The American economy keeps on chugging despite critics, but that doesn't mean the critics don't have a point.
Costs of living (read: gas and eggs) are high, many would argue "unaffordable" even though most will still pay up. This means that: No, there is no "affordability crisis" in the literal sense. But there is an "unhappiness crisis", as in people aren't happy about how much money they have to spend. That crisis, the "unhappiness crisis" fueled Trump's upset landslide victory this election.
The Affordability Camel's back isn't broken, yet, but the camel is declaring quite angrily that the point is very close.
I'm not sure gas and eggs is the problem here. When people say cost of living, most of it is just rent or mortgage. To this end, I'm not sure if either party would be willing to do anything, as it primarily benefits the property-owning (older) class, which is the main part of the electorate.
>I'm not sure gas and eggs is the problem here. When people say cost of living, most of it is just rent or mortgage.
Rent/mortgage is just one part of the cost of living[1].
Even if you have a place to stay and sleep, you still need to clothe, bathe, and transport yourself and eat and drink to live. Cost of living is literally what it costs to live.
My point was that people would be just fine if it's only the food and gas going up since nominal wages are also increasing, and you have some degree of choice to eat cheaper things. The part that tends to break it is the increases in housing costs.
I think you completely missed my original point to begin with.
People can still afford cost of living, the American economy just chuggling along despite criticism is proof of that. The question is whether people are happy about spending the money they need to spend, the answer to which is a resounding NO as evidenced by the chief motivator behind Trump's victory.
Cost of living is still affordable (there is no "affordability crisis"), but it's too high for anyone to be happy with (there is an "unhappiness crisis").
Also, the people complained loudly and clearly that price of gas and eggs are their chief concerns. Housing is also expensive, but housing is usually a one-time lump and/or a fixed ongoing expense compared to food and gas which are ongoing small and variable expenses that quickly add up.
> people complained loudly and clearly that price of gas and eggs are their chief concerns
This is probably an artifact of how the media works.
People are concerned about prices but only some people are concerned about housing prices. The people who already own a house like high housing prices. Meanwhile everybody has to eat.
The media tries to maximize viewership so when they run the pricing story they're talking about high food prices (which everybody hates) instead of high housing prices (which only the people paying them hate but the people getting the money like). Which in turn causes people to be more concerned about food prices than housing prices because that's what the media is always talking about, even if the housing prices are what's taking the biggest chunk out of their wallet.
I think it's a pedantic distinction. Affording something always implied some level of comfort: you wouldn't say you can afford the car if you are paying most of your spare income on it, even if you can pay for it technically. Spending 50% of your income on rent may be feasible for many, but to the extent that people are unhappy with it, it is unaffordable.
if eggs = food, it's crazy to me that a single cooked chicken breast at Whole Foods is $17 (yes, I get that whole foods is expensive). Ok fine, a cup of flavored black beans at a Korean supermarket in Koreatown Los Angeles is $8. A similar amount of spiced cuttlefish is $8. A package of 12 gyeongdan is $8. All of these would have been under $4, probably under $3 just 2 years ago.
I think you’re misreading the price on those chicken breasts. At the Whole Foods at 3rd and Fairfax, grilled chicken breast is $16.99/lb [1]—which I believe is the price for any food from the hot bar. A typical chicken breast is 1/3lb to 1/2lb before cooking, so you’re really looking at roughly $5.50 per cooked chicken breast.
Uncooked organic chicken breast is $10/lb [2] at the same store. Non-organic is $7/lb [3]. Since Mary’s air-cools their chicken instead of dunking it in frozen water, you’re not paying for an ounce of ice with each pound of chicken.
>All of these would have been [less than half the price] just 2 years ago.
Here in Toronto, I can't think of a single food item that has done anything nearly that absurd price-wise. Eggs and dry pasta are currently at or approaching double what they were pre-pandemic (i.e. ~5 years) and that's the biggest increase I can think of over that time period. (Milk is up a bit over 50% when there isn't a sale; sugar perhaps 60%; ketchup perhaps 30%.) A lot of these increases noticeably started in 2021.
On the other hand, there are definitely things I can still get (at least sometimes) at the same prices I remember from years ago. And I've been improving my budgeting habits across this period of time, so my actual spend has been remarkably stable.
What you describe in LA is unfathomable. I'm accustomed to being taken aback by how cheap meat apparently is (was) in the US. Has the situation reversed?
My and my friends kids have a) need us to co-sign leases; b) been scammed of thousands of dollars thru fake rental things; c) can't afford a house any time for decades; d) can barely afford health insurance; e) have to borrow money when their used cars need expensive parts replaced.
By modern standards it's huge. Everyone runs data-driven campaigns now, which is to say that they basically ignore all but the swing states, and Trump won all of the swing states.
Which is the same reason that for a Republican a 1.6% popular vote margin is massive. California isn't even close to a swing state so a Republican could flip 2M more votes there over what Trump got in 2016 and still lose the state, even though that by itself would increase their national popular vote margin by more than 2%. Trump got 1.5M more votes in California in 2024 than in 2016 and still lost the state by more than 3M votes. So Republican candidates for President ignore the entire West Coast and the Northeast -- huge population areas -- because losing there by 48 to 52 gains them nothing over losing by 30 to 70.
Democrats do the same thing in Texas and most of the South, but the blue states are bluer than the red states are red, so Republicans come into the median Presidential election with a deficit in the national popular vote and often lose the popular vote even when they win the electoral college, e.g. when Trump won in 2016 he lost the popular vote by more than 2%.
Democrats often fancy the idea of switching from the electoral college to a national popular vote thinking they would win more often, but it would really just change how both parties campaign. Republicans would start campaigning in blue states and vice versa but the safe blue states have more prospective votes for Republicans to flip. And under the existing system, any national popular vote win for a Republican is a landslide.
The better argument that people don't really like Trump that much is that he won so big mainly because the Democrats picked a weak candidate to run against him and they should have had an actual primary and picked someone better.
Costs of living (read: gas and eggs) are high, many would argue "unaffordable" even though most will still pay up. This means that: No, there is no "affordability crisis" in the literal sense. But there is an "unhappiness crisis", as in people aren't happy about how much money they have to spend. That crisis, the "unhappiness crisis" fueled Trump's upset landslide victory this election.
The Affordability Camel's back isn't broken, yet, but the camel is declaring quite angrily that the point is very close.