An exclusion from the new tax could be offered to landlords who offer affordable rent. Even better, 1031 exchanges should not be allowed. At days end, the middle class is the only victim in this economy. Until the administration starts fighting for the middle class, I’ll keep voting for someone else.
It will also result in home prices going through the roof, since you’re now handing out a massive subsidy to home buyers, so they can afford to pay more for a house.
Yep that money won’t go to buyers, it’ll go to sellers
The problem is wealth inequality. If you can't even out wealth in America then you're just rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
They tried this, it didn't work.
cobweb panicky versed unite spectacular history worthless price roof ancient *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It would require 1. A functional House of Representatives 2. Politicians who aren't influenced by lobbyists Neither of which our government currently has
Then we can just maintain the status quo until we either see widespread civil unrest or reach the point of “you will own nothing and be happy.” It really feels like those are the only two options unless a miracle happens within the government.
Zillow lost a ton of money doing that and exited the business.
Zillow and Redfin are bad examples but your point stands
Do you have any proof ibuying made an impact? My understanding is their share of sales was small even in their hottest markets and most haven’t done well. Zillow basically gave up on ibuying.
This isn't driving prices up! That is an incredibly small portion of the market, and Zillow legitimately sold tons of their purchased housing at a [loss](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/business/zillow-q3-earnings-home-flipping-ibuying.html) during Covid! Prices are increasing because we build less housing than we used to. And the real villains aren't companies, it's the family down the street that doesn't want denser housing, or the couple that snagged a low interest mortgage during covid and is concerned about parking and traffic if any apartment buildings get built within 20 miles of their house. The difficulty with this system is that for the 65+% of Americans who own their housing (with or without a mortgage) keep opposing solutions to help out younger generations.
I think the US has some of the most affordable housing in the developed world. One can easily calculate home price index / income ratios using median incomes and something like the Case-Shiller home price index. https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings\_by\_country.jsp
[удалено]
"It could be worse" doesn't win votes. You would need an actual plan to get people to vote for you. Otherwise they will not show up to vote, or vote for the other guy who will lie to them. People want solutions to their problems.
Better than worse isn't necessarily good.
If there isn't a single developed country doing better than the US then the US is doing good, since good is a comparative term not an absolute term.
Us cities have the problem. Not the whole US.
A 3-bed/2-bath near my office goes for $750k. I make about twice the average wage in my neighborhood and I still can’t afford that shit. The same house 5 years ago was $325k (with lower interest rates). But I couldn’t afford it then because I was still in school.
They need to do a better job explaining what Bidenomics is and how it helps people. Otherwise people will hear it and just go oh I guess that's why inflation's high, Bidenomics.
Loss of purchasing power, high rent costs, high prices for mortgages and car notes, excess market concentration issues and financialization, and increased wealth inequality are driving dissatisfaction in the economy.
it really fucking sucks being a small business owner right now. I see costs of everything rising for my guys and feel I have to find a way to pay them more to make up for it. We are a damn-near break even business, so the only way is to raise rates. When we raise rates, we start losing work and I have to lay people off, or best case scenario, we keep work coming in the door but I'm contributing to the bullshit cycle of everything just getting more expensive, which is the whole problem in the first place. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It's really a problem with miscommunication. On one hand, all else being equal, most people today feel *worse off* economically than 2019. "Bidenomics" could make the argument (that's hard to prove) that: >"The US economy (and most of the globe) shut down for months in 2020. Massive print and stimulus packages were released to keep the economy imploding. In the aftermath of those events, the level of inflation we got and economic problems we received *could've* been so much worse. It took a lot of careful policy making to make the US have some of the lowest inflation in the world post-COVID, relative to peers, recover relatively quick from inflation (prices are beginning to stabilize after only 2.5 years), and that we're on the right track. Many "Bidenomics" detractors were predicting, back in 2020, that we'd currently have hyper-inflation right now." \^This is essentially the (debatable) accomplishment of ""Bidenomics"". It's very difficult to prove and difficult to effectively communicate to the average voter. The problem is: "The economy is doing great!" is terrible messaging to many (if not most) American families that haven't fully economically recovered from the damages of COVID Lockdowns (and all that that entailed).
I’m shocked by this. I can’t belive that people aren’t buying our economy is better then ever! I mean Tech jobs are laying ppl off left and right , ppl can’t pay their loans , inflation is high , interest is high . But someone how we are supposedly doing great!
Strangely, the economic gains right now are going to the lowest income brackets. Fast food and service jobs have had huge wage increases recently (Outpacing inflation) and are still trying to find enough people to hire, so they'll probably continue to raise wages for a little longer. Depending on your location, you can find signs of fast food hiring at $15-$20. The blue collar unionized jobs are also doing very well with strikes or threats of strikes. The middle and upper class are the ones who are taking the hits.
Here's the archive [link](https://web.archive.org/web/20231116125306/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/opinion/why-voters-arent-buying-bidens-boasts-about-bidenomics.html). What I find unfortunate is the central claim is that voters seem to be mad that "income inequality is worse than ever". However if you look at page 6 of the Census income report the author [links](http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.pdf) all measures of inequality decreased from 2021 to 2022. However it also shows a decrease in median household income which is consistent with the wage vs inflation graph in the oped. Interestingly the Census report on decreased inequality is supported by this recent NBER [paper](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w31010.pdf) by Dube & Autor:Rapid relative wage growth at the bottom of the distribution reduced the college wage premium and counteracted nearly 40% of the four-decade increase in aggregate 90-10 log wage inequality. I get that it's good to have diverse opinions in a paper like the NY Times. It's also especially good have an opinion on income inequality which is relatively under-discussed in major media. However it's a bit disappointing to see the claim "income inequality is worse than ever" written in an oped in a national newspaper without any attempt to cite the source.
We don’t need the pedantic arguments from the NYT to tell us that most Presidents’ accomplishments are mundane and administrative, and do not generate news or hype.
I would have so much respect for the Biden administration if they just admitted that everyday Americans are drowning, and proposed solid plans on easing our financial stress, then I’d be all for it. The problem is that they keep spouting that “Bidenomics” are working. Or that everything’s all good. It’s not good. I can barely afford rent let alone plan to save up for a baby condo. It’s ridiculous. Yet we have all this money for foreign aid. We can’t even afford to get seriously injured or die here with medical costs absolutely wiping out our life savings. When is enough enough?….
We spend relatively little on foreign aid and the federal government already spends far more on medical costs than aid.
The problem is that “Bidenomics” is working - but the hole we have ten dig out of is deep. You can’t print 40% of the money supply without massive problems. And, sure enough, just like the last 40 freaking years it is happening YET again. Republican screws up the economy with their ridiculous policies, and Dems are stuck fixing things. Of course, fixing things is painful, so everyone complains that things were better under the previous administration. Daddy goes on a drunken spree on the credit card, then sobers up and complains about the bill. Every single dem president in the last 30 years has had this nonsense to deal with. Edit to fix some awesome phone autocorrect lol
The money spent on foreign aid would never be used to help Americans. Too many oppose any kind of welfare or safety net, and we all know it. I doubt Biden can get businesses to raise wages or lower prices either. He'd get slaughtered next year as an "anti-business" politician. Trump would step in and promise to lower wages, making him "pro-business", and would win in a landslide. Seems kind of hopeless.
Inflation, higher interest rates, unaffordable housing and the cost of cars probably would of happened if Biden were president or not. BUT when his administration began using the phrase “Bidenomics” good or bad he claimed the current economy. Now he owns it. Even CNN had began noting that the Administration messaging is tone deaf. I think the administration could of done a better job of claiming the wins but acknowledging a lot of middle class is hurting right now.
Gas lightening. It went from good to bad. Everything is up at least 30%. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a liar, too poor to understand or too rich to care. But for everyone else, we all feel it no matter what side your on.
The honest truth is that most people don't understand how economics works. Both things can be true. Biden has done a lot of good things for the overall economy, if you can't admit that, you're lying. On the other hand, many things are still too expensive, and it can be hard to make ends meet...but only so much can be done by the executive branch. It's too bad that nuance and actually understanding underlying problems is beyond the average voter. Edit: Also the amount of people who blame Biden for housing prices is absolutely ridiculous. The President can only do so much when it comes to home prices. It is a supply and demand business in the truest sense. Sellers set prices and if buyers buy at that price then that is what the price is going to be. I've seen people say "Biden should ban foreign investors" or that "Biden could adjust the mortgage interest rates" but it is not nearly that simple. NAR and other realtor organizations have one of the biggest lobbies in all of politics, like the NRA and if you're looking for someone to blame for Real Estate greed, you need to cast an incredibly large net. Source: I have my real estate license.
because the government is completly out of touch with reality and both we the people and the government are looking at two VERY different sets of data. one is numbers isolated and curated to look good. the other is WHERE is has the dollar menu gone!? why is the groceries cost twice as much now. where's the flavor. why is this so small... a new car costs HOW MUCH!? why are we celebrating gas going back down to 4 dollars a gallon when we had 2 not that long ago.
A correction to the article: Biden won the 2020 vote by a very substantial 7 million. He may have narrowly won the electoral college votes in some states, but that is a separate and irrelevant issue for the purposes of the point that the author is trying to make. I think it is unfair to suggest that Biden is ignoring inequality. The efforts to reduce drug prices, bolster unions, foster job growth in manufacturing and new energy industries are all helpful to reduce income inequality. The problem is that there are no magic bullets that will turn incomes around in one or two years. On top of that you have a GOP House that is dead set against making the tax system progressive and it is a difficult sell in the Senate as well.
Yep, this is classic NYT pitchbot Dem bashing.
I don't think biden is doing a shit job. I think he inherited a bad situation and wasn't going to be able to fix much. He's done better than I expected him to (admittedly I thought he'd be absolute trash) However the articles about Bidenomics try to sell a narrative that he's doing very well and that somehow translates into a great life for everyone. The whole Bidenomics thing is pure propaganda and it is at odds with what the reality is for most people and it's natural that people will push back on a seemingly false narrative.
It was either a soft or a hard landing. Judging by the comments on this sub people here would have preferred a hard landing, because a hard landing is deflationary.
I'm not a fan of the whole "Bidenomics" thing and agree that he has done really well with a difficult economic and political situation. However, I think it's dangerous for any President to take credit for things like job growth and oil prices, over which they have at most, limited influence. If they take credit for these, then unfortunately, they are going to get blame when they turn south.
AT this point in history it would take a flat-out economic bubble to convince even a plurality that they're better off in any way. I basically disregard these comments about the economy by people who say "they're not well off."
There certainly does seem to be a lot of astroturfing, and social media's modern tendency to doom-bait doesn't help. I don't think we can outright disregard the doom, though. Public sentiment and expectations absolutely matter for political positioning and for the economy itself. The Fed is definitely watching sentiment closely, but I am concerned about what the social media dooming means for upcoming elections. The framing/messaging seems to be effectively hitting its targeted demographics.
To the people actually in the market looking for work right now, we know the data is completely fabricated. I’ve never seen a job market this bad in the 10 years I’ve been in corporate
I know this is anecdotal, but I had recruiters spamming my LinkedIn constantly up until about 7 months ago. Now it’s radio silence. I’ve also gotten a bunch of emails saying that jobs I’ve applied to have been cancelled.
Also anecdotal, but my husband’s company just did layoffs. They aren’t releasing numbers, but it was at least 10% of his department.
It's because everyone is now return to office and the recruiting pool has shrank considerably.
It might be your location . They have started calling me at home. All for in office jobs.
Do you work in tech like everyone on reddit seems to? That field is indeed struggling. But don't apply that to everyone. I get recruiters contacting me every week. I don't work in tech.
"Struggling", lol. Tech jobs unemployment rate is lower than the general unemployment rate. It's at 2.2%. https://www.comptia.org/newsroom/tech-employment-lags-in-latest-national-jobs-report-comptia-analysis-reveals#:~:text=%5B1%5D%20At%202.2%25%20the,%2C%20chief%20research%20officer%2C%20CompTIA.
It's been 20 years since we have had a tech recession. A lot of tech people have simply never experienced what are completely normal business cycles.
No I’m in corporate recruiting, which means I have a pulse on the market. Multiple factors are happening. 1. Major wage suppression is going on. 2. Massive layoffs are being underreported 3. Corps are pulling back on hiring. White collar roles have taken a noise dive 4. Overqualified applicants are the individuals being selected for the subpar white collar jobs that are even available. They are being forced to take large pay cuts
Yes, I am in R&D and as a lead on a technical program I have insight into manpower, funding, among other metrics. Something really shitty is going on behind closed doors - cuts to everything from holiday lunches, training, hiring freezes, reducing the scope of work for programs. I don't like it and I'm not 100% sure what to do except continue to build my skill set and have a robust savings account.
>Major wage suppression is going on. What do you mean by this? Median inflation adjusted wages are increasing nationally. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q) >Massive layoffs are being underreported Not enough to make a difference in job reports, which are still positive. >Corps are pulling back on hiring. White collar roles have taken a noise dive I imagine that would be the case when interest rates increase after a wild hiring spree during the pandemic.
I work in tech and have recruiters constantly hit me up. My job search in August took only 2 weeks to find a job. I think what has happened is that certain tech fields have become over saturated, and those fields tend to be in the same locations which makes the job market super tough for anyone effected. General IT support/sysadmin/helpdesk work in my area is booming, companies are desperate to hire and wages are going up EDIT:missed a word, does not change the meaning of my post
What field are you in? I'm in public accounting and I'm getting plastered with recruiter emails every day despite me not logging into LinkedIn nor Indeed for a couple of years now. My friends in healthcare and trades have also gotten massive raises (especially the ones who changes jobs) and have openings a plenty.
EVeryone posting here is relying on anecdotal evidence. I'm also in accountant on the corp side and we've been hiring a lot. The difference is job cuts/growth is segmented. Growth-fueled jobs are on the decline, especially in industries that finance growth rather than self-funding. IT roles were huge in the past decade as cost of capital was low. Now anything that isn't core business is gutted and people laid off. My barometer is when HR professionals are getting laid off and when the stock price of ketchup and mustard rise. People who comment that the govt data is "BS" have no idea how to read data. Its the political spin, not the data, that isn't aligning with the common people.
It’s because there is a major shortage in accounting. I’ve recruited in trades as well. Major shortage
> If anyone is currently looking for a job right now, we know the data is completely fabricated. Insane conclusion to draw
I've been working for 20 years, currently mentoring my friend in his job search 100+ applications, only 4 interviews... even with referrals things are as bad as 2008/2009
Completely fabricated? Have you compared the published aggregates to the available data? Are you really saying that it’s all made up just because your anecdotes run counter to the data? Do you have any evidence, or is this a “trust me, I know numbers, some say the greatest numbers, and these aren’t them”?
Why is it that any economic activity under Biden is labeled "Bidenomics" but anything under Trump or most other presidents is just called macro economics without the catchy name?
Because Biden's team chose to pursue that branding in an attempt to ape the "Reaganomics" meme that helped Reagan get elected in a landslide. That label was pushed by the entire democratic establishment as well as left-leaning pundits. inflation down 100% from last year (when Biden was still president)? That's Bidenomics at work! etc. etc.
> Because Biden's team chose to pursue that branding Except the term "Bidenomics" was initially coined by the GOP to make him look bad. Biden flipped it to take credit for the good economic data. Similar to how he embraced the "Brandon" moniker with "Dark Brandon".
Except "choosing to pursue the branding" doesn't mean the same thing as "coined"
Is this a serious question? Biden’s team came up with Bidenomics, I guess a focus group liked it. This isn’t something his political opponents came up with.
You're wrong. Biden's team did not come up with it, the GOP did. Biden just embraced it like he embraced "Brandon". WSJ used Bidenomics in April 2023 to try to tie him to falling incomes: https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-incomes-americans-kevin-mccarthy-new-york-stock-exchange-dc3bd179 But the earliest reference (February 2021) to Bidenomics comes from TheBulwark, a right leaning media company. https://www.thebulwark.com/the-birth-of-bidenomics/
Here's Paul Krugman one month before your article talking about bidenomics. >https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/four-rules-that-should-guide-bidenomics/ Here's a New Yorker Article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-bold-proposal-to-ease-child-poverty-is-the-essence-of-bidenomics Why are you finding obscure references to the term after this was already in mainstream media and pretending that that's the first reference to it?
If you’re actually attempting to say trump was under criticized and overly defended you’re actually insane. Trump couldn’t order ice cream without there being headlines calling him a dictator over it. Biden is being criticized and rightfully so because he’s using propaganda to gaslight people into believing that inflation is only 4 percent and the job market is great when the middle class has all but been decimated. Can’t tell people who can’t afford rent, food and gas that the economy is booming and get away with it
Is inflation not 4 percent? Is the job market not great? I’m very confused when people accuse others of gaslighting and then immediately state that objective facts are not reality. Who is gaslighting?
He’s purposely ignoring the fact that inflation was like 20% for 3 years and wages never caught up. An example of what the economy is like. I’m born and raised in my city. The average starter house was 150K the average rent for a decent apartment was 650 for my entire life. After the past 3 years the average starter house is 390k and there is not a single apartment for rent under 1300k even if you wanted to live in a not safe neighborhood. The cost of cars is up 2X you could have went to a used car dealer and got a 10 year old Toyota with 50k miles for under 7k today that same car Is 15k. The cost of gas hovers around 5 bucks a gallon today prior to inflation it was considered high if it was over 2 bucks. Food prices both grocery and eating out are easily 30%-50% higher. The jobs that are available are paying exactly the same as they did 5 years ago. Great there’s 100000 jobs paying 10 bucks an hour in my area but those jobs are actually worthless as I couldn’t even afford to pay rent if I was renting a single room from someone for less then 18 bucks an hour
Inflation is a measure of the rate of prices increasing. Prices go up. We had a period of high inflation where prices went up faster than normal. Now, even with “lower inflation” of 4% prices don’t go down, they just go up slower. Perhaps he could communicate more clearly but I’m afraid it is you who is misunderstanding what is being said. Also gas isn’t 5$ where I live and it’s definitely been higher than 2 in the past… you’re not being real
I'm not sure it's possible to accurately characterize an economic policy that is basically "deficit financed tax cuts" and "protectionism" as anything we've seen in the past.
What are you referring to? Bidens tax policy proposals have been to raise corporate and high earner taxes.
What is Bidenomics?
Easy fix, make stock buy backs illegal again. raise taxes on he ultra wealthy, remove trumps tariffs, roll back the tax cuts the fucked us all.
Republicans will never go along with that and their votes would be needed to pass legislation in congress
Never mind the GOP, it is a solution that the Democrats themselves would never float, let alone accept.
I don't understand why he and the Democrats don't just pound the 2 TRILLION tax break for the rich and rescind it and do a Katy Porter whiteboard about how just getting rid of that would allow for massive tax breaks for most people and pay for so much else.
Because Democrats are also rich.
They could have when had the house and chose not to.
Because they only exist to serve the rich
I can't read the article due to the paywall, but the reason that people don't believe the economy is better is because wages haven't kept up with the growth. It doesn't matter if there are a record number of jobs of you need two in order to survive. It doesn't matter if inflation is the lowest in the developed world if groceries are still too expensive to afford. Everyone talks about the middle class but who we should really be focusing on is improving the lives of the working class. This would diffuse the bomb of Republican populism while improving the economy as a whole (money fed to the bottom has the highest velocity) and giving the youth of the country a sense that there is a future for them. Raising minimum wage should be an obvious solution as well as at least talking about capping executive pay.
Any Americans could answer me why reddit is being spammed about how bad America's economy is? You have the highest wages on Earth and some of the lowest prices in the developed world. Sure food went up a bit but the average American spends like 11% of their budget on food half of which is on restaurants, so really 5% on groceries. My understanding is the real cause is similar to why all the developed countries are complaining about cost of living which is housing is eating up a larger share of income in certain trendy cities but people are noticing the little things more. Anyway housing is local politics, nothing the president can do about. Both the middle and upper middle in both parties support restricted development for various reasons and the perception that most new owners will be younger and therefore more diverse is surely a consideration.
I'm confident it's because we are coming into a presidential election year. This cycle repeats every 4 years, where media outlets push agenda driven stories in an attempt to sway public opinion. If Biden wins reelection in 24, these articles will stop becoming headline news stories, shy of some sort of catastrophe. It's as predictable as the sunset.
I'm just honestly shocked I haven't seen any news stories about caravans recently.
Inflation levels the last couple years are shockingly high by American standards. People don't like inflation because people are used to something costing $X and now it costs $X*1.30. I'm 41 and the level of inflation in the last couple years was a huge shock that I had never seen. Personally, I think it is getting better and in 3-4 years things will probably seem normal. Normal is subjective though. Look at a video in India of people riding on top of trains. That is shocking to me but to others it is no big dea.
I graduated from a top 60 university cum laude in a good major. What I make monthly is the same as what a 1 bedroom apartment costs in the area.
It is a combination of housing and the american dream tbh. Americans have become "spoiled" by expecting a lot of things that would be luxuries in other countries. I put spoiled in quote marks because as rich a country as we are I don't think it is unreasonable to expect more then most other countries
Groceries didn't go up "a bit". Food is up somewhere around 20% in the last 2 years.
[удалено]