ReportWire

Tag: consumer sentiment

  • Cantor: Long Island consumer sentiment drops amid rising household debt in 2025 | Long Island Business News

    While 2025 ended with a 4.4% growth in gross domestic product, fueled by low unemployment, strong consumer and government spending, and business investment, the view of that positive economic news looks much different from many of America’s kitchen tables.

    While unemployment is at the federal reserve (Fed) target of 4.4%, job openings continue to fall to 6.5 million, with hires and separations remaining constant at 5.3 million, both continuing to fall in the post-pandemic economy. In this slowing labor market, Americans—who are in part-time jobs trying to make ends meet—are preferring to access those full-time job openings at their highest levels in eight years. The signs of financial stress are everywhere. With 5.7% of the workforce having multiple jobs—the highest level in 25 years—followed by 9.3 million Americans who in November 2025 worked more than one job (a 10% increase from a year earlier), and ending with Americans having two full-time jobs (increasing by 18% during 2025). Aside from working more, American household debt—including record -high credit card debt—is increasing to fill the financial void that a job alone won’t.

    In a just-released household debt survey, WalletHub found that 47% of American households can’t handle more debt, 33% expect their household debt to increase during the next 12 months, 45% feel that credit cards own them and 55% believe that they will die with debt. Of the 46% of Americans in debt, 53% are struggling with credit cards, 20% with mortgages, and 11% with student loans. If the financial health of America’s households is not daunting, 44% of respondents said that they think household debt is affecting their health.

    With the top 10% of Americans—those earning $275,000 or more—accounting for 45% of all spending, and with the top 20% increasing their spending by 20% since 2020, it matters how confident in the economy the other 80% are, including those struggling with household debt. Confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophesy, and for Long Islanders who can’t escape their financial struggles, this is their new reality.

    This reality was illustrated in recent a survey from the Siena Research Institute, which found that its Long Island Index of Consumer Sentiment for Nassau and Suffolk County dropped to 63.4 in November, the lowest since 61.2 in June 2023, and nearly 15% lower than the 72.9 in November 2024. Results below 76 indicate that those consumers who are pessimistic about their financial future are greater than those who are optimistic This is troubling because consumerism is 70% of all economic activity, and because of that outsized impact it matters for the regional economy how Long Islanders feel about their household finances and financial future.

    With 70% of Long Islanders indicating that the rising costs of groceries, rents, and home energy were seriously impacting their finances, the pessimism that Long Islanders feel about their financial future is unmistakable. The concern for Long Island‘s small businesses is that pessimistic consumers are reluctant to spend.

    No doubt that rising costs and increasing household debt has resulted in a widening gap between those who have persevered during the past five years and those who have struggled. This imbalance may be with us for foreseeable future proving that all economics is local.

    Martin Cantor is director of the Long Island Center for Socio-Economic Policy and former Suffolk County economic development commissioner. He can be reached at [email protected].


    Opinion

    Source link

  • ‘If voters feel like things aren’t working, they fire their politicians’: K-shaped economy math shows why Trump’s base feels betrayed | Fortune

    Days before President Donald Trump was sworn in for his second term, he acknowledged the high prices Americans were seeing at the gas pump and grocery store, pledging to bring them down.

    “It’s always hard to bring down prices when somebody else has screwed something up like [President Joe Biden] did,” Trump said in a news conference in early January. “We’re going to have prices down. I think you’re going to see some pretty drastic price reductions.”

    According to exit polls from the November 2024 election, Americans resonated with Trump’s messaging around prices. Exit polls indicated a higher proportion of voters without college degrees and those making less than $100,000 per year cast their ballot for Trump, cementing a rightward shift for the working class that has been trending in that direction for about a decade.

    But those patterns are shifting once more as emerging economic data shows that the K-shaped economy, coined on Twitter during the pandemic as a half-joking response to debates about whether the recovery would be “U” or “V” shaped, is real. One year into Trump 2.0, the notion is becoming reality of diverging fortunes for wealthy and poor Americans. It has tanked confidence in the economy—and the president who promised to solve the affordability crisis in the U.S. 

    While a wave of working-class voters flooded the Republican party ahead of the 2024 presidential election, that same group sent a loud message in the early November off-year elections, electing Democrats in every single race in which they were running. This included moderates Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger in New Jersey and Virginia, respectively, and firebrand democratic socialist mayors in New York and Virginia: Zohran Mamdani, and Katie Wilson. Their common theme: affordability.

    Economists have made it clear that something real is shifting: The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. This week, Apollo chief economist Trosten Slok noted wage growth for the lowest-income Americans plummeted to its lowest in about a decade, while wage growth for the highest-income group surpassed all other income levels, citing data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Moody’s Analytics found last month that for the second quarter of 2025, the top 10% of households made up nearly 50% of all consumer spending. According to calculations by New York University economics professor Edward Nathan Wolff, the top 20% of America’s wealthiest households own nearly 93% of all stock. 

    Comments from executives in third-quarter earnings made clear that the Fortune 500 see a “bifurcated” economy. Delta seemed almost surprised at how its premium and business travel seats are due to eclipse the main cabin in 2026, a year ahead of schedule. While McDonald’s CEO talked about a “bifurcated consumer base,” with traffic growth strong among higher-income consumers. By and large, fast-food companies boomed in the quarter while higher-priced “slop bowl” chains such as Sweetgreen, Cava and Chipotle have been struggling to arrest a decline in same-store sales as consumers trade down.

    The housing market, only in recent memory a booming segment of the economy where many locked in huge equity gains at low mortgage rates, has become nearly frozen because of the “lock-in effect.” It’s simply unaffordable to sell your house and buy another one with mortgage rates above 6%. The first-time homebuyer age hit 40 years old in 2025, according to the National Association of Realtors, revealing that only people with some degree of wealth accumulated over many years of adulthood can afford to make purchases in the housing sector.

    “We’ve probably made housing unaffordable for a whole generation of Americans,” The Amherst Group CEO Sean Dobson said at the ResiDay real-estate conference in New York in November, telling Fortune on the sidelines that people have done what they’ve been told by getting an education and good jobs “and then they didn’t get what they were promised.”

    Trump’s role in the K-shaped economy

    Some of these indicators can be traced back to Trump, who himself rode affordability concerns to a 2024 election victory that once seemed implausible. Pantheon Macroeconomics analysts Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen said in a September research note that suppressed income growth was a result of Trump’s tariff policies, which had forced businesses to slash wages in order to preserve margins that took a hit from the import taxes. In the wake of the November elections

    “Data show wage growth has slowed more in the trade and transportation sector, and to a lower level, than any other major sector since the end of last year. Fears workers would be able to secure larger wage increases in response to the tariffs look highly unlikely to be realized,” the analysts wrote.

    Peter Loge, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, who served as senior advisor to the FDA commissioner under President Barack Obama, told Fortune that Trump’s economic priorities can be ascertained by whom he surrounds himself with.

    “President Trump has installed very wealthy people with very senior positions in government, which isn’t a bad thing, but it’s limiting,” Loge told Fortune, naming in particular Elon Musk, who served as head of the Department of Government Efficiency in the administration’s first months.

    Loge said the installation of these wealthy figures, as well as the courtship of powerful tech CEOs like Larry Ellison and Sam Altman, illustrates priorities to serve these individuals. The president signed a law in July for a roughly $4 trillion package of tax cuts, primarily benefiting companies and wealthy Americans. Those wealthy individuals, in turn, pour their money into the stock market, feeding the top half of the K, Loge noted.

    These factors are on top of the administration’s controversial decision to halt funding for SNAP benefits during the government shutdown and require millions of low-income Americans to reapply for the benefits in an effort to combat “fraud,” according to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

    But to be sure, the K-shaped economy has existed for decades, economists say, and other economic factors have little to do with the president’s policies. The “low-hire, low-fire” labor market of 2025, for example—which has in particular battered lower-income, entry-level workers such as Gen Z—is more a result of businesses becoming more conservative in their hiring and firing practices following a pandemic-era labor shortage and a hiring binge that may have gone too far during the so-called “Great Resignation.”

    Changing sentiments

    Lower-income Americans are noting these changes, with consumer sentiment similarly diverging in a K-shape, something Peter Atwater, adjunct professor of economics at William & Mary, who popularized the term “K-shaped economy”, believes is being overlooked in the K-shaped conversation. Last month, the bottom third of income levels felt much less confident about the U.S. economy compared to the top third, according to data from the University of Michigan’s Survey of Consumers.

    “What we have today is a small group of individuals who feel intense certainty paired with relentless power control—and on the other, it is a sea of despair,” he told Fortune. “And that’s the piece that never gets talked about.”

    Atwater’s diagnosis rhymed with a Financial Times column from Robert Armstrong, of Unhedged, who wrote this week that America has always been unequal, but what makes this moment K-shaped is a loss of faith in future earnings among the lower-income cohort. “It could be,” he wrote, “that after five years of going nowhere, households in the bottom half of the wealth and income distributions have started to anticipate a bleaker future and are changing their spending habits accordingly.”

    Nose-diving confidence in the U.S. economy is reflected in the attitudes of Republicans and independents who voted for Trump. About 30% of Republicans believe Trump has fallen short of their expectations regarding the economy, according to a national NBC News poll this month. Two-thirds of independents blamed Trump for increasing inflation, per an ABC News/Washington Poll poll conducted in October. CNN polling data meanwhile shows Trump’s approval rating has reached its lowest level since he took office the second time.

    “People want to know that they can afford a medical bill if they get sick, their kids will have a better future than they do, or have a chance of a better future,” Loge told Fortune. “And if voters feel like things aren’t working, they fire their politicians in charge to hire new ones.”

    “Voters are pretty well saying, ‘We don’t think whatever the Republicans are doing is making stuff less expensive. We need life to be more affordable and less chaotic. It’s pretty unavoidably chaotic. Now we’re going to bring in new people to try a new thing,’” Loge said.

    Trump has noted the changing political attitudes following the election, floating a raft of proposals aimed at easing consumers’ pain, such as a 50-year mortgage and $2,000 rebate checks coming from tariff revenue. He said in a Fox News interview earlier this month his party has not done enough to assure Americans about the state of the economy.

    “We learned a lot,” Trump said. “Republicans don’t talk about it. They don’t talk about the word affordability.”

    UBS Wealth Management’s global chief economist, Paul Donovan, warned that “affordability” may prove to be an enduring, even intractable problem in both economic and political discourse. In his weekly blog, Donovan wrote that the concept is “subtly different” from both “inflation” and from the “cost-of-living crisis.” It’s an anger about the feeling “I can’t afford that,” he added, one that could be tricky to disprove.

    “People want things (generally ‘better’ things than they currently have) and are upset that they cannot afford those things,” Donovan wrote. “This may make affordability a more enduring problem than in the past.” He added that social media “fuels resentment” about affordability, as it presents “carefully curated, idealized lifestyles” that are just out of reach to anyone with a smartphone.

    Shifting political tides

    Loge hesitated to make predictions about what this changing sentiment means for upcoming elections, particularly if Trump’s tariffs are indeed successful, which could result in an outpouring of support for future Republican candidates. However, he suggested legacy or incumbent politicians from both major parties will have challenges getting elected. Atwater believes the desire—and need—for affordability transcends party lines.

    “We, particularly those on the left and the right and the establishment, woefully underappreciate how purple the bottom is,” he said. “The unified despair, the sheer desperation on both sides of the aisle, and that will continue to lead to an anti-establishment vote,” he said.

    Atwater suggested that so long as Americans perceive a broadening wealth gap, lower- and middle-income consumers will continue to harbor resentment for the ultra-wealthy that could simmer over. He cited a 2011 study from the New England Complex Systems Institute, which linked social unrest in North Africa and the Middle East during the Arab Spring of 2010 to rising food prices.

    “This is a crisis of confidence,” Atwater said. “Sadly, those who are in the best position to address it seem at best indifferent, and that does not go unnoticed by those at the bottom.”

    Nick Lichtenberg contributed reporting

    Sasha Rogelberg

    Source link

  • Americans are feeling worse about the economy as government shutdown drags on

    (CNN) — The record-breaking government shutdown has left Americans feeling worse about the economic outlook. That’s according to the latest University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey, which showed the index falling to 50.3 this month from 53.6 in October.

    It’s the lowest level since June 2022, which marked the lowest reading on record since the survey’s inception in the 1950s.

    “With the federal government shutdown dragging on for over a month, consumers are now expressing worries about potential negative consequences for the economy,” Joanne Hsu, director of surveys of consumers at the University of Michigan, said in a statement.

    The drop this month represents a 6.2% decline from October and a 29.9% decline compared to last November. Meanwhile, economists polled by FactSet had been anticipating a slight improvement this month.

    The increased level of pessimism was “widespread” across different ages, income levels and political affiliations, Hsu noted. The one notable exception was consumers who are heavily invested in the stock market. They reported an 11% improvement in sentiment as the stock market hangs near record highs.

    This story is developing and will be updated.

    Elisabeth Buchwald and CNN

    Source link

  • Department stores have a new playbook for this holiday season: How Macy’s, Dillard’s, and Nordstrom are getting their groove back this holiday season | Fortune

    A Los Angeles Times headline in 1995 asked, “Can the department store survive?” A quarter century later, CNN proclaimed that “America has turned its back on big department stores.”

    These are just two of many obituaries predicting the imminent demise of the U.S. department store—and all that pessimism has been backed by the data. Department stores have been losing market share for decades, first to big-box discounters like Walmart and Target in the 1980’s and 90’s, and more recently to Amazon. The department store’s percentage of total U.S. retail sales has fallen from about 14% in 1993 to only 2.6% last year.

    But now, perhaps improbably, there are new signs of life in the retail format, with growth this year at Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Dillard’s, Nordstrom, and Belk—and signs of stabilization at J.C. Penney and Kohl’s.

    The path that department stores are taking back into shoppers’ favor is a return to what made them popular in the first place: well-maintained and attractive spaces with attentive staff, a well-chosen selection of products, and enticing new brands. Many chains are finding that fewer stores are better, and have been shutting down locations to maintain quality and brand congruence.

    With most products available online, often at lower prices, department stores must offer some real value to the brick-and-mortar shopper. But it’s an uphill climb to reverse some of the erosion of standards that have diminished the appeal of department-store shopping. Competition with the Walmarts, Targets, and T.J. Maxxes of this world led many department store companies to cut corners and skimp on retail flourishes, eroding their raison d’être in the shopper’s mind.

    “You know what was tough about department stores?” Macy’s Inc. CEO Tony Spring recently told Fortune. “We didn’t execute well. A bad store, no matter what you call it, is going to fail.”

    A string of bad seasons

    And indeed many did fail. In 2020 alone, Neiman Marcus, J.C. Penney, Lord & Taylor, and Bon-Ton Stores filed for bankruptcy protection. They were already struggling before they were pushed over the edge by a pandemic that kept shoppers away for months. A couple of years before that, Barneys New York and Sears did the same, eventually going out of business altogether.

    As Spring told Fortune, Macy’s recent success—including its best quarter for sales growth in three years—is thanks to a playbook focused on less store clutter, a more focused assortment of products and brands, and more staffing in key departments such as women’s shoes and dresses.

    Rival Dillard’s, a primarily Southern and Southwestern chain with 290 stores, has also seen modest growth by following those basic retail precepts. Unlike many of its mall-based peers, Dillard’s has rarely deviated from its formula of neat stores and thoughtful product discovery, and is roughly the same size today as it was 15 years ago by revenue and store count—unlike chains that expanded rapidly, then closed scores of stores.

    Another department store that appears to be staging a comeback is Nordstrom, which went private this summer to revitalize its business outside of Wall Street’s glare. It has seen sales rise 4.1% in the first half of 2025. Belk, a privately held Southern chain, is seeing growth too, though more modest, according to industry estimates.

    Department stores, like this Nordstrom in Chicago, are making spaces that are more inviting to shoppers.

    Jeff Schear/Getty Images for Nordstrom

    Still, it’s too early to pop the champagne. Dillard’s and Macy’s modest comparable sales growth of about 1% last quarter is hardly the mark of a roaring retail renaissance. And Penney and Kohl’s are still seeing sales declines, albeit less severe than just a few quarters ago.

    Meanwhile, some companies are still deep in the doldrums: Saks Global recently said its sales fell 13% last quarter. In that case, the decline is largely because vendors are not sending it enough merchandise given recent delays in getting payment from the debt-laden company. Clearly, department stores are not out of the woods.

    Catering to the bargain-seekers

    The holiday season, during which department stores get nearly a third of their annual sales, will be a major test of their nascent comeback. The Mastercard Economics Institute has forecast that sales will rise 3.6% November and December, a slower clip compared to last year’s holiday season. And shoppers are likely to be particularly bargain-hungry, meaning they will be holding out for deals, a trend department store executives are already seeing.

    “Many Americans are more stressed than ever about holiday spending, and wallets are stretched,” JCPenney chief customer and marketing officer Marisa Thalberg said in a recent presentation of the retailer’s holiday season strategy. The company’s response? To offer more deals, and earlier in the season.

    Kohl’s Chief Marketing Officer Christie Raymond expects shoppers will visit stores more often during the Thanksgiving to Christmas period, but buy less during each visit and gravitate to cheaper products as they feel the economic pinch.

    “We are seeing trading down,” Raymond said at a media briefing in October at Kohl’s design office in Manhattan. “Whereas some customers were maybe purchasing a premium brand, we are seeing them trade down to private brands.” This could bode well for the success of Kohl’s recent efforts to refresh its long languishing store brands.

    Even the high-end store Nordstrom, with its well-heeled clientele, is emphasizing more low-priced items than usual this year. At its New York flagship, Nordstrom has built a two-story area to showcase giftable items, with about 800 products that cost less than $100.

    Back to the future

    A century ago, department stores began a golden age in which they were at the forefront of America’s burgeoning consumer economy. They were grand behemoths, typically in city centers, where shopping was an event—rather than the constant pastime it is today, often done by scrolling on a device.

    These were memorable experiences: a trip to JCPenney to buy a Sunday best suit; the thrill of choosing the perfect debutante ball gown at Neiman Marcus; or the much-anticipated purchase of a new household appliance at Sears.

    In the 1960s, going shopping was still an event.

    H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/Getty Images

    In the 1950’s, Macy’s, Sears and Penney began expanding with large, multi-level stores thanks to the mushrooming of suburban malls across the country.

    But a couple of decades later, the rise of big-box retailers that boasted lower prices, like Walmart and Target, challenged that supremacy. And by the 1990’s, department stores were in secular decline. The rise of Amazon and e-commerce more broadly didn’t help.

    Amid all this change, department stores started to seem rather old-fashioned, a sea of sameness offering tired brands in badly lit, boilerplate stores where everything seemed to eventually end up in the discount bin. Under pressure, department stores tried to cut margins by reducing staffing, which made them feel messy and untended.

    And several leaned into consolidation—which in some ways compounded the problem. When Macy’s purchased May Department Stores in 2006 and acquired regional chains such as Marshall Field’s, it found itself with too many stores, too near each other.

    Shifts in consumers’ tastes also dealt a blow: Customers were no longer wowed by being sprayed with perfume upon entry to the beauty section, preferring the less didactic way of selling beauty products that have made the more youth-friendly brand Ulta Beauty a phenomenon in the last decade.

    Efforts to compete with Amazon during its ascent in the 2010s had department stores playing catchup on supply chain prowess and integrating stores with e-commerce—sometimes to the detriment of in-store experience. “They forgot what they existed for,” said Joel Bines, a former retail consultant with AlixPartners and a current director of North Carolina-based Belk. ”It became all about efficiency and conglomeration and homogenization.”

    In search of fashion authority

    Now the pendulum is swinging back toward a focus on how department stores look and feel for customers, the merchandise they sell, and on standing out from the others. A big part of that is undoing the expansions of previous decades: Macy’s is prioritizing 125 of its stores, or a third of its fleet, while closing dozens more stores in the next two years. And JCPenney shed hundreds of stores in its 2020 bankruptcy and is now down to 650 locations, from 1,100 a decade ago.

    But as the adage goes in the retail industry, you can’t shrink your way back to greatness. Department stores still have to make a compelling case for consumers to come back.

    And there’s ground to regain with the brands department stores sell as well. Luxury brands have sought to distance themselves from the increasingly shabby in-store experience and ubiquitous mark-downs at department stores. For years, fashion companies like Ralph Lauren pulled their products from Macy’s stores to sell more of their products direct to consumers online and at their own stores.

    But now, Macy’s CEO Spring, who is credited with revitalizing Bloomingdale’s in the decade he led that chain, is betting that the retailer’s massive reach, with 40 million customers, combined with its improved stores, can restore the brand’s “fashion authority” and lure top brands back.

    Department stores are also looking to partner with new brands. JCPenney, for instance, will be selling exclusive items by designer Rebecca Minkoff for the 2025 holiday season.

    Winning back older customers

    To recreate a premium shopping experience, department stores have to find the right balance between stocking enough variety to serve a range of customers and not cluttering stores with too many products. To that end, Nordstrom and Macy’s are among the chains trimming down their assortments.

    That does leave retailers less margin for error and requires a better mastery of data analytics to improve demand forecasting—making sure that what is on offer matches what shoppers want. That will be a challenge for some chains. “They are dealing with this beast of too much data and not enough actionable insights,” says Shelley Kohan, a professor at Fashion Institute of Technology in New York and a former Macy’s executive, noting that this is an area where AI can help.

    Still, even if all these chains do renew themselves, no one should expect them to suddenly re-emerge as a big threat to the likes of Walmart or T.J. Maxx. Trying to win new, younger shoppers is expensive and may end up being futile. Some analysts say that’s why department stores should focus on older shoppers, who have much more disposable income. “While some are chasing the finicky Gen Z and millennials, they should really be focused on recapturing Gen X,” says FIT’s Kohan.

    Winning back those existing consumers who remember the glamor and delight of an old-fashioned department store shopping spree is the key, says Bines. “Your priors become buyers again, and the buyers become loyal,” he says. “It’s a self-perpetuating cycle. And then maybe you can win some new shoppers.”

    Phil Wahba

    Source link

  • Americans are feeling a lot worse about the state of the economy

    (CNN) — American consumers are downbeat about the economy, according to preliminary results of a monthly survey conducted by the University of Michigan.

    The index measuring consumer sentiment fell unexpectedly this month to 55.4 from 58.2 in August as inflation is on the rise and job prospects are worsening. September’s reading also represents a 21% decline compared to a year ago, well before President Donald Trump took office and raised tariffs on practically everything the country imports.

    In addition to inflation and the labor market, tariffs also remain a concern for consumers, Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, noted.

    “Trade policy remains highly salient to consumers, with about 60% of consumers providing unprompted comments about tariffs during interviews,” Hsu, said in a statement, noting that the same thing happened in the previous month.

    Economists polled by FactSet had been anticipating a minor improvement in consumer sentiment from August. Despite sentiment that’s near historic lows in a survey that goes back to the early 1950s, consumers are still feeling slightly better about the economy now compared to April and May during Trump’s initial rollout of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs, according to prior readings.

    The survey also spotlights what appears to be an increasingly bifurcated economy between income classes, where higher-income Americans continue to spend relatively freely and are feeling more optimistic about the state of the economy, while lower and middle-income Americans are cutting back and are more worried.

    Whiffs of stagflation

    While the economy is nowhere close to where it was in the 1970s and 1980s, when the nation’s annual inflation rate and unemployment rate both hit double-digit levels, recent employment and inflation data have led to mounting concerns of stagflation – when the economy slows significantly while inflation accelerates.

    Consumer prices rose 0.4% last month, bringing the annual inflation rate to 2.9%, according to Consumer Price Index data released Thursday. Meanwhile, there’s a laundry list of recent data pointing to a weakening labor market.

    For example, first-time applications for unemployment benefits surged last week to their highest level in four years. Also for the first time in four years, there are more people looking for work than there are jobs available for them.

    To top it off, the August employment report showed employers hired just 22,000 new workers and the unemployment rate rose to 4.3%, the highest level since 2021. The labor force snapshot also revealed that the US economy lost 13,000 workers in June, marking the first month since 2020 when employers laid off more workers than they hired.

    “Economic sentiment declined more than expected in September largely because Americans are fearful of losing their jobs,” Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, said in a statement on Friday.

    This string of data has essentially guaranteed the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at its monetary policy meeting next week after having held rates steady for close to a year. Traders are also now betting on cuts at the subsequent two meetings this year, which has helped push stocks to record highs.

    This story has been updated with additional developments and context.

    Elisabeth Buchwald and CNN

    Source link

  • The Grumpy Economy

    The Grumpy Economy

    What was the worst moment for the American economy in the past half century? You might think it was the last wheezing months of the 1970s, when oil prices more than doubled, inflation reached double digits, and the U.S. sank into its second recession of the decade. Or the 2008 financial collapse and Great Recession. Or perhaps it was when COVID hit and millions of people abruptly lost their job. All good guesses—and all wrong, if surveys of the American public are to be believed. According to the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, the most widely cited measure of consumer sentiment, that moment was actually June 2022.

    Inflation hit 9 percent that month, and no one knew if it would go higher still. A recession seemed imminent. Objectively, it’s hard to claim that the economy was in worse shape that month than it had been at those other cataclysmic times. But substantial pessimism was nonetheless explicable.

    Over the next 18 months, however, the economy improved rapidly, and in nearly every way: Inflation plummeted to near its pre-pandemic level, unemployment reached historic lows, GDP boomed, and wages rose. The turnaround, by most standard economic measures, was unprecedented. Yet the American people continued to give the economy the kind of approval ratings traditionally reserved for used-car salesmen. Last June, the White House launched a campaign to celebrate “Bidenomics”—­the administration’s strong job-creation record and big investments in manufacturing and clean energy. The effort flopped so badly that, within months, Democrats were begging the president to abandon it altogether.

    Some kind of irreconcilable difference seemed to have opened up between public opinion and traditional markers of economic health, as many op-eds and news reports noted. “The Economy Is Great. Why Are Americans in Such a Rotten Mood?The Wall Street Journal asked in early November. “What’s Causing ‘Bad Vibes’ in the Economy?The New York Times wondered a few weeks later. Terms like “vibecession” and “the great disconnect were coined and spread.

    More recently, consumer sentiment has improved. After falling for months, it suddenly rebounded in December and January, posting its largest two-month gain in more than 30 years—even though the economy itself barely changed at all. Yet as of this writing, sentiment remains low by historical standards—­nothing like the sunny outlook that prevailed before the pandemic.

    What’s going on? The question involves the psychology of money—and of politics. Its answer will shape the outcome of the presidential election
    in November.

    The toll of inflation on the American psyche is undoubtedly part of the story. That people hate high inflation is not a novel observation: The Federal Reserve has long been obsessed with preventing another ’70s-style inflationary spiral; its patron saint is Paul Volcker, the former Fed chair who famously broke that spiral by jacking up interest rates, which plunged the economy into a recession. But although experts and political leaders know that inflation matters, the way they understand the phenomenon is very different from how ordinary people experience it—and that alone may explain why sentiment stayed low for so long, and has only now begun to rise.

    When economists talk about inflation, they are often referring to an index of prices meant to represent the goods and services a typical household buys in a year. Each item in the index is weighted by how much is spent on it annually. So, for instance, because the average household spends about a third of its income on housing, the price of housing (an amalgam of rents and home prices) determines a third of the inflation rate. But the goods that people spend the most money on tend to be quite different from those that they pay the most attention to. Consumers are reminded of the price of food
    every time they visit a supermarket or restaurant, and the price of gas is plastered in giant numbers on every street corner. Also, the purchase of these items can’t be postponed. Things like a new couch or flatscreen TV, in contrast, are purchased so rarely that many people don’t even remember how much they paid for one, let alone how much they cost today.

    The irony is that consumers spend a lot more, on average, on expensive, big-ticket items than they do on groceries or takeout, which means the prices we pay the most attention to don’t contribute very much to overall inflation numbers. (Less than a tenth of the average consumer’s budget is spent at the super­market.) Some measures of inflation—“core” and “supercore” inflation among them—­exclude food and energy prices altogether. That is reasonable if you’re a Fed official focused on how to set interest rates, because energy and food prices are often extremely sensitive to temporary fluctuations (caused by, say, a drought that hurts grain harvests or an OPEC oil-­supply cut). But in practice, these measures overlook the prices that matter most to consumers.

    This dynamic alone goes a long way toward explaining the gap between “the economy” and Americans’ perception of it. Even as core inflation fell below 3 percent over the course of 2023, food prices increased by about 6 percent, twice as fast as they had grown over the previous 20 years. “I think that explains a huge part of the disconnect,” Paul Donovan, the chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, told me. “You won’t convince any consumer that inflation is under control when food prices are rising that fast.”

    Consumers say as much when you ask them. In a recent poll commissioned by The Atlantic, respondents were asked what factors they consider when deciding how the national economy is doing. The price of groceries led the list, and 60 percent of respondents placed it among their top three—more, even, than the share that chose “inflation.” This isn’t exactly a new development. In 2002, Donovan told me, Italian consumers were convinced that prices were soaring by nearly 20 percent even though actual inflation was a stable 2 percent. It turned out that people were basing their estimates on the cost of a cup of espresso, which had abruptly risen as coffee makers rounded their prices up after the introduction of the euro.

    What’s more, most people don’t care about the inflation rate so much as they care about prices themselves. If inflation runs at 10 percent for a year, and then suddenly shrinks to 2 percent, the damage of the past year has not been undone. Prices are still dramatically higher than they were. Overall, prices are nearly 20 percent higher now than they were before the pandemic (grocery prices are 25 percent higher). When asked in a survey last fall what improvement in the economy they would most like to see, 64 percent of respondents said “lower prices on goods, services, and gas.”

    What about wages? Even adjusted for inflation, they have been rising since June 2022, and recently surpassed their pre-pandemic levels, meaning that the typical American’s paycheck goes further than it did prior to the inflation spike. But wages haven’t increased faster than food prices. And most people think about wage and price increases very differently. A raise tends to feel like something we’ve earned, Betsey Stevenson, an economist at the University of Michigan, told me. Then we go to the grocery store, and “it feels like those just rewards are being unfairly taken away.”

    If inflation is in fact the main reason the American people have been so down on the economy—and its future—then the story is likely to have a happy ending, and soon. My great-grandmother loved to reminisce about the days when a can of Coke cost a nickel. She didn’t, however, believe that the country was on the verge of economic calamity because she now had to spend a dollar or more for the same beverage. Just as surely as people despise price increases, we also get used to them in the end. A recent analysis by Ryan Cummings and Neale Mahoney, two Stanford economists and former policy advisers in the Biden administration, found that it takes 18 to 24 months for lower inflation to fully show up in consumer sentiment. “People eventually adjust,” Mahoney told me. “They just don’t adjust at the rate that statistical agencies produce inflation data.”

    Mahoney and Cummings posted their study on December 4, 2023—18 months after inflation peaked in June 2022. As if on cue, consumer sentiment began surging that month. (Perhaps helping matters, food inflation had finally fallen below 3 percent in November 2023.)

    There is another story you can tell about consumer sentiment today, however, one that has less to do with what’s happening in grocery stores and more to do with the peculiarities of tribal identity.

    It’s well established that partisans on both sides become more negative about the economy when the other party controls the presidency, but this phenomenon is not symmetrical: In a November analysis, Mahoney and Cummings found that when a Democrat occupies the White House, Republicans’ economic outlook declines by more than twice as much as Democrats’ does when the situation is reversed. Consumer-­sentiment data from the polling firm Civiqs and the Pew Research Center show that Republicans’ view of the economy has barely budged since hitting an all-time low in the summer of 2022.

    Meanwhile, although sentiment among Democrats has recovered to nearly where it stood before inflation began to rise in 2021, it remains well below its level at the end of the Obama administration. It may never return to its previous heights. Over the past decade, the belief that the economy is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful has become central to progressive self-identity. Among Democrats ages 18 to 34, who tend to be more progressive than older Democrats, positive views of capitalism fell from 56 to 40 percent between 2010 and 2019, according to Gallup. Dim views of the broader economic system may be limiting how positively some Democrats feel about the economy, even when one of their own occupies the Oval Office. According to a CNN poll in late January, 63 percent of Democrats ages 45 and older believed that the economy was on the upswing—but only 35 percent of younger Democrats believed the same. To fully embrace the economy’s strength would be to sacrifice part of the modern progressive’s ideological sense of self.

    The media may be contributing to economic gloom for people of every political stripe. According to Mahoney, one possible explanation for Republicans’ disproportionate economic negativity when a Democrat is in office is the fact that the news sources many Republicans consume—namely, right-wing media like Fox News—tend to be more brazenly partisan than the sources Democrats consume, which tend to be a balance of mainstream and partisan media. But mainstream media have also gotten more negative about the economy in recent years, regardless of who’s held the presidency. According to a new analysis by the Brookings Institution, from 1988 to 2016, the “sentiment” of economic-news coverage in mainstream newspapers tracked closely with measures such as inflation, employment, and the stock market. Then, during Donald Trump’s presidency, coverage became more negative than the economic fundamentals would have predicted. After Joe Biden took office, the gap widened. Journalists have long focused more on surfacing problems than on highlighting successes—­bringing problems to light is an essential part of the job—but the more recent shift could be explained by the same economic pessimism afflicting many young liberals (many newspaper journalists, after all, are liberals themselves). In other words, the media’s negativity could be both a reflection and a source of today’s economic pessimism.

    What happens to consumer sentiment in the coming months will depend on how much it is still being dragged down by frustration with higher prices, which will likely dissipate, as opposed to how much it is being limited by a combination of Republican partisan­ship and Democratic pessimism, which are less likely to change.

    Will the place that it finally settles in come November matter to the election? How people say they are feeling about the economy in an election year—alongside more direct measures of economic health, such as GDP growth and disposable income—has in the past been a good predictor of whom voters choose as president; a healthy economy and good sentiment strongly favor the incumbent. Despite all the abnormalities of 2020—a pandemic, national protests, a uniquely polarizing president—economic models that factored in both economic fundamentals and sentiment predicted the result and margin of that year’s presidential election quite accurately (and much more so than polling), according to an analysis by the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck.

    It is of course possible that consumer sentiment is becoming a more performative metric than it used to be—a statement about who you are rather than how you really feel—and perhaps less reliable as a result. Still, the story that voters have in their heads about the economy clearly matters. If that story were influenced solely by the prices at the pump and the grocery store or the number of well-paying jobs, then—absent another crisis—we could expect the mood to be buoyant this fall, significantly helping Biden’s prospects for reelection. But the stories we tell ourselves are shaped by everything from the news we read to the political messages we hear to the identities we adopt. And, for better or worse, those stories have yet to be fully written.

    Rogé Karma

    Source link