An essay went viral by claiming that $140,000 is what a family of four needs to just get by — a number higher than what 70% of American households earn. Conservative economists called it idiotic. Kathryn dismissed it and got a nasty DM. What’s the real controversy? It’s not that the poverty line is misleading. It's that we have no measure for our current affordability crisis. And the American mindset has been so warped by decades of bad economic policy that we think the only way to get help is to prove that we’re poor.

END NOTES:

Watch video clips from this episode at the Optimist Economy YouTube channel⁠⁠.

Follow us on Instagram at ⁠⁠@optimist_economy.

Follow us on TikTok at ⁠⁠@optimist_economy.

Read some stuff on our Substack.

Consume leisure in an O.E. hat or shirt: https://merch.ambientinks.com/collections/optimisteconomy

Support us and our tireless editors and producers by donating: https://optimisteconomy.com

And send your economic questions, concerns, or executive orders: [email protected]

Our own optimist economist Kathryn Anne Edwards worked on a research project several years ago to measure income inequality. Its massive headline number has taken on a life of its own in columns, talking points, memes. We explain how Kathryn and co-author Carter Price managed to answer this question: What would have happened to Americans’ incomes if they’d grown at the same rate as the U.S. economy overall? Spoiler alert: 90% of us would be a lot better off.

Read the working paper Kathryn co-wrote in 2020: Trends in Income From 1975 to 2018 and Carter Price’s update going through 2023.

Watch video clips from this episode at the Optimist Economy YouTube channel⁠⁠.

Follow us on Instagram at ⁠⁠@optimist_economy.

Follow us on TikTok at ⁠⁠@optimist_economy.

Read some stuff on our Substack.

Consume leisure in an O.E. hat or shirt: https://merch.ambientinks.com/collections/optimisteconomy

Support us and our tireless editors and producers by donating at https://optimisteconomy.com

Send your economic questions or executive orders to [email protected]

Hey optimists! Season two of Optimist Economy is finally here. New episodes coming on Tuesdays starting January 27. More at www.optimisteconomy.com

Listener Max did his grad thesis on pay transparency laws in Colorado and found that they narrowed the gender wage gap by 8 cents on the dollar. But some big-name economists reported that such laws can actually reduce wages. So what’s the deal? Kathryn’s answer during our October Q&A was so overlong and multipart that we jokingly called it, “The Max Show.” So here it is, as a mini-episode.

Holiday shopping for the optimists in your life? Check out our shirts and hats at optimisteconomy.com

Your drunk uncle calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Your crypto-bro cousin thinks tariffs make China pay. Your grandfather blames working women for tanking wage growth. Economist Kathryn Edwards takes on a dozen hostile dinner-table challenges to help optimists everywhere prepare for dinner table debate. Robin plays every annoying relative you've ever argued with. Pass the [expletive] gravy.

Ready to rep Optimist Economy with a shirt, hat or tote bag? Hit up our new website and merch store at optimisteconomy.com

Take the listener survey first to get a code for a free Original Optimist sticker: https://tinyurl.com/op-econ-survey

Optimist Economy got its start almost exactly one year ago with a phone call that began, "Hear me out…" Thirty-two episodes later we ask, “What have we done?” Mostly we conditioned ourselves to keep our eye on the ball – the better U.S. economy and future that are possible – through a lot of very bad news days. In the background, we both moved. Kathryn kept a lot of pregnancy symptoms hidden. We incorporated a nonprofit. And somehow, we managed to drop a new episode every Tuesday. Thanks to all our listeners for being our spiritual sponsors on this journey.

Take Our Listener Survey!https://tinyurl.com/op-econ-survey

Why is anyone’s health insurance tied to their job? It's because of a superintendent in Dallas, World War II wage freezes, a 1953 tax code quirk, and decades of inertia. This accident of history costs America $384 billion a year in tax breaks to corporations for providing coverage. And what do we get for that? A system that locks people in jobs they'd otherwise leave, suppresses wages of those who look "expensive to insure," and disadvantages small businesses that can't afford gold-level health plans. In a different historical timeline, President Harry S. Truman’s 1945 national health plan would've given us universal coverage, paid medical leave, and government-funded medical schools. But of course we’re not living in that timeline.

Take Our Listener Survey!https://tinyurl.com/op-econ-survey

In the final Q&A of the season, economist Kathryn Edwards answers listener questions on recent universal basic income experiments, legislative budgeting tricks, and the value of more aggressive IRS auditing. She also explains what eradicating the minimum wage exemption might mean, particularly for disabled and incarcerated workers. We also discuss what people actually do for money when they stop job hunting. Fair warning: this one runs long and the keeping it f-bomb free resolution lasted about five minutes.

Take Our Listener Survey! Help us plan for Season 2: https://tinyurl.com/op-econ-survey

Just how broken is Unemployment Insurance? Consider this: During every recession since the 1950s, the federal government has had to step in and prop it up. Of people looking for work, only half qualify for Unemployment Insurance. And just half of those actually receive benefits. That’s what you get from a system designed mostly for factory workers nearly a century ago and then left to the heedless care of states. Benefits vary wildly by state — $235 a week in some, over $800 in others. Most states have — understandably — taken the lesson that they don’t have to fix anything because Washington will step in if the economy gets really bad. This is a scrap-it-and-start-over situation. Many solutions would be better, including a system focused on re-employment that keeps workerbots attached to the labor market, helping businesses prevent layoffs during downturns, and making job-hunting less awful.

The economic pain that Americans experienced in 2022-23 was dubbed the “vibesession,” suggesting that negative public sentiment was out of sync with a healthy economy. But what we were truly experiencing was more like a “ghost recession.” As the Fed squeezed the economy by raising interest rates from zero to above 5% to get inflation under control, only the extraordinary circumstances of the post-pandemic economy kept unemployment low and the economy growing. But if we had a ghost recession, that also means that the nascent 2024 “ghost recovery” screeched to a halt with the radical changes to economic policy this year. Also in this episode: What it means that 911,000 fewer jobs were created from spring 2024-2025, and many metaphor try-outs.

Revenge of the Vibecession | The New Yorker Birth-Death Model FAQ

THE THIN END OF THE WEDGE definition in American English | Collins English Dictionary

Economists’ models of inflation are letting them down [The Economist 2019]