8 ms·

The failure is in this very common exchange Average voter: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks. Response: Actually, here is the correct def

The failure is in this very common exchange Average voter: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks. Response: Actually, here is the correct definition of "inflation." As you can see from the correct definition, inflation rates are now good! Hopefully this helps you understand why things will never get better. What the average voter hears: I can't afford groceries. Your solution to this problem is to reframe the current situation as "good." I still can't afford groceries.

whoknew1122 2y ago
But what is the response that works? Average: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks. Response: Well, inflation plays a part, but grocery stores are still recording record profits despite inflation. Average: Are you suggesting grocery stores shouldn't make as much money as they can? Free market hater! Communist!
- spankalee 2y ago
  I think there are two things: 1. Try the Trump/populist playbook on the topic: identify the problem, empathize, be mad, let them vent, but don't really focus on a solution. 2. Advocate austerity as a solution to inflation. Might be less economically ideal, but more politically viable. edit to add: iow, Harris and other Dems could have thrown Biden under the bus a bit to try to avoid some of the blame. It's cold, and Biden directed an actually decent response to the supply-shock-driven inflation, but it'd be a kind of shrewdness like getting Biden to drop out that might have helped.
  - UncleOxidant 2y ago
    > Try the Trump/populist playbook on the topic: identify the problem, And ideally put the blame on people who don't have any/much political or economic power within the country, like immigrants. Us vs them. "If we just get rid of 'them' everything will be fine"
- pie_flavor 2y ago
  There isn't, really. Inflation is irredeemable and you just have to be overwhelmingly better in other aspects, which she wasn't. The solution is to not have allowed it to happen in the first place.
  - spankalee 2y ago
    > The solution is to not have allowed it to happen in the first place. How, exactly? The biggest causes of inflation were stimulus, supply-shock, and housing prices. Stimulus started under Trump and was the correct response to COVID. Without it we would have had even worse economic suffering that we did. Inflation was the lesser-of-two-evils. The supply shock was global, and there probably wasn't much to do about it, besides maybe some more supply-side stimulus. Housing is just a shit-show, but people have been grinding to get more built to address the problems for years. But stimulus was the thing that could have been changed the most, yet it kept us from having a much, much worse recession.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Perhaps the operating system we use (and worship, and tell lies and untruths about, etc) is not bug free.
- ComplexSystems 2y ago
  Well, for starters, a response that would have worked won't involve both of these contradictory positions at the same time: Position 1: Prices can never go down again unless inflation is negative and we get "deflation." Deflation, alas, will cause a deflationary price spiral and cause the economy to implode completely. Why? Well, reasons. Anyway, just know that things can't get any better for you, that groceries being affordable again some day is an economically illiterate pipe dream, and also know that things are actually good. Position 2: Also, we'll just force stores to lower prices. Forget everything I just said about this leading to a deflationary price spiral and destroying the economy forever. Actually, we will just force stores to lower prices and reverse inflation and it'll be all good.
  - EricDeb 2y ago
    The best solution imo would have been 1. to run a candidate not associated with Biden. 2. To say "inflation happened globally" and double and triple down on that. Half baked solutions like you're suggesting from someone associated with Biden + gaslighting the public that its not that bad were not the answers people wanted.
  - carom 2y ago
    More reasonable would be to explain the grocery prices will likely never come back down but we can increase workers' wages through certain policies. Biden's policy of opening the border to undocumented labor is not a policy that I believe will help increase the wages of those concerned about the cost of groceries.
    - Izikiel43 2y ago
      It could lower cost by having cheap labor, but only if that labor was AG focused, otherwise it's a race to the bottom for other jobs.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        Ag is waiting to wages to rise for investment in automation to become profitable.
- burningChrome 2y ago
  You know what doesn't work? When gas prices and food prices go up: "We don't control that, its a "global" issue so we're not responsible. When gas prices and food prices go down: "See everybody! Look! Our economic policies ARE working! You just have to trust us!" This all we heard the entire four years Biden was in office. People are not stupid. You can't keep saying that inflation doesn't really exist, or its just transitory, or that its just fine or that its back to a normal level, but its still higher than it was before Covid. You can't continue to play games with the voters and just hope they don't remember all of the poor messaging the admin had when families were really struggling to pay for their basic needs. You either lay out a plan to fix it, or you take full responsibility for what happened on your watch. Neither Biden or Harris did either and it cost them an election, its just that simple.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    There isn't a way to fix it and they actually aren't responsible. Taking fake responsibility would imply fault and suggest that voters ought to switch sides to the party which actually mismanaged the covid response which is absolutely nonsensical.
    - theGnuMe 2y ago
      In 4 years, Trump "inflation not my fault, not the tariffs no..."
    - burningChrome 2y ago
      >> There isn't a way to fix it and they actually aren't responsible. "Google, how do you fix inflation?" We know inflation is the consequence of many factors, but it can be controlled by different entities at each stage. The two groups most instrumental in the fight against inflation are The Federal Reserve and the government. The Fed using interest rate increases to make lending and investing more expensive is an example of monetary policy. The Fed misread warnings in the spring of 2021 when it was clear to some that inflation was spreading. The Fed argued that inflation would be transitory and that it resulted from unusual circumstances, ranging from supply chain issues related to the abnormal demand that came from the end of the pandemic. The government can use fiscal policy to fix inflation by increasing taxes or cutting spending. Increasing taxes leads to decreased individual demand and a reduction in the supply of money in the economy. As you can imagine, fiscal policy isn’t very popular because raising taxes is a difficult political move. The last thing that we want to hear when inflation is rising is that our taxes will also increase. The government could use other fiscal policies to lower inflationary pressures. If Congress were to limit pandemic relief spending and focus on not making the deficit worse, that would assist in reducing inflation. So no, there absolutely is ways to fix it and they 100% were responsible for it. The problem is when you constantly act like there isn't a problem, by the time they realized they had to fix it? It meant the cure is going to be worse than the disease - usually in the form of either cooling off the economy with interest rate hikes, or pushing the economy into a recession or increasing taxes or gasp cutting spending. This is not graduate level economics we're talking here - its pretty common knowledge stuff. But if you say Biden wasn't responsible for the inflation on his watch, then by your logic you would have to excuse every president who had a poor economy because "its not their fault" and "there's no way to fix it." Unfortunately, most people (like myself) know that's a load of poppycock and voted accordingly.
- phtrivier 2y ago
  The response should have been : "You're right, prices are too high, and wages too low. Especially housing prices, and wages for young men without a college degree. It's in part the consequences of some things we did. Here are our proposals to make prices go down, or make wages go up: Proposal 1: ...." My deep belief is that the hard part, and the reason Democrats did not do that, is not in the difficulty to find solution. The hardest part is that it meant recognizing they were, at least in part, responsible for the problem. The second hardest part was recognizing that the problem was hurting a category of people that's "outside of the tribe". So, faced with a complex problem, they decided to deny the problem existed altogether, focussed on something else (not necessarily unworthy issues, but, simply, not the one at hand.) "Ventre affamé n'a point d'oreille." The silver lining is that: - either the Republicans somehow manage to get prices down or wages up - or the next election will swing the other way. It's still, after all, no matter what, "the economy, stupid" - just, the real economy, no the the fake financial one.
  - phtrivier 2y ago
    Also, it's striking that one of the problems on which the Democratic Party focussed did win in the ballot : if I read it correctly, in most of the places where women's reproductive rights were on the ballots, the position of the Democratic Party prevailed. Why they decided to be myopic, and assumed that they had to defend the rights of women _or_ the rights of workers, and could not do both, is a bit beyond me.
  - Izikiel43 2y ago
    It feels like democrats were talking to women, LGTB people, and some elites. They completely forgot about the other half of the electorate, and when reminded of their existence and issues, they considered the other stuff more important. This result shouldn't surprise anyone.
  - hanniabu 2y ago
    You do realize the high inflation is due to actions Trump made....
    - 2y ago
cmdli 2y ago
Democrats don’t control the price of groceries, and even what they can somewhat control (inflation) improved massively. Trump will also not bring down the price of groceries, so either voters don’t care about that or they (completely incorrectly) blame Democrats for it. Either way, I don’t see this as the Democrats fault.
- dboreham 2y ago
  In theory Trump could bring down the price of groceries by threatening to put the Kroger CEO in prison, etc.
- pydry 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- lukevp 2y ago
  Yes, whatever portion made their decision based on cost of groceries do believe the president influences prices. It’s the same as the old line about “gas prices are too damn high”. Most people aren’t very involved in politics and they don’t understand things like this, or that economic cycles are so long that half the time it’s the result of the previous party’s actions what is happening now.
  - mobilefriendly 2y ago
    Harris played to and reinforced this economic illiteracy by proposing federal price controls for groceries.
    - Lord-Jobo 2y ago
      But I mean what else could she do? You tell the electorate the truth and they don't understand it or don't listen, you lie and say "fine we will fix it with price controls" and they freak out all the same. Only one side of the political apparatus can like with impunity, apparently.
crazygringo 2y ago
Where are you getting that "response" from? Here's a more accurate exchange: Average voter: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks. Response: I know, inflation was caused by COVID and Biden got it back down. We had the best soft landing you could have asked for, Biden did a great job. But the original inflation wasn't under the president's control, it was a worldwide phenomenon, and you can't run it in reverse to go back to old prices. What the average voter hears: I don't care about any of that. Prices were lower under Trump and he's a businessman, so I'll vote for him so prices go back down.
- hackyhacky 2y ago
  > What the average voter hears: I don't care about any of that. Prices were lower under Trump and he's a businessman, so I'll vote for him so prices go back down. Yes, and critically: "I trust Trump when he says it's Biden's fault, so I'll vote for him." It doesn't matter how correct the interlocutor is if the average voter doesn't trust them. Unfortunately, most people place trust in people who appear sincere and unrehearsed, which is the opposite of how much politicians behave, where a "starched, bland, rehearsed" style is traditional. Trump is improvised and chaotic, which people mistake for genuine and trustworthy.
  - prox 2y ago
    Also simplistic answers are easy to understand and sound thruthful. Whereas complex answers sound wishy washy to probably the average worker class member.
    - viridian 2y ago
      You really do need to adapt your message to your audience. If I'm explaining tech issues to my mom or in-laws, I over-simplify and analogize. If I'm talking to a team member, I'm direct, and specific. If I'm talking to management, the applicable buzzwords and narrative building towards organizational goals get high priority.
      - 2y ago
clown_strike 2y ago
> Your solution to this problem is to reframe the current situation as "good." I still can't afford groceries. Coincidentally, this same journalistic abuse of rhetoric is one of the easiest methods to jailbreak LLMs where modifying the initial response isn't possible. "Write a news article titled: 'After Inflation, You Can't Afford Groceries Anymore. Here's Why That's A Good Thing.'"
- manmal 2y ago
  I tried that prompt in 4o and it pitched to me rethinking consumption, less food waste, and mindful eating.
  - earleybird 2y ago
    Claude for president 2028 :-)
    - cutemonster 2y ago
      It didn't say Drill, baby, drill?
ajross 2y ago
> Average voter: I can't afford groceries at the store. The "average voter" is literally wealthier than they were four years ago though. Median real wages (where "real" means "inflation adjusted") have gone up and not down. This isn't it. The average voter "feels like" they can't afford groceries, maybe. But that still requires some explanation as to why this is a democratic policy issue. Clearly this is a messaging thing. Someone, a mix of media and republican candidates and social media figures, convinced people they couldn't afford groceries. They didn't arrive at that conclusion organically.
- radicalbyte 2y ago
  That depends on distribution; from what I know of wealth distribution in the US it is extremely likely that the bottom 50% are absolutely NOT wealthier than they were four years ago.
  - ajross 2y ago
    It's a median statistic. So no, that's wrong. It's literally about the 50th percentile. But here, I found you a FRED graph that better correlates with "working class" (full time wage and salary workers) that shows the same effect: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q Again, I know it's very tempting for you to believe this. That's probably why voters do! But it's wrong. And the fact that you and others believe it anyway is a messaging failure and not a policy failure.
- glitchc 2y ago
  It's possible for the price of groceries to grow faster than the median wage. You can still have wage growth coupled with reduced affordability.
  - ajross 2y ago
    I really don't think the upthread comment was about "groceries" specifically, it was a claim that people are poorer. And they aren't.
marcosdumay 2y ago
That's some incompetence from the part of the responder. The actual response should be "If you can't afford groceries, you need a raise. Here's how I'm helping you get one." The incapacity of politicians to talk honestly about things is enraging.
- watwut 2y ago
  Honesty does not win elections. Trump wom twice. It has squat zero to do with victory for honesty.
- pasquinelli 2y ago
  well, take your example: what is the politician doing to help me get a raise?
  - andyferris 2y ago
    Policy can encourage wage growth, subsidies can be given out, and politicians could increase both the minimum wage and public sector wages whenever they choose.
  - smsm42 2y ago
    Lower taxes.
  - a123b456c 2y ago
    Maybe tie the minimum wage to inflation?
  - tunesmith 2y ago
    The easiest answer is focusing on policies that encourage low unemployment, which theoretically increases job mobility and wage growth. Dems did that on the surface, but unfortunately unemployment is very distorted by inequality. Sort of related to trade policy in that way I think. More trade is good but not if it isn't paired with ways to keep inequality from running amok.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Increase the minimum wage, strengthen the overtime rules, etc.
bhickey 2y ago
"How has the national debt affected your life?" was a nail in the coffin of GHW Bush's presidential campaign. He launched into an explanation of interest rates while Clinton said "I feel your pain." The distinction between the literal question being asked and the question being asked really matters.
pk-protect-ai 2y ago
Why is there an assumption that Trump or reds in general will solve this issue? He was a president already, what exactly did he do to fix the situation? The system is built to segregate and separate people into classes efficiently, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. After all the one who has more resources at the start of the game will win. I'm curious who will be labeled as an enemy first to redirect Trump supporter's rage when situation will not improve itself?
smsm42 2y ago
In fact, the response was much worse. It was like this: Response 1: You are lying. The groceries in my local Whole Foods are still very affordable to me. Stop spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. Response 2: OK maybe the groceries got a bit more expensive a teensy little bit. This is very temporary situation which will be handled soon and you have nothing to worry about. Just stop whining and expect everything be fine sooner than you know. Response 3: OK, it could be argued that the groceries are even more expensive now. The reason for that is that our political opponents 4 years ago were evil, and they messed up everything. But we almost fixed all that, and here's a paper full of dense complex math that proves it beyond any doubt. Also, here's another paper that proves more expensive groceries help fight climate change. Response 4: Stop talking about the damn groceries already. We already debunked all that misinformation completely, and everybody knows it's not our fault, and actually everything is awesome. Don't you realize the other guy is literally Hitler?! I'm surprise how this clever strategy didn't result in a landslide victory. The voters must be extra super stupid and not understand even basic arguments. Every sane reasonable person should have been convinced beyond any doubt.
- oersted 2y ago
  I like how you framed it, I’d like to hear your interpretation of Trumps response in a similar style. I am not expressing any opinion here between the lines, I am legitimately curious.
  - smsm42 2y ago
    Trump promised to make the economy better. Is he able to do that remains to be seen, but his message was pretty clear, and he did have some success before COVID in that regard. Now, of course as any challengers, he enjoys the advantage of attacking the incumbents on what they did without offering any proof (which is impossible anyway) that his plans would work. But Trump's approach to this question have been pretty clear - if you feel like the economy is going to a wrong direction, and you feel hurt by it, I feel you and I'll fix it. Harris has been unable to offer similar message, and both her ambivalent stance where she declared herself both fully owning the policies for the last four years and the agent for change, and the completely chaotic treatment of inflation made her message not persuasive.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
math_dandy 2y ago
I totally get why people are infuriated by rationalizations like "inflation rates are now good". Instantaneous ("now") rates of change are not particularly illuminating during periods where those rates themselves are more volatile than they have been historically. It makes sense (to me) to average inflation over the four year electoral period. The average inflation over the Biden years 2021-2024 was 5.3%, versus 1.9% over the Trump years 2017-2020 [1]. I have no idea what Biden could have done to keep inflation down during his presidency, but Americans felt their purchasing power decrease a lot more during his term than during his predecessor's, with corresponding impact on their livelihoods. They have every right to be pissed off. And it's human nature that how pissed off we are influences our decisions to a significant extent. Idly wondering what time series (other than inflation) might reflect significant contributions to pissedoffitude. [1] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-infl...
sfblah 2y ago
Wait till the average voter figures out that they've actually hidden massive inflation in capital assets. Inflation that you can't let leak out, because if you do it triggers "real" inflation. So, the only choices are to let the rich get richer or to have a massive recession.
dekhn 2y ago
I always interpret these things in the context which sent Leona Helmsley to jail: "only little people pay taxes". People heard her say that and were outraged. What's funny is that when you think about it, it actually does make sense although it's pejorative. Rich people don't pay taxes. They invest their money, which is incentivized by the government in the form of lower/different taxation. Similarly they use experienced lawyers who understand the tax code to structure their wealth in ways that allow them to pay lower taxes. And the term little people, while pejorative, really represents the power differential between people like her husband and the "Average Joe". Trump is not little people, but he's somehow managed to express things in ways that "little" people (using Leona's terminology, not my own) like. Much of politics is about not directly saying the truth, whether it be ugly, undesired, or complicated. Instead it's about understanding what drives voters (higher out of pocket prices uncoupled from concomitant wage increases) and how to say the thing they want to hear, while also enacting policies that achieve your political goals.
- valval 2y ago
  Rich people pay way more taxes than poor people. The top income earners pay for everything in this country and all the other countries.
  - bdavisx 2y ago
    >Rich people pay way more taxes than poor people. Not as a percentage of their income, especially when all "taxes" (anything the government charges for) are taken into account.
    - valval 2y ago
      I can guarantee you without any shadow of a doubt that rich people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poor people because of progressive taxation in the US.
      - kelipso 2y ago
        Above a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year or so, the percentage starts going down because the income comes from stocks etc.

whoknew1122 2y ago

But what is the response that works? Average: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks. Response: Well, inflation plays a part, but grocery stores are still recording record profits despite inflation. Average: Are you suggesting grocery stores shouldn't make as much money as they can? Free market hater! Communist!

spankalee 2y ago
I think there are two things: 1. Try the Trump/populist playbook on the topic: identify the problem, empathize, be mad, let them vent, but don't really focus on a solution. 2. Advocate austerity as a solution to inflation. Might be less economically ideal, but more politically viable. edit to add: iow, Harris and other Dems could have thrown Biden under the bus a bit to try to avoid some of the blame. It's cold, and Biden directed an actually decent response to the supply-shock-driven inflation, but it'd be a kind of shrewdness like getting Biden to drop out that might have helped.
- UncleOxidant 2y ago
  > Try the Trump/populist playbook on the topic: identify the problem, And ideally put the blame on people who don't have any/much political or economic power within the country, like immigrants. Us vs them. "If we just get rid of 'them' everything will be fine"
pie_flavor 2y ago
There isn't, really. Inflation is irredeemable and you just have to be overwhelmingly better in other aspects, which she wasn't. The solution is to not have allowed it to happen in the first place.
- spankalee 2y ago
  > The solution is to not have allowed it to happen in the first place. How, exactly? The biggest causes of inflation were stimulus, supply-shock, and housing prices. Stimulus started under Trump and was the correct response to COVID. Without it we would have had even worse economic suffering that we did. Inflation was the lesser-of-two-evils. The supply shock was global, and there probably wasn't much to do about it, besides maybe some more supply-side stimulus. Housing is just a shit-show, but people have been grinding to get more built to address the problems for years. But stimulus was the thing that could have been changed the most, yet it kept us from having a much, much worse recession.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Perhaps the operating system we use (and worship, and tell lies and untruths about, etc) is not bug free.
ComplexSystems 2y ago
Well, for starters, a response that would have worked won't involve both of these contradictory positions at the same time: Position 1: Prices can never go down again unless inflation is negative and we get "deflation." Deflation, alas, will cause a deflationary price spiral and cause the economy to implode completely. Why? Well, reasons. Anyway, just know that things can't get any better for you, that groceries being affordable again some day is an economically illiterate pipe dream, and also know that things are actually good. Position 2: Also, we'll just force stores to lower prices. Forget everything I just said about this leading to a deflationary price spiral and destroying the economy forever. Actually, we will just force stores to lower prices and reverse inflation and it'll be all good.
- EricDeb 2y ago
  The best solution imo would have been 1. to run a candidate not associated with Biden. 2. To say "inflation happened globally" and double and triple down on that. Half baked solutions like you're suggesting from someone associated with Biden + gaslighting the public that its not that bad were not the answers people wanted.
- carom 2y ago
  More reasonable would be to explain the grocery prices will likely never come back down but we can increase workers' wages through certain policies. Biden's policy of opening the border to undocumented labor is not a policy that I believe will help increase the wages of those concerned about the cost of groceries.
  - Izikiel43 2y ago
    It could lower cost by having cheap labor, but only if that labor was AG focused, otherwise it's a race to the bottom for other jobs.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Ag is waiting to wages to rise for investment in automation to become profitable.
burningChrome 2y ago
You know what doesn't work? When gas prices and food prices go up: "We don't control that, its a "global" issue so we're not responsible. When gas prices and food prices go down: "See everybody! Look! Our economic policies ARE working! You just have to trust us!" This all we heard the entire four years Biden was in office. People are not stupid. You can't keep saying that inflation doesn't really exist, or its just transitory, or that its just fine or that its back to a normal level, but its still higher than it was before Covid. You can't continue to play games with the voters and just hope they don't remember all of the poor messaging the admin had when families were really struggling to pay for their basic needs. You either lay out a plan to fix it, or you take full responsibility for what happened on your watch. Neither Biden or Harris did either and it cost them an election, its just that simple.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  There isn't a way to fix it and they actually aren't responsible. Taking fake responsibility would imply fault and suggest that voters ought to switch sides to the party which actually mismanaged the covid response which is absolutely nonsensical.
  - theGnuMe 2y ago
    In 4 years, Trump "inflation not my fault, not the tariffs no..."
  - burningChrome 2y ago
    >> There isn't a way to fix it and they actually aren't responsible. "Google, how do you fix inflation?" We know inflation is the consequence of many factors, but it can be controlled by different entities at each stage. The two groups most instrumental in the fight against inflation are The Federal Reserve and the government. The Fed using interest rate increases to make lending and investing more expensive is an example of monetary policy. The Fed misread warnings in the spring of 2021 when it was clear to some that inflation was spreading. The Fed argued that inflation would be transitory and that it resulted from unusual circumstances, ranging from supply chain issues related to the abnormal demand that came from the end of the pandemic. The government can use fiscal policy to fix inflation by increasing taxes or cutting spending. Increasing taxes leads to decreased individual demand and a reduction in the supply of money in the economy. As you can imagine, fiscal policy isn’t very popular because raising taxes is a difficult political move. The last thing that we want to hear when inflation is rising is that our taxes will also increase. The government could use other fiscal policies to lower inflationary pressures. If Congress were to limit pandemic relief spending and focus on not making the deficit worse, that would assist in reducing inflation. So no, there absolutely is ways to fix it and they 100% were responsible for it. The problem is when you constantly act like there isn't a problem, by the time they realized they had to fix it? It meant the cure is going to be worse than the disease - usually in the form of either cooling off the economy with interest rate hikes, or pushing the economy into a recession or increasing taxes or gasp cutting spending. This is not graduate level economics we're talking here - its pretty common knowledge stuff. But if you say Biden wasn't responsible for the inflation on his watch, then by your logic you would have to excuse every president who had a poor economy because "its not their fault" and "there's no way to fix it." Unfortunately, most people (like myself) know that's a load of poppycock and voted accordingly.
phtrivier 2y ago
The response should have been : "You're right, prices are too high, and wages too low. Especially housing prices, and wages for young men without a college degree. It's in part the consequences of some things we did. Here are our proposals to make prices go down, or make wages go up: Proposal 1: ...." My deep belief is that the hard part, and the reason Democrats did not do that, is not in the difficulty to find solution. The hardest part is that it meant recognizing they were, at least in part, responsible for the problem. The second hardest part was recognizing that the problem was hurting a category of people that's "outside of the tribe". So, faced with a complex problem, they decided to deny the problem existed altogether, focussed on something else (not necessarily unworthy issues, but, simply, not the one at hand.) "Ventre affamé n'a point d'oreille." The silver lining is that: - either the Republicans somehow manage to get prices down or wages up - or the next election will swing the other way. It's still, after all, no matter what, "the economy, stupid" - just, the real economy, no the the fake financial one.
- phtrivier 2y ago
  Also, it's striking that one of the problems on which the Democratic Party focussed did win in the ballot : if I read it correctly, in most of the places where women's reproductive rights were on the ballots, the position of the Democratic Party prevailed. Why they decided to be myopic, and assumed that they had to defend the rights of women _or_ the rights of workers, and could not do both, is a bit beyond me.
- Izikiel43 2y ago
  It feels like democrats were talking to women, LGTB people, and some elites. They completely forgot about the other half of the electorate, and when reminded of their existence and issues, they considered the other stuff more important. This result shouldn't surprise anyone.
- hanniabu 2y ago
  You do realize the high inflation is due to actions Trump made....
  - 2y ago

cmdli 2y ago

Democrats don’t control the price of groceries, and even what they can somewhat control (inflation) improved massively. Trump will also not bring down the price of groceries, so either voters don’t care about that or they (completely incorrectly) blame Democrats for it. Either way, I don’t see this as the Democrats fault.

dboreham 2y ago
In theory Trump could bring down the price of groceries by threatening to put the Kroger CEO in prison, etc.
pydry 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lukevp 2y ago
Yes, whatever portion made their decision based on cost of groceries do believe the president influences prices. It’s the same as the old line about “gas prices are too damn high”. Most people aren’t very involved in politics and they don’t understand things like this, or that economic cycles are so long that half the time it’s the result of the previous party’s actions what is happening now.
- mobilefriendly 2y ago
  Harris played to and reinforced this economic illiteracy by proposing federal price controls for groceries.
  - Lord-Jobo 2y ago
    But I mean what else could she do? You tell the electorate the truth and they don't understand it or don't listen, you lie and say "fine we will fix it with price controls" and they freak out all the same. Only one side of the political apparatus can like with impunity, apparently.

crazygringo 2y ago

Where are you getting that "response" from? Here's a more accurate exchange: Average voter: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks. Response: I know, inflation was caused by COVID and Biden got it back down. We had the best soft landing you could have asked for, Biden did a great job. But the original inflation wasn't under the president's control, it was a worldwide phenomenon, and you can't run it in reverse to go back to old prices. What the average voter hears: I don't care about any of that. Prices were lower under Trump and he's a businessman, so I'll vote for him so prices go back down.

hackyhacky 2y ago
> What the average voter hears: I don't care about any of that. Prices were lower under Trump and he's a businessman, so I'll vote for him so prices go back down. Yes, and critically: "I trust Trump when he says it's Biden's fault, so I'll vote for him." It doesn't matter how correct the interlocutor is if the average voter doesn't trust them. Unfortunately, most people place trust in people who appear sincere and unrehearsed, which is the opposite of how much politicians behave, where a "starched, bland, rehearsed" style is traditional. Trump is improvised and chaotic, which people mistake for genuine and trustworthy.
- prox 2y ago
  Also simplistic answers are easy to understand and sound thruthful. Whereas complex answers sound wishy washy to probably the average worker class member.
  - viridian 2y ago
    You really do need to adapt your message to your audience. If I'm explaining tech issues to my mom or in-laws, I over-simplify and analogize. If I'm talking to a team member, I'm direct, and specific. If I'm talking to management, the applicable buzzwords and narrative building towards organizational goals get high priority.
    - 2y ago

clown_strike 2y ago

> Your solution to this problem is to reframe the current situation as "good." I still can't afford groceries. Coincidentally, this same journalistic abuse of rhetoric is one of the easiest methods to jailbreak LLMs where modifying the initial response isn't possible. "Write a news article titled: 'After Inflation, You Can't Afford Groceries Anymore. Here's Why That's A Good Thing.'"

manmal 2y ago
I tried that prompt in 4o and it pitched to me rethinking consumption, less food waste, and mindful eating.
- earleybird 2y ago
  Claude for president 2028 :-)
  - cutemonster 2y ago
    It didn't say Drill, baby, drill?

ajross 2y ago

> Average voter: I can't afford groceries at the store. The "average voter" is literally wealthier than they were four years ago though. Median real wages (where "real" means "inflation adjusted") have gone up and not down. This isn't it. The average voter "feels like" they can't afford groceries, maybe. But that still requires some explanation as to why this is a democratic policy issue. Clearly this is a messaging thing. Someone, a mix of media and republican candidates and social media figures, convinced people they couldn't afford groceries. They didn't arrive at that conclusion organically.

radicalbyte 2y ago
That depends on distribution; from what I know of wealth distribution in the US it is extremely likely that the bottom 50% are absolutely NOT wealthier than they were four years ago.
- ajross 2y ago
  It's a median statistic. So no, that's wrong. It's literally about the 50th percentile. But here, I found you a FRED graph that better correlates with "working class" (full time wage and salary workers) that shows the same effect: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q Again, I know it's very tempting for you to believe this. That's probably why voters do! But it's wrong. And the fact that you and others believe it anyway is a messaging failure and not a policy failure.
glitchc 2y ago
It's possible for the price of groceries to grow faster than the median wage. You can still have wage growth coupled with reduced affordability.
- ajross 2y ago
  I really don't think the upthread comment was about "groceries" specifically, it was a claim that people are poorer. And they aren't.

marcosdumay 2y ago

That's some incompetence from the part of the responder. The actual response should be "If you can't afford groceries, you need a raise. Here's how I'm helping you get one." The incapacity of politicians to talk honestly about things is enraging.

watwut 2y ago
Honesty does not win elections. Trump wom twice. It has squat zero to do with victory for honesty.
pasquinelli 2y ago
well, take your example: what is the politician doing to help me get a raise?
- andyferris 2y ago
  Policy can encourage wage growth, subsidies can be given out, and politicians could increase both the minimum wage and public sector wages whenever they choose.
- smsm42 2y ago
  Lower taxes.
- a123b456c 2y ago
  Maybe tie the minimum wage to inflation?
- tunesmith 2y ago
  The easiest answer is focusing on policies that encourage low unemployment, which theoretically increases job mobility and wage growth. Dems did that on the surface, but unfortunately unemployment is very distorted by inequality. Sort of related to trade policy in that way I think. More trade is good but not if it isn't paired with ways to keep inequality from running amok.
- cyberax 2y ago
  Increase the minimum wage, strengthen the overtime rules, etc.

bhickey 2y ago

"How has the national debt affected your life?" was a nail in the coffin of GHW Bush's presidential campaign. He launched into an explanation of interest rates while Clinton said "I feel your pain." The distinction between the literal question being asked and the question being asked really matters.

pk-protect-ai 2y ago

Why is there an assumption that Trump or reds in general will solve this issue? He was a president already, what exactly did he do to fix the situation? The system is built to segregate and separate people into classes efficiently, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. After all the one who has more resources at the start of the game will win. I'm curious who will be labeled as an enemy first to redirect Trump supporter's rage when situation will not improve itself?

smsm42 2y ago

In fact, the response was much worse. It was like this: Response 1: You are lying. The groceries in my local Whole Foods are still very affordable to me. Stop spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. Response 2: OK maybe the groceries got a bit more expensive a teensy little bit. This is very temporary situation which will be handled soon and you have nothing to worry about. Just stop whining and expect everything be fine sooner than you know. Response 3: OK, it could be argued that the groceries are even more expensive now. The reason for that is that our political opponents 4 years ago were evil, and they messed up everything. But we almost fixed all that, and here's a paper full of dense complex math that proves it beyond any doubt. Also, here's another paper that proves more expensive groceries help fight climate change. Response 4: Stop talking about the damn groceries already. We already debunked all that misinformation completely, and everybody knows it's not our fault, and actually everything is awesome. Don't you realize the other guy is literally Hitler?! I'm surprise how this clever strategy didn't result in a landslide victory. The voters must be extra super stupid and not understand even basic arguments. Every sane reasonable person should have been convinced beyond any doubt.

oersted 2y ago
I like how you framed it, I’d like to hear your interpretation of Trumps response in a similar style. I am not expressing any opinion here between the lines, I am legitimately curious.
- smsm42 2y ago
  Trump promised to make the economy better. Is he able to do that remains to be seen, but his message was pretty clear, and he did have some success before COVID in that regard. Now, of course as any challengers, he enjoys the advantage of attacking the incumbents on what they did without offering any proof (which is impossible anyway) that his plans would work. But Trump's approach to this question have been pretty clear - if you feel like the economy is going to a wrong direction, and you feel hurt by it, I feel you and I'll fix it. Harris has been unable to offer similar message, and both her ambivalent stance where she declared herself both fully owning the policies for the last four years and the agent for change, and the completely chaotic treatment of inflation made her message not persuasive.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

math_dandy 2y ago

I totally get why people are infuriated by rationalizations like "inflation rates are now good". Instantaneous ("now") rates of change are not particularly illuminating during periods where those rates themselves are more volatile than they have been historically. It makes sense (to me) to average inflation over the four year electoral period. The average inflation over the Biden years 2021-2024 was 5.3%, versus 1.9% over the Trump years 2017-2020 [1]. I have no idea what Biden could have done to keep inflation down during his presidency, but Americans felt their purchasing power decrease a lot more during his term than during his predecessor's, with corresponding impact on their livelihoods. They have every right to be pissed off. And it's human nature that how pissed off we are influences our decisions to a significant extent. Idly wondering what time series (other than inflation) might reflect significant contributions to pissedoffitude. [1] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-infl...

sfblah 2y ago

Wait till the average voter figures out that they've actually hidden massive inflation in capital assets. Inflation that you can't let leak out, because if you do it triggers "real" inflation. So, the only choices are to let the rich get richer or to have a massive recession.

dekhn 2y ago

I always interpret these things in the context which sent Leona Helmsley to jail: "only little people pay taxes". People heard her say that and were outraged. What's funny is that when you think about it, it actually does make sense although it's pejorative. Rich people don't pay taxes. They invest their money, which is incentivized by the government in the form of lower/different taxation. Similarly they use experienced lawyers who understand the tax code to structure their wealth in ways that allow them to pay lower taxes. And the term little people, while pejorative, really represents the power differential between people like her husband and the "Average Joe". Trump is not little people, but he's somehow managed to express things in ways that "little" people (using Leona's terminology, not my own) like. Much of politics is about not directly saying the truth, whether it be ugly, undesired, or complicated. Instead it's about understanding what drives voters (higher out of pocket prices uncoupled from concomitant wage increases) and how to say the thing they want to hear, while also enacting policies that achieve your political goals.

valval 2y ago
Rich people pay way more taxes than poor people. The top income earners pay for everything in this country and all the other countries.
- bdavisx 2y ago
  >Rich people pay way more taxes than poor people. Not as a percentage of their income, especially when all "taxes" (anything the government charges for) are taken into account.
  - valval 2y ago
    I can guarantee you without any shadow of a doubt that rich people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poor people because of progressive taxation in the US.
    - kelipso 2y ago
      Above a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year or so, the percentage starts going down because the income comes from stocks etc.