US adults are stressed about grocery costs, an AP-NORC poll finds

[wing2000]

"The Consumer Price Index shows the price of food has risen 3% in the last 12 months - groceries have risen 2.4% while dinning out is 3.8% costlier than it was 12 months ago."

"According to the poll, 64% of the lowest-income Americans — those who have a household income of less than $30,000 a year — say the cost of groceries is a “major” stressor. That’s compared with about 4 in 10 Americans who have a household income of $100,000 or more."

Most Americans Are Stressed About Grocery Costs — As Food Prices Climb
Most Americans Are Stressed About Grocery Costs — As Food Prices Climb
20 hours ago

The vast majority of US adults are stressed about grocery costs, an AP-NORC poll finds

A new poll finds the vast majority of U.S. adults are feeling some stress about the cost of groceries, as prices continue to rise and concerns about the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs remain widespread.

apnews.com

 

[Fantine]

And now that the director of National Labor Statistics will be replaced by a puppet there will be an even bigger gap between how expensive groceries are getting contrasted with the lived experience of consumers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How much of this is valid concern, vs. being worried because it's being hyped up and people assume it'll go even higher?

I say that because of the numbers you mentioned.


For instance...

If a normal trip to the grocery store was costing someone about $125. That price going to $128.15 (the 2.4% increase) doesn't exactly seem like an earth shattering amount of money. Especially considering that the prices of some other things have gone down in ways that are likely offsetting a good chunk of it. (Gasoline is down about 7%, apparel is down about 2%, communications costs are down 1.5%)

 

[wing2000]

How much of this is valid concern, vs. being worried because it's being hyped up and people assume it'll go even higher?

You would need to ask the poll respondents why they think their concerns are "valid".

I say that because of the numbers you mentioned.


For instance...

If a normal trip to the grocery store was costing someone about $125. That price going to $128.15 (the 2.4% increase) doesn't exactly seem like an earth shattering amount of money. Especially considering that the prices of some other things have gone down in ways that are likely offsetting a good chunk of it. (Gasoline is down about 7%, apparel is down about 2%, communications costs are down 1.5%)

Sure, in the agregate, 2.4% doesn't sound like much. IMO, people latch on to certain itemss in their grocery basket for price flucation. Eggs, for example, rose by 27.3% over the past year. More recently, the price of beef has gone up.

Most Americans Are Stressed About Grocery Costs — As Food Prices Climb

The cost of food has risen faster than overall inflation in the last year.

www.forbes.com

 

[Servus]

Shockwaves from the former administration that haven't quelled in the eight months of the current administration. The old adage, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

 

[BCP1928]

Shockwaves from the former administration that haven't quelled in the eight months of the current administration. The old adage, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Authoritarian socialist systems call that "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Authoritarian capitalist systems call it "the social commodification of labor." It amounts to much the same thing either way, A period of discipline and austerity for the working class until we vanquish the enemies who keep us from ascending to the broad, sunny uplands of prosperity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sure, in the agregate, 2.4% doesn't sound like much. IMO, people latch on to certain itemss in their grocery basket for price flucation. Eggs, for example, rose by 27.3% over the past year. More recently, the price of beef has gone up.

For the people who've made egg prices something of a "flashpoint", is it truly because they were buying that many eggs every week?

Or is "eggs" another "gas prices" type of indicator, where people tend to hyper-fixate on the price of one thing that's gotten worse (as if it's the sole barometer of economic health), when it provides a convenient opportunity to dovetail into a narrative about an administration they don't like "ruining the economy"?

Granted, perhaps my vantage point is limited simply because of who I see on my social media feeds posting about such things. (I have a hyper-polarized extended family between my mom's side and dad's side)

All of the "eggs are expensive; sky is falling" posts I see on my Facebook feed are from one particular camp (and to the best of my knowledge, weren't egg aficionados, and gleefully post about spending inflated sums on other things)

Ex: "Here's pics of my latest Mediterranean cruise" -- two posts later -- "Eggs are more expensive, this is a travesty"
(Calm down aunt 'Jane' -- I'm sure the carton of eggs being an extra 80 cents isn't going to impact you taking a 3rd cruise this year)

Likewise -- I'd see the posts on my Facebook from people in the conservative camp during Biden... People who live in 400k+ homes, drive 70k SUVs, making posts like a $0.18 increase to the gas prices was a financial travesty that shook them to their core, and from which they'd never recover
(Calm down uncle 'John', you make six figures and your kids are all grown and moved out - you're not going to end up on skid row because your weekly fill-up was an extra $20)

 

[BCP1928]

For the people who've made egg prices something of a "flashpoint", is it truly because they were buying that many eggs every week?

Or is "eggs" another "gas prices" type of indicator, where people tend to hyper-fixate on the price of one thing that's gotten worse (as if it's the sole barometer of economic health), when it provides a convenient opportunity to dovetail into a narrative about an administration they don't like "ruining the economy"?

Granted, perhaps my vantage point is limited simply because of who I see on my social media feeds posting about such things. (I have a hyper-polarized extended family between my mom's side and dad's side)

All of the "eggs are expensive; sky is falling" posts I see on my Facebook feed are from one particular camp (and to the best of my knowledge, weren't egg aficionados, and gleefully post about spending inflated sums on other things)

Ex: "Here's pics of my latest Mediterranean cruise" -- two posts later -- "Eggs are more expensive, this is a travesty"
(Calm down aunt 'Jane' -- I'm sure the carton of eggs being an extra 80 cents isn't going to impact you taking a 3rd cruise this year)

Likewise -- I'd see the posts on my Facebook from people in the conservative camp during Biden... People who live in 400k+ homes, drive 70k SUVs, making posts like a $0.18 increase to the gas prices was a financial travesty that shook them to their core, and from which they'd never recover
(Calm down uncle 'John', you make six figures and your kids are all grown and moved out - you're not going to end up on skid row because your weekly fill-up was an extra $20)

"Let them eat cake."

 

[wing2000]

Or is "eggs" another "gas prices" type of indicator, where people tend to hyper-fixate on the price of one thing that's gotten worse (as if it's the sole barometer of economic health), when it provides a convenient opportunity to dovetail into a narrative about an administration they don't like "ruining the economy"?

Certainly. Many of us, myself included, make observations about the price of _____ even though it may not be a "stressor" for us personally.
But I also think people primarily vote based on their perception of how the economy is doing. That perception is largely formed on what they pay each week at the gas pump or at the grocery store for eggs or ground beef. And, as the survey notes, those with lower incomes will prioritize the cost of food and gas even more. If current inflation trends continue (and all indications are they will), the econmey will be the number one issue going into next year's elections.

"According to the poll, 64% of the lowest-income Americans — those who have a household income of less than $30,000 a year — say the cost of groceries is a “major” stressor. That’s compared with about 4 in 10 Americans who have a household income of $100,000 or more."

 

[Fantine]

If people are feeling stressed by inflation that will drive their votes. Telling them it doesn't exist won't matter.
Our city is under government orders to repair a sewer system neglected for years. Water bills have skyrocketed. It's a big struggle for many people.
I live on the outskirts of town on a little over an acre with a septic system. It doesn't affect me in the least.
We did, however, buy a car. I wanted an SUV with all the new safety features. Being older, I wanted to protect my family and the drivers I encountered as my 70 year old reflexes might be declining. It was $10K more than my last new car, a big jump.
A little sticker shock.
We all feel inflation differently.

 

[BCP1928]

And working class pay stays relatively flat while prices rise, the same issue that caused trouble for the Democrats because they had no intention of doing anything real about it. The Republicans have no intention of doing anything about it either.

 

[Desk trauma]

And working class pay stays relatively flat while prices rise, the same issue that caused trouble for the Democrats because they had no intention of doing anything real about it. The Republicans have no intention of doing anything about it either.

They have been more successful at using it as a cudgel against their opponents.

 

[rambot]

Both American political parties have entrenched that benefit the rich over all.

I have always been suspicious of the Democrat party on this matter...well not really. I always just figured.

But for Republicans, it utterly baffles me that anyone would EVER think that party has the economic interests of rhe working man. There is never evidence of that. The closest thing they offer is trickle down (which has clearly been proven to be horse hockey) but much of the legislation is actually VEHEMENTLY anti worker.

I'm glad to see that a portion of the dems is waking up to this. But until lyndon Johnsons quote on getting a white guy to look down on a black guy is no longer true, America isn't going to fix that peoblem.

 

[Nithavela]

Shockwaves from the former administration that haven't quelled in the eight months of the current administration. The old adage, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

It also gets worse before it gets really bad. Things getting worse is not evidence that they will improve.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If people are feeling stressed by inflation that will drive their votes.

That all depends on whether or not is a "sincere" stress they're feeling.

I noted the examples before...

For people who are genuinely feeling financially pinched, their votes may be impacted.

For people who pretend to be feeling pinched because it lets them take a political jab, they're unlikely to change their voting patterns.


For instance, the kind of person who will spend $25 on Amazon to buy a package of the Biden "I did that" stickers to vandalize gas pumps with because of the gas prices going up $0.18 per gallon....yeah, it won't matter. Gas could go up to $6/gallon under Trump, they'll still be voting against the Democrats next time.


Likewise, there was polling from Ipsos in May of 2024 indicating that 42% of Americans (62% of Gen-Z) would support a meat tax of 15% in order to artificially drive down consumption in the name of helping to address climate impacts-- fair to assume a large percentage of them were democrats that were answering yes to that, right? Basically, we want to artificially raise the price of meat on purpose so that you eat less of it because meat consumption is bad for the environment.

-- now that it's a republican administration, "Oh my gosh, can you believe these beef prices? How are people going to be able to afford their beef?" doesn't come off as a very sincere concern.

 

[rambot]

That all depends on whether or not is a "sincere" stress they're feeling.

I noted the examples before...

For people who are genuinely feeling financially pinched, their votes may be impacted.

For people who pretend to be feeling pinched because it lets them take a political jab, they're unlikely to change their voting patterns.


For instance, the kind of person who will spend $25 on Amazon to buy a package of the Biden "I did that" stickers to vandalize gas pumps with because of the gas prices going up $0.18 per gallon....yeah, it won't matter. Gas could go up to $6/gallon under Trump, they'll still be voting against the Democrats next time.


Likewise, there was polling from Ipsos in May of 2024 indicating that 42% of Americans (62% of Gen-Z) would support a meat tax of 15% in order to artificially drive down consumption in the name of helping to address climate impacts-- fair to assume a large percentage of them were democrats that were answering yes to that, right? Basically, we want to artificially raise the price of meat on purpose so that you eat less of it because meat consumption is bad for the environment.

-- now that it's a republican administration, "Oh my gosh, can you believe these beef prices? How are people going to be able to afford their beef?" doesn't come off as a very sincere concern.

1.Arguably climate change is a reason that benefits society. Making meat more expensive with that justification serves a purpose.
Making meat more expensive so the 1% gets richer ain't gonna sell to anyone.


2. One could argue you've just show the empathy of the left with your example I guess.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

1.Arguably climate change is a reason that benefits society. Making meat more expensive with that justification serves a purpose.
Making meat more expensive so the 1% gets richer ain't gonna sell to anyone.


2. One could argue you've just show the empathy of the left with your example I guess.

It's still the same outcome though, is it not?

If the price of beef goes up 15%

Whether it's done in the name of "making someone rich" vs. "deterrence tax like cigarettes have", the end result would still be less meat consumption, would it not?

Either a person can afford to pay $11.50 instead of $10, or they can't. Which means that if that amount truly was a deterring factor, the heads of the meat industry wouldn't actually end up making anyone richer, as they'd have fewer customers buying it due to some people getting priced out.


They only practical explanation for why someone would be opposed to one and not the other, is if they felt that sort of price difference wasn't actually a deterrent in any meaningful way, but just had a strong preference on what entity should get the proceeds of the price increase.

 

[BCP1928]

That all depends on whether or not is a "sincere" stress they're feeling.

I noted the examples before...

For people who are genuinely feeling financially pinched, their votes may be impacted.

For people who pretend to be feeling pinched because it lets them take a political jab, they're unlikely to change their voting patterns.


For instance, the kind of person who will spend $25 on Amazon to buy a package of the Biden "I did that" stickers to vandalize gas pumps with because of the gas prices going up $0.18 per gallon....yeah, it won't matter. Gas could go up to $6/gallon under Trump, they'll still be voting against the Democrats next time.


Likewise, there was polling from Ipsos in May of 2024 indicating that 42% of Americans (62% of Gen-Z) would support a meat tax of 15% in order to artificially drive down consumption in the name of helping to address climate impacts-- fair to assume a large percentage of them were democrats that were answering yes to that, right? Basically, we want to artificially raise the price of meat on purpose so that you eat less of it because meat consumption is bad for the environment.

-- now that it's a republican administration, "Oh my gosh, can you believe these beef prices? How are people going to be able to afford their beef?" doesn't come off as a very sincere concern.

The people you satirize aren't feeling the pinch themselves, that's just your usual sycophantic whitewash. What is being pointed out is that the grandiose promises made to the working class by candidate Trump were lies from the beginning, and it's beginning to be too late to blame it all on Biden.

 

[rambot]

It's still the same outcome though, is it not?

If the price of beef goes up 15%

Whether it's done in the name of "making someone rich" vs. "deterrence tax like cigarettes have", the end result would still be less meat consumption, would it not?

Either a person can afford to pay $11.50 instead of $10, or they can't. Which means that if that amount truly was a deterring factor, the heads of the meat industry wouldn't actually end up making anyone richer, as they'd have fewer customers buying it due to some people getting priced out.


They only practical explanation for why someone would be opposed to one and not the other, is if they felt that sort of price difference wasn't actually a deterrent in any meaningful way, but just had a strong preference on what entity should get the proceeds of the price increase.

You may not believe it but not every person automatically buys thr cheapest item.

I do believe a meat tax would be a deterrentbut otherwise I agree with "the only practical explanation".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The people you satirize aren't feeling the pinch themselves, that's just your usual sycophantic whitewash. What is being pointed out is that the grandiose promises made to the working class by candidate Trump were lies from the beginning, and it's beginning to be too late to blame it all on Biden.

It'd be satirizing if it was a semi-bogus premise that was exaggerated for comedic effect.

The examples I posted are real.

We all saw the slew of vandalized gas pumps with these stickers

And the polling results I mentioned were from Ipsos (they're a reputable polling organization)



The thread was presented as being about people claiming to be stressed over grocery prices. Your post was the first one that mentions anything about Trump lying about promises...yet you mentioned that's what was being pointed out by the thread.

Are you suggesting that any negative economic indicator being discussed in a thread should just be considered a default segue into "Trump's a liar"?