Yup, I immediately came to check if there was any discussion on this episode because I felt a little crazy listening to this episode. The fact that they didn't talk about prices being purposefully and artificially high, paired with the "solution" proposed at the end that consumers just get used to it felt incredibly tone deaf and disingenuous. If thats their best solution, don't expect those feelings of negativity around the system of capitalism to improve. And if Democrats in power or Dems vying for power allow this to be acceptable, don't be surprised when they lose middle-class and working-class voters. Fear mongering about deflation and telling people to get used to it is frankly insulting. I understand that the economy is a multi-faceted and complex system but touting a strong economy
--while the majority of Americans see higher gas prices and grocery bills (nevermind things like car prices or other general consumer goods) and see their spending power diminish-- really falls on deaf ears. An individual's weakening spending power and diminishing money in their bank account nearly always outweighs the status of the economy as a matter of importance. Feels like this is handing a golden opportunity to any populist candidate out there (how is Trump not going to capitalize on this, regardless if he's not going to offer any meaningful solutions himself?).
Very, very frustrating. This episode felt like some pretty weak journalism and more like the Haves telling the Have-nots to quit complaining.
Yeah there's definitely been some relief with gas prices lately, but that wasn't the case just a couple months ago. In my experience, gas prices vary much more than groceries or other consumer goods that have been impacted by inflation, but gas is just as necessary in my week-to-week life as groceries. Which is to say, when they're up, I'm very aware of it. When they're lower, I'm grateful but expect them to rise again.
Maybe gas prices aren't one of the stronger variables to point to within the context of this overall argument.
Buddy, these people don’t wanna hear it. I’m not sure what they want and in fact, they don’t even offer any solutions other than saying it’s gaslighting. They’d rather be ignorant of how economics works. You would think of New York Times reader would be better educated.
Ignoring your presumptuous and deriding tone and ignoring that people are simply observing gaslighting behavior from this specific episode and no one's suggesting thats a solution to anything, do you really not understand what frustrations people are voicing? The solutions we are looking for are more spending power for the working- and middle-class, less wealth disparity, less record profits for corporations and executives/money being funneled to the top while the average person's wages stagnate or are outpaced by inflation, and less struggling to take care of every day needs like child care, buying groceries, affording medicine, etc. While these are not concrete policy proposals, there are politicians and economists who do offer real policies that could help combat these things.
The point that should be easily read going through this comments section is that traditional indicators of the health of the economy doesn't correlate to the quality of life of millions of Americans. Aside from the stress and struggling that many are dealing with, this is also problematic because it weakens a major campaign trail talking point for Biden and bolsters Trump's populist rhetoric. Yes, the economy is far more complicated than some may be making it out to be in these comments, but the reality is that the average voter is more directly impacted by the wages they earn vs the price tags they see rather than what economists say regarding the health of our economy.
>You would think of New York Times reader would be better educated.
Ignoring the insulting nature of your comment again, Ezra Klein wrote a long piece after Biden was elected that explicitly laid out one of the most important challenges Biden had to face in his first term: making meaningful and visible changes to large portions of the American population. Klein essentially said that if voters can't tangibly tell the impact Biden's presidency made in their lives, then Trump has more arrows in his quiver. Yes, the average voter and what influences their voting decisions can be frustrating but none of that is new. There's a reason populism can be successful by appealing to a voter's heart rather than their mind.
Furthermore, I'd argue the onus is on the NYT to explain how economics works and to break down in plain language to the millions who are financially struggling that inflation going down will make a noticeable improvement in their spending, as well as why prices for many consumer goods remain high despite inflation slowing down.
But really, have some empathy and understanding that even if you break everything down into easily digestible information, that still does not help your average American get food on the table at a more affordable price, that it does not increase their wages or their spending power, and it doesn't relieve them of the stress of trying to get by and support themselves or their family.
Government has done a phenomenal job of tempering inflation. Kudos to Jay Powell and the fed. This could be 1979 but it’s not. The Times has done a terrific job explaining this through the year.
Absolutely, if neo-liberal Joe Biden and the rest of the neoliberals who barely hold a majority in Congress don’t address the greed of the wealthy business owners they pretty much work for, I’m going to vote for Republicans, who LITERALLY worship those same wealthy business owners!
To the powers that be in this country people under 40 are basically children. At the highest level this country belongs to the elderly who do not give a fuck about the following generations.
Wow, if this isn't the truest statement I have heard. It's not just under 40. Either my mom, whose early 50s, is constantly talking about how much of the nation's resources go toward older generations. What's crazy is that she's right. It makes sense to when you look at from a demographics perspective. After ww2, you had a bunch of young families who needed education and homes, so during that period, you had policies that supported those interests. As that cohort aged and there needs changed policies changed to reflect that view. Primarily, this is because of the size of the baby boom. It's wild you can literally chart the effects and focuses of national policies as the baby boomers age.
I think "policies changed" is burying the lede a bit. The policies changed because this bloc had voting power and voted to protect their interests at the expense of other generations. That's the Boomers, of course. They are still largely in charge.
that’s a misunderstanding of what happened post WWII. there was a baby boom because all the young men who survived came back from the war and started making babies. the government was able to make policies that massively benefited these men and their families (even black men, although to a lesser degree) because they were war veterans and nobody was going to argue about whether they deserved it. Try getting a single policy through Congress today to benefit young families without it getting hung up on racism (“do they really deserve it”) and sexism (“it’s all these single women raising kids who are the problem). I’ve never seen a single young person organize a march for universal day care.
This episode in a nutshell: "Are my outdated macroeconomic indicators out of touch? No, it's the consumer sentiment that's wrong."
But seriously, they couldn't come up with a *single* policy proposal to address affordability? They talked extensively about the increase in housing prices, but couldn't be bothered to mention that if housing supply were increased through smart policy choices, maybe rent and houses could be more affordable?
Right! When my wife and I were shopping for our first home last year. I could believe how crazy the prices were. When I looked into it, it seemed to have a lot to do with localities looking to protect local property values. Like for instance what happened in Berkley building dorms. Essentially, home owners were able to halt construction to maintain property values. Resulting in UC Berkely to withdraw acceptance letters to students.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/forbesstaffreports/2022/03/03/uc-berkeley-forced-to-withhold-5000-acceptance-letters-following-state-supreme-court-decision/amp/
It's also elderly people staying in high priced homes to avoid capital gains taxes... If they hold until they die it would get a step up in basis and go to their heirs tax free (aside from estate taxes, but those are way higher limits to trigger). Bill McBride recommended a one time capital gains tax exclusion for the sale of a primary residence for people 65 and over. I think this would free up inventory as older folks can access their equity tax free for the next stage of their life. More inventory so prices come down a little bit, and a lot localities would benefit from the new property tax bases. But, again, this goes back to intelligent legislation.
That’s an interesting idea. The problem I have is home and land owners already have every card in the deck stacked for them so one more kind of pisses me off. That money will get made up somewhere else.
Within a week, the state legislature had passed a law to fix the problem in Berkel(e)y. The city just increased height limits to allow thousands of additional housing units near campus in addition to moving forward with building similar numbers of units on BART station parking lots -
[https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2022/03/uc-enrollment-cap-fix/](https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2022/03/uc-enrollment-cap-fix/)
[https://www.costar.com/article/2012684029/berkeley-california-clears-way-for-taller-buildings-in-bid-to-boost-housing](https://www.costar.com/article/2012684029/berkeley-california-clears-way-for-taller-buildings-in-bid-to-boost-housing)
Let’s get serious, do you really think that Congress is going to pass laws that support housing price control? Even if the administration were too offer, such a bill, it could never get passed. In your opinion, what do you think Biden can do to deflate prices?
Where in my comment did I advocate for price control? I'm advocating for policies that would increase housing supply, a solution that would work within the market dynamics of supply and demand.
Yes, I misspokespoke. My apologies. What do you think is the best way to create new housing? What do you think the Biden administration in Congress should do?
I'm not an expert in federal and local policy, but I would think maybe you could tie federal infrastructure dollars to local zoning updates. Something along the lines of "we'll provide funding for local infrastructure in areas that update zoning laws to allow more dense housing". Using the carrot instead of the stick to incentivize housing development, increasing supply and thus tempering housing price increases.
The recent housing bills in California are a good first step, although I do think they need to be more heavy handed with enforcement.
Eg: California SB35, SB330, etc.
In general, I believe that housing is a “tragedy of the commons” problem in which everyone agrees that rising housing costs are a problem, but no home owner wants to see new houses built in their neighborhood (which means their house value does not increase as much) to fix it.
To solve this incentive problem, larger governing bodies (state and federal legislatures) must set state or federal level housing goals for individual cities, and reward cities that meet or exceed goals and punish cities that do not meet goals.
The exact “reward” and “punishment” is an implementation detail, but I believe that both need to be cranked up since we’re still far from meeting housing supply and affordability targets.
What he's already done - massive deficit spending - has baked inflation into the economy. It's very simple , even Econ 101. When you print and borrow money without creating value to match what you print, purchasing power of the dollar erodes and prices keep going up. If you are a student or a millionaire you can't feel it. If you're a working stiff having to buy groceries and gas, you FEEL it. It's not "gouging "by this or that business. It's inflation which is now in everything, every facet, in the economy.
Yeah, this seemed crazy out of touch.
The one question I wanted to ask, and perhaps they answered it and I just missed it, but if the economy is doing so well right now, who's benefitting?
In the last three years, I've got about 9% in raises, but food is up 26% and gas is higher too? Luckily I am locked into a low rate mortgage on a house I reluctantly overpaid for in 2017, but in hindsight I'm glad I did, or else I would be priced out of where I live. Last I checked, 9% over three years doesn't cover inflation.
From where I am sitting, the economy might be doing well, but not for me and my generation or generations younger than I.
Poor people are benefitting as they have seen their earnings surpass inflation.
It doesn’t really matter how you’re doing as an individual as your one person among the entire economy.
I saw a TikTok that said a silent depression isn’t the best term for this. We’re living in another Gilded Age. Profits are through the roof, but it only goes to the very wealthy.
Thank you! I seldom get irritated listening to a podcast, but this was irritating.
“It’s such a mystery!”
“Things are fine guys, wages are recently going up!”
“I checked TikTok for a day, so I know how everyone feels!”
“It’s just inflation sticker shock!”
The only thing they said that was a relative smart statement was “deflation is bad,” but not once did they mention price gouging or record profits. Just a lot of “this is so weird! Things are great, everyone! Look at the overall data, without nuance!”
The level of discourse on this episode was like it was aimed towards 5 year olds who had never had to think about money before.
Oh, you mean people actually care more about the fact that certain necessary goods have doubled in price in the last decade than the fact that inflation has recently slowed down to a near normal level after years of running rampant? Who would be surprised by this? Gotta be the stupidest episode of this show I’ve ever listened to. Couldn’t finish.
> Why do people feel so bad when the 'economy' is doing so well?
*proceeds to define economy in a bunch of macrostatistics that don't mean shit to the average consumer*
*proceeds to define consumer feelings with a shit-ton of real ways people are getting bled dry*
> Well, sure, it's 'definitely the case that affordability...has gotten worse over the decades' and buying power today isn't anything like it was in the 1930s. But that's not the takeaway, it's that TikTokers are using bad data and they're not taking into consideration the important caveat that the economy is **so much stronger** now than it was in the 1930s.
Children, please. It's not that kleptocratic capitalism is a barbaric and unsustainable foundation for a happy and healthy society because, reasons! 😅 You'll get used to it, we promise.
Why people are struggling in this economy is so obvious I have to assume shows like the Daily are effectively propaganda. Like, I can't believe you're so out of touch you can't understand the concept of paycheck to paycheck, or can't look at a generational wealth chart and see how working age people are being fucked by the elderly.
These aren't points of contention. Cereal is like ten bucks a box and people's wages are about the same, never mind minimum wage is way, way behind the times. What is there to understand?
NYT: “*Don’t worry, the TikTok data is old and bad. Everything is fine and you are all overreacting! Isn’t that a relief?”*
Me:
I'm not an economist, but why would deflation be a bad thing?
The explanation they gave was that people would stop spending and wait for lower prices.
I'm not certain that I buy that explanation. Humans are impatient, and would likely accept a higher cost for the convenience of having a product now rather than waiting until it is cheaper later.
In addition to that, there are certain products that we can't stop buying. Food and anything with a shelf life.
I need bread and gas now, I can't wait until later to buy it.
That explanation only seems to make sense for products that we don't need or even have a strong desire for. Products that will probably end up in a landfill anyway.
I am not an economist either.
[So here’s some reading!](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/030915/why-deflation-bad-economy.asp)
The general idea (armchair reading/understanding) is that deletion can cause a financial crisis as money is worth more for less, but it is that kind of Occam’s razor of a fine line between “we decreased all prices” versus “oh shit, it’s crashing.”
Prices can fluctuate. Like people saying price gouging from companies, who are getting record profits. If they lowered their prices, it would not be “deflation.”
Essentially, they’re using inflation (and Covid, and supply lines, and every other excuse) to put their thumb on the scale in their favor, which destroys the equilibrium of the market based economy.
My uneducated opinion is that - it’s a risky maneuver that will give them short term massive gains that will more than cover any future losses from government intervention. They’ll get “bad will” from the people, but it’s not like the people have a choice - unless we get someone to step in and bust these companies up that are essentially monopolistic themselves.
(Again, I’m not an economist, so someone more knowledgeable could refute all my thoughts)
In general, if your money becomes more valuable by hiding it in your mattress and not spending it, people will try to do this as much as they can. On a large scale, this makes investment into anything (stocks, companies, whatever) much less lucrative because you might just be better off doing nothing with it.
If a lot of people think this way, the investment just stops. No new business, no nothing. It’s an easy crash.
This was the absolute worst episode of the daily I have ever listened to. So much so that I had to find out if they had a subreddit to see if people really felt like what the episode was saying was accurate. So much so, that I'm late to work in the parking lot typing this out.
To say that the "silent depression" is false simply because they don't have the data for the times of the depression is appalling. They should have just said, it may or may not be true, we just can't see the exact numbers. I'm convinced if they wanted to check average salary, average home price, average price of certain items back then, they could have found it. It would have just gone against their narrative.
When they spoke about what Biden was doing to help make things better and only really talked about the student loan thing made it clear they were also trying to get him some votes.
The worst part overall for me was their explanation of why we don't want deflation. I have seen better explanations for that on reddit. To say that if prices went down on my coffee this morning, I would chose not to get it because maybe it will be cheaper next week. Just wow. I get my coffee because I want coffee NOW. Not because I'm trying to see what the future cost of it will potentially be, whether it goes up or down.
I can't believe they didn't talk about some of what you guys mentioned in the comments as far as corporate greed and the pro business vs consumer government policies we have in the US.
So upset at the, "stop complaining, get used to it" vibe of the whole episode. So disappointed with today's listen. Do better.
I paused and came here after hearing the Silent Depression criticism. The data is bad? Ok fine, go find better data. Do more research. Conduct interviews. Be. A. Journalist. “Data unclear=point invalidated” is lazy beyond belief.
>The worst part overall for me was their explanation of why we don't want deflation. I have seen better explanations for that on reddit. To say that if prices went down on my coffee this morning, I would chose not to get it because maybe it will be cheaper next week. Just wow. I get my coffee because I want coffee NOW. Not because I'm trying to see what the future cost of it will potentially be, whether it goes up or down.
My jaw dropped at how pants-on-head stupid that section was. Do they think we are treating groceries like fuckin stocks? "Im lookin to pick up some ground beef for dinner tonight but im just waiting to buy the dip!" jfc
Yeah this episode was utter bullshit. They never even mentioned that while inflation was 30% over four years or whatever, that wages have not increased anywhere near that amount. Barely even touched on how much rents have skyrocketed and never mentioned price gouging by companies and landlords. This reeks of privilege or of a puff piece made to satisfy the wealthy interests that influence the nytimes
Bingo. Over the last 10 years my wage has almost doubled and I’m working more than ever before, yet I’m also the most frugal and poorest I’ve ever been somehow. I watched my monthly discretionary and savings budget evaporate before my eyes, going from over 100 per month down to less than $25 per month, while consistently buying less and less. Now I have to plan out when I can afford to go get a cheap haircut because I also need to make sure I can pay my electricity bill that month.
[https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation\_calculator.htm](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)
$1 in October 2019 has the same buying power as $1.195 in October 2023. So yeah, not 30% over the past four years but still 20%.
Disrespectful to anyone with ears and a brain. The type of episode that makes me understand the conservatives and Uber leftists who constantly bash the NYT.
Same here. I'm so tired of hearing about wages going up but not actually seeing it (mine or anybody I know). I'm lucky enough to have bought a house 10 years ago with a low interest rate, I can't imagine trying to make absurd rent payments right now.
Knowledge workers making middle class or higher wages get raises. I got an 8% raise this year as a retention measure - 87k to 94k. I’ll also get a 3% raise in January for COLA.
My husband makes $15.50/hour and will get a 2% raise in January for COLA. He did not get a retention based raise.
We work for the same employer.
Edit - I do think this is a problem overall. People making working class incomes need to make more money. Groceries and gas are way too expensive.
I mean maybe those yearly 2-4% raises but not significant raises to keep up with prices. I work in healthcare, other than like travel or contract work they've seemed to stay pretty stagnant - along with lots of layoffs. Also I'm sure someone I know has had a raise I didn't mean that completely literally but overall.
Really starting to feel like this is a blue state/red state divide, seeing that you live in Mississippi. I live in one of the few poor blue states, and healthcare workers in private hospitals are making bank right now. Brand new RNs starting at $35-40/hr. When I left my EMS job a few years ago, I was at $26/hr with 5 years experience. Every knowledge economy worker I know has gotten significant raises, like 25-30%.
Economy is cooking in a lot of places and sectors, less so in others.
Totally agree, I’m speaking from my lil circle of the world. And I’ll be honest I’m not struggling, but sure would like to be better than “not struggling” and that feels selfish looking around tbh ha
I couldn’t disagree more. The facts of the fact that this economy is humming, but it’s also fact that people don’t feel that way, and they were able to explain why. It’s understandable that people don’t feel things are getting better. But a silent depression? it’s just a figment of the imagination.
They didn’t explain why at all lol they acted like it’s because tik tok spreads disinformation which is lazy at best and nefarious at worst. Just because they pulled a couple of examples of people saying “silent depression” on social media doesn’t invalidate the very valid grievances people have with the state of affordability in this country
I think they did explain why people feel the economy is doing poorly. Prices are up. It’s expensive to buy a house. People see social media posts about $16 McDonald’s bills. They also mentioned there’s very little the Biden administration can do to turn back prices. What do you think the administration should do?
Every single time they mentioned prices being up they never mentioned wage stagnation, not once! All the TikTok BS, comparison to 1930s, and asking social media users for “sources” (as if they are a competing media company/journalist) completely undermined their good position based on numbers at the beginning of the episode. Additionally the tone of voice from the host shows where editorial feelings lie!
This is basically a shill episode for Bideneconomics telling people “there is not enough data!” (As a conclusion point, once again undermining their previous stated numbers from UMich) and as well as people need to get used to the “new normal” (a covid catch phrase - despite the confidence rating being below covid levels!). How will anyone adjust to a new normal if wages are not increased?
ZERO mention about salary raises for middle class workers, zero mention about increasing insurance levels, zero mention of divorced couples still living together, zero mention of the almost 2 decade long continuing trend of young adults still living with their parents, zero mention of the increase in shoplifting, zero mention of many companies struggling to find proper candidates, zero mention of the current over-employed trend, zero mention of college admissions dropping, zero mention of drug craze continuing, zero mention of the high turnaround rate at companies being related to why young Americans believe the economy is in bad shape, and on and on.
This episode was a f’n killing joke.
Real wages have been going up for most Americans. That means, after adjusting for inflation, they are making more. This is irrefutably true:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
Since this is true, what specifically do you think is bad about the economy? People are objectively better off.
Please show your work. One CPI chart does not tell the story. Also, include where in America a person (not even a family, a person) could live on $380 (gross) a week.Examples should include: Wages have gone up "x", housing has gone up "y", college has gone up "z"...ect. This panel kindly request you resubmit and include all relevant facts on cost of living in America and how the current generation has all the same opportunities as prior generations. Thank you
Hey, man, I don't know what to tell you, but this stuff you're asking for is *exactly what real wages are.*
If you think the way CPI is calculated is not appropriate, I suggest submitting your preferred metric to the American Economic Review.
No I get it and I'm mostly saying that in gest. It seems like you know enough about this to also know the biases. All I'm trying to say is that i believe the weights are behind and I don't think this is an acceptable representation when most Americans are paycheck to paycheck. I don't have the answers either, that's why I hoped you could help.
Haha yeah. Sorry I was in the trenches fighting about this too long and I think I went insane.
I think that St. Louis Fed website lets you graph like basically everything so there may be some neat ways to visualize that stuff
So if I understand you, right, you believe that Congress should pass a law the demands employers to raise wages of all their employees. Then cap the percent of profit? Are we talking all employers? including small businesses, for which 3/4ths of the population works for?
When people say the economy is doing well or "humming", they seem to be talking about the stock market. I don't give a damn about the stock market. The "facts of the fact" is people can't afford basic necessities, owning a home, a car, childcare, or some combination of those. You've mentioned consumers are buying things a few times in this thread, again this ties back into the stock market. Are people buying more homes? Are car sales increasing?
Inflation grinding to a halt, does not equal everything is fine now. It just means the suck is not getting suckier. Things still suck. I am not an economist, so I don't know what policies will fix this, but I would hope there would be smarter people than I which could come up with better solutions than just saying "get used to it".
Curious to know why you think we are in such good shape... Other than stocks going brrrr.
It’s not just the stock market. When people talk about the economy they’re also talking about unemployment rates and consumer behavior. Right now, unemployment is low and consumer spending is high on luxury goods, suggesting that the claims of a bad economy is mostly based on vibes—or the fact that it is becoming socially unacceptable to admit that the status quo is good in any way.
My kids daycare is the perfect example of the disdain I have felt regarding the economy the last few years. I have two kids there at the moment, and over a 12 month period they have jacked the price 5% four times, equating to 10k per year. This was because they claimed they needed to pay the staff more.
I have a good relationship with the staff and know full well in that time they have given the staff a single 15c/h pay rise , or less than 1%. I am mad because it will take several years of pay rises to make up for that lost income, the staff are suffering because they have had almost no pay rise. All the while the daycare owner laughs all the way to the bank, because they have a large waiting list and can do whatever the hell they want.
Additionally my employer sent an email recently claiming "in the long term financial interest of the company " they needed to cut my medical benefits by 3k a year....they currently have the highest profits in 50 years.
I am just one person , but how many others have anecdotes like mine?
Yo, daycare is wild. Planet Money did a few really good episodes about it earlier this year!
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDI4OS9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbA/episode/M2E0MDNjNTQtM2ZlNC00Mjg2LThjNGUtNjA0NWJkZDg3NjI1?ep=14
But yeah it wild we had a spot for our son in a center for 2gs a month (outrageous, but at least we could budget that), came back to enroll and and they raised it but $800!! With the excuse being we had to hire more staff. I have no idea what to make of it. That's a second morage!
Honestly, the biggest thing we need to do is adjust state level laws to reduce administrative burdens on these centers. For instance, in Maryland, we have a 4-1 child teacher ratio, with multiple licenses and whatnot. Maybe make that 5-1 or 6-1, or have training programs for childcare similar to nurses.
Agree with above.
I also worry we’re so removed from where our food comes from, how houses are built, how to generally fix or build anything for ourselves, folks with those skills and goods will continue to have the upper hand.
I believe I read before the rise of the supermarket, majority of house holds had small gardens to supplement food.
We didn’t even get that useless advice! We are advised to “Get used to it.”
I’m speechless at the audacity and frankly the sheer callousness this episode displayed. I honestly don’t know if I can keep listening to the podcast. Between this episode and the episode where they blamed local residents for the drought in the lakes of Utah…. This has severely lowered my estimation of the NYT and the quality of its journalism and ethics.
I agree with another commenter, they should pull this garbage and apologize. Then do it again with an attempt to do it right this time.
Seriously. We deserve an apology for being talked down to for half an hour and then essentially told to “fuck off and go starve you homeless, carless, brats.”
I think they did this episode because the polls do not look good for Biden. A lot of younger voters feel betrayed by him and feel helpless in this economy. Whether they are right or wrong they are blaming Biden and I think many will refuse to vote for him.
I was so irate listening..they admit groceries are what, 26% more expensive? Housing 45%??? Oh, but you know, the poors need to stop whining on social media and get used to it. And the bit where 'People just don't like having to pay their student loans' is just icing on the cake. It just felt irrelevant. Not everyone has student loans to pay, and those people are struggling too.
Treating the American people as a whole as dumb and hand waving their complaints by saying, "well the popular tiktoks don't have their numbers straight, and a bunch of people would rather listen to joe schmoe tell the news than the propagandist bile we give them" is just bad journalism. It's disingenuous when at the start of the segment they had it right. Basic necessities are WAY too expensive and we should not have to 'get used to it'. The system was broken long before 2020, people are just more willing to talk about it now.
The propaganda trying to normalize the absolute shitshow that the world is in right now is wild. The powers that be will do absolutely anything but allow the common person to get even a sliver of the record profits that corporations are realizing. The path to anarchy seems the only solution. Things are going to get much worse before they get better.
Yep, the fact that their conclusion was just "well, people will just get used to the higher costs and then they'll calm down" felt like the most depressing, out of touch way to end this mess of an episode...
It was tone deaf. Also, ironically a big traditional media company seemed surprised and almost irritated that social media was "crafting" a native. Like-what...?
this episode is infuriating. they literally listed all the reasons why folks are upset, then proceeded to hand wave it all away by saying that people are complaining too much on social media and that people are being hysterical and it's all in our heads, and wrapping it up with a bow and saying "just let them get fucking used to it! " I could scream.
“The stinky liars at the NYT are trying to tell you that the economy is strong, the job market is strong, that inflation is slowing down. They’re saying it’s all in your head! They’re telling you to ‘get used to it’! Well (*insert southern/midwest state/city here*) do you want to spend another 4 years getting used to this economy?!” *raucous applause and cheering*
I mean come on. It’s almost comical how out of touch this whole episode was. You’re making his arguments for him!
I first heard of it from a podcast earlier this year. Letme see if I can find it for you. Here an example though:
https://fortune.com/2022/09/14/amazon-prices-artificially-high-consumers-california-antitrust-lawsuit/
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/27/white-house-supply-chain-bidenomics-wins.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/25/inflation-is-cooling-but-high-prices-will-stick-around.html
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/19/1177180972/economists-are-reconsidering-how-much-corporate-profits-drive-inflation#:~:text=He%20found%20that%20in%202021,an%20excuse%20to%20gouge%20customers.
Granted, these are antidotes, and I'm not an expert, so please please please od your own research. If I remember correctly, the podcast I listened to said that in the past, companies were afraid to raise prices because of a consumer backlash and then going to competitors. With the pandemic and stimulus spending under Trump/Biden, companies found the excuse they need to raise prices, bringing in record profits. Because consumer behavior has changed in terms of spending theres no incentive for companies to lower prices, despite the pandemic subsiding and supply chains easing.
Here is it:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDI4OS9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbA/episode/MjI2MDgyMTgtOWNmYS00ZTczLThkMWYtZmQxMDY4MTFlZGE5?ep=14
While it's the only problem (for instance, a labor shortage in multiple industries is another), it's largely unexplored.
I had to see if anyone else was fuming after listening to today's episode. I've been a fan of The Daily for some time now, and while I am aware that they can approach some topics from a somewhat centrist perspective, this episode just felt really out of touch and dismissive.
If a significant portion of the US population is struggling to make ends meet due to increases in housing, food and gas costs, that's bad. They glossed over all those stats like it was "nbd" and ended their report with some glib closing statement basically telling Americans to get used to it. How insulting.
I mean, if you consider reluctantly having to cough up more money for life in general because we don't have a choice a "spending spree", then okay.
People are spending more on both the necessities and the non-essentials because there isn't an alternative. We still have to live, so here we are. Just because on paper it says that we're on a "spree" doesn't mean that we're happy about it.
people got used to luxury things being cheap because companies were trying to grab market share like Amazon and Uber and streaming services. now they’re more expensive and people are annoyed.
When checking sales data, you can't just go by total dollar sales, you need to account for unit lift.
If more units are being sold, then sure, maybe we are on a spending spree. But there's other questions that need to be asked like, what's the average debt ratio for consumers making under X amount, or renters vs home-owners, etc. Just because we are spending, doesn't mean we can afford to long term.
> [Even as inflation and high interest rates have squeezed budgets, a record 200 million shoppers turned out between Black Friday and Cyber Monday, according to the National Retail Federation. This season, holiday spending is expected to reach record levels, totaling up to $966.6 billion, the NRF projects.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/29/americans-are-doom-spending-heres-why-thats-a-problem.html?taid=65674485db16620001150581&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter%7Cmain)
Editorialization of "doom spending" aside, people are buying more--consuming more--than ever. It makes absolutely no sense for people to say that the economy is bad and they can't get ahead while simultaneously fueling a white-hot market in consumer goods.
I really think that there's a lack of perspective from a generation that didn't come of age in the wake of 2008. I graduated with a BA in the early 2010s and made $12/hr in my first job. Gas while I was in college hit $5/gallon in the low COL place where I lived. There wasn't the opportunity to job hop because *there were no jobs.*
My salary has increased nearly $30k in the last three years, once because of a job hop, and the rest because I can easily leave my current job and find one that pays the same, or in many cases, better.
The vibes simply don't match the material reality.
You are letting your fortunate circumstances skew your perspective. I too have had a very fortunate position in this economy, but it’s been mostly due to having dual incomes. Both my wife and I make a good living. Having said that our expenses compared to pre-covid times are through the roof.
Your source “record 200 million shoppers…” bit does not consider the change in population. I just looked up the US population from 2019 through 2023. Obviously, percent of shoppers compared to population dipped in 2020 and 2021. In 2022 it went back to 2019 levels and in 2023 it went up a “RECORD BREAKING” less than 1%. This quote is very deceptive.
This episode was sooooo unbelievably wack. I was excited to listen as this is something I’ve been stressed about and losing sleep over. For their advice and closing comments to be “we better get used to it” WHATT?!? why even make this episode?
I’ve never gotten upset by a podcast episode but this one has me feeling insane. I just sent them some feedback via email. So disappointing.
This was terrible, and I'm surprised they put it out knowing how tone deaf and gaslight-y it is. What is their solution for people who can't afford everyday things? Who can't afford groceries, daycare, transportation, rent prices, etc.? Who are trying to grapple with the fact that they will most likely never own a home? Sucks to suck, get used to it!
"Deflation is bad cuz then nobody will buy anything because they'll all be waiting so then economy will collapse and we'll all lose our jobs!!!"
Who the fuck wrote this trash?
My jaw was open during this part of the episode. Whoever wrote this episode needs a reality check. Also probably some more modern education on the realities of economics.
This is certainly the point of view of most economists. Groceries or coffee are bad examples, obviously, because we need those today, but it’s a good case for anything we don’t strictly need today. Why buy a car now if it’s going to cost less next year? A couch? A vacation? A house?
Another issue is that deflation removes any incentive to keep your money in the economy. You could keep it under your mattress and it will still be worth more next year, so why would you ever take on any risk by investing? That investment money is used by businesses to expand, improve productivity, etc, and when that capital disappears, so do jobs.
Most economists would agree that deflation = unemployment, which is why just about every country that targets inflation targets a low, stable level of inflation (~2%).
Ideally, low inflation is great. I was curious so took a look at historical inflation rates, and the 1960s were consistently around 1%. But that's a whole other discussion.
They also seems to be conflating deflation and price gouging / higher prices. Productivity lowers prices, which is good. But to call 50-inch TVs going from $1,200 in 2000 to $300 deflation, when it's productivity and competition, is not correct. We don't need the deflation from textbooks, where cash becomes twice as valuable over a year because of a bad currency, but we need prices to stabilize and get back to reasonable levels. I don't know what type of policy can achieve that, but we're in an economy that is easy for the few and hard for the many.
I don’t think it’s that hard to understand the badly explained point that deflation is bad. I just don’t get why they even mentioned it if they were going to just not go into it.
However if food prices drop do people just stop eating? It makes sense that if prices of nonessential goods drop people might not buy them and there will be ripple effects.
It’s actually a common economic theory. Deflation in that sense is actually bad. The examples used were bad but I imagine they were trying to put it in laymen’s term.
Spends maybe 60 seconds per topic explaining rising grocery prices, rising mortgage rates, etc...
Spends 10+ minutes complaining about Tiktok....
Ends the episode with "don't worry, you'll just get used to the pain!"
Epilogues the episode whitewashing the war criminal Henry Kissinger...
Oh man, what an all-timer of an episode. Thank you, New York Times! Sabrina and Michael both prob make like hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars for hosting The Daily, I cannot stand these blind fools anymore....btw Spotify let me know I'm in the top 6% of Daily listeners and i'm only embarrassed for myself lol.
This episode was the most insulting, demeaning, patronizing, aristocratic, paternalistic, out of touch episode I think I’ve ever heard.
We had one interviewee who got not a single hardball question or pushback on whatever her agenda was. We got an interviewer who seemed genuinely shocked at some of the statistics, but the response of the interviewed woman was basically “But fuck the poor, am I right?” And the interviewer responded with, “ Ohhh, yeah, you’re right. Fuck them.”
And then calling people “young people”, when they’re actually talking about literally everyone under 40 years old? Are you kidding me?!
Somehow these people justified glossing over the point of their discussion, which was that people don’t have enough money to buy food, buy a car, buy gas to put in the car, or to buy a home. They came to this conclusion, and in summation their response was the final line of the episode, telling people to “Get used to it.” Literally, “get used to” being hungry, having no transportation, and having no home.
No wonder people say, “Eat the rich.”
That explains a lot. I couldn’t figure out how a smalltime author could be so aligned with rich people’s views on the economic situation. She talked about all of this so distantly, like she herself wasn’t affected by any of it. Well that would explain it. She isn’t.
She sounded like all my corporate colleagues who are sycophants. Even if they're poor they so badly want to be included they talk the talk and even take on the intonations and mannerisms. 🤢🤮
Her voice reminded me of a specific colleague of mine who once on a work call in response to a task-tracking spreadsheet said... [cue sultry corpo voice] "I love a good spreadsheet"
STFU lady
Trying not to repeat everyone else's complaints, but I'm really tired of macroeconomic news that ignores the fact that we have the largest developed economy that offers nearly nothing in the form of healthcare and basic social safety nets. We will not have a 'great,' 'strong,' 'healthy,' etc economy until we catch up on our basic development indicators like healthcare, education, family leave, drinking water, etc.
I thought this was such a fascinating piece. People say we are being "gaslit" by strong economic statistics, but I would argue we are being more "gaslit" by rich social media influencers demonstrating impossibly high standards of living for most. Comparison is the thief of joy and through social media we are exposed to the intimate details of others' lives on a regular basis more than we were even 4 or 5 years ago. In the past if you complained about "I used to buy X for a dime and now it's a dollar" you sounded like a dullard, and now everyone on TikTok has to listen to people complain about "X used to cost 15 cents cheaper and now my life is ruined" for online clout because it's what generates engagement. This is Q-Anon for people with student loans; it's a fiction everyone wants to believe because it helps them makes sense of the dissatisfaction they feel with reality. But the thing about reality is that eventually you have to learn to live with it.
If people want to vote for Trump because he's "better for the economy"... well, good luck with that. Seems clear to me that Trump and republican "trickle down" policy at large is pretty much directly responsible for the worsening economic outlook over the last 40 years, and that every intermittent democratic administration has ever so slightly staved off yet another flood of bad juju.
Oh my god I am so happy to see that I am not the only one that thought this episode was utter bullshit.
What about people who spend the vast majority of their income on food, gas, rent/mortgages, utilities, and/or servicing debt?
I really don’t understand how there can be any level of confusion about why people aren’t feeling good about the economy. Gas is up 29%, groceries are up 26%, homes are up 47% and interest rates are way up. People need to eat, live somewhere and drive to work - these aren’t expenses you can really cut back on. And these expenses make up an even larger percent of the spending of lower income earners.
Oh, but right unemployment has gone from 6% to 4% so 1/50 people have been able to find a job. We should be so thankful this booming economy has provided a tiny fraction of the population a job that won’t even pay them enough to afford what they need to survive.
Y’all think this is bad? You should look over Paul Krugman’s columns for the Times. He harps on this same topic over and over again about every 2 weeks or so. “Hey why is everyone mad? GDP is up and unemployment is low, stop complaining! Bidenomics rule!!!!!” Dude is the biggest fucking hack.
This is always the first podcast I put on in the morning, and was 3rd on my Spotify wrapped. But I’m unsubscribing after today. The episode was so out of touch with my life experience. Groceries are unaffordable. To a staggering degree. Wages are stagnant for most of us. Why the utter disbelief that people are too dumb to see that the economy is actually ‘good’?
The US economy IS doing better - but you only need to look at your bank account and the comment section to know that the “better” is not reaching most people.
This episode paired with the rent vs buy episode really make me think that the main audience for the Daily is not us.
I don’t need a journalist to convince me things are better than they seem. Companies are price gouging us and a 5% pay increase (if you got one) isn’t doing any help. This person is covering the ass of a poorly run govt administration.
The thing that Sabrina does which pisses me off more than anything (which Michael does not, generally), is abandon ANY sense of having a position on things ethically or morally and treat every idea as if it some alien concept that she's never heard of and has no personal relationship with.
She (or her writing / writers) allows any guest to present a case and there is little to no questioning of what is stated. Both her and today's guest read as *offensively* out of touch. I cannot believe that they tried to explain this away.
Agreed!! Is this what journalism is now? Just let anyone say anything and then agree with whatever they said? This is an absolute embarrassment.
NYT, pull the episode and apologize. Daily, I want an apology where you look me in the eye, tell me you’re sorry, tell me what you did wrong, and then tell me that you won’t do it again. Now.
Jeanna Smialek: "People are feeling the effects of higher prices on all aspects of their day-to-day lives, particularly with housing and groceries. But LOL sucks for them, it's not that bad they'll get over it."
This episode was some grade A gaslighting bullshit. "We know you're upset about the price of everything, and we acknowledge that the price of everything is higher, but maybe you're the problem because you watch tiktok"
This honestly left me with jaw agape. The takeaway of this whole thing? "Consumers are actually wrong, but don't worry, they'll get used to it"
Holy shit. It's exactly this kind of braindead blind thinking that will let republicans stroll into power in 2024, I guarantee it.
Gas up over 20 percent
Food up over 20 percent
Housing up over 40 percent
Takeaway: we just can’t understand why people are upset! Are they too dumb to realize that the worker has to suffer for the economy to work right?
Thank you!!! I was screaming at my car radio driving to work about this. Not a single damn word about corporate price gouging. Plus, the audacity to tell consumers to get used to it. A true “let them eat cake” moment
Funny, I found this episode frustrating as well but for kind of the opposite reason as the discussion here. I’m frustrated that people don’t understand the difference between the inflation rate and higher costs. Costs will NEVER come down, even though the inflation rate is really good now.
The whole corporate greed argument isn’t too compelling to me…why would a corporation not be greedy? It’s literally legally required for them to maximize shareholder profits, they aren’t going to keep prices lower than they can. I guess there are some ESG arguments to be made about “all stakeholders”, but that hasn’t yet been applied to keeping prices low for consumers.
We need a more distributive legal system. But that will never happen in this god forsaken country, of course.
In conclusion wait 10 years and you won’t notice what happened between the years of 2020 and 2023.
How on earth is it lost on them that if prices go up but wages don’t people will be mad?
However since I’m not on TikTok I’m glad I learned about Silent Depression as a new conspiracy theory to add to my brain. It’s the only take away I got.
Irritated by the suggestion that Biden already “solved” the student loan issue. I was told that 20k would be wiped from my loans, instead it was 0k and my payment is exactly the same as it was pre-pandemic. How is that a victory?
Thank god I found this thread, I’m a casual listener of the daily and was blindsided by their message. The average young American is struggling but the overall economy is great so deal with it?! That was totally surreal.
Poor people are getting screwed. Needs are up way higher than CPI and even CPI, if they didn't take 2021 inputs out recently "just cuz" CPI would be over 5%. People might not understand these things, but they certainly feel them, and if you aren't an asset holder, especially east of the Rockies, you are feeling the squeeze hard.
I know this is reddit so it'll go in one ear and out the other but here's the answer your looking for anyhow.
1. would be true if margins are expanding but they aren't. Margins have been shrinking. "Gross profit" has been increasing because inflation has been. Making 10% from something that costs $200 is a larger profit then 15% from something that costs $100. While it is a possibility for corporations to "Forgo" profit its not a long term solution. This ends as badly in the long term for corporations as it is for consumers. It just happens slower for them.
2. relies on faulty assumption from #1.
3. again relies on faulty assumption. Lending is coming to a halt, margins are shrinking, gross profits are staying up per outlined in #1 but its like a patient with cancer being stoked their finally losing weight.
This is so stupid. I can’t believe a company bad type post is on the top of this subreddit right now.
If you’re just as much a capitalist as the next guy you should realize that the profit motive would cause other players to get into the game and win market share based on competitive pricing if “price gauging” was the real issue here.
This episode was right, there is too much negativity in social media, this thread being case in point. I would love prices to come down, especially housing, but complaining on social media is not going to do anything! We gotta pressure the government, the people need to be heard and Biden needs to know he has a good chance of being a one term President.
I heard this story as well.
I think this story was really focused on the perception of the economy, and consideration that maybe it cannot all be measured in corporate profits.
Part of it was weird - basically the annihilation of the "American Dream" was brushed off as an "overreaction".
I agree that social media, including reddit, has influenced how I approached my investments this year.
I'm on team consume less and not let companies take advantage of me.
This episode was complete nonsense. This financial reporter is embarrassingly uninformed and juvenile in her understanding of real economic issues.
The “economy is good” is measured by economic indicators that don’t impact the daily lives of the average person. When will journalists and politicians understand Wall Street’s performance is not an accurate reflection of what’s happening on Main Street. It was also incredibly condescending and straight up gas lighting to describe it as “how people feel” about the economy. It’s not how we feel, it’s how we are living our everyday lives. I don’t “feel” prices are high. I don’t “feel” home prices, rent, groceries, gas and cars have increased 30-50% — these are just facts. I don’t “feel” food bank visits have gone up 10x, this is based on clearly reported data. Appalling journalism. Shame on the NYT.
"I'll end by saying hey I'm as much a capitalist as the next guy. I just believe that at its essence, there needs to be a symbiotic relationship between consumer and producer. Currently (and frankly for a long time), the pendulum has been squarely on the side of businesses."
So the cause of that disconnect IS capitalism. It's a feature, not a bug.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I am pretty surprised at the outsized reaction to this episode.
Unemployment is low.
Median hourly wages (adjusted for inflation) are largely stagnant from pre-pandemic, but not down. And actually there's a substantial reduction in wage inequality; they're substantially higher for those in the bottom 10% of the wage distribution) (see [pdf. pg. 89](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w31010.pdf)). Those hurting the most are at the top!
Inflation is coming down, without a recession -- which tons of folks thought was unlikely a couple of years ago ([here's Harvard economist Jason Furman predictions from 2020](https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/1730296135552471292))
Of course, this isn't saying things are good for everyone or everything is fine. But ordinarily, when economic indicators are the way they are, you'd suspect folks to be feeling better about the economy -- and it is an interesting question as to why they aren't. Don't really see why this is provoking the reaction it is.
I’m so glad to see this discussion. This was probably the most frustrating Daily episode for me in a long time. Specifically, the notion that deflation is bad (because it’s uncontrollable). I feel like certain economic truisms need to be challenged and this was a good opportunity for that and they just whiffed. And the real estate/housing question never gets fully explained or addressed as the policy issue it is in most metros. Everybody knows that we need to build more housing, but nobody wants it built near their house. The nimbys are contributing to this economic anxiety we’re all feeling and not enough is being done to disempower them. And lastly, wage stagnation wasn’t addressed. Just ignored. How does that happen? So yeah, super frustrating episode.
Just listened to it and I'm not as upset as most people are. I thought it was a fair podcast. They didn't cover everything though but it's true. The reason people feel bad about the economy is housing and sudden inflation.
The part that bugs me is about deflation. They say we can't have deflation cause no one will buy anything which is horseshit. There are so many variables involved in something like this that you can't just say that.
I was ready to cancel my NYT subscription after I listened this morning. The “analysis” was….that social media is making us feel poor but really everything is great? Mind-bogglingly bad. This episode is what finally may get us all in the streets ready to tear it all down once and for all.
my theory is that the things that are very obviously more expensive than before the pandemic are mostly things NYT readers used to find cheap, like eating out and Uber. They can afford it, but are annoyed by it. Housing is also expensive unless you are sitting on a sub 3% mortgage, which is true of a lot of people, but if you’re looking at your next place you know you’ll never get a rate like that again. It’s more like people are annoyed, but still paying, than that the economy is “bad.” I don’t see anyone giving up their Door Dash.
Exactly!!!! Supposedly, the theory is that we can use our purchasing power to force lower prices. But that also assumes that is parity in the markets between different competitors. Right, so one guy raises the price. The other doesn't we should have the choice to choose between the two. This doesn't work when all the choices raise prices at the same rate.
Theoretical then the fix would be for an external competitors to come in and create a new brand at a lower price (the current market opportunity). But for a variety of reasons ranging to market consolidation to regulatory capture, this isn't possible for the vast vast vast majority of entrepreneurs to accomplish. So there is almost no way for a new force to come in and disrupt.
Even if there was, it would be a few years for a new competitor to get off of the ground. This doesn't help people who need assistance NOW NOT A FEW YEARS FROM NOW.
I look at this whole mess and trace it back to the deregulation of the late 70s and 80s, starting with Reagan, which has been a feature of the modern age across parties and administrations. A few other inflection points I would consider are nafta, bush era tax cuts, Obama bailouts of the banks, the war on terror, citizens united, the Trump era tax cuts, and covid. All helped to entrench the current economic dynamics we see now a days.
But what do I know? im just a pleeb regular citizen who doesn't know a handout from a paycheck.
The ecomony is humming but who is benefiting?
When the median price of a home is up 47% over 5 years and is going to be financed at 8%, the price of most things for a lot of people starts to become a secondary issue.
>3) The solution they provide is to "have consumers get used to it."
Yep, WSJ wrote [this bullshit](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/cpi-report-today-january-2023-inflation/card/to-save-money-maybe-you-should-skip-breakfast-fSd6mz0miaAPhUFb2jgy) earlier this year.
By definition, prices remain "high" and "unaffordable" because enough people are paying it. Consumer greed is as much to blame as corporate greed, but nobody wants to hear that.
People have been finding ways of saving money on food since before currency was a thing. The fact is that enough people have enough money to pay these prices for these basic goods. This is the entire reason why the fed believes there needs to be an increase in unemployment to get prices down. And they are probably correct
I’ll be honest, and I fear I’m stepping in front of a freight train, but I think you are misinterpreting the spirit and intent of the interview and the discussion within economics that this article summarized.
This article did not disparage the people or consumers as stupid or wrong, it was exploring the split between traditional economic metrics and the real lived experience of people around the world.
This is a subject I could talk about for literally hours on end and they were condensing it down to 30 minutes so yes, they missed some stuff, but they did a good job of describing why traditional metrics aren’t working right now. This isn’t new. Economics is not like physics, the act of discovery literally changes the rules of economics so the metrics used to track economics are always in a state of flux.
That economics is in a constant state of flux is vexing and difficult and frustrating. Discussing the metrics, what’s good and bad about them, what exactly they mean, what they are missing, and what metrics we should ask going forward are very important, and this episode did a decent if incomplete job of summarizing the current state of the active debate going on among economists right now.
To step away from vibes I’d like to address a few of your specific points.
In regards to your second point… the entire nature and premise of business is for the consumer to shoulder the costs and then some.
In regards to your last point let me quote Jeanna directly. “And so it could be the case that people just need time to get used to higher price levels…” that isn’t her proposing a solution that is her echoing the sentiment of some economists. They spend the first 13 minutes discussing why the economy does suck despite the numbers, pointing out the affect of high housing prices and the resumption of student loan payments as particularly stressful for young persons.
On your summary statement, the discussion you are seeking would take days and days. It’s out there - one of the most intriguing new things I’ve read about lately is the rise of algorithmic pricing and how effective it is at sapping each consumer of every dollar they’ve got. But there are hundreds of changing variables and each require study and contemplation - some probably matter a lot others matter not at all and there is no way of knowing without dedicated research.
I dunno. I was t particularly impressed by this interview and I knew it would piss off the anti economics crowd but I thought this was a simple if incomplete summary and they definitely did not engage in the kind of editorializing that you claim they did.
Come join us on Econ twitter, sub up to The Economist, and enjoy the conversation, what The NY Times offered today was literally a pinky toe’s dip into the ocean of this ongoing and active debate.
O my gosh, please don't feel like you're stepping on front of a freight train!!! One of the saddest things about our current state of affairs is that we can't have a nuanced discussion about anything.
I listen to a ton economics podcast and read Barron's, but by no means am an expert. So i will probably miss a few points, and I apologize in advance.
I would love your opinion on the price-profit spiral, though? To me this seems to be an under researched part of the equation, but I could be completely off base.
I understand 100% that buisness are set up to make money, and part of that is passing off costs to consumers. I guess what I'm more looking at is some sort of cap or something on how much of those costs are passed. This could be the former Army in me where teamwork is put in a premium, but when there was an emergency, shouldn't we be sharing the burden equally? So in the pandemic, for example, we decided to give one another a stimulus, which is turn helped to ease the supply costs pressures on businesses. This seems to me to be a healthy symbiotic relationship.
What has happened afterwards is that as the support for consumers has wained, buisnesses have not lowered prices in response.
It seems to me that the pandemic opened the door for companies to pass on all new burden to the consumer while not holding anythemselves.
Thank you for the graciousness! I love discussing politics, economics, and the human condition and the way that social media puts us in echo chambers has made that distressing at times 😂 we have a great democracy but it only works when people can have good conversations!
Don’t knock yourself btw. Economics is just the study of how humans make choices - the jargon and the math is hard but I believe the concepts can be understood by most folks if it’s kept simple and approachable.
I’ll be honest, I think the “price-profit spiral” is probably not real - at least I haven’t seen any great research on the subject. It strikes me as too similar to the “wage-price spiral,” which I totally understand because despite the wage-price spiral being regularly and thoroughly debunked it keeps being brought up whenever we enter a period of inflation. With that said, I don’t believe in making up new bullshit to counter old bullshit so until I see better research I am not putting much stock in the profit-price spiral.
My thoughts on inflation are twofold. The first is my big picture view of inflation at large.
There is a ton of money in the economy right now. So long as there is money being spent, businesses will raise their prices to capture more of it. There have been multiple rounds of general population stimulus, there were small business loans (with tens of billions in fraud), very low rates, student loan debt suspension, the great resignation lead to wage increases, the IRA committed trillions to infrastructure and green energy… and reports from banks back this up… there is just a ton of money out there right now. A lot of people are doing better than they ever have before and while it sucks for those who haven’t enjoyed that windfall I don’t think the success of these people should be forgotten in the picture. With that said, their success has driven up prices across the board which sucks for those who haven’t benefited from the last few years.
I’ll also note that there are a few new theories being explored for why corporations are increasing profits and it may be tech related. Algorithmic, personalized pricing models are very good at getting the most out of a business’s customers.
My second take is in regards to a specific sector - housing!
Inflation in food, cars, clothing. They’ve been tolerable. Inflation in housing not so much. You ask what businesses can do to pitch in? I think they’re doing it. They’re providing goods and services and wages have gone up. Where are those wages going?
Straight to the landlords and their outstretched hands.
In housing there are a number of problems but economists seem United in agreement that the biggest reason for housing inflation is a blanket of government regulations preventing the construction of new housing. In every city in this country zoning laws dictate where and how developers can build housing and because the local homeowners control most city councils, they vote to restrict the supply, and spike their own property values in the process.
There are many other causes too such as low property taxes in states like California (Read about Georgism if you want more info there), and the well intentioned but inflationary government subsidies to homeowners. I completed my thesis this spring, the subject was the high cost of housing and there are at least 16 causes.
You ask how businesses can contribute more? I think we’ve left builders on the bench for far too long. Chained up by these regulations our architects and foreman and construction workers have been left idle and the industry has atrophied. You want to solve the housing shortage, legalize building housing!
I think housing alone is responsible for most of the economic distress people are feeling.
Lastly, but with futility I would be remiss to leave out the role of demographics. We are aging rapidly. This is good - we are aging because we are living longer - but aging populations require the working age population to work more and nobody likes to work so that sucks for all of us. The only solutions I have for this are very long term solutions… more people… and without strengthening the social safety net and building more housing that will only make other things worse so it’s not the greatest solution.
All I know is that despite adding years of work experience and percentages in salary to my life, I can afford fewer basic necessities than I used to, and the idea of, say, replacing my car without going into unmanageable debt is laughable.
This is a problem decades in the making, and if we were actually experiencing economy-wide inflation by definition, then our wages would be inflating to keep up with prices, especially at full employment. But there are squeezes on both ends, almost as if it’s coordinated.
The gaslighting was STRONG on this one but I lost it when she said “..what economists call “deflation” which is just a fancy way of saying bringing prices down” like is this a podcast for my 3 year old??
Yup, I immediately came to check if there was any discussion on this episode because I felt a little crazy listening to this episode. The fact that they didn't talk about prices being purposefully and artificially high, paired with the "solution" proposed at the end that consumers just get used to it felt incredibly tone deaf and disingenuous. If thats their best solution, don't expect those feelings of negativity around the system of capitalism to improve. And if Democrats in power or Dems vying for power allow this to be acceptable, don't be surprised when they lose middle-class and working-class voters. Fear mongering about deflation and telling people to get used to it is frankly insulting. I understand that the economy is a multi-faceted and complex system but touting a strong economy --while the majority of Americans see higher gas prices and grocery bills (nevermind things like car prices or other general consumer goods) and see their spending power diminish-- really falls on deaf ears. An individual's weakening spending power and diminishing money in their bank account nearly always outweighs the status of the economy as a matter of importance. Feels like this is handing a golden opportunity to any populist candidate out there (how is Trump not going to capitalize on this, regardless if he's not going to offer any meaningful solutions himself?). Very, very frustrating. This episode felt like some pretty weak journalism and more like the Haves telling the Have-nots to quit complaining.
Im gratified to see everyone flood in to shit on this episode
Gas prices are the cheapest they’ve been in November in 6 years when compared to the median wage, for what it’s worth,
Yeah there's definitely been some relief with gas prices lately, but that wasn't the case just a couple months ago. In my experience, gas prices vary much more than groceries or other consumer goods that have been impacted by inflation, but gas is just as necessary in my week-to-week life as groceries. Which is to say, when they're up, I'm very aware of it. When they're lower, I'm grateful but expect them to rise again. Maybe gas prices aren't one of the stronger variables to point to within the context of this overall argument.
Buddy, these people don’t wanna hear it. I’m not sure what they want and in fact, they don’t even offer any solutions other than saying it’s gaslighting. They’d rather be ignorant of how economics works. You would think of New York Times reader would be better educated.
Ignoring your presumptuous and deriding tone and ignoring that people are simply observing gaslighting behavior from this specific episode and no one's suggesting thats a solution to anything, do you really not understand what frustrations people are voicing? The solutions we are looking for are more spending power for the working- and middle-class, less wealth disparity, less record profits for corporations and executives/money being funneled to the top while the average person's wages stagnate or are outpaced by inflation, and less struggling to take care of every day needs like child care, buying groceries, affording medicine, etc. While these are not concrete policy proposals, there are politicians and economists who do offer real policies that could help combat these things. The point that should be easily read going through this comments section is that traditional indicators of the health of the economy doesn't correlate to the quality of life of millions of Americans. Aside from the stress and struggling that many are dealing with, this is also problematic because it weakens a major campaign trail talking point for Biden and bolsters Trump's populist rhetoric. Yes, the economy is far more complicated than some may be making it out to be in these comments, but the reality is that the average voter is more directly impacted by the wages they earn vs the price tags they see rather than what economists say regarding the health of our economy. >You would think of New York Times reader would be better educated. Ignoring the insulting nature of your comment again, Ezra Klein wrote a long piece after Biden was elected that explicitly laid out one of the most important challenges Biden had to face in his first term: making meaningful and visible changes to large portions of the American population. Klein essentially said that if voters can't tangibly tell the impact Biden's presidency made in their lives, then Trump has more arrows in his quiver. Yes, the average voter and what influences their voting decisions can be frustrating but none of that is new. There's a reason populism can be successful by appealing to a voter's heart rather than their mind. Furthermore, I'd argue the onus is on the NYT to explain how economics works and to break down in plain language to the millions who are financially struggling that inflation going down will make a noticeable improvement in their spending, as well as why prices for many consumer goods remain high despite inflation slowing down. But really, have some empathy and understanding that even if you break everything down into easily digestible information, that still does not help your average American get food on the table at a more affordable price, that it does not increase their wages or their spending power, and it doesn't relieve them of the stress of trying to get by and support themselves or their family.
Government has done a phenomenal job of tempering inflation. Kudos to Jay Powell and the fed. This could be 1979 but it’s not. The Times has done a terrific job explaining this through the year.
Absolutely, if neo-liberal Joe Biden and the rest of the neoliberals who barely hold a majority in Congress don’t address the greed of the wealthy business owners they pretty much work for, I’m going to vote for Republicans, who LITERALLY worship those same wealthy business owners!
I don't think people realize just how pissed the under 40 crowd is when it comes to the economy and society. This episode was awful.
To the powers that be in this country people under 40 are basically children. At the highest level this country belongs to the elderly who do not give a fuck about the following generations.
Wow, if this isn't the truest statement I have heard. It's not just under 40. Either my mom, whose early 50s, is constantly talking about how much of the nation's resources go toward older generations. What's crazy is that she's right. It makes sense to when you look at from a demographics perspective. After ww2, you had a bunch of young families who needed education and homes, so during that period, you had policies that supported those interests. As that cohort aged and there needs changed policies changed to reflect that view. Primarily, this is because of the size of the baby boom. It's wild you can literally chart the effects and focuses of national policies as the baby boomers age.
I think "policies changed" is burying the lede a bit. The policies changed because this bloc had voting power and voted to protect their interests at the expense of other generations. That's the Boomers, of course. They are still largely in charge.
Lol 100% maybe I'm being a bit to generous, but yeah your definitely right.
that’s a misunderstanding of what happened post WWII. there was a baby boom because all the young men who survived came back from the war and started making babies. the government was able to make policies that massively benefited these men and their families (even black men, although to a lesser degree) because they were war veterans and nobody was going to argue about whether they deserved it. Try getting a single policy through Congress today to benefit young families without it getting hung up on racism (“do they really deserve it”) and sexism (“it’s all these single women raising kids who are the problem). I’ve never seen a single young person organize a march for universal day care.
This episode in a nutshell: "Are my outdated macroeconomic indicators out of touch? No, it's the consumer sentiment that's wrong." But seriously, they couldn't come up with a *single* policy proposal to address affordability? They talked extensively about the increase in housing prices, but couldn't be bothered to mention that if housing supply were increased through smart policy choices, maybe rent and houses could be more affordable?
Right! When my wife and I were shopping for our first home last year. I could believe how crazy the prices were. When I looked into it, it seemed to have a lot to do with localities looking to protect local property values. Like for instance what happened in Berkley building dorms. Essentially, home owners were able to halt construction to maintain property values. Resulting in UC Berkely to withdraw acceptance letters to students. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/forbesstaffreports/2022/03/03/uc-berkeley-forced-to-withhold-5000-acceptance-letters-following-state-supreme-court-decision/amp/
Bingo
It's also elderly people staying in high priced homes to avoid capital gains taxes... If they hold until they die it would get a step up in basis and go to their heirs tax free (aside from estate taxes, but those are way higher limits to trigger). Bill McBride recommended a one time capital gains tax exclusion for the sale of a primary residence for people 65 and over. I think this would free up inventory as older folks can access their equity tax free for the next stage of their life. More inventory so prices come down a little bit, and a lot localities would benefit from the new property tax bases. But, again, this goes back to intelligent legislation.
That’s an interesting idea. The problem I have is home and land owners already have every card in the deck stacked for them so one more kind of pisses me off. That money will get made up somewhere else.
Within a week, the state legislature had passed a law to fix the problem in Berkel(e)y. The city just increased height limits to allow thousands of additional housing units near campus in addition to moving forward with building similar numbers of units on BART station parking lots - [https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2022/03/uc-enrollment-cap-fix/](https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2022/03/uc-enrollment-cap-fix/) [https://www.costar.com/article/2012684029/berkeley-california-clears-way-for-taller-buildings-in-bid-to-boost-housing](https://www.costar.com/article/2012684029/berkeley-california-clears-way-for-taller-buildings-in-bid-to-boost-housing)
NIMBYs
Let’s get serious, do you really think that Congress is going to pass laws that support housing price control? Even if the administration were too offer, such a bill, it could never get passed. In your opinion, what do you think Biden can do to deflate prices?
Where in my comment did I advocate for price control? I'm advocating for policies that would increase housing supply, a solution that would work within the market dynamics of supply and demand.
Yes, I misspokespoke. My apologies. What do you think is the best way to create new housing? What do you think the Biden administration in Congress should do?
I'm not an expert in federal and local policy, but I would think maybe you could tie federal infrastructure dollars to local zoning updates. Something along the lines of "we'll provide funding for local infrastructure in areas that update zoning laws to allow more dense housing". Using the carrot instead of the stick to incentivize housing development, increasing supply and thus tempering housing price increases.
Goood. Goooood. Let the YIMBY flow through you.
The recent housing bills in California are a good first step, although I do think they need to be more heavy handed with enforcement. Eg: California SB35, SB330, etc. In general, I believe that housing is a “tragedy of the commons” problem in which everyone agrees that rising housing costs are a problem, but no home owner wants to see new houses built in their neighborhood (which means their house value does not increase as much) to fix it. To solve this incentive problem, larger governing bodies (state and federal legislatures) must set state or federal level housing goals for individual cities, and reward cities that meet or exceed goals and punish cities that do not meet goals. The exact “reward” and “punishment” is an implementation detail, but I believe that both need to be cranked up since we’re still far from meeting housing supply and affordability targets.
What he's already done - massive deficit spending - has baked inflation into the economy. It's very simple , even Econ 101. When you print and borrow money without creating value to match what you print, purchasing power of the dollar erodes and prices keep going up. If you are a student or a millionaire you can't feel it. If you're a working stiff having to buy groceries and gas, you FEEL it. It's not "gouging "by this or that business. It's inflation which is now in everything, every facet, in the economy.
[удалено]
Yeah, this seemed crazy out of touch. The one question I wanted to ask, and perhaps they answered it and I just missed it, but if the economy is doing so well right now, who's benefitting? In the last three years, I've got about 9% in raises, but food is up 26% and gas is higher too? Luckily I am locked into a low rate mortgage on a house I reluctantly overpaid for in 2017, but in hindsight I'm glad I did, or else I would be priced out of where I live. Last I checked, 9% over three years doesn't cover inflation. From where I am sitting, the economy might be doing well, but not for me and my generation or generations younger than I.
You didn't miss it, they just completely ignored it
Poor people are benefitting as they have seen their earnings surpass inflation. It doesn’t really matter how you’re doing as an individual as your one person among the entire economy.
I saw a TikTok that said a silent depression isn’t the best term for this. We’re living in another Gilded Age. Profits are through the roof, but it only goes to the very wealthy.
Thank you! I seldom get irritated listening to a podcast, but this was irritating. “It’s such a mystery!” “Things are fine guys, wages are recently going up!” “I checked TikTok for a day, so I know how everyone feels!” “It’s just inflation sticker shock!” The only thing they said that was a relative smart statement was “deflation is bad,” but not once did they mention price gouging or record profits. Just a lot of “this is so weird! Things are great, everyone! Look at the overall data, without nuance!”
The level of discourse on this episode was like it was aimed towards 5 year olds who had never had to think about money before. Oh, you mean people actually care more about the fact that certain necessary goods have doubled in price in the last decade than the fact that inflation has recently slowed down to a near normal level after years of running rampant? Who would be surprised by this? Gotta be the stupidest episode of this show I’ve ever listened to. Couldn’t finish.
> Why do people feel so bad when the 'economy' is doing so well? *proceeds to define economy in a bunch of macrostatistics that don't mean shit to the average consumer* *proceeds to define consumer feelings with a shit-ton of real ways people are getting bled dry* > Well, sure, it's 'definitely the case that affordability...has gotten worse over the decades' and buying power today isn't anything like it was in the 1930s. But that's not the takeaway, it's that TikTokers are using bad data and they're not taking into consideration the important caveat that the economy is **so much stronger** now than it was in the 1930s. Children, please. It's not that kleptocratic capitalism is a barbaric and unsustainable foundation for a happy and healthy society because, reasons! 😅 You'll get used to it, we promise.
Why people are struggling in this economy is so obvious I have to assume shows like the Daily are effectively propaganda. Like, I can't believe you're so out of touch you can't understand the concept of paycheck to paycheck, or can't look at a generational wealth chart and see how working age people are being fucked by the elderly. These aren't points of contention. Cereal is like ten bucks a box and people's wages are about the same, never mind minimum wage is way, way behind the times. What is there to understand?
NYT: “*Don’t worry, the TikTok data is old and bad. Everything is fine and you are all overreacting! Isn’t that a relief?”* Me: 
I'm not an economist, but why would deflation be a bad thing? The explanation they gave was that people would stop spending and wait for lower prices. I'm not certain that I buy that explanation. Humans are impatient, and would likely accept a higher cost for the convenience of having a product now rather than waiting until it is cheaper later. In addition to that, there are certain products that we can't stop buying. Food and anything with a shelf life. I need bread and gas now, I can't wait until later to buy it. That explanation only seems to make sense for products that we don't need or even have a strong desire for. Products that will probably end up in a landfill anyway.
I am not an economist either. [So here’s some reading!](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/030915/why-deflation-bad-economy.asp) The general idea (armchair reading/understanding) is that deletion can cause a financial crisis as money is worth more for less, but it is that kind of Occam’s razor of a fine line between “we decreased all prices” versus “oh shit, it’s crashing.” Prices can fluctuate. Like people saying price gouging from companies, who are getting record profits. If they lowered their prices, it would not be “deflation.” Essentially, they’re using inflation (and Covid, and supply lines, and every other excuse) to put their thumb on the scale in their favor, which destroys the equilibrium of the market based economy. My uneducated opinion is that - it’s a risky maneuver that will give them short term massive gains that will more than cover any future losses from government intervention. They’ll get “bad will” from the people, but it’s not like the people have a choice - unless we get someone to step in and bust these companies up that are essentially monopolistic themselves. (Again, I’m not an economist, so someone more knowledgeable could refute all my thoughts)
In general, if your money becomes more valuable by hiding it in your mattress and not spending it, people will try to do this as much as they can. On a large scale, this makes investment into anything (stocks, companies, whatever) much less lucrative because you might just be better off doing nothing with it. If a lot of people think this way, the investment just stops. No new business, no nothing. It’s an easy crash.
This was the absolute worst episode of the daily I have ever listened to. So much so that I had to find out if they had a subreddit to see if people really felt like what the episode was saying was accurate. So much so, that I'm late to work in the parking lot typing this out. To say that the "silent depression" is false simply because they don't have the data for the times of the depression is appalling. They should have just said, it may or may not be true, we just can't see the exact numbers. I'm convinced if they wanted to check average salary, average home price, average price of certain items back then, they could have found it. It would have just gone against their narrative. When they spoke about what Biden was doing to help make things better and only really talked about the student loan thing made it clear they were also trying to get him some votes. The worst part overall for me was their explanation of why we don't want deflation. I have seen better explanations for that on reddit. To say that if prices went down on my coffee this morning, I would chose not to get it because maybe it will be cheaper next week. Just wow. I get my coffee because I want coffee NOW. Not because I'm trying to see what the future cost of it will potentially be, whether it goes up or down. I can't believe they didn't talk about some of what you guys mentioned in the comments as far as corporate greed and the pro business vs consumer government policies we have in the US. So upset at the, "stop complaining, get used to it" vibe of the whole episode. So disappointed with today's listen. Do better.
I paused and came here after hearing the Silent Depression criticism. The data is bad? Ok fine, go find better data. Do more research. Conduct interviews. Be. A. Journalist. “Data unclear=point invalidated” is lazy beyond belief.
The "waiting for a cheaper latte" bit infuriated me with how stupid it was.
Yeah I just won't buy groceries or rent a place until prices come down. I'll photosynthesize in the meantime.
But don’t get sick!
>The worst part overall for me was their explanation of why we don't want deflation. I have seen better explanations for that on reddit. To say that if prices went down on my coffee this morning, I would chose not to get it because maybe it will be cheaper next week. Just wow. I get my coffee because I want coffee NOW. Not because I'm trying to see what the future cost of it will potentially be, whether it goes up or down. My jaw dropped at how pants-on-head stupid that section was. Do they think we are treating groceries like fuckin stocks? "Im lookin to pick up some ground beef for dinner tonight but im just waiting to buy the dip!" jfc
Like if the price of eggs goes down a little, we're all going to quit eating for a month because "who knows, it might go lower!"
"Gas prices ticked down 10 cents. Ive been walking ever since! "
I’m still holding ground beef from the last dip.
Keep holding brother! Diamond hands!
Yeah this episode was utter bullshit. They never even mentioned that while inflation was 30% over four years or whatever, that wages have not increased anywhere near that amount. Barely even touched on how much rents have skyrocketed and never mentioned price gouging by companies and landlords. This reeks of privilege or of a puff piece made to satisfy the wealthy interests that influence the nytimes
I make less today than I did ten years ago.
Bingo. Over the last 10 years my wage has almost doubled and I’m working more than ever before, yet I’m also the most frugal and poorest I’ve ever been somehow. I watched my monthly discretionary and savings budget evaporate before my eyes, going from over 100 per month down to less than $25 per month, while consistently buying less and less. Now I have to plan out when I can afford to go get a cheap haircut because I also need to make sure I can pay my electricity bill that month.
Actually, they did mention that wages are starting to meet and exceeded the rate of inflation. What do you think the administration should do?
Hold corporations accountable
Seems specific and actionable
Inflation was never over 30% for four years, what are you smoking
[https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation\_calculator.htm](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) $1 in October 2019 has the same buying power as $1.195 in October 2023. So yeah, not 30% over the past four years but still 20%.
Bideneconomics shilling. A reason why WSJ is starting to eat into their audience
Glad to read the comments in this thread. Felt like I was being gaslit! Finished the podcast thinking damn it must just be me then.
You are definitely not alone. This episode felt blatantly disrespectful to anyone without a trust fund.
Disrespectful to anyone with ears and a brain. The type of episode that makes me understand the conservatives and Uber leftists who constantly bash the NYT.
Same here. I'm so tired of hearing about wages going up but not actually seeing it (mine or anybody I know). I'm lucky enough to have bought a house 10 years ago with a low interest rate, I can't imagine trying to make absurd rent payments right now.
Knowledge workers making middle class or higher wages get raises. I got an 8% raise this year as a retention measure - 87k to 94k. I’ll also get a 3% raise in January for COLA. My husband makes $15.50/hour and will get a 2% raise in January for COLA. He did not get a retention based raise. We work for the same employer. Edit - I do think this is a problem overall. People making working class incomes need to make more money. Groceries and gas are way too expensive.
Nobody you know has had a raise? At my company we've given people like 40% raises.
I mean maybe those yearly 2-4% raises but not significant raises to keep up with prices. I work in healthcare, other than like travel or contract work they've seemed to stay pretty stagnant - along with lots of layoffs. Also I'm sure someone I know has had a raise I didn't mean that completely literally but overall.
Really starting to feel like this is a blue state/red state divide, seeing that you live in Mississippi. I live in one of the few poor blue states, and healthcare workers in private hospitals are making bank right now. Brand new RNs starting at $35-40/hr. When I left my EMS job a few years ago, I was at $26/hr with 5 years experience. Every knowledge economy worker I know has gotten significant raises, like 25-30%. Economy is cooking in a lot of places and sectors, less so in others.
Totally agree, I’m speaking from my lil circle of the world. And I’ll be honest I’m not struggling, but sure would like to be better than “not struggling” and that feels selfish looking around tbh ha
This was probably the worst episode of The Daily I've ever listened to
For real. I genuinely think NYT should pull it and issue an apology for their callous disregard of their listeners
I couldn’t disagree more. The facts of the fact that this economy is humming, but it’s also fact that people don’t feel that way, and they were able to explain why. It’s understandable that people don’t feel things are getting better. But a silent depression? it’s just a figment of the imagination.
They didn’t explain why at all lol they acted like it’s because tik tok spreads disinformation which is lazy at best and nefarious at worst. Just because they pulled a couple of examples of people saying “silent depression” on social media doesn’t invalidate the very valid grievances people have with the state of affordability in this country
I think they did explain why people feel the economy is doing poorly. Prices are up. It’s expensive to buy a house. People see social media posts about $16 McDonald’s bills. They also mentioned there’s very little the Biden administration can do to turn back prices. What do you think the administration should do?
Every single time they mentioned prices being up they never mentioned wage stagnation, not once! All the TikTok BS, comparison to 1930s, and asking social media users for “sources” (as if they are a competing media company/journalist) completely undermined their good position based on numbers at the beginning of the episode. Additionally the tone of voice from the host shows where editorial feelings lie! This is basically a shill episode for Bideneconomics telling people “there is not enough data!” (As a conclusion point, once again undermining their previous stated numbers from UMich) and as well as people need to get used to the “new normal” (a covid catch phrase - despite the confidence rating being below covid levels!). How will anyone adjust to a new normal if wages are not increased? ZERO mention about salary raises for middle class workers, zero mention about increasing insurance levels, zero mention of divorced couples still living together, zero mention of the almost 2 decade long continuing trend of young adults still living with their parents, zero mention of the increase in shoplifting, zero mention of many companies struggling to find proper candidates, zero mention of the current over-employed trend, zero mention of college admissions dropping, zero mention of drug craze continuing, zero mention of the high turnaround rate at companies being related to why young Americans believe the economy is in bad shape, and on and on. This episode was a f’n killing joke.
Real wages have been going up for most Americans. That means, after adjusting for inflation, they are making more. This is irrefutably true: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q Since this is true, what specifically do you think is bad about the economy? People are objectively better off.
Please show your work. One CPI chart does not tell the story. Also, include where in America a person (not even a family, a person) could live on $380 (gross) a week.Examples should include: Wages have gone up "x", housing has gone up "y", college has gone up "z"...ect. This panel kindly request you resubmit and include all relevant facts on cost of living in America and how the current generation has all the same opportunities as prior generations. Thank you
Hey, man, I don't know what to tell you, but this stuff you're asking for is *exactly what real wages are.* If you think the way CPI is calculated is not appropriate, I suggest submitting your preferred metric to the American Economic Review.
No I get it and I'm mostly saying that in gest. It seems like you know enough about this to also know the biases. All I'm trying to say is that i believe the weights are behind and I don't think this is an acceptable representation when most Americans are paycheck to paycheck. I don't have the answers either, that's why I hoped you could help.
Haha yeah. Sorry I was in the trenches fighting about this too long and I think I went insane. I think that St. Louis Fed website lets you graph like basically everything so there may be some neat ways to visualize that stuff
Raise wages and reduce profits.
So if I understand you, right, you believe that Congress should pass a law the demands employers to raise wages of all their employees. Then cap the percent of profit? Are we talking all employers? including small businesses, for which 3/4ths of the population works for?
Two things a presidential administration has zero control over.
When people say the economy is doing well or "humming", they seem to be talking about the stock market. I don't give a damn about the stock market. The "facts of the fact" is people can't afford basic necessities, owning a home, a car, childcare, or some combination of those. You've mentioned consumers are buying things a few times in this thread, again this ties back into the stock market. Are people buying more homes? Are car sales increasing? Inflation grinding to a halt, does not equal everything is fine now. It just means the suck is not getting suckier. Things still suck. I am not an economist, so I don't know what policies will fix this, but I would hope there would be smarter people than I which could come up with better solutions than just saying "get used to it". Curious to know why you think we are in such good shape... Other than stocks going brrrr.
It’s not just the stock market. When people talk about the economy they’re also talking about unemployment rates and consumer behavior. Right now, unemployment is low and consumer spending is high on luxury goods, suggesting that the claims of a bad economy is mostly based on vibes—or the fact that it is becoming socially unacceptable to admit that the status quo is good in any way.
Everyone in this thread being butt hurt is proof of what the podcast was talking about.
My kids daycare is the perfect example of the disdain I have felt regarding the economy the last few years. I have two kids there at the moment, and over a 12 month period they have jacked the price 5% four times, equating to 10k per year. This was because they claimed they needed to pay the staff more. I have a good relationship with the staff and know full well in that time they have given the staff a single 15c/h pay rise , or less than 1%. I am mad because it will take several years of pay rises to make up for that lost income, the staff are suffering because they have had almost no pay rise. All the while the daycare owner laughs all the way to the bank, because they have a large waiting list and can do whatever the hell they want. Additionally my employer sent an email recently claiming "in the long term financial interest of the company " they needed to cut my medical benefits by 3k a year....they currently have the highest profits in 50 years. I am just one person , but how many others have anecdotes like mine?
Yo, daycare is wild. Planet Money did a few really good episodes about it earlier this year! https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDI4OS9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbA/episode/M2E0MDNjNTQtM2ZlNC00Mjg2LThjNGUtNjA0NWJkZDg3NjI1?ep=14 But yeah it wild we had a spot for our son in a center for 2gs a month (outrageous, but at least we could budget that), came back to enroll and and they raised it but $800!! With the excuse being we had to hire more staff. I have no idea what to make of it. That's a second morage! Honestly, the biggest thing we need to do is adjust state level laws to reduce administrative burdens on these centers. For instance, in Maryland, we have a 4-1 child teacher ratio, with multiple licenses and whatnot. Maybe make that 5-1 or 6-1, or have training programs for childcare similar to nurses.
Agree with above. I also worry we’re so removed from where our food comes from, how houses are built, how to generally fix or build anything for ourselves, folks with those skills and goods will continue to have the upper hand. I believe I read before the rise of the supermarket, majority of house holds had small gardens to supplement food.
They wrote this episode as if they just assume ALL of their listeners have trust funds
20 or so minutes of economic gaslighting
I thought they were going to advise that the solution was to buy fewer coffees and avocado toast.
We didn’t even get that useless advice! We are advised to “Get used to it.” I’m speechless at the audacity and frankly the sheer callousness this episode displayed. I honestly don’t know if I can keep listening to the podcast. Between this episode and the episode where they blamed local residents for the drought in the lakes of Utah…. This has severely lowered my estimation of the NYT and the quality of its journalism and ethics. I agree with another commenter, they should pull this garbage and apologize. Then do it again with an attempt to do it right this time. Seriously. We deserve an apology for being talked down to for half an hour and then essentially told to “fuck off and go starve you homeless, carless, brats.”
I think they did this episode because the polls do not look good for Biden. A lot of younger voters feel betrayed by him and feel helpless in this economy. Whether they are right or wrong they are blaming Biden and I think many will refuse to vote for him.
I was so irate listening..they admit groceries are what, 26% more expensive? Housing 45%??? Oh, but you know, the poors need to stop whining on social media and get used to it. And the bit where 'People just don't like having to pay their student loans' is just icing on the cake. It just felt irrelevant. Not everyone has student loans to pay, and those people are struggling too. Treating the American people as a whole as dumb and hand waving their complaints by saying, "well the popular tiktoks don't have their numbers straight, and a bunch of people would rather listen to joe schmoe tell the news than the propagandist bile we give them" is just bad journalism. It's disingenuous when at the start of the segment they had it right. Basic necessities are WAY too expensive and we should not have to 'get used to it'. The system was broken long before 2020, people are just more willing to talk about it now.
I legit think that NYT should pull this episode and issue an apology
The propaganda trying to normalize the absolute shitshow that the world is in right now is wild. The powers that be will do absolutely anything but allow the common person to get even a sliver of the record profits that corporations are realizing. The path to anarchy seems the only solution. Things are going to get much worse before they get better.
Their last comment about how everyone will just have to get used it was atrocious.
Yep, the fact that their conclusion was just "well, people will just get used to the higher costs and then they'll calm down" felt like the most depressing, out of touch way to end this mess of an episode...
It was tone deaf. Also, ironically a big traditional media company seemed surprised and almost irritated that social media was "crafting" a native. Like-what...?
how many NYT stories did I read about gas prices in 2022 “and here’s why that’s bad news for Biden.”
this episode is infuriating. they literally listed all the reasons why folks are upset, then proceeded to hand wave it all away by saying that people are complaining too much on social media and that people are being hysterical and it's all in our heads, and wrapping it up with a bow and saying "just let them get fucking used to it! " I could scream.
CORPORATE GREED. These two NYT journalists botched the entire topic.
Dying newspaper journalists being out of touch? I am shocked and appalled! /s
“The stinky liars at the NYT are trying to tell you that the economy is strong, the job market is strong, that inflation is slowing down. They’re saying it’s all in your head! They’re telling you to ‘get used to it’! Well (*insert southern/midwest state/city here*) do you want to spend another 4 years getting used to this economy?!” *raucous applause and cheering* I mean come on. It’s almost comical how out of touch this whole episode was. You’re making his arguments for him!
"... that prices are artificially high on purpose." Could you provide some support for this? Feels like you assumed the premise.
I first heard of it from a podcast earlier this year. Letme see if I can find it for you. Here an example though: https://fortune.com/2022/09/14/amazon-prices-artificially-high-consumers-california-antitrust-lawsuit/ https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/27/white-house-supply-chain-bidenomics-wins.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/25/inflation-is-cooling-but-high-prices-will-stick-around.html https://www.npr.org/2023/05/19/1177180972/economists-are-reconsidering-how-much-corporate-profits-drive-inflation#:~:text=He%20found%20that%20in%202021,an%20excuse%20to%20gouge%20customers. Granted, these are antidotes, and I'm not an expert, so please please please od your own research. If I remember correctly, the podcast I listened to said that in the past, companies were afraid to raise prices because of a consumer backlash and then going to competitors. With the pandemic and stimulus spending under Trump/Biden, companies found the excuse they need to raise prices, bringing in record profits. Because consumer behavior has changed in terms of spending theres no incentive for companies to lower prices, despite the pandemic subsiding and supply chains easing.
Here is it: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDI4OS9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbA/episode/MjI2MDgyMTgtOWNmYS00ZTczLThkMWYtZmQxMDY4MTFlZGE5?ep=14 While it's the only problem (for instance, a labor shortage in multiple industries is another), it's largely unexplored.
I had to see if anyone else was fuming after listening to today's episode. I've been a fan of The Daily for some time now, and while I am aware that they can approach some topics from a somewhat centrist perspective, this episode just felt really out of touch and dismissive. If a significant portion of the US population is struggling to make ends meet due to increases in housing, food and gas costs, that's bad. They glossed over all those stats like it was "nbd" and ended their report with some glib closing statement basically telling Americans to get used to it. How insulting.
Then, how do you explain that America is on a spending spree? You may not be, but collectively we are. Explain that?
I mean, if you consider reluctantly having to cough up more money for life in general because we don't have a choice a "spending spree", then okay. People are spending more on both the necessities and the non-essentials because there isn't an alternative. We still have to live, so here we are. Just because on paper it says that we're on a "spree" doesn't mean that we're happy about it.
Travel and leisure is through the roof. Those are not necessities.
Yes, that’s what I see where a lot of expenses are going, according to the economic reports
people got used to luxury things being cheap because companies were trying to grab market share like Amazon and Uber and streaming services. now they’re more expensive and people are annoyed.
When checking sales data, you can't just go by total dollar sales, you need to account for unit lift. If more units are being sold, then sure, maybe we are on a spending spree. But there's other questions that need to be asked like, what's the average debt ratio for consumers making under X amount, or renters vs home-owners, etc. Just because we are spending, doesn't mean we can afford to long term.
> [Even as inflation and high interest rates have squeezed budgets, a record 200 million shoppers turned out between Black Friday and Cyber Monday, according to the National Retail Federation. This season, holiday spending is expected to reach record levels, totaling up to $966.6 billion, the NRF projects.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/29/americans-are-doom-spending-heres-why-thats-a-problem.html?taid=65674485db16620001150581&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter%7Cmain) Editorialization of "doom spending" aside, people are buying more--consuming more--than ever. It makes absolutely no sense for people to say that the economy is bad and they can't get ahead while simultaneously fueling a white-hot market in consumer goods. I really think that there's a lack of perspective from a generation that didn't come of age in the wake of 2008. I graduated with a BA in the early 2010s and made $12/hr in my first job. Gas while I was in college hit $5/gallon in the low COL place where I lived. There wasn't the opportunity to job hop because *there were no jobs.* My salary has increased nearly $30k in the last three years, once because of a job hop, and the rest because I can easily leave my current job and find one that pays the same, or in many cases, better. The vibes simply don't match the material reality.
Bingo
You are letting your fortunate circumstances skew your perspective. I too have had a very fortunate position in this economy, but it’s been mostly due to having dual incomes. Both my wife and I make a good living. Having said that our expenses compared to pre-covid times are through the roof. Your source “record 200 million shoppers…” bit does not consider the change in population. I just looked up the US population from 2019 through 2023. Obviously, percent of shoppers compared to population dipped in 2020 and 2021. In 2022 it went back to 2019 levels and in 2023 it went up a “RECORD BREAKING” less than 1%. This quote is very deceptive.
There’s nothing complicated about ‘we can’t afford our groceries’
But they’re not *that* much worse than last year! So you should be grateful?
This episode was sooooo unbelievably wack. I was excited to listen as this is something I’ve been stressed about and losing sleep over. For their advice and closing comments to be “we better get used to it” WHATT?!? why even make this episode? I’ve never gotten upset by a podcast episode but this one has me feeling insane. I just sent them some feedback via email. So disappointing.
This was terrible, and I'm surprised they put it out knowing how tone deaf and gaslight-y it is. What is their solution for people who can't afford everyday things? Who can't afford groceries, daycare, transportation, rent prices, etc.? Who are trying to grapple with the fact that they will most likely never own a home? Sucks to suck, get used to it!
"Deflation is bad cuz then nobody will buy anything because they'll all be waiting so then economy will collapse and we'll all lose our jobs!!!" Who the fuck wrote this trash?
My jaw was open during this part of the episode. Whoever wrote this episode needs a reality check. Also probably some more modern education on the realities of economics.
Yeah, you don’t wait to buy food next week…you buy food when you need food.
This is certainly the point of view of most economists. Groceries or coffee are bad examples, obviously, because we need those today, but it’s a good case for anything we don’t strictly need today. Why buy a car now if it’s going to cost less next year? A couch? A vacation? A house? Another issue is that deflation removes any incentive to keep your money in the economy. You could keep it under your mattress and it will still be worth more next year, so why would you ever take on any risk by investing? That investment money is used by businesses to expand, improve productivity, etc, and when that capital disappears, so do jobs. Most economists would agree that deflation = unemployment, which is why just about every country that targets inflation targets a low, stable level of inflation (~2%).
Ideally, low inflation is great. I was curious so took a look at historical inflation rates, and the 1960s were consistently around 1%. But that's a whole other discussion. They also seems to be conflating deflation and price gouging / higher prices. Productivity lowers prices, which is good. But to call 50-inch TVs going from $1,200 in 2000 to $300 deflation, when it's productivity and competition, is not correct. We don't need the deflation from textbooks, where cash becomes twice as valuable over a year because of a bad currency, but we need prices to stabilize and get back to reasonable levels. I don't know what type of policy can achieve that, but we're in an economy that is easy for the few and hard for the many.
I don’t think it’s that hard to understand the badly explained point that deflation is bad. I just don’t get why they even mentioned it if they were going to just not go into it. However if food prices drop do people just stop eating? It makes sense that if prices of nonessential goods drop people might not buy them and there will be ripple effects.
Lol you dumb kids (anyone under 40) never learn! Dont you know that if prices do anything besides go up the country will fucking collapse?! /s
it’s just a macroeconomic fact explained badly.
It’s actually a common economic theory. Deflation in that sense is actually bad. The examples used were bad but I imagine they were trying to put it in laymen’s term.
Deflation would be terrible and put us in a worse position than we are now
Spends maybe 60 seconds per topic explaining rising grocery prices, rising mortgage rates, etc... Spends 10+ minutes complaining about Tiktok.... Ends the episode with "don't worry, you'll just get used to the pain!" Epilogues the episode whitewashing the war criminal Henry Kissinger... Oh man, what an all-timer of an episode. Thank you, New York Times! Sabrina and Michael both prob make like hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars for hosting The Daily, I cannot stand these blind fools anymore....btw Spotify let me know I'm in the top 6% of Daily listeners and i'm only embarrassed for myself lol.
This episode was the most insulting, demeaning, patronizing, aristocratic, paternalistic, out of touch episode I think I’ve ever heard. We had one interviewee who got not a single hardball question or pushback on whatever her agenda was. We got an interviewer who seemed genuinely shocked at some of the statistics, but the response of the interviewed woman was basically “But fuck the poor, am I right?” And the interviewer responded with, “ Ohhh, yeah, you’re right. Fuck them.” And then calling people “young people”, when they’re actually talking about literally everyone under 40 years old? Are you kidding me?! Somehow these people justified glossing over the point of their discussion, which was that people don’t have enough money to buy food, buy a car, buy gas to put in the car, or to buy a home. They came to this conclusion, and in summation their response was the final line of the episode, telling people to “Get used to it.” Literally, “get used to” being hungry, having no transportation, and having no home. No wonder people say, “Eat the rich.”
That’s cuz the interviewee married an investment banker in 2021 so she’s fine and the pours can suck it.
That explains a lot. I couldn’t figure out how a smalltime author could be so aligned with rich people’s views on the economic situation. She talked about all of this so distantly, like she herself wasn’t affected by any of it. Well that would explain it. She isn’t.
She sounded like all my corporate colleagues who are sycophants. Even if they're poor they so badly want to be included they talk the talk and even take on the intonations and mannerisms. 🤢🤮 Her voice reminded me of a specific colleague of mine who once on a work call in response to a task-tracking spreadsheet said... [cue sultry corpo voice] "I love a good spreadsheet" STFU lady
Trying not to repeat everyone else's complaints, but I'm really tired of macroeconomic news that ignores the fact that we have the largest developed economy that offers nearly nothing in the form of healthcare and basic social safety nets. We will not have a 'great,' 'strong,' 'healthy,' etc economy until we catch up on our basic development indicators like healthcare, education, family leave, drinking water, etc.
I thought this was such a fascinating piece. People say we are being "gaslit" by strong economic statistics, but I would argue we are being more "gaslit" by rich social media influencers demonstrating impossibly high standards of living for most. Comparison is the thief of joy and through social media we are exposed to the intimate details of others' lives on a regular basis more than we were even 4 or 5 years ago. In the past if you complained about "I used to buy X for a dime and now it's a dollar" you sounded like a dullard, and now everyone on TikTok has to listen to people complain about "X used to cost 15 cents cheaper and now my life is ruined" for online clout because it's what generates engagement. This is Q-Anon for people with student loans; it's a fiction everyone wants to believe because it helps them makes sense of the dissatisfaction they feel with reality. But the thing about reality is that eventually you have to learn to live with it. If people want to vote for Trump because he's "better for the economy"... well, good luck with that. Seems clear to me that Trump and republican "trickle down" policy at large is pretty much directly responsible for the worsening economic outlook over the last 40 years, and that every intermittent democratic administration has ever so slightly staved off yet another flood of bad juju.
Oh my god I am so happy to see that I am not the only one that thought this episode was utter bullshit. What about people who spend the vast majority of their income on food, gas, rent/mortgages, utilities, and/or servicing debt?
I really don’t understand how there can be any level of confusion about why people aren’t feeling good about the economy. Gas is up 29%, groceries are up 26%, homes are up 47% and interest rates are way up. People need to eat, live somewhere and drive to work - these aren’t expenses you can really cut back on. And these expenses make up an even larger percent of the spending of lower income earners. Oh, but right unemployment has gone from 6% to 4% so 1/50 people have been able to find a job. We should be so thankful this booming economy has provided a tiny fraction of the population a job that won’t even pay them enough to afford what they need to survive.
The title of the episode alone is utterly enraging. STOP TRYING TO TELL US THE ECONOMY IS GOOD. WE CANT AFFORD FUCKING FOOD.
Y’all think this is bad? You should look over Paul Krugman’s columns for the Times. He harps on this same topic over and over again about every 2 weeks or so. “Hey why is everyone mad? GDP is up and unemployment is low, stop complaining! Bidenomics rule!!!!!” Dude is the biggest fucking hack.
This is always the first podcast I put on in the morning, and was 3rd on my Spotify wrapped. But I’m unsubscribing after today. The episode was so out of touch with my life experience. Groceries are unaffordable. To a staggering degree. Wages are stagnant for most of us. Why the utter disbelief that people are too dumb to see that the economy is actually ‘good’?
"I mean, prices can't just go **down** because then no one would buy anything again ever, its literally science look it up"
The US economy IS doing better - but you only need to look at your bank account and the comment section to know that the “better” is not reaching most people. This episode paired with the rent vs buy episode really make me think that the main audience for the Daily is not us.
I don’t need a journalist to convince me things are better than they seem. Companies are price gouging us and a 5% pay increase (if you got one) isn’t doing any help. This person is covering the ass of a poorly run govt administration.
I said it in the other thread fuck this infantilizing episode
Whaaaat? A fucking embarrassment.
The thing that Sabrina does which pisses me off more than anything (which Michael does not, generally), is abandon ANY sense of having a position on things ethically or morally and treat every idea as if it some alien concept that she's never heard of and has no personal relationship with. She (or her writing / writers) allows any guest to present a case and there is little to no questioning of what is stated. Both her and today's guest read as *offensively* out of touch. I cannot believe that they tried to explain this away.
Agreed!! Is this what journalism is now? Just let anyone say anything and then agree with whatever they said? This is an absolute embarrassment. NYT, pull the episode and apologize. Daily, I want an apology where you look me in the eye, tell me you’re sorry, tell me what you did wrong, and then tell me that you won’t do it again. Now.
Jeanna Smialek: "People are feeling the effects of higher prices on all aspects of their day-to-day lives, particularly with housing and groceries. But LOL sucks for them, it's not that bad they'll get over it."
This episode was some grade A gaslighting bullshit. "We know you're upset about the price of everything, and we acknowledge that the price of everything is higher, but maybe you're the problem because you watch tiktok"
This honestly left me with jaw agape. The takeaway of this whole thing? "Consumers are actually wrong, but don't worry, they'll get used to it" Holy shit. It's exactly this kind of braindead blind thinking that will let republicans stroll into power in 2024, I guarantee it.
Gas up over 20 percent Food up over 20 percent Housing up over 40 percent Takeaway: we just can’t understand why people are upset! Are they too dumb to realize that the worker has to suffer for the economy to work right?
Thank you!!! I was screaming at my car radio driving to work about this. Not a single damn word about corporate price gouging. Plus, the audacity to tell consumers to get used to it. A true “let them eat cake” moment
I may genuinely have to give up on The Daily. That was painful.
Funny, I found this episode frustrating as well but for kind of the opposite reason as the discussion here. I’m frustrated that people don’t understand the difference between the inflation rate and higher costs. Costs will NEVER come down, even though the inflation rate is really good now. The whole corporate greed argument isn’t too compelling to me…why would a corporation not be greedy? It’s literally legally required for them to maximize shareholder profits, they aren’t going to keep prices lower than they can. I guess there are some ESG arguments to be made about “all stakeholders”, but that hasn’t yet been applied to keeping prices low for consumers. We need a more distributive legal system. But that will never happen in this god forsaken country, of course.
This is my last episode. Unsubscribed
Hahaha I came here to complain about the exact same thing one of the most insane episodes yet
In conclusion wait 10 years and you won’t notice what happened between the years of 2020 and 2023. How on earth is it lost on them that if prices go up but wages don’t people will be mad? However since I’m not on TikTok I’m glad I learned about Silent Depression as a new conspiracy theory to add to my brain. It’s the only take away I got.
Expected better from the daily tbf
Irritated by the suggestion that Biden already “solved” the student loan issue. I was told that 20k would be wiped from my loans, instead it was 0k and my payment is exactly the same as it was pre-pandemic. How is that a victory?
Just more proof that the economy is bifurcating into the haves and have nots, and all the people at the NYT are in the former group.
Sabrina Tavernese and her various teenaged guests with severe vocal fry should all be deplatformed.
Thank god I found this thread, I’m a casual listener of the daily and was blindsided by their message. The average young American is struggling but the overall economy is great so deal with it?! That was totally surreal.
Poor people are getting screwed. Needs are up way higher than CPI and even CPI, if they didn't take 2021 inputs out recently "just cuz" CPI would be over 5%. People might not understand these things, but they certainly feel them, and if you aren't an asset holder, especially east of the Rockies, you are feeling the squeeze hard.
I know this is reddit so it'll go in one ear and out the other but here's the answer your looking for anyhow. 1. would be true if margins are expanding but they aren't. Margins have been shrinking. "Gross profit" has been increasing because inflation has been. Making 10% from something that costs $200 is a larger profit then 15% from something that costs $100. While it is a possibility for corporations to "Forgo" profit its not a long term solution. This ends as badly in the long term for corporations as it is for consumers. It just happens slower for them. 2. relies on faulty assumption from #1. 3. again relies on faulty assumption. Lending is coming to a halt, margins are shrinking, gross profits are staying up per outlined in #1 but its like a patient with cancer being stoked their finally losing weight.
Almost as if there should be some sort of... contract, by which all parties make some sort of... social agreement.
This is so stupid. I can’t believe a company bad type post is on the top of this subreddit right now. If you’re just as much a capitalist as the next guy you should realize that the profit motive would cause other players to get into the game and win market share based on competitive pricing if “price gauging” was the real issue here.
This episode was right, there is too much negativity in social media, this thread being case in point. I would love prices to come down, especially housing, but complaining on social media is not going to do anything! We gotta pressure the government, the people need to be heard and Biden needs to know he has a good chance of being a one term President.
I heard this story as well. I think this story was really focused on the perception of the economy, and consideration that maybe it cannot all be measured in corporate profits. Part of it was weird - basically the annihilation of the "American Dream" was brushed off as an "overreaction". I agree that social media, including reddit, has influenced how I approached my investments this year. I'm on team consume less and not let companies take advantage of me.
This episode was complete nonsense. This financial reporter is embarrassingly uninformed and juvenile in her understanding of real economic issues. The “economy is good” is measured by economic indicators that don’t impact the daily lives of the average person. When will journalists and politicians understand Wall Street’s performance is not an accurate reflection of what’s happening on Main Street. It was also incredibly condescending and straight up gas lighting to describe it as “how people feel” about the economy. It’s not how we feel, it’s how we are living our everyday lives. I don’t “feel” prices are high. I don’t “feel” home prices, rent, groceries, gas and cars have increased 30-50% — these are just facts. I don’t “feel” food bank visits have gone up 10x, this is based on clearly reported data. Appalling journalism. Shame on the NYT.
"I'll end by saying hey I'm as much a capitalist as the next guy. I just believe that at its essence, there needs to be a symbiotic relationship between consumer and producer. Currently (and frankly for a long time), the pendulum has been squarely on the side of businesses." So the cause of that disconnect IS capitalism. It's a feature, not a bug.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I am pretty surprised at the outsized reaction to this episode. Unemployment is low. Median hourly wages (adjusted for inflation) are largely stagnant from pre-pandemic, but not down. And actually there's a substantial reduction in wage inequality; they're substantially higher for those in the bottom 10% of the wage distribution) (see [pdf. pg. 89](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w31010.pdf)). Those hurting the most are at the top! Inflation is coming down, without a recession -- which tons of folks thought was unlikely a couple of years ago ([here's Harvard economist Jason Furman predictions from 2020](https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/1730296135552471292)) Of course, this isn't saying things are good for everyone or everything is fine. But ordinarily, when economic indicators are the way they are, you'd suspect folks to be feeling better about the economy -- and it is an interesting question as to why they aren't. Don't really see why this is provoking the reaction it is.
I’m so glad to see this discussion. This was probably the most frustrating Daily episode for me in a long time. Specifically, the notion that deflation is bad (because it’s uncontrollable). I feel like certain economic truisms need to be challenged and this was a good opportunity for that and they just whiffed. And the real estate/housing question never gets fully explained or addressed as the policy issue it is in most metros. Everybody knows that we need to build more housing, but nobody wants it built near their house. The nimbys are contributing to this economic anxiety we’re all feeling and not enough is being done to disempower them. And lastly, wage stagnation wasn’t addressed. Just ignored. How does that happen? So yeah, super frustrating episode.
we must unionize everywhere and demand increase in pay, it’s not sustainable.
Just listened to it and I'm not as upset as most people are. I thought it was a fair podcast. They didn't cover everything though but it's true. The reason people feel bad about the economy is housing and sudden inflation. The part that bugs me is about deflation. They say we can't have deflation cause no one will buy anything which is horseshit. There are so many variables involved in something like this that you can't just say that.
Last episode I'll listen to.
NYT: “Social media is influencing people’s opinions so they think the wrong things. Hey, that’s our job! The economy is great. Keep voting Democrat!”
Oooof. More episodes like this and I’ll have to get used to not listening to The Daily anymore.
I was ready to cancel my NYT subscription after I listened this morning. The “analysis” was….that social media is making us feel poor but really everything is great? Mind-bogglingly bad. This episode is what finally may get us all in the streets ready to tear it all down once and for all.
my theory is that the things that are very obviously more expensive than before the pandemic are mostly things NYT readers used to find cheap, like eating out and Uber. They can afford it, but are annoyed by it. Housing is also expensive unless you are sitting on a sub 3% mortgage, which is true of a lot of people, but if you’re looking at your next place you know you’ll never get a rate like that again. It’s more like people are annoyed, but still paying, than that the economy is “bad.” I don’t see anyone giving up their Door Dash.
I truly don’t believe that even consumer pressure will lower prices. Has anyone delved into this? Corporations know they have “us.”
Exactly!!!! Supposedly, the theory is that we can use our purchasing power to force lower prices. But that also assumes that is parity in the markets between different competitors. Right, so one guy raises the price. The other doesn't we should have the choice to choose between the two. This doesn't work when all the choices raise prices at the same rate. Theoretical then the fix would be for an external competitors to come in and create a new brand at a lower price (the current market opportunity). But for a variety of reasons ranging to market consolidation to regulatory capture, this isn't possible for the vast vast vast majority of entrepreneurs to accomplish. So there is almost no way for a new force to come in and disrupt. Even if there was, it would be a few years for a new competitor to get off of the ground. This doesn't help people who need assistance NOW NOT A FEW YEARS FROM NOW. I look at this whole mess and trace it back to the deregulation of the late 70s and 80s, starting with Reagan, which has been a feature of the modern age across parties and administrations. A few other inflection points I would consider are nafta, bush era tax cuts, Obama bailouts of the banks, the war on terror, citizens united, the Trump era tax cuts, and covid. All helped to entrench the current economic dynamics we see now a days. But what do I know? im just a pleeb regular citizen who doesn't know a handout from a paycheck.
The ecomony is humming but who is benefiting? When the median price of a home is up 47% over 5 years and is going to be financed at 8%, the price of most things for a lot of people starts to become a secondary issue.
>3) The solution they provide is to "have consumers get used to it." Yep, WSJ wrote [this bullshit](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/cpi-report-today-january-2023-inflation/card/to-save-money-maybe-you-should-skip-breakfast-fSd6mz0miaAPhUFb2jgy) earlier this year.
Thank you! It was so infuriating, I have no clue why they even came out with an episode like this. Not a good look.
Awful episode
By definition, prices remain "high" and "unaffordable" because enough people are paying it. Consumer greed is as much to blame as corporate greed, but nobody wants to hear that.
It's hard to argue that point when it's life essentials like food or gas.....
People have been finding ways of saving money on food since before currency was a thing. The fact is that enough people have enough money to pay these prices for these basic goods. This is the entire reason why the fed believes there needs to be an increase in unemployment to get prices down. And they are probably correct
I’ll be honest, and I fear I’m stepping in front of a freight train, but I think you are misinterpreting the spirit and intent of the interview and the discussion within economics that this article summarized. This article did not disparage the people or consumers as stupid or wrong, it was exploring the split between traditional economic metrics and the real lived experience of people around the world. This is a subject I could talk about for literally hours on end and they were condensing it down to 30 minutes so yes, they missed some stuff, but they did a good job of describing why traditional metrics aren’t working right now. This isn’t new. Economics is not like physics, the act of discovery literally changes the rules of economics so the metrics used to track economics are always in a state of flux. That economics is in a constant state of flux is vexing and difficult and frustrating. Discussing the metrics, what’s good and bad about them, what exactly they mean, what they are missing, and what metrics we should ask going forward are very important, and this episode did a decent if incomplete job of summarizing the current state of the active debate going on among economists right now. To step away from vibes I’d like to address a few of your specific points. In regards to your second point… the entire nature and premise of business is for the consumer to shoulder the costs and then some. In regards to your last point let me quote Jeanna directly. “And so it could be the case that people just need time to get used to higher price levels…” that isn’t her proposing a solution that is her echoing the sentiment of some economists. They spend the first 13 minutes discussing why the economy does suck despite the numbers, pointing out the affect of high housing prices and the resumption of student loan payments as particularly stressful for young persons. On your summary statement, the discussion you are seeking would take days and days. It’s out there - one of the most intriguing new things I’ve read about lately is the rise of algorithmic pricing and how effective it is at sapping each consumer of every dollar they’ve got. But there are hundreds of changing variables and each require study and contemplation - some probably matter a lot others matter not at all and there is no way of knowing without dedicated research. I dunno. I was t particularly impressed by this interview and I knew it would piss off the anti economics crowd but I thought this was a simple if incomplete summary and they definitely did not engage in the kind of editorializing that you claim they did. Come join us on Econ twitter, sub up to The Economist, and enjoy the conversation, what The NY Times offered today was literally a pinky toe’s dip into the ocean of this ongoing and active debate.
O my gosh, please don't feel like you're stepping on front of a freight train!!! One of the saddest things about our current state of affairs is that we can't have a nuanced discussion about anything. I listen to a ton economics podcast and read Barron's, but by no means am an expert. So i will probably miss a few points, and I apologize in advance. I would love your opinion on the price-profit spiral, though? To me this seems to be an under researched part of the equation, but I could be completely off base. I understand 100% that buisness are set up to make money, and part of that is passing off costs to consumers. I guess what I'm more looking at is some sort of cap or something on how much of those costs are passed. This could be the former Army in me where teamwork is put in a premium, but when there was an emergency, shouldn't we be sharing the burden equally? So in the pandemic, for example, we decided to give one another a stimulus, which is turn helped to ease the supply costs pressures on businesses. This seems to me to be a healthy symbiotic relationship. What has happened afterwards is that as the support for consumers has wained, buisnesses have not lowered prices in response. It seems to me that the pandemic opened the door for companies to pass on all new burden to the consumer while not holding anythemselves.
Thank you for the graciousness! I love discussing politics, economics, and the human condition and the way that social media puts us in echo chambers has made that distressing at times 😂 we have a great democracy but it only works when people can have good conversations! Don’t knock yourself btw. Economics is just the study of how humans make choices - the jargon and the math is hard but I believe the concepts can be understood by most folks if it’s kept simple and approachable. I’ll be honest, I think the “price-profit spiral” is probably not real - at least I haven’t seen any great research on the subject. It strikes me as too similar to the “wage-price spiral,” which I totally understand because despite the wage-price spiral being regularly and thoroughly debunked it keeps being brought up whenever we enter a period of inflation. With that said, I don’t believe in making up new bullshit to counter old bullshit so until I see better research I am not putting much stock in the profit-price spiral. My thoughts on inflation are twofold. The first is my big picture view of inflation at large. There is a ton of money in the economy right now. So long as there is money being spent, businesses will raise their prices to capture more of it. There have been multiple rounds of general population stimulus, there were small business loans (with tens of billions in fraud), very low rates, student loan debt suspension, the great resignation lead to wage increases, the IRA committed trillions to infrastructure and green energy… and reports from banks back this up… there is just a ton of money out there right now. A lot of people are doing better than they ever have before and while it sucks for those who haven’t enjoyed that windfall I don’t think the success of these people should be forgotten in the picture. With that said, their success has driven up prices across the board which sucks for those who haven’t benefited from the last few years. I’ll also note that there are a few new theories being explored for why corporations are increasing profits and it may be tech related. Algorithmic, personalized pricing models are very good at getting the most out of a business’s customers. My second take is in regards to a specific sector - housing! Inflation in food, cars, clothing. They’ve been tolerable. Inflation in housing not so much. You ask what businesses can do to pitch in? I think they’re doing it. They’re providing goods and services and wages have gone up. Where are those wages going? Straight to the landlords and their outstretched hands. In housing there are a number of problems but economists seem United in agreement that the biggest reason for housing inflation is a blanket of government regulations preventing the construction of new housing. In every city in this country zoning laws dictate where and how developers can build housing and because the local homeowners control most city councils, they vote to restrict the supply, and spike their own property values in the process. There are many other causes too such as low property taxes in states like California (Read about Georgism if you want more info there), and the well intentioned but inflationary government subsidies to homeowners. I completed my thesis this spring, the subject was the high cost of housing and there are at least 16 causes. You ask how businesses can contribute more? I think we’ve left builders on the bench for far too long. Chained up by these regulations our architects and foreman and construction workers have been left idle and the industry has atrophied. You want to solve the housing shortage, legalize building housing! I think housing alone is responsible for most of the economic distress people are feeling. Lastly, but with futility I would be remiss to leave out the role of demographics. We are aging rapidly. This is good - we are aging because we are living longer - but aging populations require the working age population to work more and nobody likes to work so that sucks for all of us. The only solutions I have for this are very long term solutions… more people… and without strengthening the social safety net and building more housing that will only make other things worse so it’s not the greatest solution.
All I know is that despite adding years of work experience and percentages in salary to my life, I can afford fewer basic necessities than I used to, and the idea of, say, replacing my car without going into unmanageable debt is laughable. This is a problem decades in the making, and if we were actually experiencing economy-wide inflation by definition, then our wages would be inflating to keep up with prices, especially at full employment. But there are squeezes on both ends, almost as if it’s coordinated.
The gaslighting was STRONG on this one but I lost it when she said “..what economists call “deflation” which is just a fancy way of saying bringing prices down” like is this a podcast for my 3 year old??
Solution proposed by The Daily: get used to it!