←back to thread

1796 points koolba | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
drawkward ◴[] No.42063854[source]
It's the economy, stupid:

-Inflation is not prices; it is the rate of change in prices. Low inflation doesn't imply low prices. -Aggregate statistics don't necessarily explain individual outcomes.

The Dems failed on this count massively, and have, for maybe the last 40 years, which is about the amount of time it took for my state to go from national bellwether (As goes Ohio, so goes the nation) to a reliably red state. This cost one of the most pro-union Senators (Sherrod Brown) his job.

replies(37): >>42063943 #>>42064224 #>>42064690 #>>42066206 #>>42066419 #>>42066536 #>>42066822 #>>42066913 #>>42067069 #>>42067564 #>>42067838 #>>42067963 #>>42068126 #>>42068182 #>>42068271 #>>42068402 #>>42068430 #>>42068606 #>>42068733 #>>42069182 #>>42069400 #>>42069554 #>>42069652 #>>42070319 #>>42070599 #>>42070710 #>>42070781 #>>42070796 #>>42071522 #>>42071614 #>>42072387 #>>42072420 #>>42073867 #>>42075648 #>>42079964 #>>42080368 #>>42088729 #
UncleOxidant ◴[] No.42066822[source]
> The Dems failed on this count massively

What was their failure here? The failure to explain to the economically illiterate that while inflation is now about where it was prior to covid that prices won't be going down (unless there's some sort of major recession leading to deflation)?

replies(19): >>42066848 #>>42066861 #>>42066959 #>>42066984 #>>42067112 #>>42067177 #>>42067270 #>>42067493 #>>42067618 #>>42067754 #>>42067895 #>>42068013 #>>42068042 #>>42068079 #>>42068425 #>>42069294 #>>42069341 #>>42069886 #>>42087968 #
ComplexSystems ◴[] No.42067493[source]
The failure is in this very common exchange

Average voter: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks.

Response: Actually, here is the correct definition of "inflation." As you can see from the correct definition, inflation rates are now good! Hopefully this helps you understand why things will never get better.

What the average voter hears: I can't afford groceries. Your solution to this problem is to reframe the current situation as "good." I still can't afford groceries.

replies(13): >>42067645 #>>42067677 #>>42067909 #>>42068209 #>>42068893 #>>42069020 #>>42069063 #>>42069188 #>>42069480 #>>42069833 #>>42069964 #>>42070434 #>>42072291 #
ajross ◴[] No.42068893[source]
> Average voter: I can't afford groceries at the store.

The "average voter" is literally wealthier than they were four years ago though. Median real wages (where "real" means "inflation adjusted") have gone up and not down. This isn't it.

The average voter "feels like" they can't afford groceries, maybe. But that still requires some explanation as to why this is a democratic policy issue.

Clearly this is a messaging thing. Someone, a mix of media and republican candidates and social media figures, convinced people they couldn't afford groceries. They didn't arrive at that conclusion organically.

replies(4): >>42068947 #>>42069073 #>>42069102 #>>42070948 #
1. glitchc ◴[] No.42069073[source]
It's possible for the price of groceries to grow faster than the median wage. You can still have wage growth coupled with reduced affordability.
replies(1): >>42069104 #
2. ajross ◴[] No.42069104[source]
I really don't think the upthread comment was about "groceries" specifically, it was a claim that people are poorer. And they aren't.
replies(1): >>42072596 #
3. glitchc ◴[] No.42072596[source]
Groceries are simply an example. There's a metric called the PPP: Purchasing Power Parity. It is possible in a short period of high inflation for goods and services to outpace wage growth. So, despite wage gains, the PPP of the median American may be lower in 2024 compared to 2019. People are going to feel that as an affordability crunch.
replies(1): >>42072792 #
4. ajross ◴[] No.42072792{3}[source]
> It is possible in a short period of high inflation for goods and services to outpace wage growth.

It is possible. But it hasn't happened! That's what I'm trying to point out in this weird subthread. People (on both sides of the candidate divide!) believe something that ssimply isn't true. And not in a subjective "mostly untrue" sense. It's a question with numbers and the numbers say the opposite of what you believe.