Arguing about whether the economy is in fact good or bad

Low uneployment is great but its kind of expected in this market.

Savings rates are an important metric to watch and the economy and the stock market can lag behind that because a lot of people are very habitual and conplacent with their spending while companies continue to bring in record levels in revenue. At a rate of 3.6% though, we could easily start seeing profits shrink and prices to come down and the market doesnt heal itself by lowering wages again. It does it by laying people off which is your #1 catalyst for a housing crash

Just re-read the thread, I’m not going to keep going round and round with you when you never read the actual responses or supporting data. This has been addressed previously, repeatedly.

It has not. Which is why wookie is asking. What happens is that we get a few pages of text with a link or two with no real answer. It’s a list of things that inflation is worse with no way of integrating it into a larger picture or context.

Everyone is aware various economic stats aren’t perfect. What has been presented by you isn’t better

Why was it representative in 1984?

I think it’s just all about housing and healthcare. And that is a big enough impact on peoples lives that even if other things firing on all cylinders they are feeling financial strain. I don’t think it’s crazy to think a teacher should easily be able to afford a house or appendicitis without massive financial strain

2 Likes

Those problems still existed when Trump was president though. The best predictor of what you think about the economy is your party affiliation. We’ve posted multiple sources now that have shown that people evaluate their own situation or local area situation as good but say they country is doing poorly.

Economic reality has been divorced from polling in large part to a sociopathic Republican Party and media complicity in creating The Narrative

Those numbers were asking if things got better in last couple years. But were these problems any better back in the 80s?

Like something is clearly worse now than back then, my parents bought a great house on teacher salary and paid 20 bucks cash when leaving hospital for the c-section and NICU bill.

This is why I think saying certain numbers are good is good or saying things are better than with Trump is good but just blanket saying the “economy is good” rings hollow with lot of folks.

1 Like

Yes, and it’s this:

far more than anything else

Huh you don’t think it’s an economic reality that teachers could buy nice houses in the 80s and they can’t now? Like was I just in some anomaly situation? Seems I hear lots of other people really similar experiences

1 Like

Home ownership rates are slightly higher now than 1984, and interest rates are less than half what they were in the 80s.

Housing is a problem in the economy, it simply isn’t what is driving consumer sentiment though.

That doesn’t answer if easier for a teacher to buy a house with their salary then or now?

1 Like

It has been painfully obvious you haven’t read any of it, because you haven’t refuted any of it on merit, it’s been all handwaving.

Pretty sure most of the changes started around then and have worsened over time. Reagan broke everything, basically.

Your point is basically that the GOP people doing well always say it sucks under Dems, and the working class GOP get brainwashed under Republicans. This has ~nothing to do with Dem strategy to get their base to turn out.

Median house to median income was 3.43 in 1985 (income chart started there), now it’s 6.42.

You are spending more time saying I didn’t read it than it would take to simply produce it. You can’t produce it.

Sure, and interest rates are much lower now. I don’t doubt that housing is more expensive now. What you’re doing now is:

And finally:

What I’ve said is:

Note the latter. The narrative has to be challenged. It cannot be unchallenged. There’s a wide swath of people in the middle who kind of care about Trump’s abuses but want a good economy. You cannot allow Republicans to set a reality where the economy is bad by historical standards.

I’m not dumb enough to fall for this yet again. I took the time to find it and present it ITT and you ignored it and wasted my time, and you did the same thing to boredsocial. You don’t get to pull that move repeatedly.

I laid out a comparison going back 20+ years showing the ratio and the interest rates and comparing them. It didn’t help your argument so you conveniently ignored it, just like you’re conveniently ignoring Surf’s question right now.

Your initial take was that the Dems need to run on the economy being good, period, because it was. You now admit there are significant issues for a lot of people, so you should understand that running on “economy good!” is going to fall flat when people are struggling.

The whole point of “the narrative” and the broken indicators is to get people to fall for voting against their financial interests to promote income inequality so the rich get richer.

So challenging it only works if people actually experience a better economy for themselves under your leadership. Biden had four years and ~half of Dems in swing states think the economy sucks.

The obvious move is to run on fundamental change, but eDems and rich people don’t want that, so instead we get stupid arguments like this thread.

Houses aren’t more expensive than they were in the 80s. They are pretty much the same compared to 1980.

For starters, a teacher isn’t able to afford a house because teachers make a lot less, relatively speaking to what teachers made 40 years ago. Houses are bigger now - about 1400sf avg compared to 2,200 today and offer better construction, are more energy efficient and have a lower cost of repair per sf than older homes.

Just reducing the size of the avg home by 50% to what it was in the 80s alone would allow a lot more people to afford a home for a family of four or less.

Right and that’s what lot of people see as a huge problem

1 Like

There’s really no point to argue with lawyers and doctors about how bad the lower middle class has it. Teachers in my state start off under 40K. That’s probably closer to some poster’s monthly salary.

1 Like

Let’s make it clear, the dems should run on the economy. Admitting that the economy is not perfect doesn’t negate that nor make your prediction here correct.

You’re arguing as if the type of voter that will decide this election is a leftist activist when it’s far more likely to be suburban moms.

The post about ratios and incomes is more “no larger context” talk.

Well I wouldn’t disagree with you that teachers should be paid more but that a teachers’ pay is much less compared to other professions than it used to be.

The average household salary (adjusted for inflation) for the 80s is still less than what it is now. A big problem now is that your average house on the market is a fucking mansion.

Yeah I’m sure that’s part of it, obviously builders wouldn’t build big if they couldn’t sell them. Guess it kinda subjectively feels like lot of people buying houses with money that isn’t being earned now. Like retirees or young people but they getting the money as inheritance or gift.

So people trying to buy housing with their own labor are in a really shitty spot

1 Like