Heading into the November presidential election, one of the biggest issues on voters' minds is the economy. According to a new poll, 73% of Americans say strengthening it is their top concern.
Got it. So, back in November of 2021, someone wrote a story with a clickbaity headline about 40% rent increase in the future from back then, and now to you that’s reality you are citing to me. Great stuff.
Anyway, here’s the actual numbers. The median rent went from $1,102 to $1,340 in those 3 years - 21.5% cumulatively. That’s what happened. So someone who’s low income who’s making 32% more comes out ahead. Does that mean that can afford their rent, when it’s $1,700 because they’re in a metro area and they make $16/hr? Fuckin A, man, maybe not. I’m being an asshole to you in this conversation a little bit, just because I know that you’re deliberately twisting things to make Biden look as bad as possible (as confirmed by you which was what got you temp banned already). But I’m not trying to be unsympathetic to someone who’s actually struggling and being honest about how they’re struggling.
But maybe we should keep doing more of the stuff that gave them the 32% increase, and in a few years they’ll be able to afford the $1,700 or whatever it is by then. Right? Or not? What would your solution be, instead, if not that?
I think you’re out of touch on the dire situation Mozz. You can throw statistics and numbers around but for millions of the working class, they’ve never struggled as much as they are currently.
Eight of the top 10 metro areas are in the Sun Belt region. Rents in each of these metros have increased over 37% since 2019.
I don’t want to play the debunking game all night. I read your link, and here’s their rent increases:
Rent in the area went from $582 to $907, or a 55.8% increase.
Rent for 1-bedroom apartments increased 49.5% from $646 to $966 from 2019 to 2024.
And so on. It looks like they sorted every metro area in the US by percentage increase, which yields a whole bunch of individual metro areas with oddball markets where some super-cheap pandemic pricing ended and so the percent increase in places where it had been $582 for a 1 bedroom apartment during the pandemic, was pretty high. That doesn’t mean the price of housing in general went up by that same high percent.
Like I say, someone who’s actually struggling, I have sympathy for. You, I don’t, because you’re just out here lying with statistics to try to hurt the people you are claiming to have all this sympathy with.
It looks like they sorted every metro area in the US by percentage increase, which yields a whole bunch of individual metro areas with oddball markets
This is the entire reason why people critique nationalized metrics on economic trends: they intentionally disregard figures that fall outside the norm so that they can apply a fed policy for the entire country, favoring the overall economic performance instead of addressing the localized economic shortfalls. It’s like a doctor trying to diagnose constipation by reading someone’s vitals; none of the experience of the patient can be seen on the metrics they’re using until it’s literally killing them. “You say you haven’t shit for 8 days but your BP is 120/80 so you must be fine”.
Like, sometimes those metrics overlook really important possibilities, like unemployment not accounting for people who need multiple jobs, or total job market numbers not accounting for ghost positions and high turnover. CPI is used for setting fed interest rates, and it tosses out specific categories because the prices move too fast to gauge the effect of interest rates on those prices. They’re not trying to measure how well people are surviving, they’re measuring how economic output is adjusting to the supply of cash. That’s why they have CPI-U, it adds those categories back in so that they get a better picture of how people are experiencing the market. Notice, though, that even real wages doesn’t have any way of reflecting anything about where those wages come from; whether people are taking on extra jobs or if their work hours are increasing without extra pay, or if a transient spike in COL depleted your savings and you’re right on the edge of instability. Those numbers tell an extremely narrow story about the state of the economy, and if there are a bunch of people who are telling you ‘this number isn’t reflective of my experience’ then maybe you need to take a more granular approach to the data.
It’s exhausting watching this from the left, because depending on who is in office the chosen metrics for assessing the economy change. For 2016-2020 the metric was stock indexes and GDP, for 2020-present it seems to be CPI and unemployment. Neither party likes talking about high-interest credit, or job security, or retirement savings, or healthcare costs or realestate affordability, and that’s infuriating. There are a growing number of ways people fall through the cracks of economic instability and the averages are designed to throw those out as exceptions. You lose your job and fall into drug addiction? Sorry, that’s not the ‘average’ American. You get into a car accident and can’t pay your medical bills? Sorry about that but that’s not relevant to the bigger picture. All we can see is ‘you should feel good/bad about the economy for these abstracted reasons’, and then you get partisan fanboys yelling at you that you’re wrong if your experience doesn’t align with that national picture. It’s even more frustrating when the same people are are telling you things are great are simultaneously acknowledging that things should be a lot better.
‘You’re just trying to make people feel bad about the state of things’ - jesus can you just fuck off with that constant condescension? People feel shit about the economy because things are shit for a lot of people. More than a quarter of the country has less than $1000 in savings, maybe people are scared they’re a single accident away from homelessness and your national metrics simply don’t show that. My parents are talking about EOL plans and I’m realizing I don’t make enough to support them. How does CPI account for that? It fucking doesn’t.
“Things are relatively better through this narrow view of the world” - well why the fuck should I care if i’m not in that picture?
I wasn’t real explicit about it, but my point was more that the results he cited were coming from places where the “before” picture was rent of $600/mo during the pandemic, and so it’s not reasonable to say it went up by 57% after that, and so that’s the rate of housing inflation.
For 2016-2020 the metric was stock indexes and GDP, for 2020-present it seems to be CPI and unemployment
I’ll take wages at different percentiles, and average wages, as a pretty good metric. Your criticisms of the other metrics I’ll agree with. In particular, unemployment gets a ton of play for how shitty a metric it is overall if you really look at how it’s calculated.
Your implication that if they only were looking at the other metrics (in particular hours worked as an explanation for why rising wages may not mean anything)… I mean, it makes sense, but do you know that that’s actually happening? As opposed to, if it were happening then it’d paint a different picture?
There are a growing number of ways people fall through the cracks of economic instability and the averages are designed to throw those out as exceptions.
I partly agree and partly don’t. So, the fed actually does keep track of a survey that tries to get at this stuff -I think this is it. Like, okay forget the metrics, what’s the average financial reality look like for the average American. It’s actually pretty fascinating reading, both because it agrees with you in parts (shows places where the metrics aren’t showing the full picture), and because it’s a way of getting at that idea without abandoning the idea of being rigorous.
But also, you can’t set economic policy because “hey my brother’s out of work and he’s struggling, isn’t that important? Don’t tell me things are good.” You have to try to get at the broad scale of what’s going on. Like am I supposed to not care about a million truck drivers, and stop doing the stuff that got them another $6/hr? The point is let’s pick the right metrics and try to help the most people, not just say my brother’s doing bad so let’s not use metrics anymore.
So what are you saying we should do instead? If anything I’m saying sounds like “let’s not give them another $20/hr instead”, that is not at all what I am saying.
Idk ma, I feel like I’m just rehashing all my bullet points again. Me saying, wages went up and that’s good, is meaning to be yelling at and disagreeing with the people who say NO THEY WENT WAY DOWN AND THE GUY WHO MADE IT HAPPEN IS EVIL. It’s not at all meaning, they’re high enough or things are good for working people.
Being rigorous isn’t always meaning the metrics are wrong or you don’t care about the individual behind the aggregate. Saying you don’t want to be rigorous and focus on anecdotes instead, is usually a sign of something pretty dishonest though. That isn’t helping anyone who’s struggling, it is in service of something that is hurting them.
The broader problem with adhering to those metrics as a gauge for economic output is that it assumes things across the board move up or down together within a reasonable margin, when you and I both know that certain groups fair way better than the average, a big portion of economic growth not even reflected in wages at all, and some are falling off the bottom of the graph entirely. Taking an average wage doesn’t tell you anything about the long-term stability of individuals. A greater and greater number of people are having to rent because they’re being priced out of home ownership, and even if that isn’t reflected in rent prices now it still means that asset-backed capital is being held by a smaller and smaller number of people. That doesn’t mean much to CPI but it means everything to upward mobility and generational wealth transfer.
I’m not even trying to paint a bleak picture in service of saying it’s all Biden’s fault, it’s been the default economic schema for decades. I’m saying its disingenuous to point to those metrics when you know they aren’t the ones that of the most concern to individuals who see no future for themselves and their families. It’s not all Biden’s fault, but he’s currently the one enacting those policies that have slowly degraded economic mobility for 80 years. “But you’re wages are marginally higher!” doesn’t mean much when the cost of home ownership has been outpacing median income since the 1970s..
Things being marginally better for the average American under Biden doesn’t mean anything when the average American has been almost completely left behind over the course of 50+ years.
It’s not all Biden’s fault, but he’s currently the one enacting those policies that have slowly degraded economic mobility for 80 years.
This is where it breaks down for me. All the rest of it, I pretty much agree with completely. But Biden’s been busting his ass to strengthen unions, bring domestic manufacturing back, and make corporations pay their fair share. He routed like a trillion dollars from corporations to working people, and it had a little tiny bump of an effect, and it may be a few drops in the bucket but it’s still a good thing. They’re making about 35% more (un inflation adjusted) than they were before. If we weren’t still digging out from Covid inflation it would have been an economic revolution, but even as it is, they’re comfortably clearing over the 20% inflation and getting a tiny bit more breathing room.
If you want to extrapolate from that statement to “but rent is a huge missing piece of that, with specific things he should be doing to address that, too” then sure. I’d 100% agree with you. But, on the other hand, if you want to extrapolate to “and so none of that union stuff happened and he’s still a piece of shit just like all the generations of politicians that created the gilded age nightmare we’ve been drowning in ever since 2008/1995/1980/whenever”, then I’ll disagree with you.
Maybe you aren’t saying that second thing, and I’m angling a certain amount of heat at you because there are other people who are, and it’s easy to become tribal about this type of disagreement. But, that’s how I feel about it.
strengthen unions, bring domestic manufacturing back, and make corporations pay their fair share.
That’s what I mean though, those things aren’t the problem. They fit within that neoliberal economic picture really well but it doesn’t address the declining state of middle class’ economic stability. We’ve been operating under the assumption that when our productive output is high, everyone benefits (which is why bringing manufacturing stateside is valuable), but over the last couple decades those jobs have had a steep decline in quality (it used to be that a manufacturing job could support a family of 5, but that’s just not the case anymore) due to automation and the relative productivity of capital against the productivity of an individual worker. We’d have to continue consuming well beyond a sustainable level in order to produce enough manufacturing jobs for everyone, and those jobs just aren’t as good as they used to be. Even union protections are ultimately just a finger in the dam, when fewer and fewer jobs are needed for higher and higher output. And none of that picture addresses home ownership and generational wealth transfer.
Things are as good as they can be without fundamentally challenging the neoliberal economic hegemony, but that’s exactly the problem with the picture. Those metrics suit that way of thinking but they simply don’t address the reasons why the American public is struggling.
I’m just so sick of seeing these accomplishments paraded around as if they address the problems normal people are actually facing. You’re going to be chanting “things are really great actually!” as we all get chased out of the country by a nationalist movement driven by economic disenfranchisement. We can’t keep doing this.
Replying to “the economy is getting better” with “how DARE you say the economy is good and all the problems are fixed, clearly that’s not the case” as a way of reframing away from the conversation of whether things are getting better, or worse, and why that is. Basically interfering with the effort to understand the policies that help or hurt by simply asserting that everything’s bad, so nothing being talked about can possibly be a good thing.
Let’s see if we can get through literally all of the bullet points if you want to keep the conversation going long enough; we have 3 so far I think
It’ll be an easy way to get your hours in at least
Saying “well I’m not doing okay, how dare you say I’m not struggling” and getting all fucked up and angry about it, so that anyone that tells you that millions of low-income workers are making more now than they were a few years ago, like way more, and that’s a good thing, looks like an asshole
You’re up to 4 out of 6 but I don’t feel like playing anymore. Some other time
Like I say, someone struggling, I have sympathy for. Someone lying, to try to misrepresent the economy with the ultimate goal of encouraging the election of someone who will hurt those struggling Americans in ways that will make the current struggle life look like sunshine and roses, I don’t have sympathy with. Don’t try to pretend you are one when you’re the other.
millions of low-income workers are making more now than they were a few years ago, like way more
Please do go ask them about their house they just bought with all this “way more” money and how now they’re no longer living paycheck to paycheck. /s
Did I mention the election at all here? You realize the economy can be “doing great” (for corporations, the stock market, etc) and millions of people can still be struggling right?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/01/rents-are-bouncing-back-what-to-do-if-you-expect-a-big-increase-.html
Got it. So, back in November of 2021, someone wrote a story with a clickbaity headline about 40% rent increase in the future from back then, and now to you that’s reality you are citing to me. Great stuff.
Anyway, here’s the actual numbers. The median rent went from $1,102 to $1,340 in those 3 years - 21.5% cumulatively. That’s what happened. So someone who’s low income who’s making 32% more comes out ahead. Does that mean that can afford their rent, when it’s $1,700 because they’re in a metro area and they make $16/hr? Fuckin A, man, maybe not. I’m being an asshole to you in this conversation a little bit, just because I know that you’re deliberately twisting things to make Biden look as bad as possible (as confirmed by you which was what got you temp banned already). But I’m not trying to be unsympathetic to someone who’s actually struggling and being honest about how they’re struggling.
But maybe we should keep doing more of the stuff that gave them the 32% increase, and in a few years they’ll be able to afford the $1,700 or whatever it is by then. Right? Or not? What would your solution be, instead, if not that?
I think you’re out of touch on the dire situation Mozz. You can throw statistics and numbers around but for millions of the working class, they’ve never struggled as much as they are currently.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/12/metro-areas-with-the-biggest-one-bedroom-rent-increase-since-2019.html
I don’t want to play the debunking game all night. I read your link, and here’s their rent increases:
And so on. It looks like they sorted every metro area in the US by percentage increase, which yields a whole bunch of individual metro areas with oddball markets where some super-cheap pandemic pricing ended and so the percent increase in places where it had been $582 for a 1 bedroom apartment during the pandemic, was pretty high. That doesn’t mean the price of housing in general went up by that same high percent.
Like I say, someone who’s actually struggling, I have sympathy for. You, I don’t, because you’re just out here lying with statistics to try to hurt the people you are claiming to have all this sympathy with.
This is the entire reason why people critique nationalized metrics on economic trends: they intentionally disregard figures that fall outside the norm so that they can apply a fed policy for the entire country, favoring the overall economic performance instead of addressing the localized economic shortfalls. It’s like a doctor trying to diagnose constipation by reading someone’s vitals; none of the experience of the patient can be seen on the metrics they’re using until it’s literally killing them. “You say you haven’t shit for 8 days but your BP is 120/80 so you must be fine”.
Like, sometimes those metrics overlook really important possibilities, like unemployment not accounting for people who need multiple jobs, or total job market numbers not accounting for ghost positions and high turnover. CPI is used for setting fed interest rates, and it tosses out specific categories because the prices move too fast to gauge the effect of interest rates on those prices. They’re not trying to measure how well people are surviving, they’re measuring how economic output is adjusting to the supply of cash. That’s why they have CPI-U, it adds those categories back in so that they get a better picture of how people are experiencing the market. Notice, though, that even real wages doesn’t have any way of reflecting anything about where those wages come from; whether people are taking on extra jobs or if their work hours are increasing without extra pay, or if a transient spike in COL depleted your savings and you’re right on the edge of instability. Those numbers tell an extremely narrow story about the state of the economy, and if there are a bunch of people who are telling you ‘this number isn’t reflective of my experience’ then maybe you need to take a more granular approach to the data.
It’s exhausting watching this from the left, because depending on who is in office the chosen metrics for assessing the economy change. For 2016-2020 the metric was stock indexes and GDP, for 2020-present it seems to be CPI and unemployment. Neither party likes talking about high-interest credit, or job security, or retirement savings, or healthcare costs or realestate affordability, and that’s infuriating. There are a growing number of ways people fall through the cracks of economic instability and the averages are designed to throw those out as exceptions. You lose your job and fall into drug addiction? Sorry, that’s not the ‘average’ American. You get into a car accident and can’t pay your medical bills? Sorry about that but that’s not relevant to the bigger picture. All we can see is ‘you should feel good/bad about the economy for these abstracted reasons’, and then you get partisan fanboys yelling at you that you’re wrong if your experience doesn’t align with that national picture. It’s even more frustrating when the same people are are telling you things are great are simultaneously acknowledging that things should be a lot better.
‘You’re just trying to make people feel bad about the state of things’ - jesus can you just fuck off with that constant condescension? People feel shit about the economy because things are shit for a lot of people. More than a quarter of the country has less than $1000 in savings, maybe people are scared they’re a single accident away from homelessness and your national metrics simply don’t show that. My parents are talking about EOL plans and I’m realizing I don’t make enough to support them. How does CPI account for that? It fucking doesn’t.
“Things are relatively better through this narrow view of the world” - well why the fuck should I care if i’m not in that picture?
I wasn’t real explicit about it, but my point was more that the results he cited were coming from places where the “before” picture was rent of $600/mo during the pandemic, and so it’s not reasonable to say it went up by 57% after that, and so that’s the rate of housing inflation.
I’ll take wages at different percentiles, and average wages, as a pretty good metric. Your criticisms of the other metrics I’ll agree with. In particular, unemployment gets a ton of play for how shitty a metric it is overall if you really look at how it’s calculated.
Your implication that if they only were looking at the other metrics (in particular hours worked as an explanation for why rising wages may not mean anything)… I mean, it makes sense, but do you know that that’s actually happening? As opposed to, if it were happening then it’d paint a different picture?
I partly agree and partly don’t. So, the fed actually does keep track of a survey that tries to get at this stuff -I think this is it. Like, okay forget the metrics, what’s the average financial reality look like for the average American. It’s actually pretty fascinating reading, both because it agrees with you in parts (shows places where the metrics aren’t showing the full picture), and because it’s a way of getting at that idea without abandoning the idea of being rigorous.
But also, you can’t set economic policy because “hey my brother’s out of work and he’s struggling, isn’t that important? Don’t tell me things are good.” You have to try to get at the broad scale of what’s going on. Like am I supposed to not care about a million truck drivers, and stop doing the stuff that got them another $6/hr? The point is let’s pick the right metrics and try to help the most people, not just say my brother’s doing bad so let’s not use metrics anymore.
So what are you saying we should do instead? If anything I’m saying sounds like “let’s not give them another $20/hr instead”, that is not at all what I am saying.
Idk ma, I feel like I’m just rehashing all my bullet points again. Me saying, wages went up and that’s good, is meaning to be yelling at and disagreeing with the people who say NO THEY WENT WAY DOWN AND THE GUY WHO MADE IT HAPPEN IS EVIL. It’s not at all meaning, they’re high enough or things are good for working people.
Being rigorous isn’t always meaning the metrics are wrong or you don’t care about the individual behind the aggregate. Saying you don’t want to be rigorous and focus on anecdotes instead, is usually a sign of something pretty dishonest though. That isn’t helping anyone who’s struggling, it is in service of something that is hurting them.
The broader problem with adhering to those metrics as a gauge for economic output is that it assumes things across the board move up or down together within a reasonable margin, when you and I both know that certain groups fair way better than the average, a big portion of economic growth not even reflected in wages at all, and some are falling off the bottom of the graph entirely. Taking an average wage doesn’t tell you anything about the long-term stability of individuals. A greater and greater number of people are having to rent because they’re being priced out of home ownership, and even if that isn’t reflected in rent prices now it still means that asset-backed capital is being held by a smaller and smaller number of people. That doesn’t mean much to CPI but it means everything to upward mobility and generational wealth transfer.
I’m not even trying to paint a bleak picture in service of saying it’s all Biden’s fault, it’s been the default economic schema for decades. I’m saying its disingenuous to point to those metrics when you know they aren’t the ones that of the most concern to individuals who see no future for themselves and their families. It’s not all Biden’s fault, but he’s currently the one enacting those policies that have slowly degraded economic mobility for 80 years. “But you’re wages are marginally higher!” doesn’t mean much when the cost of home ownership has been outpacing median income since the 1970s..
Things being marginally better for the average American under Biden doesn’t mean anything when the average American has been almost completely left behind over the course of 50+ years.
This is where it breaks down for me. All the rest of it, I pretty much agree with completely. But Biden’s been busting his ass to strengthen unions, bring domestic manufacturing back, and make corporations pay their fair share. He routed like a trillion dollars from corporations to working people, and it had a little tiny bump of an effect, and it may be a few drops in the bucket but it’s still a good thing. They’re making about 35% more (un inflation adjusted) than they were before. If we weren’t still digging out from Covid inflation it would have been an economic revolution, but even as it is, they’re comfortably clearing over the 20% inflation and getting a tiny bit more breathing room.
If you want to extrapolate from that statement to “but rent is a huge missing piece of that, with specific things he should be doing to address that, too” then sure. I’d 100% agree with you. But, on the other hand, if you want to extrapolate to “and so none of that union stuff happened and he’s still a piece of shit just like all the generations of politicians that created the gilded age nightmare we’ve been drowning in ever since 2008/1995/1980/whenever”, then I’ll disagree with you.
Maybe you aren’t saying that second thing, and I’m angling a certain amount of heat at you because there are other people who are, and it’s easy to become tribal about this type of disagreement. But, that’s how I feel about it.
That’s what I mean though, those things aren’t the problem. They fit within that neoliberal economic picture really well but it doesn’t address the declining state of middle class’ economic stability. We’ve been operating under the assumption that when our productive output is high, everyone benefits (which is why bringing manufacturing stateside is valuable), but over the last couple decades those jobs have had a steep decline in quality (it used to be that a manufacturing job could support a family of 5, but that’s just not the case anymore) due to automation and the relative productivity of capital against the productivity of an individual worker. We’d have to continue consuming well beyond a sustainable level in order to produce enough manufacturing jobs for everyone, and those jobs just aren’t as good as they used to be. Even union protections are ultimately just a finger in the dam, when fewer and fewer jobs are needed for higher and higher output. And none of that picture addresses home ownership and generational wealth transfer.
Things are as good as they can be without fundamentally challenging the neoliberal economic hegemony, but that’s exactly the problem with the picture. Those metrics suit that way of thinking but they simply don’t address the reasons why the American public is struggling.
I’m just so sick of seeing these accomplishments paraded around as if they address the problems normal people are actually facing. You’re going to be chanting “things are really great actually!” as we all get chased out of the country by a nationalist movement driven by economic disenfranchisement. We can’t keep doing this.
Bruh. Everybody is struggling, wake up…
Let’s see if we can get through literally all of the bullet points if you want to keep the conversation going long enough; we have 3 so far I think
It’ll be an easy way to get your hours in at least
I get it. Your lack of empathy for struggling Americans is on brand for centrist Dems.
The working class is literally telling you they’re unable to afford to live. Watch this… https://youtu.be/SfesuiByA5U
You’re up to 4 out of 6 but I don’t feel like playing anymore. Some other time
Like I say, someone struggling, I have sympathy for. Someone lying, to try to misrepresent the economy with the ultimate goal of encouraging the election of someone who will hurt those struggling Americans in ways that will make the current struggle life look like sunshine and roses, I don’t have sympathy with. Don’t try to pretend you are one when you’re the other.
Please do go ask them about their house they just bought with all this “way more” money and how now they’re no longer living paycheck to paycheck. /s
Did I mention the election at all here? You realize the economy can be “doing great” (for corporations, the stock market, etc) and millions of people can still be struggling right?