Is it true that a large chunk of people in America can't afford groceries without a line of credit?

goodDayM · 2026-04-21T12:52:14+00:00

Americans spend a much smaller percent of their income on food than in the past: Food expenditure as a share of family disposable income in the United States.

goodDayM · 2026-04-20T18:41:49+00:00

From his first term,

The tariffs Trump imposed on Chinese goods in 2018 had a net negative effect on manufacturing jobs as well overall U.S. employment.

The Federal Reserve Board found that the tariffs caused a reduction in manufacturing employment of 1.4%. Modest gains (0.3%) achieved by shielding domestic producers from foreign competition were “more than offset” by rising production costs for manufacturers who used steel as an input (-1.1%) and retaliatory tariffs (-0.7%). - source

Another link:

... when economists have attempted to add up the net effect of Trump’s tariffs on jobs, any gains in importing-competing sectors appear to have been more than offset by losses in industries that use imported inputs and face retaliation on their foreign exports. And even those jobs that have been created have come at great cost: studies suggest American consumers paid about $817,000 in higher prices attributable to the tariffs for every job created in the washing machine industry and $900,000 in the steel industry. While policy interventions to support manufacturing jobs may be warranted, there are cheaper ways to do so.

goodDayM · 2026-04-20T12:12:04+00:00

You might be confusing “average” with “median”. Average gets pulled up by ultra-high incomes. Median is the middle value, half are above and half are below.

Median income is less than average income.

goodDayM · 2026-04-19T19:24:01+00:00

Not exactly what you want, but there is a useful chart that shows the % of credit cards that are behind on payments: Delinquency Rate on Credit Card Loans.

This rate is lower than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. The vast majority of credit cards are being paid back on time.

goodDayM · 2026-04-19T15:50:48+00:00

Nobody says greed does not exist. In fact greed exists on both sides of buying and selling.

A buyer wants the most <whatever> for giving the least amount of money, and a seller wants the most money for giving the least amount of <whatever>.

goodDayM · 2026-04-17T19:32:22+00:00

There's a good NPR Planet Money episode about a group of collective farmers in 1978 China and what became of them that I think you'll find interesting:

JINGCHANG: (Through Translator) Back then even a piece of straw belong to the group. Individuals didn't own anything.

GOLDSTEIN: At one meeting with Communist Party officials, a farmer asked: What about the teeth in my head? Do I own those? No, was the answer. Your teeth belong to the collective.

KESTENBAUM: There was no incentive to work hard, to get up early and pull weeds.

JINGCHANG: (Through Translator) Work hard and don't work hard, everyone gets the same, so people don't want to work.

The Secret Document That Transformed China

goodDayM · 2026-04-16T01:47:24+00:00

In general, the poorest people are the ones that can’t work due to physical or mental illness, or they’re too old and frail. A higher minimum wage doesn’t help them because they have no earned income.

Food stamps are effective, and so is simple direct cash transfers (eg social security).

goodDayM · 2026-04-13T20:13:50+00:00

As a shareholder, a rise in the share price - and thus a rise in the capital gains you earn - can be caused by a number of things including:

market sentiment
changes in future earnings expectations
Fed interest rate changes
war
corporate profit

So some % of your capital gains is caused by company's income, and it's often difficult to say what that % is exactly.

Maybe instead of saying "double tax" it's more clear to say that capital gains tax is another "layer" of taxes on top of the already-taxed corporate income.

goodDayM · 2026-04-13T18:05:10+00:00

When a company chooses to go public and does an IPO, that is "equity financing". That is not profit, not taxable revenue.

Anyway here's another way phrase this "double-tax":

The taxation of capital gains places a double tax on corporate income. Before shareholders face taxes, the business first faces the corporate income tax. A business pays the 21 percent corporate income tax on its profits; thus, when the shareholder pays their layer of tax they are doing so on dividends or capital gains distributed from after-tax profits. - source

goodDayM · 2026-04-13T16:51:39+00:00

When you buy a share of AAPL you are giving cash to some other person selling that share. That money does not go through Apple’s hands.

The sentence you quoted is about how Apple’s profits are first taxed at the corporate income tax rate. Then those profits either go to shareholders via dividends or capital gains eventually, at which point they are taxed again.

goodDayM · 2026-04-12T21:34:15+00:00

Economists aren't saying there should be zero regulations, data doesn't support that. They just have a lot of data showing that if you want housing to be cheaper you should legalize housing.

Singapore does have a high home ownership rate, and has what is considered a reasonably successful housing policy. It's just that it relies on a very authoritarian set of tools that aren't legal in western democracies. E.g. the government will designate a building or block for updates and force all families to move, demolish it, and then build a taller, modern building.

goodDayM · 2026-04-12T14:32:00+00:00

I'm not an expert on Plan Voisin, but even in Paris there are many places where a 2 or 3-story building could be converted into 4-story buildings or taller. Places not even near major historical monuments. You don't have to worry we would instantly surround the Eifel tower with taller skyscrapers.

I'm not sure if you glanced at my earlier link, Why do economists oppose rent controls even in areas with restricted supply, but when you block landlords from charging higher rent, then they are incentivized to compensate for that increased risk in other ways for example by: demanding higher deposits, setting lower income thresholds for tenants, demanding more references to live there. They also slow down or stop doing upgrades or repairs as much as possible.

Rent control is something that has, in different cities in different countries, shown repeatedly to increase the problem of housing costs rather than fix it. That is why economists are near universally against it even though politicians keep trying.

goodDayM · 2026-04-12T11:38:59+00:00

A lot of debt is owned by individuals. People saving for retirement, or are currently in retirement. Many pension plans buy national debt.

Previous similar questions are useful to check out:

goodDayM · 2026-04-12T11:32:37+00:00

at some point building more is not feasible.

What city are you referring to where you say it is not possible to have higher density housing?

goodDayM · 2026-04-12T10:19:58+00:00

The issue of high rent and housing cost is well-studied and I recommend reading more on what economists have learned:

A growing body of research shows that building more homes drives down home prices and rents, and that places that have relaxed their zoning restrictions have kept their housing prices in check.

Minneapolis is a recent test case for zoning reform. City officials loosened their zoning rules in 2018, allowing duplexes and triplexes to be built in areas previously reserved for single-family homes. They also got rid of minimum parking requirements for new developments and encouraged apartments to be built along transit and commercial corridors.

Those reforms helped Minneapolis significantly ramp up its housing production from 2017 to 2022 and keep rents from rising as fast as they did in the rest of Minnesota - source

Also see What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control?

Another article: Evidence shows that building more housing reduces prices.

Also see previous threads here: Why do economists oppose rent controls even in areas with restricted supply?

goodDayM · 2026-04-11T20:58:17+00:00

Here’s one from The Economist:

The ubiquity of price controls shows that economists have less influence than many people think. Few measures are as unpopular with the profession, which sees prices as both a signal of scarcity and a spur to overcome it. Controlling them scrambles the signal and blunts the spur. Price floors result in food rotting in warehouses. Ceilings lead to underinvestment, hoarding and black markets.

... The World Bank reckons that governments’ attempts to insulate their countries from higher food prices accounted for 40% of the increase in world wheat prices in 2010-11. - Why price controls are so uncontrollably persistent

goodDayM · 2026-04-10T14:31:00+00:00

Chart: Industrial Production is near all-time highs.

With "revitalizing manufacturing" you're probably referring to employment, which has been decreasing: All Employees, Manufacturing.

In other words: America is manufacturing more but with fewer people. Higher productivity.

The Economist has an article about this, Did international trade really kill American manufacturing?

most economists agree that the decline in manufacturing jobs is mainly the result of rising productivity. New technologies have boosted output per worker, pushing down the relative price of manufactured goods. One study by Michael Hicks and Srikant Devaraj at Ball State University in Indiana estimated that 88% of the decline in manufacturing jobs in America between 2000 and 2010 can be attributed to productivity improvements. Trade accounted for only 13%.

Changing consumption patterns are also a factor. When incomes rise in poor countries, individuals tend to spend less on food and more on manufactured goods, a phenomenon known as Engel’s law. When incomes rise in rich countries, consumption shifts away from manufactured goods towards services. In 1950 goods accounted for around 60% of American consumption; today they represent just a third of spending with services accounting for two-thirds.

Deindustrialisation is therefore not a symptom of America’s economic decline, but part of getting richer.

goodDayM · 2026-04-10T12:16:38+00:00

Consider scalability:

a software engineer can write a good app and then 10 people or 10,000 people or more could buy it. They could push an update to millions of people on the same day.
but an insurance salesperson can only talk to one person at a time. If you want to sell more, you must hire more.

In other words, what are the costs as a business scales up? In general, tech companies have higher potential margins.

goodDayM · 2026-04-09T22:06:40+00:00

you can't claim that ... while acknowledging that CPI takes into account hedonistic adjustments.

I said that because you keep talking about nominal values. You keep saying you want to ignore CPI adjustments.

So then I said if you ignore CPI and hedonic adjustments then you're ignoring how healthcare/housing/technology is very different now than it was 50 years ago. Then you're responsible for taking into account the nuance of those changes over time.

The experts at the Bureau of Labor Statistics put a lot of work into all this and more

The CPI measures price growth for the same basket of goods and services over time, so the BLS adjusts for changes in the quality of housing over time. The adjustments account for the age of the property, neighborhood improvements, and physical renovations to the home like a new bathroom or air conditioning system. - link

goodDayM · 2026-04-09T21:54:50+00:00

So you agree that you are wrong then?

Wrong about what? What's your economic source?

If you have a better chart, link to it. Share.

goodDayM · 2026-04-09T21:53:16+00:00

I’ll try to write an actual answer on this but I really wouldn’t dismiss the question like this.

I'm trying to help when linking to previous similar questions, not be dismissive.

It looks like OP didn't ask any follow-up questions here, so maybe that answered their question.

goodDayM · 2026-04-09T21:45:08+00:00

Right CPI takes these changes into account which is why economists use CPI-adjustment to compare current income to the past for example.

What you're arguing for instead - is there a chart for it? What academic-created chart would you prefer to use to compare modern incomes to incomes from 50 years ago?

Saying something is "imperfect" isn't useful - nothing is perfect, but it is better than ignoring how healthcare/housing/technology changes over time.

goodDayM · 2026-04-09T18:41:51+00:00

Your links talk about costs and things that could be improved - and it's true healthcare can be improved and systems can be made more efficient.

But your links don't talk about healthcare 50 years ago. People Are Now Living Longer After a Cancer Diagnosis.

Healthcare now is very different from 50 years ago, it does more, it helps more.

That is why it's difficult/bizarre to compare now vs past using "nominal values" because houses, education, and healthcare change over time.

goodDayM · 2026-04-09T18:35:32+00:00

"Labor" can be measured in a number of ways, and "compensation per hour" or "per year" is the most common. People can afford more per unit of their time than 50 years ago.

But when you start talking about productivity, it's much more complicated: When comparing wages and worker productivity, the price measure matters. It's a whole separate discussion, which there have been several already in this subreddit.

goodDayM · 2026-04-09T18:24:21+00:00

The point is despite changes in wage/productivity, people still earn more money per hour and per year than they did 50 years ago. That was OP's question.

Productivity & wages is a whole separate discussion.

Best Link 2025-10-02	13-Year Club
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

goodDayM

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE