LyrArc Article Gist
German economy contracts in second quarter 2024 by 0.1%. Growth is forecast at 0.3% for 2024 and 1.1% for 2025, according to country statistics office Destatis. The contrast could not be greater in Biden's management of the economy as US economic growth was much higher at about 2.8% in 2024. It shows the positive effects of Biden's effort to revive American manufacturing, and to support chips and science and American industry, and the investment of a trillion dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act in American infrastructure. Without these investments American recovery strong at this time would have hobbled along with much worse effects on jobs and inflation, and looming recession, under a Trump administration. Unusual factors such as the concentration of the supply chain in China have influenced US inflation, which Biden is correcting, and also bringing jobs at home. The economic management is excellent it  is the effects of the pandemic and broken supply chains, high mortgage rates and 20% price increases in apartment rentals that are making cost of living a problem for average Americans. Biden has taken cost of living action including canceling student debt and calling for limiting rent increases for apartment rentals to 5%. Harris has a program to support renters when housing takes up more than 30% of their income. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
About the title it depends- costs have come down for food made at home and eating at home, it is the cost of eating outside that has doubled from 3% in 1960's the Kennedy years to 5.7% in 2024 as a share of personal disposable income.  Costs of eating at home are now half of what they were in the Kennedy years when they were about 13% of personal disposable income, as shown in USDA data and charts.The American public says in voting preference and other surveys  that inflation is a key concern, food prices  are mentioned as a key concern. Food prices fell by about 8% during the pandemic 2020 and rose quickly by 2022 by 12%.    Eating at home declined from about 13% of personal disposable income in the Kennedy years in 1962 to about 9% in the Reagan era in 1990 and down to 5.7% today. The real culprit in food inflation is people paying higher prices to eat outside at restaurants. In that period obesity has increased and general health has declined by these spending habits and lack of food savy cooking knowledge that not only cuts costs but also makes it possible to eat healthier by controlling intake of the fat, oil, and other poor ingredients by cooking for oneself at home. At home one avoids packaged goods and cooks the food from healthy ingredients. A correction is badly needed and will help not only health but also the family budget. Its a crazy way to do things not to educate children on healthy foods starting early in school, including in designing lunches and gradually increasing interest in making simple items from scratch. And instead to neglect food and food intake ending up with increase in cost plus poorer health outcomes. Hitting not just the family budget, also the nation's budget with higher and higher expenditures on healthcare. American habits need a change to make more at home like mothers and grandmothers in the 1960's and reverse obesity, poor health outcomes. As for the manufacturers of packaged foods President Biden talked recently about shrinkflation putting less in each bag of food at the same price. "The American public is tired of being played for suckers. I've had enough of shrinkflation. It's a ripoff." WSJ looks at food prices in 1991 and other points in the past and today. In 1991 as a percentage of disposable income food was 11.3%, according to Agriculture Department. This was after an inflationary increase in the 1970's. USDA data shows it has reached 11.2% in 2022. The public is responding by eating less outside and making its own granola and other items, and generally buying less that cuts into sales, a healthy trend. This is expected to lead grocery stores and manufacturers to reduce prices in 2024. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A second term Trump-Vance will face uphill risks and a mess in economics from a Trumpian Republican party and Congress, says WSJ. WSJ Editorial Board says a second Trump term is not without risks. Tariffs cost 1.1% in annual growth in the Trump first term says WSJ, and it did have an impact on inflation. It would have had greater impact on inflation with the supply chain crisis of Biden's first term, had this supply chain crisis happened in Trump's first term. A second term Trump-Vance support tariffs as high as 60% on Chinese imports which would have a bigger effect on inflation and economic growth than of the first term. The key difference is that with tax cuts a basic rule for Republican policies Trump-Vance second term would not invest in infrastructure the way Mr. Biden has done and Biden will do so in a second term. As a result the economic growth is likely to be greater and inflation smaller under a Biden administration. Trillions of dollars in investment in the economy and infrastructure under Biden in a second term will be missing in a Trump-Vance tax cuts administration policy. And with it hundreds of thousand of jobs created each quarter will be missing in Trump-Vance second term. Add to this the level of clarity of stable economic policy under a Biden second term and contrast it with some of the chaos in economic policy of a Trump-Vance second term. The basic contradiction between tax cuts policy and the nation's need for infrastructure spending/rebuilding under a Republican under Trump administration will not go away, present a huge stumbling block. Chaotic policy could come from Project 2025 that says consider abolishing the US central bank Federal Reserve. This kind of erratic and unwise policy proposals are clearly not happening under Biden and Yellen. Another key difference is the cost to the economy of delays of several years in doing nothing for climate in Trump-Vance 2024-2028. Severe effects on climate if nothing is done could cause acceleration of climate negative costs which a future economy under Democrats would face, in reality the Nation would face. America's Business has taken a short term approach to climate change, when the time comes to pay the costs of short term thinking it assumes it is somebody else's problem- this happened with supply chain concentration in China the burden falling on the middle and lower classes, it would happen again with missing climate change action under Trump-Vance second term. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It came down to the price of eggs, bread, basic items on a grocery list. And Democratic politicians including Harris were not seen as sensitive to the pain, being the incumbent meant they were the ones who were responsible for letting prices get out of hand. This isn't just the WSJ analysis in its conversations with ordinary Americans. About 50 percent of Trump voters said higher prices were the largest factor in their decision, according to AP (Associated Press) VoteCast.  The Labor Department’s measure of consumer prices was up 20% higher in September 2024 than January 2021—the largest increase in the last 45 years for one presidential term. Average Year-Over-Year Inflation Rate by President Carter 1977 - 1981.    9.9% Ford 1974 - 1977.       8% Biden 2021 -  2024      5.2% Nixon 1969 - 1974.       5.7% Reagan 1981 - 1989     4.6% H.W. Bush 1989 - 1993. 4.3% W. Bush 2001 - 2009.     2.8% LBJ 1963 - 1969.             2.6% Clinton 1993 - 2001.        2.6% Trump 2017 - 2021          1.9% Obama 2009 - 2017.        1.4% Eisenhower 1953 - 1961.  1.4% JFK 1961 - 1963.               1.1% Overall Inflation Rate Data seasonally-adjusted Consumer Price Index for all items, current as of Aug. 2024. Chart: Adrian Nesta  Source:  BLS Consumer Price Index This also places a special burden of responsibility on the new DJT administration to take action on prices of everyday goods and groceries. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. unemployment rate drops from 5.8% in Nov. 2014 to 5.6% in Dec. 2014, according to the Labor Department. But hourly earnings failed to register growth. Average hourly earnings declined in Dec. 2014 from the prior month, and increased by only 1.7% over the prior year, just a little bit above the inflation rate of 1.3%. Overall 2.95 million jobs were created in 2014. Yet 8.7 million Americans looking for a job could not find one. The U.S. Federal Reserve officials see tepid wage growth as a sign of slack in the labor market. The Dec. 16-17 Fed meeting minutes show that "most participants saw no clear evidence of a broad based acceleration in wages." The labor force participation rate is also stuck at a low level- 62.7% in Dec. 2014. The U-unemployment rate that includes involuntary part time workers and workers marginally attached to the labor force was at 11.2% in Dec. 2014. This includes workers too discouraged to look for work and people working parttime because they could not get full time work. It is steadily dropping from 16.6% in 2010 to 14.4% by 2012, 13.1% by 2013, and now 11.2% in 2014, showing steady improvement but still high....

LyrArc Article Gist
Wessel describes the changes in American manufacturing as it goes through some of the same changes that happened in Germany in the years after reunification. With high unemployment German manufacturing companies worked with unions and the government for wage restraint over the last decade, resulting in wages barely keeping up with inflation. The increase in productivity and wage restraint helped Germany become more competitive with factories in Asia and Eastern Europe. Wages are now increasing with larger wage increase negotiated by the unions in Germany, as skilled labor is becoming scarce. In the U.S. Labor Department figures show an increase in output per hour in American manufacturing of 13% in the last 5 years and 21% in the five years before that. Typical of the wage changes in manufacturing- American Axle & Manufacturing plant in Three Rivers, Michigan hires assembly workers at $10 per hour, with older "legacy workers" making $18 per hour. General Electric brought back manufacturing work from Mexico paying workers $13 per hour for new hires, compared to to $21- $23 in prior years. At GM, Ford and Chrysler workers make $16-$19 per hour in base pay compared to older workers with legacy rates of $29-$33. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows earnings for production workers in manufacturing averaging $19.15 per hour in April, which is where they were in 2000 adjusted for inflation. The impact of this large increase in productivity with new machinery and production methods, and the wage reductions in manufacturing, is a return of offshored jobs. Wages increased in China and Mexico in the last decade. After a 35% decrease in the number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. from 1998-2010, the number of jobs has increased by 4.3% to 11.9 million in April 2012, according to the Labor Department....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Labor Department reports that there is no U.S. productivity growth in the 4th quarter of 2014 over the prior year. U.S. productivity growth is about 1.3% for the period since 2009, showing a weak expansion. Job gains of 295,000 in February 2015 show an improving jobs picture, yet wage gains are tepid. This is partly due to slack in the labor market not reflected in the official unemployment rate of 5.5% for Feb. 2015, with a large number of part time workers who do not have full time work. The low productivity growth is another reason for low wage gains in this economic recovery. Economic growth is also weak with economists estimating GDP growth for the 1st quarter 2015 at 1.5% annualized. GDP growth is in the 2-2.5% growth range since 2009. Hourly wages are up less than 2% since 2009, with hourly wage growth in Feb. 2015 at 2% over the prior year. Weak business investment is part of the reason for the sluggish economic growth. Macroeconomic Advisors estimates the capital investment for equipment software and buildings is seeing growth of only 0.3% in the last decade, much lower than in the last forty years. With most of the gains from the internet technology advances already made there is less prospect of a sudden increase in productivity....

LyrArc Article Gist
Van Dam says its not that great being a worker in the U.S. because it is hard for the unemployed resulting from competing with workers in other countries with lower wages, and for those who are unemployed harder because worker collective bargaining is weakened over 3 decades. He cites a 296 page OECD report showing very little government support for unemployed and at risk American workers. It says this has contributed to higher income inequality and larger share of lower income people than almost any other advanced a nation. Only Spain and Greece are shown as having more households earning less than half the median income- showing large numbers of people are poor or close to being poor. In the U.S. an average of 1 in 5 lose their jobs each year, and 23% of workers 15 to 64 are in their job less than a year in 2016. The job churn hurts workers because of firing and layoffs being frequent, more than is healthy for a economy. The U.S. and Mexico are the only two countries not requiring advance notice before firings. And fewer than half of workers find a job within a year in the U.S. Two in three families with a displaced worker fall in poverty for some time. Unemployed workers with typically 26 weeks support get less support than any other country in the study. Only 12% of workers in U.S. are covered by collective bargaining. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Congressional Budget Office report in 2011 shows after tax resource flow that a family has to pay for consumption, a better approach to measuring the growth in incomes since 1970 including government help to lower income people and gains in the stock market for upper class Americans. This report shows after tax resource flow for the top 1% in the U.S. tripled from 1970 to 2011. For the middle fifth of the distribution families experienced real net income gains of 36 percent, and the bottom fifth of the distribution real net income gain of 50 percent.This suggests gains of about 10 percent a year if averaged over 30 years for the top 1 percent compared to 1% a year for the middle fifth and 1.5% for the bottom fifth. The report was done in 2011 and this could skew the results. Between 2011 and 2015 the stock market recovered and this would suggest a much higher gain for the top 1% of incomes and the top 10%, while also providing improvement in incomes for the middle fifth and the bottom fifth as unemployment decreased. Working class and minimum wage slowly recovered, and interest income on savings extremely low, with large student and other household debt, so that even at 10-12% gains per year for the top 1%, and 1-2% for the middle fifth of the distribution and 1.5-2% for the bottom fifth the last three decades have not been good for working class and middle income Americans compared to the the period 1950-1970 early postwar period recovery....