If you can't afford a decent home, pay your student loans, and cringe at the supermarket checkout line, you're not "richer" than your parents or grandparents were. Period. Those are the only indicators that matter to most Americans. Most are, by those real-life standards, poorer than families were in the 1970s.
Big question Jared! Why is the scale in the income graph different on the left Y axis and the right Y axis? It seems to show in 1970 less than 5% of households had income less than $50,000, while in 2024 about 30% of households had incomes of less than $50,000. That's a horrible result!
You need to look at the right Y-axis for that series. It goes down from around 46% to around 30%, which is mostly due to more households shifting into higher brackets! That's good, as I note, but also what you'd expect unless GDP growth failed to reach anyone beyond the wealthiest, which thankfully, isn't the case.
Interesting -- one thought is that your list of what policy makers can actually tackle, while practical, does not sound as emotionally appealing as something with a hint of glam.
Also, I wonder how much of the discontent is linked to the relentless social media onslaught of baby-faced influencers "living the dream" while most of us rush around battling traffic, deadlines and line-ups, grim faced, haggard and ragged, weighing whether we can afford a must-have or a "really-really-nice-to-have" when the only thing in our lives being "maxxed" is the credit card!
I'll add a second comment: "Real Disposable Personal Income" increased by 277%, nearly quadrupled, between 1976 and 2024, shows the Fed FRED graph. And GDP/capita increased by 134%, same years. The wage income of the nonsupervisory worker increased by 3%, see BLS Table : https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
The cost of buying a home is 62% higher in 2024 than 1976. I divided the "median sales price" by the "weekly (and yearly) incomes of a production and nonsupervisory worker". It's a little involved, but basically in 1976 the median worker paid 4.7 times his yearly earnings for a median home, and in 2024 he/she paid 7.6 times that yearly wage income; that's 62% higher.
And let's say there's a student debt loan, a car loan, and a child care monthly payment.
It looks pretty bleak. Then the child or someone has health problems or the employer doesn't provide health insurance? Affordability is not in reach.
The U.S. Census data shows incomes rising for all levels, true. The median woman's annual earnings grew from $38,070 to $57,520, up $19,450 for full-time, and women's participation increased from 47% to 57%. And the median man's income increased from 63,250 to $71,090 (full-time) by $7,840, 1976 to 2024. Women's earnings contributed most to the rise in family incomes 1976 to 2024. Heather Boushey had an article about that in Washington Center for Equitable Growth; she said 90% of household income growth was due to women.
I read the report "Making Ends Meet", Nov. 2024, and it said 36% of households report "just getting by", and 47.9% say "money won't last". CFPB. And a Fed report, Economic Well Being of Households says that 52% say that a $2,000 expense is unpayable in 30 days. Which is absolutely bizarre since the national "average" household income is around $180,000 per year, and "average" household net worth is over $1.3 million. Quite a lot of adults have little savings -- "after 30 days could you pay normal expenses if you lost your main source of income?" About 41% say NO. CFPB. Living paycheck to paycheck? Maybe around 60% of higher. Not paying off full credit card balance each month? Half of all credit card holders, and another 16% do not have a credit card.
Life is unaffordable, regardless of that graph you show.
here's my blog: http://benL88.blogspot.com -- raise the minimum wage for the largest 2,000 corporations who employ on average over 20,000 workers, that's my great idea. 40 million workers get a big pay raise.
Air travel has been almost completely enshitified. I’m 5’11”. Not insanely tall. But I can’t fly coach for longer than 90 minutes. I do pay up for first class for longer flights. But increasingly, I’d rather not fly at all. Flying sucks. I don’t need it. And airlines don’t get my $$$. I hope that was their business plan because it’s working.
I think the discontent is explained by lifestyle creep. Take housing. Is it more expensive in high COL urban metros than it was a few decades ago? Undoubtedly, yes. But the homeownership rate taken as a whole hasn't budged much. Per FRED, it was ~63% when the series starts, in 1962. It was a bit shy of 66% as of Q4 2025. It peaked at 69% in 2004, but has generally fluctuated in the 63 to 69% range for as long a the series runs. Meanwhile, the housing stock has undoubtedly improved in the last 65 years-- houses have gotten bigger, have added amenities, pretty much all have indoor plumbing (which they didn't 60 years ago), etc. And when we talk about education costs, the sticker costs have gone up, but that's mitigated by a couple of things-- first, higher ed is just far more accessible now. Between 35 and 40% of prime age working adults today have 4 year college degrees. In the 1960s, that number was in the high single digits. Second, the sticker price isn't actually the price a lot of people pay. It's more of a tiered system-- if your family makes a lot of money, they pay $80K a year all in for Harvard. If, by some miracle, Harvard admits a kid whose family makes $150K a year, they're not paying anything. And, of course, in the example of airline travel, that was just an upper class activity half a century ago. Your middle class family may pay $400 to fly cross country in a cramped seat today; but in 1970, your middle class family didn't pay the $1,200 or so in 2026 dollars that the same flight cost, because they couldn't afford it.
So I think the discontent that people have, at least in comparative terms, is largely (but not entirely) just that the things they feel like they should be able to afford have changed. I had a conversation with a high school friend who talked about considering himself middle class. He lives in Manhattan. Household income is solidly in the mid six figures. But he complains that his life is unaffordable because a parking spot in his building on the Upper East Side costs a lot of money, and, if his kids could get into an elite private school, the $70K cost would be burdensome. And I point out to him that he's undoubtedly upper class, and that no one who can pay full freight at Dalton is middle class. Moral being that I think we have the same perspective around class that we've always had-- everyone thinks that they're middle class, and reaching the trappings of what you previously would have considered upper class just means that your perspective of what upper class means changes.
We live in a bubble, our friends agree with us, we read Jarod and others who we agree with, and about 40% of us support Trump and are also concerned about the future.
A touch of racism and misogyny and anti-semitism the absence of an alternative, the Dems can only bitch, a little pride in bombing the bad guys.
You can’t defeat anyone with nothing… the opposition is drifting… we just seem rudderless…
It doesn’t seem very complicated to me. I don’t understand why French has to labor so mightily to just approach the truth. But then, his background is evangelical conservatism.
If you can't afford a decent home, pay your student loans, and cringe at the supermarket checkout line, you're not "richer" than your parents or grandparents were. Period. Those are the only indicators that matter to most Americans. Most are, by those real-life standards, poorer than families were in the 1970s.
Big question Jared! Why is the scale in the income graph different on the left Y axis and the right Y axis? It seems to show in 1970 less than 5% of households had income less than $50,000, while in 2024 about 30% of households had incomes of less than $50,000. That's a horrible result!
You need to look at the right Y-axis for that series. It goes down from around 46% to around 30%, which is mostly due to more households shifting into higher brackets! That's good, as I note, but also what you'd expect unless GDP growth failed to reach anyone beyond the wealthiest, which thankfully, isn't the case.
If that is correct, what is the significance of the of the different numbers on the left Y axis?
The left y-axis is for the other series ($200K+).
Thank you.
even more dire is the Wealth distribution https://substack.com/profile/433745494-matzu-g/note/c-235630742?utm_source=substack&utm_content=first-note-modal
Interesting -- one thought is that your list of what policy makers can actually tackle, while practical, does not sound as emotionally appealing as something with a hint of glam.
Also, I wonder how much of the discontent is linked to the relentless social media onslaught of baby-faced influencers "living the dream" while most of us rush around battling traffic, deadlines and line-ups, grim faced, haggard and ragged, weighing whether we can afford a must-have or a "really-really-nice-to-have" when the only thing in our lives being "maxxed" is the credit card!
Shorter version:
r > g
Everything you've said is a consequence of this.
Catch Professor Phillips O'Brien's thoughts about four possible ground intervention scenarios in Iran All of them are very risky.🥷🏼🥷🏼🥷🏻🥷🏽🥷🏽🥷🏽
https://kathleenweber.substack.com/p/what-are-the-options-for-us-ground
We need answers more than definitions.
https://musingsofanobody.substack.com/p/affordability-and-the-sardines-postulate?r=q8120
I'll add a second comment: "Real Disposable Personal Income" increased by 277%, nearly quadrupled, between 1976 and 2024, shows the Fed FRED graph. And GDP/capita increased by 134%, same years. The wage income of the nonsupervisory worker increased by 3%, see BLS Table : https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
The cost of buying a home is 62% higher in 2024 than 1976. I divided the "median sales price" by the "weekly (and yearly) incomes of a production and nonsupervisory worker". It's a little involved, but basically in 1976 the median worker paid 4.7 times his yearly earnings for a median home, and in 2024 he/she paid 7.6 times that yearly wage income; that's 62% higher.
And let's say there's a student debt loan, a car loan, and a child care monthly payment.
It looks pretty bleak. Then the child or someone has health problems or the employer doesn't provide health insurance? Affordability is not in reach.
The U.S. Census data shows incomes rising for all levels, true. The median woman's annual earnings grew from $38,070 to $57,520, up $19,450 for full-time, and women's participation increased from 47% to 57%. And the median man's income increased from 63,250 to $71,090 (full-time) by $7,840, 1976 to 2024. Women's earnings contributed most to the rise in family incomes 1976 to 2024. Heather Boushey had an article about that in Washington Center for Equitable Growth; she said 90% of household income growth was due to women.
I read the report "Making Ends Meet", Nov. 2024, and it said 36% of households report "just getting by", and 47.9% say "money won't last". CFPB. And a Fed report, Economic Well Being of Households says that 52% say that a $2,000 expense is unpayable in 30 days. Which is absolutely bizarre since the national "average" household income is around $180,000 per year, and "average" household net worth is over $1.3 million. Quite a lot of adults have little savings -- "after 30 days could you pay normal expenses if you lost your main source of income?" About 41% say NO. CFPB. Living paycheck to paycheck? Maybe around 60% of higher. Not paying off full credit card balance each month? Half of all credit card holders, and another 16% do not have a credit card.
Life is unaffordable, regardless of that graph you show.
here's my blog: http://benL88.blogspot.com -- raise the minimum wage for the largest 2,000 corporations who employ on average over 20,000 workers, that's my great idea. 40 million workers get a big pay raise.
Air travel has been almost completely enshitified. I’m 5’11”. Not insanely tall. But I can’t fly coach for longer than 90 minutes. I do pay up for first class for longer flights. But increasingly, I’d rather not fly at all. Flying sucks. I don’t need it. And airlines don’t get my $$$. I hope that was their business plan because it’s working.
Count on David French to “discover” an idea that has been around for centuries. So, David, poverty means being unable to partake of a “normal” life?
Cue Adam Smith -
https://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Smith/tms132.html
So what’s French’s solution?
JK, doubt he has one that matters. He’s just pandering to libs to show that he’s hip even his insight is beyond obvious to anyone paying attention…
I think the discontent is explained by lifestyle creep. Take housing. Is it more expensive in high COL urban metros than it was a few decades ago? Undoubtedly, yes. But the homeownership rate taken as a whole hasn't budged much. Per FRED, it was ~63% when the series starts, in 1962. It was a bit shy of 66% as of Q4 2025. It peaked at 69% in 2004, but has generally fluctuated in the 63 to 69% range for as long a the series runs. Meanwhile, the housing stock has undoubtedly improved in the last 65 years-- houses have gotten bigger, have added amenities, pretty much all have indoor plumbing (which they didn't 60 years ago), etc. And when we talk about education costs, the sticker costs have gone up, but that's mitigated by a couple of things-- first, higher ed is just far more accessible now. Between 35 and 40% of prime age working adults today have 4 year college degrees. In the 1960s, that number was in the high single digits. Second, the sticker price isn't actually the price a lot of people pay. It's more of a tiered system-- if your family makes a lot of money, they pay $80K a year all in for Harvard. If, by some miracle, Harvard admits a kid whose family makes $150K a year, they're not paying anything. And, of course, in the example of airline travel, that was just an upper class activity half a century ago. Your middle class family may pay $400 to fly cross country in a cramped seat today; but in 1970, your middle class family didn't pay the $1,200 or so in 2026 dollars that the same flight cost, because they couldn't afford it.
So I think the discontent that people have, at least in comparative terms, is largely (but not entirely) just that the things they feel like they should be able to afford have changed. I had a conversation with a high school friend who talked about considering himself middle class. He lives in Manhattan. Household income is solidly in the mid six figures. But he complains that his life is unaffordable because a parking spot in his building on the Upper East Side costs a lot of money, and, if his kids could get into an elite private school, the $70K cost would be burdensome. And I point out to him that he's undoubtedly upper class, and that no one who can pay full freight at Dalton is middle class. Moral being that I think we have the same perspective around class that we've always had-- everyone thinks that they're middle class, and reaching the trappings of what you previously would have considered upper class just means that your perspective of what upper class means changes.
We live in a bubble, our friends agree with us, we read Jarod and others who we agree with, and about 40% of us support Trump and are also concerned about the future.
A touch of racism and misogyny and anti-semitism the absence of an alternative, the Dems can only bitch, a little pride in bombing the bad guys.
You can’t defeat anyone with nothing… the opposition is drifting… we just seem rudderless…
It doesn’t seem very complicated to me. I don’t understand why French has to labor so mightily to just approach the truth. But then, his background is evangelical conservatism.