The above is excellently researched, as always, but didn't we all learn in high school economics government spending, housing and energy are the basis for the vast majority of all US inflation, or "affordability"?
2020-2024 DC spent trillions on no bid contracts for Covid and Climate theatre. We handed billions to Dem donors to form Green Corps, swimming in billions more, perpetual tax payer subsidies. Many of the these new ventures rendered their Founders and C Suiters instantly wealthy, without a prayer of survival once the DC money spigot turned off.
The waste was near omnipresent. In many schools we replaced perfectly safe ICE school buses with electric ones that were either never delivered after payment, or would not function. Factories spent billions retooling for EVs few Americans desired and even fewer would buy without hundreds of billions in taxpayer subsidies. Now even Bill Gates admits "just kidding".
Dems assured us the 10 million person Army crossing the border under Biden was the labor that would bring down housing costs, Instead housing prices rose by roughly 50%, nearly everywhere in the country. Evidently, not all new arrivals were master carpenters. Instead we now have 10 million extra people looking for housing, in an existing housing shortage.
On Day 1, Biden declared war on fossil fuels. Oil and gas became the new "F" word, unacceptable in polite society. Drilling on federal land was forbidden. Oil leases are worthless without drilling permits, and Dems slowed them ASAP. The oil and gas industry produced under Biden, but not nearly as much as they could have otherwise. The price of oil is in just about everything we utilize or consume, and Dems purposefully limited supply expansion.
The list could fill books. In reality, we had 4 years of widespread mania regarding US spending, energy and immigration. It hasn't yet been a year. If a family member goes crazy and and maxes out every credit card shopping on QVC, it takes far longer to right the ship, than it did to flush the money. Same in DC.
This is a common take on the origins of this most recent episode of U.S. inflation--i.e., an overly expansionary fiscal policy by the Biden administration and migration-driven increases in housing caused it--but it doesn't really make sense once you include the global picture.
Why did Germany, the UK, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Colombia, Italy, France, Spain, Finland and Portugal all experience worse inflation than the U.S., when they pursued fiscal austerity after the pandemic, and had no comparable wave of migration? Why did housing costs rise more precipitously from 2020-2024 in countries like the UK, Spain and Portugal than they did in the U.S., when they did not experience a big influx of migrants and their central banks pursued similar policies?
Had no comparable wave of immigration in Europe? Have you been in Europe lately? When planning to walk to dinner, often one needs to navigate around perpetual migration demonstrations, pro and con. England, Germany and France teeter on falling governments over mass migration.
Terrorism from mass migration has become such a concern in formerly placid Germany, some famed Christmas Markets , around since mid 1200s, will not open this December because they cannot afford the terrorism insurance.
We imported 10-12 million people without a single extra bedroom to shelter them. How on earth would that not drive up to drive up the cost of housing, unless one expects new arrivals to make their homes on the streets or in barns. Everyone has to sleep somewhere, whether they are wealthy Norwegians or penniless Northern Triangle former residents.
Significant migration to European states and between them has been occurring since arguably the Euro made its debut, possibly before depending on how you want to frame 'migration'. But the European countries I mentioned did not, like the U.S., have an acute surge in migration during the post-pandemic period, which is the period in which the inflation in question took place. Which means the two variables you are citing to explain high inflation in the US from 2020-2024--expansionary fiscal policy and higher-than-usual migration--were not at work in those countries. In the case of fiscal policy, they actually went in the opposite direction from the U.S. Yet they performed worse than the U.S. in terms of inflation.
That does not substantiate the popular thesis you mentioned in your OP--according to you, these countries should have performed comparatively better.
Europe had high inflation but it was delayed relative the US, which suggests a different cause.
- In Europe, inflation was primarily because of supply shocks around oil and natural gas in the wake of Russia invading Ukraine. Trump tried to warn European leaders, and they laughed at him.*
- In the US, inflation was largely because of massive deficit spending after Covid. Larry Summers, who was an economic advisor to both Clinton and Obama, tried to warn the Democrats that inflation would result, but he was also laughed at. Here is what he wrote:
"Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, a Wall Street Week contributor, thinks that we are seeing the least responsible macroeconomic policy in forty years. He disagrees with Paul Krugman's thoughts on how long it takes inflation expectations to become unanchored."
The supply shocks were global--as one would expect when global supply chains are disrupted by a global pandemic. The US experienced them, as did every other country enmeshed in those supply chains. One could even argue the US experienced a shock more severe than others, given how uniquely global the US economy is, courtesy of its ownership of the GRC.
You could lean hard on the war in Ukraine to try to explain European inflation, but
even then the internal rates of inflation don't align with your thesis. Of all the Eurozone economies that pursued post-pandemic fiscal consolidation, for example, Spain arguably pursued it the least and spent the most. Yet despite that it experienced less inflation than the UK and neighboring Portugal.
Nor does a theory of US fiscal excess explain why Peru, Chile, and Colombia suffered from higher inflation despite pursuing fiscal austerity. Nor why countries like, say, New Zealand suffered from significantly worse inflation despite much more stringent austerity.
Ultimately, we simply don't have much evidence that pegs expansionary fiscal policy as the culprit for the rise in US inflation; all we know is that there was a global inflationary wave, that the U.S. did better than most in terms of weathering it, and that there was disagreement between different economists over whether fiscal expansion was wise or not. There are theoretical arguments against it, but there are theoretical arguments for it as well. (e.g., large amounts of government investment might have held down prices by building capacity to soften the effect of supply shocks and strengthening the dollar)
It is perhaps notable, though, that the countries run by the populist right all performed pretty terribly on the inflation metric. Even if you want to use the Ukraine war to give Orban's Hungary a break, Erdogan's Turkey, Modi's India, and the South American countries run by the Populist Right all did much worse than the U.S. In fact, under Erdogan Turkey had one of the highest rates of inflation in the world.
Europe’s inflation was primarily due to energy costs, which was not a global problem. Combination of Russia/Ukraine gas interruptions and net zero policies.
No they didn't--with the exception of Italy, Switzerland, Ireland and France every country in Western and Eastern Europe experienced a worse degree of inflation from 2020-2024 than the U.S.. Finland and Spain approximately matched the U.S. rate.
As Ronald Reagan showed in 1981, it takes about a year to reverse course from bad economic policies. He had inflation squeezed out after a year---but did so with a completely supportive Fed. Trump doesn't have that assistance, but inflation is still slowly coming down. I'd caution anyone against running (especially a year out) on "affordability. It can change very quickly, then you're stuck. Housing is a little different, but again, mortgage rates have fallen by more than half a point and are likely to continue to do so. The foundations Trump has built with investment commitments are already beginning to turn shovels. The biggest vulnerability Trump and the Republicans have is Trump's willingness to extend H1B visas---DEEPLY unpopular with working class and youts. But . . . who on the D side is going to come out against visas or Chinese students here? And illegals taking US jobs (whether it's even remotely true that "Americans won't do them"?) This is a total loser for Ds.
The problem is that the only real areas where Rs, and Trump in particular, are vulnerable are the very areas where Ds are even more vulnerable. Meanwhile, as I warned a year ago, the data/energy vs. green civil war is pretty much over, and the green Ds have completely lost on this. There are policies to be used that require Big Data to supply its own power---but that won't be solar or wind. So the D coalition will continue to fracture over this.
In short, as I have been warning for over a year, the only vulnerabilities for Rs is on the RIGHT: less immigration, more nukes, more oil & gas, fewer H1Bs, fewer Chinese students, less man-hate. I see absolutely nothing from any Ds, particularly Zohran, that in any way address the CORE of "affordability." Oh, and it will be so much fun to see billions of dollars flee NYC at the slightest whiff of more taxes and more regulations on capital.
"(Reagan)... had inflation squeezed out after a year---but did so with a completely supportive Fed. Trump doesn't have that assistance, but inflation is still slowly coming down."
The relationships between Reagan and the Fed vs. Trump and the Fed are polar opposites. In early 1981, the annual inflation rate was in the high teens, by one measure 18%. The Federal Reserve - led by Chairman Paul Volcker - implemented aggressive anti-inflation policies that resulted in a prime rate over 20% in late 1980. The Fed's policies eventually ended the inflationary spiral over the long term; in the shorter term those policies resulted in unemployment spiking to 10.8%, which led to huge mid-term gains in Congress for Democrats after the 1982 elections. To his great credit, Reagan did not criticize the Fed's actions. He gave the Fed political cover to implement the correct policies even though doing so hurt Republicans in the short run.
By contrast, Trump has said many times that the Fed should reduce interest rates by 3 points. I presume he means both the Fed Funds rate which the Fed directly controls, and the long-term fixed mortgage rate - which the Fed emphatically does NOT control. Long term fixed mortgage rates are heavily influenced by the 10 year U.S. Treasury Bond rates - which are determined in the bond markets. The only way to reduce the 10 year T-bond rate is to flood the bond market with those bonds which would be purchased by the Fed, thus greatly expanding the money supply - hence an upward inflationary spiral.
On this issue, Trump is not in the least like Reagan. If Trump somehow forces the Fed to do his bidding, the ensuing raging inflation will crush the GOP in 2028.
You're better off shelving your prognostications for now, Larry my friend, given that the Republicans are thus far performing worse in terms of their electoral margins than they were last time they were in power. This is the *reverse* of what one would expect to see under your theory of the case, and certainly nothing like the relative improvement in GOP performance we saw under Reagan. (which if you look carefully probably started with Nixon) Best you wait for more evidence and be prepared for readjustments to the theory, if further contravening data continues to trickle out.
"Affordability" is the next buzzword, like "sustainability", "equity", "structural racism", "spin", "rhetoric", "agenda", and "woke." Whatever it originally meant, careless repetition of the term will beat all the meaning out of it.
Unless there's a total collapse before '26 & 28' a slightly more moderate Republican will absolutely crush the far leftist candidates being pushed forward by the newest party leaders like AOC and others.
If you could just get Trump to lose the ego driven and totally unnecessary crazy stuff he says sometimes, even he, or another similar candidate, would wipe the floor with the AOC wing.
The Democrats can't actually make things affordable unless they reject the far-left and go back to "republican-lite" Bill Clinton moderation. Blue states are less affordable than red states, to the point that there is significant net migration out of blue states every year. And Europe is less affordable than the United States, the gap in hourly PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP is pretty significant at this point.
But the Democrats can win elections on affordability, because Trump and the Republicans own the economy now. If the Democrats win in 2028, that will be how they do it.
Edit: Remember all those debates about how Trump was destroying the economy with his tariffs? S&P 500 is up 15% year to date despite being down 1.5% today (which is what made me think to lookup the YTD)
Three years of a stagnating or worse, bad economy is quite the wish list.
But once again, if the Dems are only about Trump failing, remember he can't run again so who should the left really care about opposing?
The poll that needs to conducted is, what policy changes or are new, have the Dems made and how will they make this country better and more affordable? Are there any possible Dem leaders who can pull the Dems together while catering to those outside the party whose votes are needed to become a viable party again?
Thanks to woke universities, the answer would be no. The only reason higher ed teachings, indoctrinations are failing in the real world is because they won't make things better and the commitment of younger people is already tubing on the last "polls".
Have our politics become so simplistic that we accept slogans without critical analysis? When Democrats run on "affordability," shouldn't the next question be "so how do Democrats plan to make home ownership [or any other matter] more affordable"? It would be very interesting to hear Gavin Newsom, or Josh Shapiro, or any other serious contender for the Democratic nomination in 2028 answer that question. Ezra Klein, the father of the "abundance agenda," has rightly blamed over-regulation, bureaucratic red tape, and NIMBYism for constraining the construction of new, affordable housing. Will Democratic politicians actually advocate deregulation in the face of strong opposition from their nonprofit advocacy and special interest groups? I doubt it. So do Democrats really want to take steps to help make housing, energy, and other matters more affordable, or are they simply touting "affordability" as a campaign slogan.
No to all of the above. The Democrats affordability solutions all boil down to getting their political enemies to subsidize the cost of food/housing/healthcare for their client classes.
Exactly! How ?? At least Mandami was upfront with his ideas even though I think they are awful. However, I can respect that about him I like Ezra Klein’s answer to that question though.
I think what also struck me in this article was that a moderate Dem in 2025 is not the same as a Moderate Dem in 1998. So true, the entire party has moved further left .. for me, this is unappealing
It seems to me that Democrats are not serious about facing the reality that their vision is out of step with the majority of Americans as defined in your quote from the NYT (see below for reference). To me, it seems like they want the votes, but are not willing to embrace Americans' preferences. Instead, they want to find a way to get the voting numbers by obscuring, obfuscating, and even outright lying about their true intent. Then, if they get into power, they'll force an agenda that flies in the face of what Americans DO want. Sorry. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't be fooled again. Ever. If I can't trust that someone means what they say they stand for, then I will not vote for them, no matter with which party they affiliate.
QUOTE OF QUOTE REFERENCE FROM ARTICLE: Polls show that most voters prefer capitalism to socialism and worry that the government is too big—and also think that corporations and the wealthy have too much power. Most voters oppose both the cruel immigration enforcement of the Trump administration and the lax Biden policies that led to a record immigration surge. Most favor robust policing to combat crime and recoil at police brutality. Most favor widespread abortion access and some restrictions late in pregnancy. Most oppose race-based affirmative action and support class-based affirmative action. Most support job protections for trans people and believe that trans girls should not play girls’ sports. Most want strong public schools and the flexibility to choose which school their children attend…
Far left Portland, ME voters approved a referendum to raise the city’s minimum wage to $19 an hour. Hard for the president to bring the cost of living down when far left liberals are still hard at work rising the cost of doing business.
Low income wages are a very minor factor of the Consumer Price Index, and anyone who can't pay $19 is maybe someone who should get out of business as they are close to failing already. Garages charge well over $100 an hour while paying salaries of $20+, carpenters are similar, there's tons of room in there for workers pay to double.
I hope, too many businesses took money during covid when they should have folded. There is a demand for stupid people to work, no reason for them to own businesses.
Covid lockdowns - not Covid itself, which had the IFR of a bad flu year - destroyed many healthy businesses.
Average profit margins for restaurants is about 3% to 10%. Most small businesses have a very small margin between "make a little money for the owner" and "go out of business". Covid destroyed the life's work of many people.
I always figured to save enough to last a year with no income without dipping into savings. Time enough for another plan. Profit between 25 and 50 percent depending mostly on luck. A friend has a sushi restaurant. She closes for a month and a half every year, two weeks at her in laws and a month in Asia. Mexicans to prep and clean, she makes sushi. Husband meets and greets. Over 20K a month in the bank, not sure what the percent is. Two illegal employees just like every restaurant. I see a lot of businesses and I don't know how they don't go under, spend too much, make too little.
The missing piece is that “the minimum wage cuts off the bottom rung of the ladder of opportunity” (economist Walter Williams). The increased minimum wage makes it harder for kids to get their first job. (My brother would like to hire his 14 year old grandson, but finds it hard to justify paying him the minimum wage.)
The prior minimum wage in Portland was $15 an hour, so employees making less $19 a hour, get an immediate pay raise. To be fair, an employer may need to raise all of their employees’ wages.
With the increased cost of labor, employers may:
Automate and hire fewer people.
Raise their prices.
Change their business model. (My nephew fired his 8 employees, slimmed down his business to just him and is making more money.)
I found paying more to work out better. I also cut way back to just me before retiring, now I'm part time at best. Haven't filed a 941 in a few years but still do schedule C. Towards the end I was paying about $35 an hour. Worked for me, worked for employees, worked for customers.
There is a fundamental truth about labor that the left simply refuses to accept, which is that unskilled labor is highly variable in quality.
- Tier 1: shows up on time, sober, gets along with boss and colleagues and puts in a basic minimal effort.
- Tier 2: has a friendly positive attitude (think Chik-fil-A drive thru employees) and a good work ethic. Many of these workers are high school students who will either go to college or trades, but firms can benefit from them before they develop their human capital.
- Tier 0: can't meet the tier 1 standard.
Different businesses take different strategies. When you pay more, you get a large applicant pool and can choose higher quality employees. But to Betsy's point, that helps the business and the high quality unskilled workers. It doesn't help the workers on the bottom rung.
Good point about the bottom rung type employee. I figure they eventually grow up and become a tier 1. All employees have to make it to tier 1. I know lots of Hmong and Vietnamese working at factories who are tier 1, speak little to no English, happy to get health care and guaranteed hours inside.
I'd say there is also a tier 3. Bright and conscientious but happy enough to get a decent check, not looking to quit and become an MD. I leave them alone and only offer advice sparingly, do best without supervision. Doing a job that takes years to get good at. Not much competition from college kids. Often they have a family or a hobby.
Most people make good employees eventually. Before I started a business I ran crews from the arctic to the gulf. Most folks are ok.
"I figure they eventually grow up and become a tier 1."
The word "eventually" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
- the best way to get a job is to already have a job
- how do you get a job without experience, and how do you get experience without a job?
The minimum wage makes it much more difficult to get your foot in the door. Simply having a resume that shows 6+ months of work continuing to present is a strong positive signal to prospective employers. Having no resume - either because you haven't worked or because you quit and don't want your next employer checking references - is a deterrent.
It’s actually incredibly destructive to have a minimum wage, especially at $20 or $30 an hour. Youth unemployment skyrockets and low skilled workers can’t get jobs. we need to get people on the job train not off the job train especially considering the participation rate of able-bodied workers. If you and your business want to pay people $50 an hour, $100 an hour, or whatever you want to pay them that’s your prerogative and that’s always available. There is no limit on what you can pay people, so you go ahead and pay them what you want, but it’s best not to coerce others through state control of wages. It’s never worked and it’s never going to work. It also tends to suppress social mobility by encouraging people to camp at the minimum wage rate, thereby not making room for others to commit to those jobs. A really great example of that would be baristas.
Agree, but employers will not pay more when illegal labor cannot complain or easily seek other employment. Nor are wages likely to rise with the hangover from an endless supply of labor, willing to accept non Western wages.
For all the hype, deportations have been a small fraction of Biden new arrivals. Most were criminals, so it would stand to reason many deported were not working in between criminal activities.
Unskilled and low skilled manual wages were reset down, because of years of an oversupply of that labor. It did not benefit workers or consumers, but it benefitted exploitative employers greatly. Employers seem unlikely to increase wages, until forced to do so, by a declining labor pool.
That old economic thing called labor supply I guess. Estimates are for 2 million so far, mostly self deported, but not felt in wages that I can see. The backlog for immigration hearings is also dropping for the first time ever.
If you can't run a business, don't. When our government gave billions to restaurants during covid that wasn't messing with capitalism? A business should know how to handle money.
Covid $$ went to businesses to stay open and to workers so they could eat. "A business should know how to handle money" and a government should know how to handle a pandemic without destroying everyone lives, but we know how that turned out. Interesting that a Bernie supporter and a Plattner is here pretending to support capitalism.
How many current and former rich went bankrupt. At least once before making it? Look it up unless you know how many and who they were and are just stirring the pot. I figured you for a much smarter person.
Small business retail, restaurants, etc, not so much. Unless those businesses are exempt. There is a place in the world for entry level or part time jobs.
People are of course welcome to work for less. I highly recommend those who make too much simply return it to your employers. Restaurants are a great place to throw away money, especially if one needs to buy friends by tipping. Restaurants can easily pay double because no one going to restaurants cares about price anyway, if they did they'd cook.
Wow, you're pretty judgmental of the 163M adults who eat out at least once a week. You should probably do some research on the profitability of restaurants before posting a comment like the one above.
I’m retired, but my brother and nephew are in the generator business, My brother has about 30 employees.
I was a stockbroker, starting just as Reagan was elected and learned it was political suicide to pass inflationary policy. Biden had been elected a decade before and it was confusing as to why he would commit political suicide. That’s when I realized he wasn’t in charge.
Ban, not ben. Ban means small village or house. Ban Nock means country person. No more employees, semi retired. Realize I might not always respond to you.
I agree with you totally, and at the same time , entirely , confident that the Democratic Party is incapable of genuine centrist politics.
No more obvious expample that the shutdown fiasco, where no amount of "pain" on Americans was too much to force a capitulation from Trump etal that was impossible to achieve.
Or the utter vacuity of Gavin Newsom on climate, DEI, crime , taxation , immigration ,etc.
Does Newsom, or any of the presumptive "centrist" possibilities for the 2028 Presidential nomination, have the capacity to be genuinely "centrist".
The answer is of course not. Because they know it is impossible for them to be nominated within the leftist reality that is the Democratic Party of today.
So “affordability” is the new “infrastructure”. I.e. a thoroughly poll tested word that resonates positively with voters. The Democrats problem is that having won on it they will have to deliver, and their preferred solution of more government inevitably makes everything more expensive. Will Spanberger and Sherrill govern from the center, cutting red tape, promoting growth, making it cheaper and easier to build, stop constraining cheap reliable energy from LNG and nuclear while ending the requirements and subsidies used to push expensive unreliable sources like wind and solar?
Conversely Trump is falling into the same trap whoever was running the Biden/Harris administration did. Looking at several positive economic indicators along with wage increases beating inflation month over month and insisting the problem was solved. Meanwhile voters are looking at their bank balances and fully understand they still have far less buying power than they did before the pandemic. He needs to acknowledge that reality and consider the extent that his deregulation efforts were a large part of his sold pre-COVID economy.
It’s not a matter of getting back to pre-COVID prices. It’s a matter of getting back to pre-COVID buying power. As long as wage growth continues to outpace inflation we will slowly but surely get there.
I don’t think that is true. Your contention that as long as wage growth continues to outpace inflation, we will slowly but surely get there. The reason that I argue it’s not true is because of the things that are not counted in inflation numbers - the very things that people are calling to be affordable, like home prices for instance. The 40 to 50% increase in home prices during the period when the Fed held the interest rates so low during the Biden administration is tragic.
Dems are benefitting from Reps mistakes, far more than amending failing Dem policy. Had Trump simply announced a return to his 2019 budget (4. 5 trillion) with a tweak for a 2% population increase, and implemented a small tax on incomes over $5 million dollars, Reps would have greatly aided affordability, and would be very hard to beat, anytime in the near future.
Instead Reps followed Biden's 4 year spending orgy, with their own. Albeit with tax cuts, but government spending will remain a headwind for affordability.
Meanwhile the "moderate" Marcy Kaptur voted with Biden, the most Progressive President since FDR, 100% of the time, as did Spanberger. Sherrill was off by a hair. Selling the myth of the "moderate Dem" is the most effective Dem political tool ever invented. In reality, moderate Dems now exist about as much as unicorns, but Dems repeatedly refer to them.
For most of Biden's entire term, it took far less than one hand to count Dems who ever mentioned unbridled government spending, Green waste or the Open Border might be a bad ideas, let alone voted against one of them. Only Fetterman really occupies the Center, and he will be lucky not to be politically fragged by Dems, next time around.
In reality, only a few things will drastically effect affordability, a massive recession, a large increase in housing units with fewer people to house, and affordable energy for a long period of time. A decrease in government spending no longer seems remotely possible, so why even list it?
Affordability has the benefit of appealing to everyone. Manhattan 3 bedrooms are too expensive, houses in the Hamptons are beyond the reach of the 10%!
A sneaky hidden piece of good news of late is that nationwide rents are down. I'm not sure if that's a good thing as almost my entire roofing crew has been deported, but locally, in my state, rent's are down 8% in the metro area. We lead the nation in one thing anyway.
Platner in Maine is sounding a little extreme in the present tense, forget the past. Your push poll by Emily's List is kind of sus though. Emily's supports his opponent, and Platner is the kind of a manly man cat ladies hate. If Collins wins again it might not be good for winning the senate but it sure would be funny.
Had a roof lately? Or drywall? Flatwork? Foundation? Landscape, lawn guys, the list is endless. Eat vegetables do you?
I employ no one, but I do hire roofers, who hire subs who pay taxes, and hire employees, and the only person who speaks English better than I speak spanish is the owner of the roofing company, whom I pay with a check, and I don't even bother learning Spanish. I speak Asian languages, and English.
"...almost my entire roofing crew has been deported..."
Don't be silly Ban -- I hire local companies, people who I grew up with. You act like people are forced to hire the undocumented. The fact is YOU KNEW you had undocumented workers but couldn't complete if you hired citizens so you looked the other way. And you are here dumping on small businesses?
AFFORDABILITY- yes improving affordability is a nice stop the bleeding” vision. There are two issues. First and foremost is I do not see any national coherent strategy for moving this from the Democrats. I might even make the argument that some of there near and dear strategies would take us the other way. Second it is a “stop the bleeding” that does not lend itself to strategic steps to drive us into the next century. This whitout this they have no mandate for making big changes
Funny little voters. Democrats caused inflation and so they voted for Trump. Then because Trump has not reversed the inflation in less than a year, they vote again for Democrats.
The only way this works for Democrats is if voters are really as stupid as Democrat believe they are.
Until the dems require candidates they support to have a track record of competence, the R’s will be happy to wait. Someday they may stop supporting charismatic kids who have been a housing counselor and a musician before entering politics like MAMDANI. Or someone whose greatest success, according to AI, “is his ability to build a viable, grassroots political campaign ….. exemplified by his early fundraising and media attention” like Graham Platner. For now the D’s are sticking to what they know, DEI.
Excellent analysis! The question of what is a moderate Democrat is interesting and key. Most so-called moderate Democrats are still pretty liberal -- and too liberal for me. Didn't moderate Democrats just shut down the government? The Democrats shut down the government because 20 million plus people on Obamacare were facing a huge premium increase. Did the shutdown help the tens of millions of other Americans also facing premium increases like me?
The above is excellently researched, as always, but didn't we all learn in high school economics government spending, housing and energy are the basis for the vast majority of all US inflation, or "affordability"?
2020-2024 DC spent trillions on no bid contracts for Covid and Climate theatre. We handed billions to Dem donors to form Green Corps, swimming in billions more, perpetual tax payer subsidies. Many of the these new ventures rendered their Founders and C Suiters instantly wealthy, without a prayer of survival once the DC money spigot turned off.
The waste was near omnipresent. In many schools we replaced perfectly safe ICE school buses with electric ones that were either never delivered after payment, or would not function. Factories spent billions retooling for EVs few Americans desired and even fewer would buy without hundreds of billions in taxpayer subsidies. Now even Bill Gates admits "just kidding".
Dems assured us the 10 million person Army crossing the border under Biden was the labor that would bring down housing costs, Instead housing prices rose by roughly 50%, nearly everywhere in the country. Evidently, not all new arrivals were master carpenters. Instead we now have 10 million extra people looking for housing, in an existing housing shortage.
On Day 1, Biden declared war on fossil fuels. Oil and gas became the new "F" word, unacceptable in polite society. Drilling on federal land was forbidden. Oil leases are worthless without drilling permits, and Dems slowed them ASAP. The oil and gas industry produced under Biden, but not nearly as much as they could have otherwise. The price of oil is in just about everything we utilize or consume, and Dems purposefully limited supply expansion.
The list could fill books. In reality, we had 4 years of widespread mania regarding US spending, energy and immigration. It hasn't yet been a year. If a family member goes crazy and and maxes out every credit card shopping on QVC, it takes far longer to right the ship, than it did to flush the money. Same in DC.
This is a common take on the origins of this most recent episode of U.S. inflation--i.e., an overly expansionary fiscal policy by the Biden administration and migration-driven increases in housing caused it--but it doesn't really make sense once you include the global picture.
Why did Germany, the UK, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Colombia, Italy, France, Spain, Finland and Portugal all experience worse inflation than the U.S., when they pursued fiscal austerity after the pandemic, and had no comparable wave of migration? Why did housing costs rise more precipitously from 2020-2024 in countries like the UK, Spain and Portugal than they did in the U.S., when they did not experience a big influx of migrants and their central banks pursued similar policies?
Had no comparable wave of immigration in Europe? Have you been in Europe lately? When planning to walk to dinner, often one needs to navigate around perpetual migration demonstrations, pro and con. England, Germany and France teeter on falling governments over mass migration.
Terrorism from mass migration has become such a concern in formerly placid Germany, some famed Christmas Markets , around since mid 1200s, will not open this December because they cannot afford the terrorism insurance.
We imported 10-12 million people without a single extra bedroom to shelter them. How on earth would that not drive up to drive up the cost of housing, unless one expects new arrivals to make their homes on the streets or in barns. Everyone has to sleep somewhere, whether they are wealthy Norwegians or penniless Northern Triangle former residents.
Significant migration to European states and between them has been occurring since arguably the Euro made its debut, possibly before depending on how you want to frame 'migration'. But the European countries I mentioned did not, like the U.S., have an acute surge in migration during the post-pandemic period, which is the period in which the inflation in question took place. Which means the two variables you are citing to explain high inflation in the US from 2020-2024--expansionary fiscal policy and higher-than-usual migration--were not at work in those countries. In the case of fiscal policy, they actually went in the opposite direction from the U.S. Yet they performed worse than the U.S. in terms of inflation.
That does not substantiate the popular thesis you mentioned in your OP--according to you, these countries should have performed comparatively better.
Europe had high inflation but it was delayed relative the US, which suggests a different cause.
- In Europe, inflation was primarily because of supply shocks around oil and natural gas in the wake of Russia invading Ukraine. Trump tried to warn European leaders, and they laughed at him.*
- In the US, inflation was largely because of massive deficit spending after Covid. Larry Summers, who was an economic advisor to both Clinton and Obama, tried to warn the Democrats that inflation would result, but he was also laughed at. Here is what he wrote:
"Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, a Wall Street Week contributor, thinks that we are seeing the least responsible macroeconomic policy in forty years. He disagrees with Paul Krugman's thoughts on how long it takes inflation expectations to become unanchored."
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpolicy/larry-summers-worried-about-inflation-lawrence-summers
So the left found two completely different ways to ruin their economies.
* Germans laughing at Trump - who the left accuses of being Putin's puppet - when he warned them that they'd be completely dependent on Russian oil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE
The supply shocks were global--as one would expect when global supply chains are disrupted by a global pandemic. The US experienced them, as did every other country enmeshed in those supply chains. One could even argue the US experienced a shock more severe than others, given how uniquely global the US economy is, courtesy of its ownership of the GRC.
You could lean hard on the war in Ukraine to try to explain European inflation, but
even then the internal rates of inflation don't align with your thesis. Of all the Eurozone economies that pursued post-pandemic fiscal consolidation, for example, Spain arguably pursued it the least and spent the most. Yet despite that it experienced less inflation than the UK and neighboring Portugal.
Nor does a theory of US fiscal excess explain why Peru, Chile, and Colombia suffered from higher inflation despite pursuing fiscal austerity. Nor why countries like, say, New Zealand suffered from significantly worse inflation despite much more stringent austerity.
Ultimately, we simply don't have much evidence that pegs expansionary fiscal policy as the culprit for the rise in US inflation; all we know is that there was a global inflationary wave, that the U.S. did better than most in terms of weathering it, and that there was disagreement between different economists over whether fiscal expansion was wise or not. There are theoretical arguments against it, but there are theoretical arguments for it as well. (e.g., large amounts of government investment might have held down prices by building capacity to soften the effect of supply shocks and strengthening the dollar)
It is perhaps notable, though, that the countries run by the populist right all performed pretty terribly on the inflation metric. Even if you want to use the Ukraine war to give Orban's Hungary a break, Erdogan's Turkey, Modi's India, and the South American countries run by the Populist Right all did much worse than the U.S. In fact, under Erdogan Turkey had one of the highest rates of inflation in the world.
Europe’s inflation was primarily due to energy costs, which was not a global problem. Combination of Russia/Ukraine gas interruptions and net zero policies.
They had less inflation, not more, primarily due to energy costs.
No they didn't--with the exception of Italy, Switzerland, Ireland and France every country in Western and Eastern Europe experienced a worse degree of inflation from 2020-2024 than the U.S.. Finland and Spain approximately matched the U.S. rate.
That’s not what these numbers show. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/drivers-post-pandemic-inflation
Their inflation was heavily driven by energy costs.
As Ronald Reagan showed in 1981, it takes about a year to reverse course from bad economic policies. He had inflation squeezed out after a year---but did so with a completely supportive Fed. Trump doesn't have that assistance, but inflation is still slowly coming down. I'd caution anyone against running (especially a year out) on "affordability. It can change very quickly, then you're stuck. Housing is a little different, but again, mortgage rates have fallen by more than half a point and are likely to continue to do so. The foundations Trump has built with investment commitments are already beginning to turn shovels. The biggest vulnerability Trump and the Republicans have is Trump's willingness to extend H1B visas---DEEPLY unpopular with working class and youts. But . . . who on the D side is going to come out against visas or Chinese students here? And illegals taking US jobs (whether it's even remotely true that "Americans won't do them"?) This is a total loser for Ds.
The problem is that the only real areas where Rs, and Trump in particular, are vulnerable are the very areas where Ds are even more vulnerable. Meanwhile, as I warned a year ago, the data/energy vs. green civil war is pretty much over, and the green Ds have completely lost on this. There are policies to be used that require Big Data to supply its own power---but that won't be solar or wind. So the D coalition will continue to fracture over this.
In short, as I have been warning for over a year, the only vulnerabilities for Rs is on the RIGHT: less immigration, more nukes, more oil & gas, fewer H1Bs, fewer Chinese students, less man-hate. I see absolutely nothing from any Ds, particularly Zohran, that in any way address the CORE of "affordability." Oh, and it will be so much fun to see billions of dollars flee NYC at the slightest whiff of more taxes and more regulations on capital.
"(Reagan)... had inflation squeezed out after a year---but did so with a completely supportive Fed. Trump doesn't have that assistance, but inflation is still slowly coming down."
The relationships between Reagan and the Fed vs. Trump and the Fed are polar opposites. In early 1981, the annual inflation rate was in the high teens, by one measure 18%. The Federal Reserve - led by Chairman Paul Volcker - implemented aggressive anti-inflation policies that resulted in a prime rate over 20% in late 1980. The Fed's policies eventually ended the inflationary spiral over the long term; in the shorter term those policies resulted in unemployment spiking to 10.8%, which led to huge mid-term gains in Congress for Democrats after the 1982 elections. To his great credit, Reagan did not criticize the Fed's actions. He gave the Fed political cover to implement the correct policies even though doing so hurt Republicans in the short run.
By contrast, Trump has said many times that the Fed should reduce interest rates by 3 points. I presume he means both the Fed Funds rate which the Fed directly controls, and the long-term fixed mortgage rate - which the Fed emphatically does NOT control. Long term fixed mortgage rates are heavily influenced by the 10 year U.S. Treasury Bond rates - which are determined in the bond markets. The only way to reduce the 10 year T-bond rate is to flood the bond market with those bonds which would be purchased by the Fed, thus greatly expanding the money supply - hence an upward inflationary spiral.
On this issue, Trump is not in the least like Reagan. If Trump somehow forces the Fed to do his bidding, the ensuing raging inflation will crush the GOP in 2028.
You're better off shelving your prognostications for now, Larry my friend, given that the Republicans are thus far performing worse in terms of their electoral margins than they were last time they were in power. This is the *reverse* of what one would expect to see under your theory of the case, and certainly nothing like the relative improvement in GOP performance we saw under Reagan. (which if you look carefully probably started with Nixon) Best you wait for more evidence and be prepared for readjustments to the theory, if further contravening data continues to trickle out.
"Affordability" is the next buzzword, like "sustainability", "equity", "structural racism", "spin", "rhetoric", "agenda", and "woke." Whatever it originally meant, careless repetition of the term will beat all the meaning out of it.
Pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Unless there's a total collapse before '26 & 28' a slightly more moderate Republican will absolutely crush the far leftist candidates being pushed forward by the newest party leaders like AOC and others.
If you could just get Trump to lose the ego driven and totally unnecessary crazy stuff he says sometimes, even he, or another similar candidate, would wipe the floor with the AOC wing.
The Democrats can't actually make things affordable unless they reject the far-left and go back to "republican-lite" Bill Clinton moderation. Blue states are less affordable than red states, to the point that there is significant net migration out of blue states every year. And Europe is less affordable than the United States, the gap in hourly PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP is pretty significant at this point.
But the Democrats can win elections on affordability, because Trump and the Republicans own the economy now. If the Democrats win in 2028, that will be how they do it.
Edit: Remember all those debates about how Trump was destroying the economy with his tariffs? S&P 500 is up 15% year to date despite being down 1.5% today (which is what made me think to lookup the YTD)
Three years of a stagnating or worse, bad economy is quite the wish list.
But once again, if the Dems are only about Trump failing, remember he can't run again so who should the left really care about opposing?
The poll that needs to conducted is, what policy changes or are new, have the Dems made and how will they make this country better and more affordable? Are there any possible Dem leaders who can pull the Dems together while catering to those outside the party whose votes are needed to become a viable party again?
Thanks to woke universities, the answer would be no. The only reason higher ed teachings, indoctrinations are failing in the real world is because they won't make things better and the commitment of younger people is already tubing on the last "polls".
"But once again, if the Dems are only about Trump failing, remember he can't run again so who should the left really care about opposing?"
Expect the left to start hating JD Vance even more than Trump in three, two, ....
Have our politics become so simplistic that we accept slogans without critical analysis? When Democrats run on "affordability," shouldn't the next question be "so how do Democrats plan to make home ownership [or any other matter] more affordable"? It would be very interesting to hear Gavin Newsom, or Josh Shapiro, or any other serious contender for the Democratic nomination in 2028 answer that question. Ezra Klein, the father of the "abundance agenda," has rightly blamed over-regulation, bureaucratic red tape, and NIMBYism for constraining the construction of new, affordable housing. Will Democratic politicians actually advocate deregulation in the face of strong opposition from their nonprofit advocacy and special interest groups? I doubt it. So do Democrats really want to take steps to help make housing, energy, and other matters more affordable, or are they simply touting "affordability" as a campaign slogan.
No to all of the above. The Democrats affordability solutions all boil down to getting their political enemies to subsidize the cost of food/housing/healthcare for their client classes.
Exactly! How ?? At least Mandami was upfront with his ideas even though I think they are awful. However, I can respect that about him I like Ezra Klein’s answer to that question though.
I think what also struck me in this article was that a moderate Dem in 2025 is not the same as a Moderate Dem in 1998. So true, the entire party has moved further left .. for me, this is unappealing
It seems to me that Democrats are not serious about facing the reality that their vision is out of step with the majority of Americans as defined in your quote from the NYT (see below for reference). To me, it seems like they want the votes, but are not willing to embrace Americans' preferences. Instead, they want to find a way to get the voting numbers by obscuring, obfuscating, and even outright lying about their true intent. Then, if they get into power, they'll force an agenda that flies in the face of what Americans DO want. Sorry. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't be fooled again. Ever. If I can't trust that someone means what they say they stand for, then I will not vote for them, no matter with which party they affiliate.
QUOTE OF QUOTE REFERENCE FROM ARTICLE: Polls show that most voters prefer capitalism to socialism and worry that the government is too big—and also think that corporations and the wealthy have too much power. Most voters oppose both the cruel immigration enforcement of the Trump administration and the lax Biden policies that led to a record immigration surge. Most favor robust policing to combat crime and recoil at police brutality. Most favor widespread abortion access and some restrictions late in pregnancy. Most oppose race-based affirmative action and support class-based affirmative action. Most support job protections for trans people and believe that trans girls should not play girls’ sports. Most want strong public schools and the flexibility to choose which school their children attend…
"To me, it seems like they want the votes, but are not willing to embrace Americans' preferences."
The quote indicates that the GOP is the same in this capacity, though, so neither party fits your criteria.
So true. I don't vote 'party'. I vote according to what's available on record as having been said, done, or written by any given candidate.
Far left Portland, ME voters approved a referendum to raise the city’s minimum wage to $19 an hour. Hard for the president to bring the cost of living down when far left liberals are still hard at work rising the cost of doing business.
Low income wages are a very minor factor of the Consumer Price Index, and anyone who can't pay $19 is maybe someone who should get out of business as they are close to failing already. Garages charge well over $100 an hour while paying salaries of $20+, carpenters are similar, there's tons of room in there for workers pay to double.
"anyone who can't pay $19 is maybe someone who should get out of business"
Unfortunately, your offer is likely to be accepted.
I hope, too many businesses took money during covid when they should have folded. There is a demand for stupid people to work, no reason for them to own businesses.
Covid lockdowns - not Covid itself, which had the IFR of a bad flu year - destroyed many healthy businesses.
Average profit margins for restaurants is about 3% to 10%. Most small businesses have a very small margin between "make a little money for the owner" and "go out of business". Covid destroyed the life's work of many people.
Every boarded up window was the end of someone's dream. Of course socialists don't have a problem with that it seems.
I always figured to save enough to last a year with no income without dipping into savings. Time enough for another plan. Profit between 25 and 50 percent depending mostly on luck. A friend has a sushi restaurant. She closes for a month and a half every year, two weeks at her in laws and a month in Asia. Mexicans to prep and clean, she makes sushi. Husband meets and greets. Over 20K a month in the bank, not sure what the percent is. Two illegal employees just like every restaurant. I see a lot of businesses and I don't know how they don't go under, spend too much, make too little.
The missing piece is that “the minimum wage cuts off the bottom rung of the ladder of opportunity” (economist Walter Williams). The increased minimum wage makes it harder for kids to get their first job. (My brother would like to hire his 14 year old grandson, but finds it hard to justify paying him the minimum wage.)
The prior minimum wage in Portland was $15 an hour, so employees making less $19 a hour, get an immediate pay raise. To be fair, an employer may need to raise all of their employees’ wages.
With the increased cost of labor, employers may:
Automate and hire fewer people.
Raise their prices.
Change their business model. (My nephew fired his 8 employees, slimmed down his business to just him and is making more money.)
I found paying more to work out better. I also cut way back to just me before retiring, now I'm part time at best. Haven't filed a 941 in a few years but still do schedule C. Towards the end I was paying about $35 an hour. Worked for me, worked for employees, worked for customers.
There is a fundamental truth about labor that the left simply refuses to accept, which is that unskilled labor is highly variable in quality.
- Tier 1: shows up on time, sober, gets along with boss and colleagues and puts in a basic minimal effort.
- Tier 2: has a friendly positive attitude (think Chik-fil-A drive thru employees) and a good work ethic. Many of these workers are high school students who will either go to college or trades, but firms can benefit from them before they develop their human capital.
- Tier 0: can't meet the tier 1 standard.
Different businesses take different strategies. When you pay more, you get a large applicant pool and can choose higher quality employees. But to Betsy's point, that helps the business and the high quality unskilled workers. It doesn't help the workers on the bottom rung.
Good point about the bottom rung type employee. I figure they eventually grow up and become a tier 1. All employees have to make it to tier 1. I know lots of Hmong and Vietnamese working at factories who are tier 1, speak little to no English, happy to get health care and guaranteed hours inside.
I'd say there is also a tier 3. Bright and conscientious but happy enough to get a decent check, not looking to quit and become an MD. I leave them alone and only offer advice sparingly, do best without supervision. Doing a job that takes years to get good at. Not much competition from college kids. Often they have a family or a hobby.
Most people make good employees eventually. Before I started a business I ran crews from the arctic to the gulf. Most folks are ok.
"I figure they eventually grow up and become a tier 1."
The word "eventually" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
- the best way to get a job is to already have a job
- how do you get a job without experience, and how do you get experience without a job?
The minimum wage makes it much more difficult to get your foot in the door. Simply having a resume that shows 6+ months of work continuing to present is a strong positive signal to prospective employers. Having no resume - either because you haven't worked or because you quit and don't want your next employer checking references - is a deterrent.
It’s actually incredibly destructive to have a minimum wage, especially at $20 or $30 an hour. Youth unemployment skyrockets and low skilled workers can’t get jobs. we need to get people on the job train not off the job train especially considering the participation rate of able-bodied workers. If you and your business want to pay people $50 an hour, $100 an hour, or whatever you want to pay them that’s your prerogative and that’s always available. There is no limit on what you can pay people, so you go ahead and pay them what you want, but it’s best not to coerce others through state control of wages. It’s never worked and it’s never going to work. It also tends to suppress social mobility by encouraging people to camp at the minimum wage rate, thereby not making room for others to commit to those jobs. A really great example of that would be baristas.
Is that what you paid busboys? Or is that what you paid skilled labor? Big difference. And did you pay for legal workers?
Agree, but employers will not pay more when illegal labor cannot complain or easily seek other employment. Nor are wages likely to rise with the hangover from an endless supply of labor, willing to accept non Western wages.
For all the hype, deportations have been a small fraction of Biden new arrivals. Most were criminals, so it would stand to reason many deported were not working in between criminal activities.
Unskilled and low skilled manual wages were reset down, because of years of an oversupply of that labor. It did not benefit workers or consumers, but it benefitted exploitative employers greatly. Employers seem unlikely to increase wages, until forced to do so, by a declining labor pool.
That old economic thing called labor supply I guess. Estimates are for 2 million so far, mostly self deported, but not felt in wages that I can see. The backlog for immigration hearings is also dropping for the first time ever.
So it is better to close down a business and make their employees suffer also is better than lowering a minimum wage?
When the government starts messing with capitalism, whether or not a business becomes viable is at the whim of the govenrment.
Having had such a business, it's just not that simple.
If you can't run a business, don't. When our government gave billions to restaurants during covid that wasn't messing with capitalism? A business should know how to handle money.
Covid $$ went to businesses to stay open and to workers so they could eat. "A business should know how to handle money" and a government should know how to handle a pandemic without destroying everyone lives, but we know how that turned out. Interesting that a Bernie supporter and a Plattner is here pretending to support capitalism.
I see you have no such business experience.
How many current and former rich went bankrupt. At least once before making it? Look it up unless you know how many and who they were and are just stirring the pot. I figured you for a much smarter person.
Small business retail, restaurants, etc, not so much. Unless those businesses are exempt. There is a place in the world for entry level or part time jobs.
People are of course welcome to work for less. I highly recommend those who make too much simply return it to your employers. Restaurants are a great place to throw away money, especially if one needs to buy friends by tipping. Restaurants can easily pay double because no one going to restaurants cares about price anyway, if they did they'd cook.
Wow, you're pretty judgmental of the 163M adults who eat out at least once a week. You should probably do some research on the profitability of restaurants before posting a comment like the one above.
Ben Nock -- What type of small business do you own? How many employees do you have?
I will read more carefully next time! I love your comments.
I’m retired, but my brother and nephew are in the generator business, My brother has about 30 employees.
I was a stockbroker, starting just as Reagan was elected and learned it was political suicide to pass inflationary policy. Biden had been elected a decade before and it was confusing as to why he would commit political suicide. That’s when I realized he wasn’t in charge.
Comment was directed to Ben Nock. Sorry for confusion....
Ban, not ben. Ban means small village or house. Ban Nock means country person. No more employees, semi retired. Realize I might not always respond to you.
I agree with you totally, and at the same time , entirely , confident that the Democratic Party is incapable of genuine centrist politics.
No more obvious expample that the shutdown fiasco, where no amount of "pain" on Americans was too much to force a capitulation from Trump etal that was impossible to achieve.
Or the utter vacuity of Gavin Newsom on climate, DEI, crime , taxation , immigration ,etc.
Does Newsom, or any of the presumptive "centrist" possibilities for the 2028 Presidential nomination, have the capacity to be genuinely "centrist".
The answer is of course not. Because they know it is impossible for them to be nominated within the leftist reality that is the Democratic Party of today.
So “affordability” is the new “infrastructure”. I.e. a thoroughly poll tested word that resonates positively with voters. The Democrats problem is that having won on it they will have to deliver, and their preferred solution of more government inevitably makes everything more expensive. Will Spanberger and Sherrill govern from the center, cutting red tape, promoting growth, making it cheaper and easier to build, stop constraining cheap reliable energy from LNG and nuclear while ending the requirements and subsidies used to push expensive unreliable sources like wind and solar?
Conversely Trump is falling into the same trap whoever was running the Biden/Harris administration did. Looking at several positive economic indicators along with wage increases beating inflation month over month and insisting the problem was solved. Meanwhile voters are looking at their bank balances and fully understand they still have far less buying power than they did before the pandemic. He needs to acknowledge that reality and consider the extent that his deregulation efforts were a large part of his sold pre-COVID economy.
We are never getting back to pre-covid prices and as soon as everyone acknowledges that the better.
It’s not a matter of getting back to pre-COVID prices. It’s a matter of getting back to pre-COVID buying power. As long as wage growth continues to outpace inflation we will slowly but surely get there.
I don’t think that is true. Your contention that as long as wage growth continues to outpace inflation, we will slowly but surely get there. The reason that I argue it’s not true is because of the things that are not counted in inflation numbers - the very things that people are calling to be affordable, like home prices for instance. The 40 to 50% increase in home prices during the period when the Fed held the interest rates so low during the Biden administration is tragic.
true
Dems are benefitting from Reps mistakes, far more than amending failing Dem policy. Had Trump simply announced a return to his 2019 budget (4. 5 trillion) with a tweak for a 2% population increase, and implemented a small tax on incomes over $5 million dollars, Reps would have greatly aided affordability, and would be very hard to beat, anytime in the near future.
Instead Reps followed Biden's 4 year spending orgy, with their own. Albeit with tax cuts, but government spending will remain a headwind for affordability.
Meanwhile the "moderate" Marcy Kaptur voted with Biden, the most Progressive President since FDR, 100% of the time, as did Spanberger. Sherrill was off by a hair. Selling the myth of the "moderate Dem" is the most effective Dem political tool ever invented. In reality, moderate Dems now exist about as much as unicorns, but Dems repeatedly refer to them.
For most of Biden's entire term, it took far less than one hand to count Dems who ever mentioned unbridled government spending, Green waste or the Open Border might be a bad ideas, let alone voted against one of them. Only Fetterman really occupies the Center, and he will be lucky not to be politically fragged by Dems, next time around.
In reality, only a few things will drastically effect affordability, a massive recession, a large increase in housing units with fewer people to house, and affordable energy for a long period of time. A decrease in government spending no longer seems remotely possible, so why even list it?
Affordability has the benefit of appealing to everyone. Manhattan 3 bedrooms are too expensive, houses in the Hamptons are beyond the reach of the 10%!
A sneaky hidden piece of good news of late is that nationwide rents are down. I'm not sure if that's a good thing as almost my entire roofing crew has been deported, but locally, in my state, rent's are down 8% in the metro area. We lead the nation in one thing anyway.
Platner in Maine is sounding a little extreme in the present tense, forget the past. Your push poll by Emily's List is kind of sus though. Emily's supports his opponent, and Platner is the kind of a manly man cat ladies hate. If Collins wins again it might not be good for winning the senate but it sure would be funny.
“ Manhattan 3 bedrooms are too expensive, houses in the Hamptons are beyond the reach of the 10%!”
So are Ferraris. I’m not sure those are problems in need of a solution. What do rents look like in Queens and The Bronx?
You employed illegal immigrants?
Had a roof lately? Or drywall? Flatwork? Foundation? Landscape, lawn guys, the list is endless. Eat vegetables do you?
I employ no one, but I do hire roofers, who hire subs who pay taxes, and hire employees, and the only person who speaks English better than I speak spanish is the owner of the roofing company, whom I pay with a check, and I don't even bother learning Spanish. I speak Asian languages, and English.
"...almost my entire roofing crew has been deported..."
Don't be silly Ban -- I hire local companies, people who I grew up with. You act like people are forced to hire the undocumented. The fact is YOU KNEW you had undocumented workers but couldn't complete if you hired citizens so you looked the other way. And you are here dumping on small businesses?
AFFORDABILITY- yes improving affordability is a nice stop the bleeding” vision. There are two issues. First and foremost is I do not see any national coherent strategy for moving this from the Democrats. I might even make the argument that some of there near and dear strategies would take us the other way. Second it is a “stop the bleeding” that does not lend itself to strategic steps to drive us into the next century. This whitout this they have no mandate for making big changes
Funny little voters. Democrats caused inflation and so they voted for Trump. Then because Trump has not reversed the inflation in less than a year, they vote again for Democrats.
The only way this works for Democrats is if voters are really as stupid as Democrat believe they are.
Until the dems require candidates they support to have a track record of competence, the R’s will be happy to wait. Someday they may stop supporting charismatic kids who have been a housing counselor and a musician before entering politics like MAMDANI. Or someone whose greatest success, according to AI, “is his ability to build a viable, grassroots political campaign ….. exemplified by his early fundraising and media attention” like Graham Platner. For now the D’s are sticking to what they know, DEI.
Excellent analysis! The question of what is a moderate Democrat is interesting and key. Most so-called moderate Democrats are still pretty liberal -- and too liberal for me. Didn't moderate Democrats just shut down the government? The Democrats shut down the government because 20 million plus people on Obamacare were facing a huge premium increase. Did the shutdown help the tens of millions of other Americans also facing premium increases like me?