U.S. Economy Contracts at 0.3% Rate in First Quarter
494 comments
·April 30, 2025lvl155
And just as inflation was down to a level where the Fed would be comfortable enough to start cutting rates, this administration came into foil all of that. Even if you really believe in these policies, which is highly controversial, one has to wonder why they timed it so soon basically forcing the Fed into a corner. It's as if this administration has a mandate to destroy the US economy.
csomar
> forcing the Fed into a corner
Assuming independent, the Fed responsibility of lower inflation is higher than employment. They might tolerate some inflation for employment but we can only tell after the effects of tariffs kick in and we see the new inflation numbers.
aaroninsf
We can dispense with polite formulations under current circumstances.
One would have to be a moron or literally mentally ill to "believe in these policies,"
either having no understanding, or, having invested in some delusional confabulated make believe universe where the fundamental order of our civilization is collectively reworked (including by enemies and competitors at every scale) in a context of rapidly degrading climate, to suit your ideology.
jpster
I mistakenly assumed Scott Bessent knew better and would do better, given his financial markets experience.
From Wikipedia: “He was hired by Soros Fund Management, eventually becoming the head of its London office. In this role, in September 1992, he was a leading member of the group that profited by $1 billion on Black Wednesday, the British Pound sterling crisis.”
chneu
The president doesn't even believe in these policies.
Trump says anything he can think of and then whatever people respond to he goes with.
That + the last person to discuss something with him are his two leading decision making policies.
antifa
> One would have to be a moron or literally mentally ill to "believe in these policies,"
Playing devils advocate, I think most people thought the incoming tariffs were going to be a lot smaller, also maybe assumed there would be an industrial policy.
vkou
Those people should have probably paid attention to the clown parade of 2016-2020, with the administration's revolving door of one incompetent person being brought in after another (many of them getting fired, and a bunch of others went to prison).
Followed by 2021-2024, where all the adults in the room were talking to the press, explaining how hard they had to work to convince Trump why he shouldn't carry out his worst ideas.
Followed by all of those people getting fired in January of 2025, and replaced by lickspittles, sycophants, and other flavors of yes-men.
There's no way that someone who surrounds himself with the kind of cabinet that he does, or reacts to criticism and feedback the way he does is going to be making good decisions.
chasd00
[flagged]
whoknowsidont
The fact that this comment is even showing up on HN is a testament to how far gone the U.S. populace is lol.
U.S. economy had the best standing of any other economy thanks directly to the policies set forth by the fed-res, yet this guy thinks they were trying to engineer the exact opposite outcome that happened.
Like a doctor giving a patient medicine, the patient being cured, and the patient then claiming "I didn't need the medicine you were just trying to kill me all along!"
Truly incredible.
We are not a serious country anymore, if we ever were.
xdkyx
Can You list some of those policies leading to a recession?
smt88
They're just referring to raising interest rates
aprilthird2021
This is the level of the average American voter that got us into this mess.
jsbisviewtiful
The amount MAGA apologists spouting off bs on HN in the last 2 years has been disappointing. I've been on HN for about 8 years now and lately the pervasive brain rot has made a home even here. Truly disappointing.
Dumblydorr
What are you spouting? They’re trying to achieve a soft landing, who wants a recession at the fed?
thehumanmeat
There never was rampant inflation (in the sense of the term of expanding money supply). It was all driven by the increased prices supply shock driven "inflation". The solution to high prices ("inflation") is high prices, not increased interest rates.
praptak
Peter Navarro on CNBC reacts to the shrinking GDP number by insisting it's actually good news because if you strip out the effect of tariffs "you have 3 percent growth. So we really like where we're at now."
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/30/trump-trade-navarro-us-gdp-d...
aweiland
Did he get this math from Ron Vara?
tim333
It could actually make some sense - if Walmart spent their spare cash importing Chinese stuff before the tariffs rather than spending it on American stuff, I think that would have the effect of lowering GDP or domestic product. Presumably next month they'd stock up on American stuff which would cause a bounceback in the figures.
iAMkenough
Unfortunately there's more nuance, as some materials to produce American stuff can't be sourced domestically or imported affordably.
Realistically we'll see a few giants pivot to less quality materials, many large and medium size businesses reduce their offerings, and a large amount of small businesses dissolving or filling for bankruptcy after not being able to weather the abrupt, completely voluntary supply chain disruptions across various industries.
sjsdaiuasgdia
"We have always been at war with Eastasia."
praptak
"If you strip the effects of having all limbs off, I'm actually well above the top fighting condition" -- the Black Knight
nancyminusone
"the oil was spilled outside of the environment"
ty6853
Unfortunately housing will still not get cheaper because nearly the entire supply is locked into 30 year loans at near 0%, even a fool would starve, default their car note, and sell their every last valuable before giving that up.
sambull
We won't ever see a 2008 style price drop again. My house was going for $399K before I bought it in 2011 for $199K @ <4%.
Unfortunately we got lucky, the big players in REO weren't ready to 'close' that many packages last time. My first devops role was at a company that was working with big players to make sure next time this exact scenario presented itself the big guys will be able to deploy their cash to gobble these things up.
josefresco
> We won't ever see a 2008 style price drop again
That's what they told me when I bought my $250K condo in the early 2000's. Then in 2008 it was magically worth only $125K after being appraised a year earlier for 350K.
Never forget: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
VeninVidiaVicii
I’ll go you one further — it seems like every time some prescient comment about the economy gets extremely upvoted, the economy does the literal opposite thing.
itsoktocry
>Then in 2008 it was magically worth only $125K after being appraised a year earlier for 350K.
And what's it worth today? What is the average annual price appreciation since you bought it?
Watching "home value" month-to-month is pointless.
tossandthrow
Risk tends to build up and be released in different ways every time.
It is right that it is not likely a credit crisis that will be the trigger next time.
But it could be hyperinflation - which would de-facto crash the housing market.
Right now the PE value for the housing market is really high, and it is not likely to continue up forever.
LastTrain
Go find a graph of housing prices 1963 to current, you will see that the events leading up to and including 2008 did nothing to help or hinder housing affordability in the long run. We are due a 2008 style correction but that will not make housing affordable either. The real problem is that household income stopped outpacing home prices in the 1970s.
Workaccount2
The core actual problem is that there are good places to live, and finite land in those places.
The next step up "problem" is that the income curve has flattened greatly in the last 75 years. So there are many more high earners mixed in that they are carrying "regular home" prices up with them.
In 1967 lower/middle/upper class ratio was 36%/54%/10%
In 2019 lower/middle/upper class ratio was 25%/41%/34%
The middle class is shrinking because people are getting richer, not poorer. That's the part you never hear people say. Probably because they don't even know it and just assume everyone is broke.
I can only imagine now, after the pandemic money shower (not stimulus checks), that this effect is even greater. Hell upper class might actually be at parity with middle class now.
wahern
> The real problem is that household income stopped outpacing home prices in the 1970s.
On a price per square foot basis, home prices have been remarkably stable since 1960s. The share of income spent on housing has also remained remarkably stable. Though prices have ballooned, interest drops considerably, so monthly payments as share of income haven't changed that much.
The way things have gotten worse for people isn't so obvious. For one thing, people have many more choices to spend their money on, such as computers and college. That's created additional pressure on people without the cost of housing itself changing as much as people think, but its a problem someone from 1960 might roll their eyes at. (Hedonistic adaptation?) Then of course there's various income and geographical bifurcations. For example, you can choose to live someplace cheap, but then you're opting out of the highly dynamic and potentially highly lucrative portions of the economy. That's an opportunity cost, but not a literal cost if you're comparing to 1960s lifestyles.
ty6853
The materials are very cheap.
Last year I built a house for ~30k shell, about ~60k with utilities and everything inside of it. My own labor.
Of course, there are only a handful of counties that will let you do that without licenses, or a building plan, or inspections at times that preclude holding a job. Because there is always some self-righteous actor, screaming at the rooftop that their neighbor is going to kill the whole neighborhood in a fire, no matter that housing has been virtually completely unregulated for owner/builders in my county for 2 decades and none of the hysteria people warned of came to fruition.
The plus is all these people screaming for expensive regulations are absolutely scared shitless of my area, and do not live here. Which is nirvana.
slashdev
In general yes, but in practice housing prices are down big in a lot of areas and still falling. Decisions happen at the margin, which means it's the marginal home owner who lost their job and has to sell, which pushes up supply at a time when demand is very weak - and that's your lower prices.
But it's very regional. Some areas will continue to see rising or stable prices.
FinnLobsien
That's the big problem. You can find cheap housing easily, but not where most people want to live. The problem could even get worse if there are fewer opportunities, but they remain concentrated in the Bay, NYC, etc.
null
shortrounddev2
Different world post-covid. Lots of people are willing to live in the middle of nowhere to buy a house, they just couldn't before because they needed to live near major job markets. A lot more people are able to work remote now.
I'd say that it changes the situation a little, but not everyone is able to work remote yet, so there's still the draw toward large city centers like you say. But personally I've met plenty of people who ditched their big city for the midwest as soon as they got approval to go remote. When their companies told them to go back to the office, they quit and found another job
rthomas6
Well I'm moving to get out of Alabama, so not everyone...
danny_codes
That effect only persists as long as people can pay their mortgages. Unfortunately the vast majority of people require a car to survive, and require food to survive. Defaults will begin if/when recession bites hard.
ActorNightly
Depends. If job markets start taking a significant hit, there is a crossover point at which people will be selling houses to either move or for cash.
aprilthird2021
I keep hoping it won't require a Bane-style takeover of major housing markets for me to afford a house, but that hope fades a bit every day
dsign
Slightly meta, when looking from outside, reading here feels like having your friends in the much-bigger-than-the-Titanic ship comment on it while the ship that was the emblem of the world sinks. The worst part of it is that every person outside of US watching this have a little demon sitting on their shoulder repeating, "They voted for him. A second time! You can't pity them." But I will say it anyway: stay strong.
gnarlouse
“They voted for him a second time” is a lapse in logic. There’s 1/2 of America that didn’t vote for him, the majority of which probably didn’t twice.
If you’re not an American, you don’t get to use bad American logic. ;)
chneu
As an American who did vote, please stop acting like "herp derp half the country didn't vote for him because they didn't vote" is some gotcha that proves Americans aren't idiots.
Not voting was a vote for trump. Low turnout benefits trump. Americans had the choice between trump and a black woman, Americans chose trump.
Americans are so stupid and refuse to look at ourselves in a fair light. It's so dumb and the rest of the world is laughing at us.
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else." What this quote means is that Americans falsely believe we're exceptional and different when in reality we aren't, but we'll waste a ton of time/resources before we admit it.
dsign
:-) That's a very American way of thinking, believing that you have the monopoly on bad logic. My data shows that you only got the razor-thin trade surplus there in the last few years.
Sammi
Here's the logic: You guys voted him in and committed to him a second time, ergo you are the ones that want this and you are the ones who are responsible for him. He's yours - a pure reflection of you guys. This is why the rest of the world don't trust you.
mikestew
That logic tells me you didn’t read the comment you’re replying to. I mean, I’m sure you read it, but how you walked away thinking your reply was apropos mystifies me.
mvdtnz
Don't tell me what I can't do, you don't get to decide what non-Americans don't do. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the logic that Americans voted for this man. The insane left wing in your country bears as much responsibility for his election as anyone else by galvanising the nation with your extremely stupid identity politics for the last 8 years.
beloch
It's not about pity so much as self-protection.
Trump's second term has given the world a wake-up call. Although Trump will likely be gone in four years, the MAGA movement could be long-lived and always four years or less away from taking over again. Even if Trump backs down on tariff's and expansionism during his own term, trust in the U.S. as a military ally and economic partner won't be restored quickly or easily.
What we're now seeing is world military alliances and the economy rewiring themselves, not to be subservient vassals of a hostile U.S., as Trump hopes, but to bypass the U.S.. If trade barriers around the U.S. are going to come and go in an unpredictable manner, then business will respond by building outside of that uncertainty. Manufacture of some low-end products may be onshored to the U.S., but only to meet domestic U.S. demand if and where that is high enough. It doesn't make sense to move manufacturing inside a region with unpredictable trade barriers if it's going to serve a global market.
Take a look at the election results in Canada. What was expected to be an easy majority win for the Conservatives just a few months ago came out as near-majority for the Liberals. Both parties campaigned on anti-Trump measures that include increasing East-West trade/infrastructure within Canada, diversification of the economy to rely more on Asian and European markets, and reduced spending on defence products from the U.S.. This is long-term policy that will make Canada less vulnerable to future MAGA'ruptions, even long after Trump is gone. Trump could do a 180 tomorrow, but the impact of what he's already done will last for decades at the very least.
ahmeneeroe-v2
Unless you're watching this from the moon, your country is in a worse position than the US.
usui
A lot of arrogance to automatically assume any other country is in a worse position without any information. What if the person was posting from China on a VPN? How would the statement remain true then?
ahmeneeroe-v2
Yes, China specifically is also in a worse position than the US in this trade war.
georgeecollins
What if that turns out to be not true? China's trade with the US is not that big in $ terms and if they take an economic hit it will be unifying. The USA did this to them. Europe wasn't doing that well before, this jolt could be bad short term, but not that bad long term. And again, very unifying.
After the Trump tariffs in the first term, US sales of Soy Beans to China never recovered. They switched to Brazil. What if the rest of the world just start buying fewer treasury bills (or paying less for the return) from now on? It is possible this could be worse for the USA than other developed countries.
ahmeneeroe-v2
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I'm willing to take the bet the US comes out on top.
gre
I mean, he kind of stole the election.
sapiogram
Ah, good to know the other side is now throwing out voter fraud accusations as well.
gre
I'm not on the democrats' side either.
I am posting an article that states there was disenfranchisement on a scale large enough to tip the election. You can find other sources than just this article.
pedroma
Did you forget the Russia collusion thing from 2016?
laughingcurve
As someone who voted against Donald Trump... Saying that is just hardcore cope and not relevant to the thread / original post.
remich
Yeah I don't get why so many people are willing to believe conspiracy theories when the actual theory that many people in this country just have shit for brains is much more persuasive.
os2warpman
The primer button on this contraction machine has only just been pressed, baby.
This is just us pulling an initial vacuum, drawing the real contraction in.
amai
This is good news. It could be much worse given the chaos regime in the US at the moment.
zdragnar
First I hear that the CPI, inflation, gas, food and medical costs are all down, and new employment exceed expectations by 100k.
Now I hear the GDP contacted? So many mixed signals.
apples_oranges
Well, I assume if economic activity is reduced, oil gets cheaper due to less demand, and this can have positive effect on some indicators.
seanmcdirmid
Oil prices are usually correlated with economic health. The better the economy, the higher oil prices. Trump saying he would lower oil prices sounded more like a threat to me during the campaign: yes, the price of oil went negative during his first term, but mix that wasn’t a good thing at all.
roxolotl
Yea the funny thing about oil prices is that if they go too low there's no longer a reason to pump. The US was the world's largest oil producer in 2024 but prices below about $60 a barrel mean most of that pumping isn't worth doing.
It's very rare that prices going down is good. It usually results in a spiral that is negatively self reinforcing. Price stability is what you generally want.
XorNot
Negative prices at all points are market failures of one form or another. They're never good.
tonetheman
[dead]
this_user
All these data are backward looking. The employment numbers were for March before "Liberation Day". The real impact of all of this will only become apparent in the full Q2 data.
surgical_fire
Actually Q3. In Q2 companies will be offloading all the things they imported ahead of tarriffs kick in.
adverbly
If prices go down, doesn't that mean GDP also goes down assuming that that the quantity of items purchased doesn't change?
victorbjorklund
Prices affect peoples and companies buying decision. If an Iphone is 1000 dollars instead of 4000 dollars more Iphones will be sold.
margalabargala
Sure, but 4x more?
selectodude
Not really. if consumption stayed the same while prices changed, real GDP would not change. That would just be deflation.
slashdev
The labor market is the most lagging of all economic indicators. It doesn't turn over until we're really in the recession.
Leading indicators, like housing and manufacturing, are not looking promising.
anovikov
It's quite natural that if economy contracts, prices go down. It happens (almost) all of the time - the only big exception was 1973-1979 because of Arab oil embargo - only time when GDP was falling AND prices rising faster than usual. Every other recession was accompanied with falling prices, or at the very least, falling inflation. That's why fiat money exists - to prevent it from becoming a self-perpetuating vicious cycle.
jmull
It's going to get worse.
This is actually buoyed by buying ahead of the tariffs, and the tariffs themselves haven't had a chance to take effect yet.
The economic nosedive is just beginning.
Jcampuzano2
Trump will still be blaming Biden for this all the way down to the bottom and until the last day of his presidency, and his cult will eat that shit up.
tmountain
The die hard supporters, yes, but his approval is already in decline across a bunch of key demographics (women, independents, hispanics). The only President that has been less popular in the first 100 days is... Trump (first term). The majority disapprove with the current handling of the Ukraine war, ending foreign aid programs, and immigration (his strong point). His approval on the economy has fallen 13 points since December, which should be alarming for his party, as that was a key factor in his re-election (Biden inflation concerns). He can blame Biden all he wants, but the majority of Americans identify current economy as belonging to Trump. It's hard to blame Biden when he's been so vocal and brazen about the tariffs.
tim333
I think Trump 2 is polling lower than Trump 1. He of course is saying it's because the pollsters are criminals who should be investigated for fraud.
mvdtnz
> The only President that has been less popular in the first 100 days is... Trump
The same guy who got re-elected? Early term approval ratings mean less than nothing.
JohnnyMarcone
Are you confident enough in that prediction to short the market?
JohnTHaller
"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." - John Maynard Keynes
Sammi
You're the second person to make that quote in this discussion. It's such a lazy sentiment. You do know that there are people who have long careers in options trading, right?
boplicity
> This is actually buoyed by buying ahead of the tariff
Actually, the way the report works is the opposite. The increase in purchasing ahead of the tariffs counted against GDP growth, in terms of how the numbers were calculated in this report.
To be clear: Trump is a disaster, and I disagree with his approach.
jmull
You're right. It's Gross Domestic Product after all.
I was jumping ahead too quickly to overall economic activity (which is going to drop).
japhib
Interesting! Can you explain how this works? (economics noob over here)
thfuran
People buying and selling goods and services within the US are contributing to the GDP. If some people take some of that money they would've spent domestically and instead use it to import extra stuff (which doesn't count towards GDP), the GDP will go down.
acdha
This is just getting started, too, since the first half of Q1 was continuing to grow at the previous rates. Tge Atlanta Fed was projecting growth just under +2.5% until late February, and is now forecasting -2.7%:
fabian2k
This is Trump's reaction to this on Truth Social:
> This is Biden’s Stock Market, not Trump’s. I didn’t take over until January 20th. Tariffs will soon start kicking in, and companies are starting to move into the USA in record numbers. Our Country will boom, but we have to get rid of the Biden “Overhang.” This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!
I'm curious how long he will get away with denying reality like this. The economical situation is likely to have much more immediate effects on people that almost every other topic. It should be much harder for him to do his usual thing once the economy really crashes, but who knows how his supporters will actually react.
ujkhsjkdhf234
This is fascism by the way. The enemy is strong but weak, good times are always around the corner once we finish with the next hardship, there is a group of immigrants, gay people, trans people preventing us from reaching the promised land and we must get rid of them.
jihadjihad
> but who knows how his supporters will actually react.
It's all about the framing. Prices up, wages down during Biden? Armageddon and only Trump can save us.
Prices up, wages down during Trump? It's okay, we're making an investment--we tolerate being worse off today to be better off tomorrow. Look at all the trash Trump's taking out! It's only going to get cleaner!
One test will be how much pain we've endured by the time midterms roll around, and how many people sour on the current admin and elected reps.
Another will be in 3.5 years, where we will find out if the joists and beams raised by our democracy's framers were solid enough to last 250+ years.
Tadpole9181
Forever. The answer is "forever". The GOP are a cult at this point, they will never return to this objective reality.
mclau157
He has an out for now, but that out will not last forever
vixen99
No comment on Trump's view but meanwhile what going to happen to the 1$trillion trade deficit? How long can that reality be denied? Is that a sustainable position? I'm an economic ignoramus so I just curious as what knowledgeable people think about this.
foobarian
So let me get this straight: a bunch of foreign countries send you mega-ship loads of goods, and all they get back in return is paper. How is this a bad thing?
tomrod
People are certainly aware of the trade deficit. A trade deficit is not a bad thing.
- A growing trade deficit can reflect a robust economy. As U.S. consumers and businesses increase spending, imports rise, leading to a higher trade deficit. Simultaneously, higher U.S. interest rates attract foreign investment, strengthening the dollar and making imports more affordable.
- The U.S. trade deficit is counterbalanced by a capital account surplus, meaning foreign entities invest heavily in U.S. assets. This influx of capital supports economic growth, funds government debt, and contributes to job creation, particularly in sectors like manufacturing.
- Trade deficits allow U.S. consumers access to a wide array of affordable foreign goods. This access enhances purchasing power and living standards. Moreover, U.S. firms benefit from importing competitively priced intermediate goods, boosting productivity and innovation.
- While the U.S. often has a goods trade deficit, it maintains a surplus in services, including finance, education, and technology. This surplus offsets the goods deficit and underscores the U.S.'s competitive advantage in high-value service sectors. Wikipedia
- The U.S. dollar's status as the world's primary reserve currency enables the country to run trade deficits without immediate financial repercussions. Foreign nations hold dollars to facilitate international trade, which supports U.S. borrowing and spending capabilities.
- Concerns that trade deficits lead to job losses, especially in manufacturing, are often overstated. Research indicates that factors like automation and technological advancements have a more significant impact on employment trends than trade deficits.
- Trade deficits foster global economic interdependence, which can enhance diplomatic relations and geopolitical stability. By being a major importer, the U.S. strengthens its ties with exporting countries, promoting mutual economic interests.
While trade deficits can present challenges, they also offer benefits that contribute to the U.S. economy's dynamism and resilience. It's essential to consider the broader economic context rather than viewing trade deficits in isolation.
billti
> While the U.S. often has a goods trade deficit, it maintains a surplus in services, including finance, education, and technology
Maybe a naive question, but are only goods considered? I had always assumed the 'deficit' was "money in minus money out", and thus selling services, etc. would be included in it.
kstrauser
My trade deficit with Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc. is in the many tens of thousands of dollars. When are those freeloaders going to start paying me for a change?
tim333
Probably pretty sustainable. If the US was financing it by selling off its assets and running out then that would be unsustainable but the US is cranking out assets like nobody's business.
As an example Tesla the company didn't exist 30 years ago. Say you got some shares early you can sell those to the Chinese in return for their widgets. That kind of thing can go on and on.
HDThoreaun
Trade deficits are sustainable indefinitely when foreign countries want to hoard your currency. The only reason countries would want to stop hoarding dollars is if the US gov does something stupid like start a trade war
shellac
Trade deficit is a partial view of matters, and may not mean much anyway. It's a partial view in that there are a bunch of things it doesn't cover like inward investment. And it may not mean much in the same way my household runs a trade deficit with the local shop, which I have sustained for decades with no obvious ill effect beside my waistline.
laughingcurve
Respectfully, have you confused 'trade deficit' and 'budget deficit' similar to Trump? Being a net importer is not the same as having the governments outlays exceed it's inlays.
Conservatives rightly used to be concerned about budget deficits -- but trade deficits are entirely different. Just because they share the same word does not necessarily mean they are the same indicator.
I would be happy to see America as a net exporter, but I genuinely have to ask ... what is it that America - the richest country in the world - is going to make that other people want regularly aside from mass agriculture, specialized services, and advanced manufacturing??
Our domestic manufacturing base is thankfully not geared to produce a bunch of plastic crap to try to compete with China. And if you want to onshore critical supply chains -- great -- but again that has nothing to do with the idea of a trade deficit.
Genuinely looking for a thoughtful engagement here
dragonwriter
> Conservatives rightly used to be concerned about budget deficits
Consevratives used to (and still do) talk about budget deficits to derail conversations about programs they are opposed to but which are too popular to directly attack, but—then and now—continued to run up massive deficits on their own priorities, including shifting tax burden off of their wealthy benefactors.
watwut
If conservatives worried about budget deficits, they would make them smaller. As it happens, budget deficits go up under conservative governments more then under democratic ones.
It just so happen that tax breaks and military cost much more money then what they pretend save.
null
0xy
March jobs and inflation numbers were significantly better than expected. Milk and eggs are down 30% from the peak.
The middle class and poor are focused on buying food and gas, not on their stock portfolio.
JohnnyMarcone
Imagine being middle class in your late 50s right now and eyeing retirement. Even worse, imagine you were planning to retire this year and now plan to work another couple years due to fear. The cherry being, the entire time you're worried that there will be a recession that will force you to retire before you're ready.
jccalhoun
Yep. That's me. And my state's Republican supermajority just cut the budget of the community college I teach at by 10%.
mikestew
Or yet another option: retired last year, and even if Trump is re-elected, it’ll be good for the markets, right?
Yeah, that was me last June. Thankfully the spouse is still working.
ujkhsjkdhf234
The price of eggs was due to a nationwide bird flu epidemic. It had nothing to do with Biden, Harris, or Trump for that matter. The problem was eventually going to resolve itself.
mountainriver
Inflation lags a lot, we will feel the tariff nonsense soon
aprilthird2021
This is completely wrong. The middle class' retirement is in the stock market, and they know that.
59% of Americans say Trump is making the economy worse [0]
[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25920872-rel5b-econo...
philipallstar
This 0.3% is the worst thing to happen to the US economy since Q1 2022, when it contracted by a much less reported-on 1.0%.
pcurve
Q2 is going to be bad.
http://archive.today/dalBp