politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The issue with this thesis, as with the other theories on this topic who want to pin this conversation on arrogant, disconnected economists, is that the data don’t seem to support any such hypotheses. If sentiment is linked to uniquely bad rates of inflation experienced by the poor, why isn’t there a greater divergence in the sentiment numbers between rich and poor? Sentiment is down for everyone, even people for whom the economy seems to be doing quite well.
This is why economists have largely settled on the vibes theory. While I do have some skepticism of it myself, these populist alternatives in the media and online just don’t have much, if any, supporting evidence.
Exactly. instead of writing this whole mountain of speculation, they could have google "food price inflation" and compared that to other inflation, and see the numbers are mostly the same.
Working blue collar people are hit hard, yes they are getting raises, but housing is still unaffordable. Yes wages are up, mainly for blue collar workers, but these wages were low to begin with.
Tech firms, and large white collar employers have either had mass layoffs or keep threatening mass layoffs. The middle class feels like it's been in a recession for several years. Wages in the middle class have been stagnant.
For the rich. The stock market isn't fun anymore, it's been gamed. Fewer companies listed. Mostly gamed by a couple of giant investors, so it's fixed. Can't invest money into China. Though the housing market is hot, it's not a great investment, as it takes years to build from greenfield.
You can spin a compelling narrative for any of these but if you want to make a real case then there needs to be a real assessment of the data. Whenever I’ve investigated these types of ideas, I haven’t found them to be very well-supported.
I general I do think the best hypothesis is that people are telling the truth about how they are doing, but the data are somehow missing exactly what is going on. But we need more than speculation to demonstrate exactly what it is.