That would be a situation where your % of spending on food is higher than others, which I say above.

It also assumes you did not benefit from the larger growth in wages.

Of course you feel it more with your kids. But for some reason we don't when its wage growth that increases your ability to buy

To be clear, if you use data that does not stretch back 20 years before the pandemic, you get a very different story. Here's the left-leaning epi's article on it: www.epi.org/publication/...
Would appreciate your insight on why this doesnt contradict your argument

You're using data from 2000! This is a joke right?

While I imagine grocery spend is a slightly higher percentage of spending for poor vs rich people, I know it is not in fact ten times more, meaning no, they do not feel it 10 times more than other people.

If they spend similar percentages of their income on groceries, a 10% rise hits them the same

Uh, okay, im sorry, but you see this makes my (and will's) point right?

You are resting your case on data about post-pandemic trends... on trends from 2000 to 2023? This does not convince me you are correct about the math and data - actually the opposite

... uh I don't think this is good evidence about trends since the pandemic. Right? What am I missing here?

It should be noted, though, that poorer people have a higher % of their spend on goods relative to services than richer people (like Will the lawyer, you say). While generally inflation has hit poorer people a smidge more, its not a goods vs services story (also they've seen better wage growth)

Thats true & should inform tax and/or social welfare policy but doesn't change the argument. Studies show people don't like inflation, even as their wages and/or wealth rises faster. But the magnitude & duration of bad vibes this time are far beyond anything before (particularly given wage growth)

Do you think wage growth isn't cumulative? Interest on savings aren't cumulative?

Beliefs and expectations on the other hand...

Putting aside its not clear where this 7% comes from given the source (& whether 7 is big or small depends on the level of inflation), the lowest quintile experienced the highest wage growth during this period (real too). So yes, the distribution matters, & this was a good period for the bottom part

Nuno Santo - good coach!

Denying material reality is an unserious and nihilistic position. Might as well claim vaccines cause autism and climate change is a made up while you're at it. You can get a high-ranking job at the HHS with that approach

None of that follows from what I said? Putting aside that you have badly imagined my normative thoughts on the matter, the whole premise of the defense of the Biden economy is that the lowest percentile wage-earners actually outpaced "the nuneric mean of some work's favorite metric"

Not sure what you want me to do about you having a fundamentally narrow-minded outlook that preferences you & your friends' feelings over objective measured reality. Other than mention I dont see how a model of politics where people act that way that can support a govt that supports everyone in need

Is your position that we should ignore material wellbeing gains for millions in the working class bc they did not satisfy all needs of everyone (or you and your friends specifically)?

Broader point should be about how we fix an environment where good news or honestly commending people you do not entirely agree with has little to no value in media and politics. I don't know if this is unique to the social media age or our political structure but it is poisoning society

Unbelievable for you to pretend you care about material reality & then not only ignore but villify the economic policies that got us the best relative working-class wage growth in 50 years. This is pretty obviously just a fxn of the child tax credit lapsing, but of course this isnt good faith

While I fully expect the legal geniuses at the Supreme Court to come up with some wild justification for their latest self-contradiction in their pursuit of unitary executive theory, perhaps fear for the 401ks of both themselves and their wealthy benefactors will scare them out of it