The US has become extraordinary expensive compared to most of the world. Or to say it differently the dollar is likely quite overvalued.
Is this an industry saying?
In the last ~12 months I have been floored how expensive life in the US is now. I was just down two weeks ago, and everything was either the same dollar number as Canada or higher, but it's in US dollars.
I don't know how people are doing it.
Personally I believe it is due to the last of the boomers retiring. Economists/analysts are not used to thinking about demographics and they have a blind spot on this ever more important topic.
Bottom decile even higher
Worst. Generation. Ever.
~disgruntled X
There is limited real wage growth and it is mostly concentrated at the bottom end.
There might be more jobs that "qualified" candidates. Companies are still being very picky. A lot of the jobs/employment numbers we are seeing are including more part-time or low wage positions than in the past.
The inflation is mostly because of the increase in money supply in my opinion. The economy is fragile enough that the Fed is talking about a rate drop soon despite inflafion.
Because otherwise the exchange rate has been about where it is now to substantially worse for the rest of the data set.
The dollar amount in CAD was normally higher than the equivalent in USD. For example, next to the bar code on the back of a paperback, it would list the prices as $15 USD or $20 CAD. Many other goods have similar price differences.
Lately in the US it seems like a lot of prices are increasing to the same number value, despite the exchange rate.
I'm 42, so, ah, no.
What I mean is that basically since forever things were cheaper in the US than in Canada.
Gas? 25%-50% cheaper. Cheese (of course) 50% cheaper. Electronics, cars, clothes, hotels, beer, food at restaurants, etc. etc.
Now, everything is more expensive in the US than Canada.
The market is not the same as the economy. We are in fact seeing rising consumer debt defaults across various types. Jobs data is not as good as it seems since there are higher percentage of part-time and low wage jobs in the numbers. Consumer spending is stagnating or down in many sectors. Hiring in consumer discretionary industries like restaurants has stagnated too. I'm not sure the economy looking that good, despite the optimism (inflation even?) in the market.
It used to be that rate going up would make asset price go down but the market got used to it.
Now the rates go down and asset prices go up and the rates go up and asset prices stay the same but rent increases.
Eh, I say just trudge right through it. The economy will adapt, as it always does. In this case I think it would be for the better.
The tech boom was as much influenced by silicon valley VC money as it was by the technological solutions themselves. AI fits into the same playbook. It's only rational to look at it in the same lens. The only difference is that tech has hit its limits as we are seeing with the layoffs but AI presents itself as a new vehicle to continue with the inflation.
The reason the Fed care about AI in my view is because it's new a conduit for letting loose the money printer. Once AI begins increasing economic output they'll have their missing piece for ZIRP. Without this, opening the floodgates again will be a catastrophic mistake as the inflation won't match the productivity output.
They expect it to go lower because they got used to it over the past decade or so, and the Fed has said they are expecting a rate drop. It's not unrealistic if the people who make up the rates say it will happen. Of course that doesn't make the decison to do so reasonable.
Govt debt growth needs to slow. Too much money spent by govt is being wasted on undeserved transfer payments, creating do-nothing jobs and has been a huge contributor to inflation.
Real efficiency is falling because of overspending in the public sector. Fewer people making things everyone wants in the private sector and more people with govt jobs digging holes and filling them in creates inflation.
The Fed has already announced back in December that they are planning to cut rates to 4.6% by the end of 2024 (of course that might change). The bond market consensus is somewhere between 4.25% - 4.75% so how is it “entirely unrealistic”?
Yet the Fed is talking about rate drops. We're also seeing rising consumer defaults and more perilous bank debt. And those great job numbers aren't that great since we're seeing higher part-time and low wage jobs than before. I'm not sure we're going to really avoid anything.
Historically they are not low at all relative to inflation and considering how highly the government debt to GDP ratio is raising them further would lead to severe issues. Since a surplus or even a balanced federal budget is basically politically (probably financially too) impossible at this point high growth + low rates + predictable moderately high (2-3%) inflation is the only way to keep public debt from spiraling out of control.
> risk a similar situation as the early 80's.
IMHO the early 80s are about as relevant today as the 30s were back then. So a bit but not a lot. The global economy and financial system (and the position US has in it) is extremely different
This is not the case and is actually impossible. Impossible they will maintain them or higher. And impossible we would recover.
The US is headed towards $1T in interest payments alone annually.
$34T in national debt AND $213T in unfunded liabilities. 2/3 of the budget is non-discretionary
The longer they stay elevated the more the average interest rate on debt goes up. For the US and the world since it's the reserve currency. This pisses everyone off.
Rates will go back down to around 2% because the US AND the world cannot sustain an expensive dollar. There's 65T in eurodollar debt (US dollar denominated debt) globally. [1] I've seen higher estimates too.
"Approximately half of all cross-border loans, international debt securities, and trade invoices are denominated in U.S. dollars, while roughly 40 percent of SWIFT messages and 60 percent of global foreign exchange reserves are in dollars." [2]
We aren't going to end up back around 2% because the Fed wants to. It's because we have to. You cannot maintain the world reserve currency at these rates after everyone got drunk off the lower rates for decades. And you cannot have the debt load we have and maintain these rates or higher. There's no easy way out of a debt spiral.
Just my opinion but rates will go lower. Printing will go into hyperdrive. Inflation will rip. There will be more unrest. Personally, I'm holding inflation-hedging assets.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/65-trillion-debt-bank...
[2] https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2022/07/the-u-...
Record? I guess you didn’t live through the 1970s, much less post WWI and WWII.
Of course the deflation of the 1930s was even more destructive!
It’s a political issue, well criticised and commented on, that governments intentionally game metrics like inflation, etc to look good on paper for incumbent presidents and heads of state.
Also, the inflation rate is a very inconsistent number, different regions of the US has different rent price increases, different cost of labour increases, different product prices for a lot of goods. How can the nation be entirely ruled by one common inflation rate.
All statistics like this which have to target so many regions, environments, and scenarios, always have to make decisions, that sacrifice some scenario or the other, where the “score” is a very poor indicator
This applies not just to inflation, but other metrics like gdp per capita, employment rate, etc.
There is no need for that condescending tone, especially when the author is talking about their increased cost of living, which prolly hurt their purchasing power.
You’re committing a fallacy of “Appeal to Authority”, even though your comment doesn’t make sense — obviously we need a consistent measure across decades if we want to compare inflation across decades. Comparing two numbers that measure different things is an apples-to-oranges comparison. (Which is what you’re arguing we should do.)
If you use a consistent measure from a 1980s basis, you’ll see that person is correct — as measured using the historic means, we’ve had ~40% inflation in the past few years and the highest rate of inflation in 40 years.
This chart uses the historic measure and bases in 1980.
I still remember them removing the people who had been out of the job for xx months during the 2008 recession from the 'unemployed' category. 'oh look unemployment is down!'. '...but so is the labor participation rate...'
High inflation for consumers, access to low cost of capital for asset holders.
In addition to the erosion of progressive taxation.
Wealth inequality today is growing and is unconscionable, but just to look at the numbers it was far worse in the gilded age (and of course far far worse during slavery). Knowing that is no excuse for not fighting it, but let's not rely on hyperbole to make a point on HN.
> In addition to the erosion of progressive taxation.
I assume you mean that the progressive nature of the tax code is fading away, in which case I agree with you and consider it a terrible problem. In some states like Texas the tax code is actually quite regressive, but overall the whole country gone quite a bit backwards.
Interestingly, California's tax code is both too regressive and too progressive (though both are in principle fixable). Since most people with any wealth hold it in real estate, prob 13 has made homeowners in lucky locations asset rich but at a low tax rate, which is screwing up attempts to improve the housing situation. And I learned it was "too progressive" in 2008: so much of the state's income came from cap gains of rich people and during the real estate crash (leading to stock market woes), state revenues fell just when a surplus was needed. The same thing is happening now, though I expect it to unwind by the end of 2024. That can be fixed as well by changing the tax mix for the top 1% and above, (which is why I put "too progressive" in quotation marks).
I'd suggest just referring to the M2 [1]. It is easier to understand, and more available for analysis. Apparently it also gets rid of the stupid "real" price rises that inflation pretends gold is experiencing [2]. It suggests prices should be about 40% higher than pre-pandemic (I checked 2019-11 -> 2023-12) which coincidentally lines up with what justinzollars is reporting.
[0] Well, smoothing in. But the two lines wiggle the same way which suggests we're just using the BLS + an adjustment that is changing in a boring way over time.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL#0
[2] https://ingoldwetrust.report/chart-m2-gold-ratio/?lang=en
The reason behind the low consumer sentiment wasn't a flaw in BLS methodology, no one seriously questions any of the stats I mentioned. Rather, it's that the effect of a couple of years of high inflation continued to weigh on consumers. 6 months of low inflation didn't reverse previous price increases, nor did they forget what prices used to be.
And yet, it's fundamental human nature to adapt to circumstances. Consumer sentiment has actually increased substantially in the last 3 months. Source: American consumers are finally cheering up (The Economist - https://archive.is/vJ7gf).
> The rate of improvement is especially striking. The 30% increase since November marks the survey’s biggest rise over any three-month period in more than three decades. The level remains glum by historical standards: about 15% below its average in the five years before the covid-19 pandemic.
In summary, the BLS' methodology to calculate economic indicators is fine. And assuming those indicators continue their trend, it's likely that consumer sentiment will continue to recover.
You also claim that
> Americans have stopped saving and gone so deeply in debt
Except this isn't true? According to surveys conducted by the Federal Reserve (https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf23.pdf Page 30), consumer debt has gone down steadily from 2010 to 2022.
At this point, I got to ask - what is your source for facts?
Have they? The personal savings rate is not that much lower than it was between 2000 and ~2019 on average
I did see this a few weeks ago and thought it was interesting - excess saving rates are dropping sharply: https://twitter.com/saxena_puru/status/1747041218004156505
There is another household debt graph that I can't find right now that is going up. I suspect the decline in savings rate is being buoyed somewhat by debt.
And he discussed the used car numbers — such an interesting outlier — as an indicator of supply-side shock.
You can agree or disagree with his Keynesian positions but he’s pretty clear with his thinking and calls out when he was wrong. To the degree macroeconomics can be considered a science, that’s what you want from a scientist, isn’t it?
> The interesting thing is this is far from over.
What do you think is the cause and why it is far from over? I'm curious, not trying to start an argument
https://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
In fact, 2020s inflation (using historic measure) peaked at over 15% while the 1970s spike peaked below 15% — meaning that this latest inflation sets the record compared to the 1970s.
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-inflation
Ignorant incredulity and “back in my day!” aren’t good arguments.
> Responding to prior criticisms made by economist James Hamilton, John Williams explained in a private phone call that Shadowstats does not actually recalculate BLS data, rather, the Shadowstats CPI merely adds a constant to the officially reported numbers.[25]
>> I’m not going back and recalculating the CPI. All I’m doing is going back to the government’s estimates of what the effect would be and using that as an add factor to the reported statistics
Same article says he charges $175/year/subscription since 2006.
I'd love to get paid that much to do a high school level introductory programming assignment. The business logic is literally a one liner X-D
But don't slavishly believe Shadowstat's inflation number either.
But considering the US gov deficits I would assume more inflation is to come with actual devaluation.