@goat I was just pointing that affordability has gotten better for the bottom half of Americans and is moving in the right direction. A big driver of it is immigration policies by the way.
I don't think the GOP will do well in the fall because most voters are dumb. Take @big-ryan who started this thread. He has no clue that affordability has improved and is moving in the right direction. It's an own goal, but he'll never figure it out because some stupid article he read fooled him.
What is inaccurate about the article I cited and/or the McKinsey report it references, and why? Be specific.
What is inaccurate about the article I cited and/or the McKinsey report it references, and why? Be specific.
Why would I read the article? The title is dumb and outdated. Food affordability has gotten better since 2024.
https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/2086138593865535497?s=20
What is inaccurate about the article I cited and/or the McKinsey report it references, and why? Be specific.
Why would I read the article? The title is dumb and outdated. Food affordability has gotten better since 2024.
https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/2086138593865535497?s=20
Well, that's both a misleading graph, and an inaccurate description of it. If that graph plots actual data, then food costs started increasing slower than wages in 2023, not 2024. The only reason the lines cross in 2024 is because the person making the graph arbitrarily decided to pin both metrics to that year, and make them both equal 100 at that time.
It's also not really very meaningful. Whether or not wages have increased faster than grocery prices since 2024 is, out of context, unhelpful. The needed context is how people felt about wages vs. prices at that time, and whether the change since then is enough to change how they feel. It would be much more useful to see a similar graph pegged to 2019 or 2020, instead. Then see how the gap between the lines today compares to the gap in 2024.
@snarlcakes here, i'll help you out. If you index the same data to the end of the recession in 2009 instead of 2024, you know what it says?
It says the cost of living crisis isn't even real, and we've all been doing great since 2016. Maybe this isn't the best way to measure consumer sentiment.
@snarlcakes here, i'll help you out. If you index the same data to the end of the recession in 2009 instead of 2024, you know what it says?
It says the cost of living crisis isn't even real, and we've all been doing great since 2016. Maybe this isn't the best way to measure consumer sentiment.
I disagree. What is actually happening is the best measurement (assuming it's factual correct) for consumer sentiment. However the voting ends up in November it would be much worse for the GOP if food was becoming more unaffordable like it was in 22. The fact it's not happening and becoming more affordable is a good thing for the GOP and consumer sentiment. Now, it's not the only measurement that matters, but I think it's the most important, with messaging from all the media sources being 2nd place.
What is inaccurate about the article I cited and/or the McKinsey report it references, and why? Be specific.
Why would I read the article? The title is dumb and outdated. Food affordability has gotten better since 2024.
https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/2086138593865535497?s=20
Grocery prices are definitely much higher than they were but I do about half our grocery shopping and you don't need to spend much to eat healthy. Chicken legs and thigs constantly $.99 a lb. Pork chops $2 a lb. Milk and cheese cheap. Eggs are currently $1.80 this week for an 18 pack. 5 lb bag of potatoes $2.50 at Walmart. Fruits and veggies cheap. Beef and coffee are outrageous I'll admit.
Obviously not a winning message for Republicans but you can easily eat healthy without breaking the bank.
@snarlcakes here, i'll help you out. If you index the same data to the end of the recession in 2009 instead of 2024, you know what it says?
It says the cost of living crisis isn't even real, and we've all been doing great since 2016. Maybe this isn't the best way to measure consumer sentiment.
I disagree. What is actually happening is the best measurement (assuming it's factual correct) for consumer sentiment. However the voting ends up in November it would be much worse for the GOP if food was becoming more unaffordable like it was in 22. The fact it's not happening and becoming more affordable is a good thing for the GOP and consumer sentiment. Now, it's not the only measurement that matters, but I think it's the most important, with messaging from all the media sources being 2nd place.
But food was already becoming more affordable in 2024, and it didn't help Harris one bit. So I don't think this is enough to predict voter behavior.
I made this same point when people complained about the sentiment during the last election: You cannot say "we've all been doing great" when you are looking at averages. This has been a huge blind spot of Democrats for going on 30 years now.@snarlcakes here, i'll help you out. If you index the same data to the end of the recession in 2009 instead of 2024, you know what it says?
It says the cost of living crisis isn't even real, and we've all been doing great since 2016. Maybe this isn't the best way to measure consumer sentiment.
I made this same point when people complained about the sentiment during the last election: You cannot say "we've all been doing great" when you are looking at averages. This has been a huge blind spot of Democrats for going on 30 years now.@snarlcakes here, i'll help you out. If you index the same data to the end of the recession in 2009 instead of 2024, you know what it says?
It says the cost of living crisis isn't even real, and we've all been doing great since 2016. Maybe this isn't the best way to measure consumer sentiment.
I think that's a good way of putting what I've been trying to get at. And it's not just Dems. Or even just Americans. All Western governments in power seem obsessed with putting out these metrics that show their economies are great, but then they all get voted out of power. For some reason, the metrics don't match the reality.
I suggested before it was because these broad averages don't (or can't) adjust for disparity. Economic growth and security doesn't help you if it's only experienced by a minority of voters. But whatever the actual explanation is, the history of the past ten or fifteen years shows us that Western voters are not happy with their lot in life, and they quickly blame the party in power. And it seems especially acute in English-speaking countries, for whatever reason. We've seen it most dramatically in Britain, but also here, and in Australia, and even in Canada, although maybe to a lesser extent.
I think the GOP is going to get hammered this fall, and it has nothing to do with whether or not their policies are good. It has to do with the fact that their strategists, like snarl, have fooled themselves into thinking everything is going great.
I made this same point when people complained about the sentiment during the last election: You cannot say "we've all been doing great" when you are looking at averages. This has been a huge blind spot of Democrats for going on 30 years now.@snarlcakes here, i'll help you out. If you index the same data to the end of the recession in 2009 instead of 2024, you know what it says?
It says the cost of living crisis isn't even real, and we've all been doing great since 2016. Maybe this isn't the best way to measure consumer sentiment.
I think that's a good way of putting what I've been trying to get at. And it's not just Dems. Or even just Americans. All Western governments in power seem obsessed with putting out these metrics that show their economies are great, but then they all get voted out of power. For some reason, the metrics don't match the reality.
I suggested before it was because these broad averages don't (or can't) adjust for disparity. Economic growth and security doesn't help you if it's only experienced by a minority of voters. But whatever the actual explanation is, the history of the past ten or fifteen years shows us that Western voters are not happy with their lot in life, and they quickly blame the party in power. And it seems especially acute in English-speaking countries, for whatever reason. We've seen it most dramatically in Britain, but also here, and in Australia, and even in Canada, although maybe to a lesser extent.
I think the GOP is going to get hammered this fall, and it has nothing to do with whether or not their policies are good. It has to do with the fact that their strategists, like snarl, have fooled themselves into thinking everything is going great.
Lol...fooled myself? I have an uncomfortable amount of my net worth tied up in Bitcoin because the entire fiat system is sh#t, is fragile, and benefits the wealthy at the detriment of everyone else. You're the one long fiat, not this guy. Putting that aside GOP policies are still much better in the current system than Democrats.
Economic growth and security doesn't help you if it's only experienced by a minority of voters.
It can help. It makes the nation, overall, in many circumstances better. But yes, for that minority--if it is one--it can change their votes, I think.
And it can have outsize importance when you have a two-party democracy, where the two parties are very close in support. Given our system, if you "leave behind" even, let's say 20-25% of the population and the nation or economy is humming along otherwise, those 25% could vote for change in spite of what is best for the governmental unit or economy. They could, for example, turn the nation over to a populist narcissist, or when that doesn't work out, a new-wave woke socialist.
Why? Because those people at least recognize that there is a problem for them, rather than calling them deplorables or losers or parasites or whatever.
Economic growth and security doesn't help you if it's only experienced by a minority of voters.
It can help. It makes the nation, overall, in many circumstances better. But yes, for that minority--if it is one--it can change their votes, I think.
And it can have outsize importance when you have a two-party democracy, where the two parties are very close in support. Given our system, if you "leave behind" even, let's say 20-25% of the population and the nation or economy is humming along otherwise, those 25% could vote for change in spite of what is best for the governmental unit or economy. They could, for example, turn the nation over to a populist narcissist, or when that doesn't work out, a new-wave woke socialist.
Why? Because those people at least recognize that there is a problem for them, rather than calling them deplorables or losers or parasites or whatever.
That is the problem when you are in power. Everyone's vote counts the same, whether you are doing well, or not. And if your economy is being propped up by a minority doing well, then, well, that might be great for the national economy, but it isn't great for your vote totals.
@snarlcakes I feel like he doesn’t know you’re the colonel now
Colonel Cakes? It does have a nice ring to it.