There are many stories each month about the positive economic situation in the United States, touting things like the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, the performance of the stock markets, etc. From the perspective of the general election, there is certainly room for debate on why this is. Is it the fact that economic changes like this take years to materialize, and likely result from the policies of the Obama administration? Is it a rubber band effect of the Great Recession, basically a “what goes down, must come up” phenomenon? There are always plenty of theories for any economic phenomenon.
What doesn’t get as much press is the issue of general economic insecurity. There are a lot of people who have jobs, but do not earn enough money to achieve a middle-class lifestyle. Many of those with jobs do not work as much as they would like, have limited or no benefits, or are subject to the variability of the “gig economy.” Many even have trouble paying for basic necessities despite working. There are also a lot of people who are economically insecure from an event-based perspective — they may be doing alright today, but they are in a position where a job loss, unexpected expense, significant spike in inflation or other similar event could spell disaster for them financially. There are people surviving now but without any hope of retiring with dignity. Some more data about the economically insecure group below, but it is a status that cuts across the country, but is more prevalent among black and Hispanic citizens.
For these people, I think it is likely that this general economic insecurity is a focus for their worries, and would be a focus they have while making decisions on voting. Our candidates have lots of great specific ideas on specific changes for healthcare, wages and other components that together represent “security” from an economic perspective. I don’t hear the concept described holistically very often, in higher-level messaging that speaks not to particular components of economic insecurity, but rather to the overall goal of relieving voters of some of the general worrying they do about money.
This certainly doesn’t need to be the only message of our candidate in the general election, but I think it could help reach two of the four voting groups we need to reach: (1) those who are undecided; and (2) those who are unlikely to vote at all. I think the other two groups are already spoken for regardless of messaging about economic insecurity: (3) those who will vote for the Democrat no matter what; and (4) those who will vote for Trump no matter what.
Recent data paints a picture of continued economic insecurity. For instance, a recent survey conducted by the Federal Reserve combined with a recent CNBC survey and a 2019 update to a GAO report reveal the following:
- About 40% of Americans could not handle an unexpected $400 expense without borrowing money, selling a possession or other similar action. 12% of Americans could not handle such an expense at all.
- Almost 25% of Americans are forced to use high-interest credit card debt to finance basic necessities like rent and food.
- About 30% of white people without college degrees who are working would like to do more work but are not able to. Among blacks and Hispanics this number is around 50%.
- Almost 50% of Americans have no retirement savings. While some of these people will receive pension benefits, about 30% of Americans have no retirement savings and no pensions.
- About 25% of Americans in a given year defer medical services for economic reasons.
I think that in the general election, a messaging focus on general economic insecurity could be successful as part of a broader campaign. The candidate should of course continue with proposals on specific areas, but a broader message to voters that, “You shouldn’t have to go to bed tonight worried that you’ll lose it all tomorrow” could be successful in swaying undecideds and potential non-voters. Many people in these groups are less politically-oriented than those in other groups, and don’t devote the same amount of time and attention to the detail-level of different issues. For those people, a message that directly speaks to their own personal concerns may be the most powerful approach. If 2020 is anything like 2016, it may also be the difference between winning and losing if there are again razor-thin margins in key states.