America's economy has escaped a hard landing
economist.com
economist.com
It's truly remarkable to me that people don't remember just how bad things used to be. It's not even been eighteen years; what's the excuse for such short institutional memory? I even doubled the standard graph height and it still pretty much disappears both absolutely and relatively. Or perhaps the talking points are just a little under eighteen years out of date? In that case, there's some good news on the horizon: The yield curve has risen dangerously close to un-inverted [0], which has precipitated or tracked with every recession since the mid 50s, and will probably rise more soon as the market prices back out Powell's flinch in the face of thirty-five months of inflation over 3%; the poor usually take it on the chin the hardest during malinvestment blowups as they scramble to underbid each other for the remaining jobs that didn't fold under the weight of unprofitable compassion, so we can expect the reality of poverty to give wealth inequality rhetoric a comeback. Give it two good years and we can all join Alan Kay in complaining about "That [second] time the bankers stole all our money" once again when the data refresh our memories on just how bad they can get.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=1317951
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=1317969
Do you maybe mean Alan Greenspan?
> 35% of Americans say they are better off now than they were a year ago, while 50% are worse off. Since Gallup first asked this question in 1976, it has been rare for half or more of Americans to say they are worse off. The only other times this occurred was during the Great Recession era in 2008 and 2009.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/469898/half-say-worse-off-highe...
I suspect cash flow and the price of expensive purchases like cars and homes matters a lot more to working people than total share of net worth.
You should also be aware that consumer sentiment surveys that drill down into concrete sentiments usually find consumers are very negative about the current price of durables, which are indeed quite high compared to historically [1]. They also tend to come down slowly without a inciting crash.
I'm considering the possibility that the measures you've chosen don't reflect the impact of the economy on people's lives. As GP said "entire generation now has no prospects of buying a house, even renting is hard, etc.".
You've convinced me that the phrase "wealth inequality" is a ghost of the past, a lingering rally cry from 2011, when wealth inequality truly was historically high.
We need a new term for the current situation. The data shows that the wealth of the bottom 50% has recovered - but their lifestyles and happiness have not.
I think there is a balance to be struck between wishing to make forward progress and obsessing about how far behind you are as compared to someone else. Learning to live within your means while charting a course to a better life is not a core cultural value anymore. This results in more people complaining about their situation and asking their environment to change in some way to make it better.
"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it". —Jeff Bezos <https://sports.yahoo.com/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-explains-2123...>
>while 50% are worse off.
Well 2003 is a long time ago so these are not supposed to be exactly simultaneous.
But when you do the math, statistically there is very little chance of either of these statistics being 100% accurate ;)
But the numbers are right there in the most plausible ball park, why else would anyone ever lacking prosperity been envious of "how the other half lives"?
So might as well take the figures at face value anyway.
Well what it tells us is that the bottom 50% is getting a marginal amount more trickling down, which obviously isn't doing any good since it's far too little too late and the full amount they were getting wasn't even enough to give them the economic ballast to keep the ship from capsizing.
Maybe more accurately said to keep the ship from being able to capsize.
One could only hope.
Any other concerns aren't captured there no matter how important we keep saying they are. I think we ought to track a "bloody revolution index" but that would probably just give people ideas.
To keep from giving people ideas.
I mentioned this not long ago, but by far most people don't know when GDP began to be calculated, plus how & why it got to be that way then, and the way it is now.
The reality is that the US economy is very strong, and has been for quite some time now. We all just don't like to admit it.
We’re closer to “living within our means” (versus cheap credit inflating consumer and business spend) from an equilibrium perspective, but the ZIRP party is over, happiness is reality minus expectations, and everyone is disappointed in what reality looks like.
You might not lose your job, but you’re still chained to a treadmill with no relief in sight. Hence, sentiment.
What should "a strong US economy" mean to the common middle class worker? I think that's the issue. Unemployment is low, but several sectors are finding it harder to find work than ever, with companies slashing roles in real time.
Where are these roles, what kind of roles are they (part time, gig?), and can people actually live off of these roles? if unemployment is zero and everyone is flipping burgers, that doesn't seem to be an actual win for the working class.
That is nowhere near reality, so the supposition is a waste of time. Plenty of work is highly in demand, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, driving, etc.
Sure, so is tech. The point is more that are these "high demand" work hiring?
Also, nit: I don't recall "driving" ever particularly being in high demand. Rideshare gig's are the exact kinds of roles I fear the government is counting as "employed".
No, people working full time and wanting a better job are not included. Every worker wants a better job.
U6 is: "Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons...Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months."
The grandparent comment being concerned about counting these people is unrealistic as you say nearly everyone would desire better employment.
Immigration is also a factor. I'm not trying to start an argument about immigration but the de facto open borders policy has brought in millions more people. That must have an effect, particularly at the lower end of the market.
A look at the data will tell you that housing construction does not meet demand since in the mid-1980's (!): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST. It's now obvious to anyone that the policy failure has caught up with the nation.
The problem is seriously compounded by the depopulation of rural areas and the fact that current new construction is not entry-level housing and never will be. You can't subdivide an exurban mansion into four apartments.
The wife is reviewing job applications for a teaching position at her institution. There are people applying who did decent work in the past and are now writing assignments for study.com. That's some serious underemployment visible there.
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/corporate-soaring-profits...
* Bloomberg Economics sees near certainty downturn will start Tightening conditions, inflation, hawkish Fed weigh on outlook
Oct 2022
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-17/forecast-...
I wish that the American media had a bit of accountability for their reporting.