Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
The economy I think was the huge sticking point. You can't have everyone in your party saying "the economy is good, it's growing better than ever, look at all the jobs, etc." while literally no average person is seeing that. They are so out of touch that they think if finance/econ majors on tv say the economy is doing good than it's doing good.

Compared to pre-pandemic - Housing prices have shot up incredibly - Loan interest rates are two or three times higher - Every day goods are higher - Car prices are higher - Insurance is higher - Utilities are higher

And that would be fine, prices go up over time after all, but all of that is on the back of pay, that for most people, has not gone up anywhere close to enough to cover all of that, if it's gone up at all.

This is an interesting phenomanon. The median purchase power is increasing but people feel poor.

Things with limited supply are becoming more unaffordable because the rich are much richer than they were before. So if housing is limited and is seen as an investment vehicle, it becomes unaffordable.

The same goes for health care. There is a limit supply of medical care. Some people can afford much more than others which compounds the issue.

Americans (and most of the collective West) can afford all things that are not in limited supply - food, clothing, gadgets, transportation, etc. This is amazing in the context of history.

The weirdest thing is that both health care and housing do not need to be limited supply. It's completely artifical. We make bad governing decisions that force it to be so. Our problems are not economic but social/organizational ones.

Relatedly, I was quite surprised when recently I realized that the median (adjusted for PPP) disposable income in America was the highest in the OECD (except Luxembourg):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

This means that the average american really really is financially better off than anywhere else in the world. I'd say that their quality of life isn't - they die much earlier than the rest of OECD, for example. But they are definitely the richest. And not just the richest american but the average american.

There is a fundemental problem that cannot really be solved with housing:

People want a single family homes with a nice property in nice area. They want a short commute and all the convenience of modern life.

There is in fact a hard limit on how many single family homes you can have in a an area. You can build them somewhere else, but then you get long commutes or short commutes to low paying work.

HN, let me remind you, most people do not work in tech banging on a keyboard all day with mild collaboration. Most people still need to commute to their jobs at least once a week. The majority still need to go in everyday.

loading story #42064170
loading story #42064797
loading story #42072130
loading story #42066163
loading story #42063707
> I was quite surprised when recently I realized that the median (adjusted for PPP) disposable income in America was the highest in the OECD

That doesn't really tell you all that much useful. Disposable income just deducts taxes from your gross income. What really matters is the cost of those other things we're talking about: food, housing, healthcare, childcare, etc. When you subtract those out as well, you get discretionary income, and I bet the US is not leading at all there.

loading story #42064221
Life expectancy in the US is below average but it’s certainly not “much lower than the rest of the OECD”

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/d90b402d-en.pdf

Frankly, if wage gains kept pace with productivity gains it’d be a very different and vastly better economic story for the average American. The reality is the recent blip of wage gains didn't make up ground on the last 40 years of stagnation, and it shows signs of slowing in any case, and Americans are feeling that
loading story #42062753
The definition of “disposable income” used in this chart is gross income minus taxes.

I don’t think this corresponds with what most people think that means. i.e. gross income - (taxes + housing costs + food + health/childcare). I certainly didn’t.

loading story #42063195
loading story #42063234
Much like, say, IQ, wealth shouldn't be compared across populations without massive amounts of contextual normalization. Individual wealth measures don't account for institutional safety nets, nor social/cultural affordances, nor geography, nor weather, nor history, nor-

Suffice it to say that trying to directly compare individual wealth across disparate populations is so disingenuous as to be tantamount to spreading falsehoods. People feel poor because they are poor; Americans simply cannot afford many of the things that other developed economies provide for their residents. We can make lots of small changes to help with this^ (i.e., we don't need a massive overhaul or revolution), but the people calling the shots have to actually admit that people are not doing well, and that the costs people face today are burdensome. They won't, because they're afraid of not being reelected (and then they lose anyway).

^Solve food deserts by opening bodega-like shops in both urban AND suburban neighborhoods.

^Replace surface parking with structures housing amenities that people can walk to.

^Increase mass public transit access by building rail and bus/bike lanes.

loading story #42066398
It takes $600k now to have the buying power of $200k in the 80s

The economy is 100% intentionally managed to protect the prior generations story mode way of thinking

> You can't have everyone in your party saying "the economy is good, it's growing better than ever, look at all the jobs, etc." while literally no average person is seeing that.

Isn't that literally what happened in his first term? Remember "I built the greatest economy the world has ever seen"? These claims were backed fully and completely by the stock market and not the rank & file. And this is the same situation we find ourselves in now. All these years later we're still in a situation where "the economy" is going gangbusters, but the average person feels left out.

I would say absolutely yes, which is ironic to say the least. I think the fact that he didn't follow through on his promises got lost in the crazyness of the pandemic times but do remember, he did not get re-elected. Also americans don't really think that far back when it comes to presidential elections, they tend to be here and now things.
My prediction is that the next four years won't see any improvement either, and the republicans will similarly be voted out again next election.

If "the economy" is going to be fixed, first Congress and the senate will actually have to start passing bills again, but that's probably not happening for another decade

I think the bigger problem isn't that the Dems didn't try to take credit for growth, but that they didn't point out that actually things weren't that rosy in 2020 and basically conceded the entirely false argument that Trump's term made the economy better and Biden's made it worse.

Sure, Trump didn't cause the pandemic, but neither did Biden and the inflation isn't unrelated to Trump's fiscal policy being looser than it needed to be even before the pandemic either, as well as being fundamentally the Fed's job to solve[2]. It's difficult[1] for an incumbent to win by attacking the track record of the last government especially when much of it was factors outside their control, but not impossible, especially since Trump has presented wavering voters with plenty of other reasons not to vote for him. Trump is living proof that excuses work...

[1]Not impossible though: an unpopular British government won a majority in 2014 by constantly blaming slow post recession growth on the other party's borrowing five years earlier

[2]You can absolutely guarantee that if Trump was in power the US would have experienced at least as much inflation, and he'd have wasted no time in blaming the Fed

I agree, but also think the number of voters that have the attention to be influenced by such a nuanced argument is vanishingly small.
loading story #42063611
> I think the bigger problem isn't that the Dems didn't try to take credit for growth, but that they didn't point out that actually things weren't that rosy in 2020 and basically conceded the entirely false argument that Trump's term made the economy better and Biden's made it worse.

This is more or less the direction I was heading w/ my post. I don't think it's a messaging issue per se. Rather it's control of the messaging. The economy in general has been on a steady path for a while, despite ups & downs: it's trending towards a bimodal distribution where certain parties are doing quite well and others are doing less well. But what I've seen the last several election cycles is the indicators that dominate what I see on TV, read online, etc swap depending on who is in power. So my expectation is that literally nothing will change yet we'll be hearing about how awesome the economy is for everyone in several months.

> All these years later we're still in a situation where "the economy" is going gangbusters, but the average person feels left out.

It doesn't matter. Trump claimed he'd build the greatest economy again. He didn't provide any details on what he plans to do that will actually improve people's lives. He just let people jump to their own happy conclusions.

>> He didn't provide any details on what he plans to do that will actually improve people's lives.

He did provide high level detail. He said he'd use tariffs to exclude foreign made stuff, which will necessitate "made in America" and bring manufacturing back. He said he'd balance the budget, which (theoretically) has long-term effects. He said he'd deport illegals, which should reduce demand for housing and hence prices.

You can disagree with any of those things, but I don't think it's right to say he didn't offer anything specific.

> I don't think it's right to say he didn't offer anything specific

I mean; he offered 'specifics' - they simply didn't make any sense on cursory examination. How to fight inflation? Tariffs! How to make already expensive goods cheaper? Tarriffs!

Hell, re: deporting illegals, he didn't even bother to do that his first term, Obama did it at a dramatically higher rate.

It's all a "I'll fix everything by doing nothing" smokescreen.

loading story #42065433
Illegals are not competing on buying homes. Working for cash is not going to allow you to purchase a home
loading story #42066159
>He didn't provide any details on what he plans to do that will actually improve people's lives.

No, but he had a very simple and catchy message that even people with the lowest IQ can understand and remember: "Fuck illegal immigrants, fuck China, America first, USA no. 1".

Election messages need to appeal to the lowest common denominator of education and intellect. If you start boring people with facts and high brow speeches that only the well educated can understand, you lost from the start.

Election messages need to appeal to the lowest common denominator of education

Republicans understand that the less educated a voter is, the more likely they are to vote R. It's not a coincidence that they are trying to gut the education system.

What did democrats do to improve the education system?
Yes, that's true, but the problem is that these past four years have been bad for everybody, so they remember the Trump years as being better than they actually were.
> these past four years have been bad for everybody

They've been pretty good for some people.

loading story #42063095
I lost my job a few months back, and I feel like the messaging from Harris/Biden was everything's great! Keep doing whatever is happening. Voted for who spoke to me.

Every company I join literally has an arm in Mexico, India, Pakistan, Colombia or Ukraine - and it always started feeling like at any minute those people would have my job. And they do. I want an administration that makes it so that those people don't have my job. And yes, I have always been willing to work for a lot less, but all the other Americans want more and more and more, so that it's expected for a programmer in the US to make 200k, so these companies decide to hire someone in Colombia for 80k. I'll take 100 and work a lot closer than that person in Colombia. But no companies here will listen to that. And I'll do it as someone with 20 years of experience.

But the only thing people on the left care about, as usual, are issues that actually don't matter. Yes I get it you want Gay rights and you want Abortion rights, but the reality is those things are not going away in the states you're already in. But on the other side, American people are being pushed into a terrible economic state.

Go ahead and not listen, HN doesn't. It's WAAAY to left.

loading story #42064934
loading story #42063751
loading story #42064110
loading story #42064086
They've been great for US Stock holders, which basically comprises most of the Upper and Upper Middle Class.

In fact, so good, people think anything buy 10-20% yearly gains on assets is bad

>And that would be fine, prices go up over time after all, but all of that is on the back of pay, that for most people, has not gone up anywhere close to enough to cover all of that, if it's gone up at all.

BLS data shows real (ie. inflation adjusted) wages has gone up since the pandemic.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Their methodology produces results that are not representative of the economic situation of average american families.

The average household income is 80k(ish) the average house is 420k(ish)

In Bethlehem, PA (a fairly middle of the road place tax wise) that means $5050 take home pay a month and a mortgage payment (FHA 3.5 down, 6.7 interest) of $2650 a month. That is more than half your pay just on a mortgage, not pmi, not insurance, not utilities, not anything else. Do this calculation across the country with localized numbers, do it with rent instead. Add a car and insurance for it into the mix. Then try adding in health insurance, groceries, etc. You are going to find that the numbers result in average people being squeezed and guess what? That lines up with peoples actual experience.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paycheck-to-paycheck-definition...

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/amid-a-resilient...

My interpretation of this is that pay has not kept up with inflation.

Edited to be less witty

loading story #42062509
loading story #42070265
loading story #42062536
loading story #42063338
loading story #42064753
It's worth keeping in mind that inflation is a theoretical construct based on assumptions and formulas that may not apply for every individual or subpopulation.
loading story #42062205
But still haven’t matched productivity gains since the 1970s[0]

Everyone likes to point this out like it somehow made up for all the wage stagnation of the last 40 years and it most definitely did not.

Not to mention these wage gains are slowing fast.

[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff....

loading story #42064638
The data may show that. The people don't feel that. (Many of them don't see it in their budgets, either.)
loading story #42062402
loading story #42063069
loading story #42062164
loading story #42062057
loading story #42062149
loading story #42062112
When (some) people feel they’re worse off and blame it on the government, telling them government produced statistics says they’re actually better off is totally going to make them trust the government more. /s

Edit: Without the snark, lots of people believe their rent, grocery bills, energy bills etc. have gone up a lot more than official inflation numbers (and that can be true even if the inflation numbers are “accurate” for some definition of accurate), and you’re not going to convince them using anything derived from these inflation numbers.

We're still at 390 levels of cost in a 370 world.
loading story #42062033
I agree "It's the economy stupid".

Where the Democrats went wrong is they looked at the economic figures for stuff like corporate profit margins and the stock market and said "look how good the economy is!" when those profit margins are high because they've jacked prices and regular consumers are feeling the squeeze. Unfortunately there's little a President can do about that. Corporate consolidation was largely complete before they even took office and monopolistic behavior is to be expected. The pandemic supply chain disruptions gave companies cover to increase their margins and that's what they did.

Theodore Roosevelt was well known for monopoly-busting. It is something the president can influence and the U.S. has a dozen major monopolies that should have been busted long ago.
"the economy is good, it's growing better than ever, look at all the jobs, etc." while literally no average person is seeing that.

I think I'm an average person. Car prices came down and I was finally able to buy a sedan. Unemployment seems low. Eggs are expensive, sure, but on the other hand, my brand of yogurt always seems to be on sale and oatmeal prices are flat, so it's kind of a wash there. The economy seems pretty fine to me.

Certainly, there have been no threats to shut down the government (like in '18-'19), which did do a number on my retirement plan at the time...

I don't buy it. There's a reality distortion field at work here. If Trump had been in office he would he would have been touting the economy as the greatest in history. And 'average people' would have 'seen that' despite not 'seeing it'.
I don't vote for Trump. I don't know anyone aside from some crazy family members who like him. I'm in an extreme blue state that was called when only a few percent of the vote was in. I don't even know anyone who listens to Trump's speeches or sees this ads.

Every single person I know feels this economy is terrible. Of every age. From new graduates, to senior people. Even the most extreme Obama or Bernie people feel like things are going very badly.

Everyone on campus was consistently outraged when Biden would gloat about his economy.

It's not Trump. I have no idea what his message even is.

This is an own goal. Democrats believed the total bullshit that economists spew about how good things are. When people actually feel how terrible they are.

And trump voters, not understanding inflation, think he will bring down prices.
I'm in the Bay - am I the only person that thinks the economy is going great?

My wages are up since Biden started. My rent, my biggest expense, has held the same. NW up a lot from stock market gains.

There seems to be a lot of inflation with food ,restaurants and domestic work, but isn't lower wage people getting higher wages a good thing?

Yes, it’s been good for the rich. Stock market gains do nothing for most people.

I’m skeptical about the vibes based methods of evaluating the economy, I think the economy really is better for the lowest income workers, but forget stock market gains. Also, rents remaining flat might be a Bay Area specific phenomena. Or even SF specific? Don’t know where you live.

> but isn't lower wage people getting higher wages a good thing

Their wages did not rise anywhere near commensurate with the increased costs of those goods and services - the same goods and services that those people would be buying

I don't think that can be true in the Bay. They would have an even higher percent of expenditure to rent, which is flat.

America wide looks at worse flat: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q (ignoring covid years which distort this)

loading story #42064382
Housing’s still shooting up really fast and I guess used cars are just always gonna be expensive now.
I'm in Texas, in Big Tech. I didn't vote Trump. But I understand.

I'd like to get out of here but can't move because of mortgage rates, among other reasons. I'd like to change jobs but tech layoffs have flooded the job market. It's an anxious time. My 401k is doing great though.

I don't blame Biden for all this. There was absolutely no choice but to pour enough stimulus into the economy to cause massive inflation in order to prevent a revolution during COVID. But if I'm feeling the hangover I'm sure the real working class is staggering.

There was someone upthread that was talking about how unemployment is lowest ever while we have all these layoffs going on. It's kinda surreal.
I’m also in tech. I’ve been looking for work for the last several months. Took some time off after my work contract ended last year.

I likely don’t count towards unemployment statistics. I don’t qualify for unemployment since I was a contractor before.

In my current job search, I’ve sent out more applications and had more interviews than the rest of my career. Granted, I found jobs more through connections than cold applying in the past. I’ve been tapping connections in this search too, though. It’s rough out there. I’ve contemplated taking an exit from tech and picking up a trade.

It sure feels surreal to me when I see reports of a strong economy.

I believe the unemployment statistics, but I'm not sure what industry is doing all the hiring. I doubt it pays as well as the industries that are shedding people right and left.
Becoming the refuge-party for fleeing Republican neoliberals (joining the existing Democratic ones) is really gonna cripple the party when the party that popularized (among the political set—voters never liked it) that damn world-view is abandoning it.
Pay went up a ton too for low income people.
But still haven’t matched productivity gains since the 1970s[0] Everyone likes to point this out like it somehow made up for all the wage stagnation of the last 40 years and it most definitely did not.

Not to mention these wage gains are slowing fast.

[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff....

That would make it a left/right thing. As a European: there is no left in america, there is a liberal right and a conservative right.

The economy is good in america, but that just means that the amount of "resources" in the country is increasing, but, if "average joe" benefits from that or not is a question of how those resources are distributed.

Left/Right is about economy.

Being on the right means that you find it more important that the total pool of resources is increasing.

Being on the left means that you care more about how the resources are distributed.

What happened here is IMHO that the conservatives did the populist thing, they claimed that regular people would get more resources if they won, while still claiming that they would distribute less resources away from wealthy people.

They are not wrong in saying that the economy is good, it is just that since there is no left in american politics, it seems like some people have forgotten the other perspective, since redistribution of wealth have been almost an insult in america for so long. Yet, last time he was president, trump managed to send everyone a check, signed by himself, but paid for by taxes, without being called an evil communist.

I listened to a radia program where poor americans where interviewed, and that was the thing that they remembered about trump, he sent them a check.

So, in conclusion, there is a large group of poor americans, that associate the guy that wants to remove taxes for rich people with what I (according to the above definition) consider to be left wing politics.

> there is no left in america

There is, though? It’s just no represented at all because of FTPT there is based no constituency where it can get 50%. Usually not even in Democrat primaries.

loading story #42063724
loading story #42062928
Europe seems to be pretty good at being on the right lately. Even compared to America. I think the two party system just creates more centrist government, which is perhaps a strong argument for it.
As a European: there is no left in america, there is a liberal right and a conservative right

This gets parroted too often. America objectively provides more abortion access than Europe. Speech here is undoubtedly more expansive than in Europe. Sure, unions may have more power in Europe, but not so much more that I'd be saying "there is no left in America".

And Trumps proposed tariffs will only accelerate price increases[0]

It’s clear it has support from rank and file republicans as well, it is more than feasible that if republicans win the house too we will see tariffs in short order

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/trumps-new-tariff-proposa...

It will almost certainly accelerate inflation, but won’t it also give domestic manufacturing workers hurt by globalization a lot more demand for their work, and leverage to increase their wages? It seems like the main people hurt by this would be the upper middle class and above, the execs, designers, and managers who’ve directly and indirectly managed large international teams of laborers working at low rates, as they’ll get hit by the inflation, but see no additional demand/leverage to increase their wages. They’re the part of the bimodal wealth distribution that has until now done very well by globalization, and I think this election is largely a reaction by the other mode.
loading story #42063845
loading story #42064372
loading story #42063376
loading story #42064176
The president has huge amounts of executive authority over tariffs. I don’t know where the boundaries are but I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw huge tariff increases in the first hundred days.
loading story #42063256
And that inflation was caused largely by pre-Biden Trump policies of giving tax-breaks to billionaires and allowing blatant corporate greed. Inflation is not a quick phenomenon. It has lags. It has stickiness. People don't know this because they don't take any economics.

And, more importantly, today's inflation is by large firms exerting their market control and monopolistic tendencies. How many grocery companies are there and in their region? Kroger is trying to buy out Albertsons to completely dominate the midwest, to lower quality and increase prices like all monopolists. What needs to be done is anti-trust enforcement which Biden has attempted. But none of this is known by 90% of the country and 0% of Trump voters.

Yeah, Kroger's behavior is infuriating. I've stopped shopping there; fortunately I have choices.
You left out wages.
{"deleted":true,"id":42062387,"parent":42061623,"time":1730901626,"type":"comment"}
> while literally no average person is seeing that

I mean, frankly as a Gen Z man I don’t understand this at all. I’m doing a lot better than I was 4 years ago. Finished school, got a good job, etc.

I was about to retire early, with the risk to the ACA I’m not sure.
I guess, from a Western-European perspective, the problem is that with the choice of Democrats and Republicans you get the choice between right-wing and ultra right-wing. Having right-wing politics that funnel money from the poor to the rich, or the tenants to the landlords, is in the interest of the financial backers of both parties. Messaging-wise, the Democrats have always been "more honest" (low bar, it's hard to be more dishonest/convoluted than Trump anyway), so maybe that's why Trump seems to come out ahead there.
You're touching on one of the struggles for many left leaning voters and why the democratic party struggles with enthusiasm and to win. To many on the left, the party markets itself as "the least bad option" and thus "the only choice". Anyone in sales would tell you that is not the best pitch.
loading story #42063166
Reminds me of the quote by Gore Vidal:

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat."

loading story #42063128
normally I'd agree about Trump's honesty, but in the debate and subsequent Harris interviews I saw a lot more deflection, misdirection, lies/mistruthes and non-answers than I did from trump. Sure trump says some wild things which are often only 50% ish true. But kamala would openly call things lies that were verifiable fact, those are lies too, and she lied a lot.
loading story #42062209
loading story #42062661
loading story #42062240
loading story #42062218
My theory is that legal sports betting makes the economy seem artificially worse for a lot of people. It has had a measurable impact on bankruptcy rates, and is causing a lot of self-inflicted financial stress. Trump's main platform is that your problems aren't your fault, and I think that resonates well with people struggling because they are throwing out their disposable income every month.
I’ve never bet on sports but watched my grocery bill skyrocket. A few years ago I posted year-over-year grocery prices and in aggregate the bill was 50% over the course of 12-months. Since then we’ve seen insurance and utilities skyrocket, creature comforts like streaming services are all up. CPI may say one thing, but my checkbook feels much worse. Disposable income has all gone to sustain a reduced quality of life.
loading story #42063803
Does that really impact a lot of people? The total size of the legal sports betting industry is $11B, which is only about 0.04% of US GDP.

https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/39563784/sports...

loading story #42067114
When looking at some profiles of celebrating Trump supporters on Reddit, basically 100% had a large number of posts in sports betting topics, or Wall Street/day trading topics. An interesting demographic overlap there.
This is peak “tone-deaf coastal elite”.
Back in my day I remember when the same anti-porn conservatives would also tell you that gambling bans are good. I can't believe that conservatives gave up on moral purity.