All movements burn out. But we’re talking about the disconnect between people’s perceptions of the national economic status and their perceptions of their own economic status. That can go on indefinitely.
That’s because people can always form a different sense of self vs. group. The overwhelming majority of people think they are above average drivers; nearly everyone thinks they’re middle class; everyone loves their own Congresscritter but has a negative view of Congress as a whole. That disconnect between how people perceive the collective and how all the people view themselves individually isn’t like a political movement - it can keep going and going.
Most thought leaders don’t have a lot of incentives to go out there and say, “No, the economy’s actually doing pretty well.” Half of them (at any given time) will disagree with whoever has been put in charge of the country, and all those who think that significant changes to the economy are necessary and important are not going to have any incentive to say things are doing well even if someone they agree with is in charge. Once you start arguing that the economic system is unfair or broken or rigged against the common man, you develop significant disincentives to say that economic conditions are good. Because those two things are inconsistent with each other.
So you think that it will go on for 20 or 30 years. All the populist movements you named were ended when the person either let go of power or died. So this populist movement, do you really think it will go on for 20 years? Who is the populist you think that can carry this on for 20 years?
Only with people that are born pessimists. There are always some of them but most people want to be optimistic about their futures. No movement last longs and no members will stay with a movement if they don’t see a future.
I agree with that, but usually those are people either on the extreme of both ends. Most people can see that they are either doing good or bad. I have a neighbor who is an extremist. He kept asking me 5 years how I liked the market. I told him I was doing great and I loved it. I asked him this year how he liked the market. He told me it sucked.
Again, the issue isn’t people being optimistic about their futures. It’s about how people assess other people’s present.
That’s the disconnect. Most people today will say that their present economic situation is pretty good. I don’t know if it was noted in the OP article, but most people will also say their local or regional economy is pretty good. But they overwhelmingly think the national economy is doing pretty lousy.
“I"m okay but most other people are struggling” is actually a pretty appealing model for people to have about the country. It allows them to feel personally safe, but still provides motivation for making changes/improvements in the nation. It combines satisfaction with a spur to further change. It lets people who are comfortable in their economic situation still have opinions about what other people need to do to change. And, more cynically, people’s sense of self-worth and self-satisfaction sometimes depends on knowing that they’re doing better than the average Joe.
So yeah - this disconnect can last for quite a long time…though it will probably recede when the next “status quo” group gets into power. “We love the status quo” is the only group that can trumpet from the rooftops about how great the present is, and that we don’t have to change too much. But outside of the “stay the course” constituency, everyone else has an incentive to argue that the economy is leaving too many people behind…
Actually that isn’t true. It’s has more of a party note to it. My party isn’t in power so it’s bad, or my party is in power so it’s good. That isn’t unusual with the extremes. But if you talk to the centrists they give you a much more optimistic view of the country.
I think you mean your “status quo” group. Because like I said it depends on which party is in power and how you align with that party. That is if you are on an extreme side of the party spectrum.
The findings indicate a significant boost to consumer morale when their affiliated party won elections, particularly following presidential elections where there was a change in the presidential party, such as those in 1992, 2000, 2008, and 2016. As anticipated, consumer sentiments showed an inverse pattern between Democrats and Republicans. When a Democrat won the presidency, Democrats’ positive sentiments rose while Republicans’ positive sentiments declined, and vice versa when a Republican won.
Somewhat (trying not to talk about politics in this thread). But it’s not just the out-of-power cohort, or extreme partisans, that have a disconnect between their personal economic situation and the broader economy. That’s because folks that are advocating for significant changes to the economy generally aren’t going around expressing satisfaction with the status quo. If you’re constantly telling people that the status quo is unfair and rigged and leaving most hardworking Americans behind, it’s not surprising that a lot of those hardworking Americans will believe you, even if that’s not their own experience.
Sorry - the “status quo” and “stay the course” group are the same group. Shouldn’t have switched labels when I was referring to the same people.
Oh, I know. There’s always a partisan bent to perceptions of the economy.
What’s new, though, is that even among the in-power group people are still negative about the overall economy. There’s the simple answer for why (interest rates and prices), though that doesn’t necessarily explain the difference in perspective on their own situation vs. the national situation. I think a non-trivial part of that difference is that the in-power faction has been teaching itself that even when they are in power, the economy isn’t going to be working for most Americans.
I have a theory. Not verified, not studied, no real data, just a theory from gut feeling.
If you take all the people in the range of median income - 25% through median income + 25%, you get about half the people. Now note down their range of incomes. Next, take median expenses - housing, cars, taxes, insurances, food, education, etc. Add up those expenses. Now compare the income number to the expense number … if the income number is lower than the expense number, people will think the economy is real bad. If the income number is close to the expense number, people will think the economy is bad. If the income number is just above the expense number then people think the economy is flat, but they are not saving enough. And if the income number is way above the expense number then people think the economy is great, and they are doing fine.
Now, I know that in theory inflation is supposed to measure this pretty accurately, but I think there is some sort of defect when it comes to measuring for median +/-25%. There is CPI-U, CPI-W, etc. But is there a separate CPI for median and near median folks?
Household debt is at a record high, with non-housing debt (higher interest) rising faster. Higher interest rates are having a big impact.
It’s frustrating that people don’t know the unemployment rate is at a 50-year low, or that the stock market is doing well, or that we’re not in a recession. Some people expect all prices to come down, because, you know, inflation is lower…
Unemployment is super-low, growth is strong, and wages in many areas are solid.
But interest rates are at generational highs, we’re still swallowing the pig on price increases despite the fact that current inflation rates are lower (though still high compared to pre-pandemic recent history), and housing and child-care markets (which are among the most important to most family budgets, with only auto costs being in the mix) are kind of wrapped around the axle right now.
I think that is a fair critique with the only problem is that interest rates are not at a generational high.
Interest rates may now seem historically high, but they’re currently not that far off from their historic average, the analysis found. Since 1980, the market-driven “effective” federal funds rate has averaged 4.41 percent.
