Between Hell and High Water

People Over Corporate Excess and Excessive Wealth (Seriously)

By Mike Koetting March 31, 2026

In my last blog, I argued that people voted for Donald Trump because they despaired the mainstream of either party were effectively addressing the devolving life situation of the bottom two-thirds of the economy.

There is no surprise about the traditional Republican Party. For the last century or so, it has made the primacy of capital as its raison d’etre. Trump disguised that with populist talk that sounded different from traditional Republicans and tapped into the voter resentment about both economic and cultural issues. Democrats, on the other hand, have talked more about looking out for the middle class and have passed some useful measures, but they have been unable to project a coherent and sustained strategy for changing the fundamentals of the economic structure. Wealth has continued to concentrate and big corporations are running roughshod over the bottom two-thirds of the economy.

The Path Forward

I believe Democrats can break through the fog of division created by the Trumplicans and solidify for themselves the kind of mandate that FDR created with a concerted strategy that unapologetically commits to reining in excesses by corporations and billionaires and to promoting the welfare of the entire economy, not just the 1% on whom the Republicans are currently showering give-aways.

The New Deal and its successors worked because it actively insured that the economy shared productivity increases with the rest of society. Over the last 45 years, corporations and their owners have eroded these protections. Following Reagan, it became gospel that corporations only responsibility is to the shareholders, which has meant that all decisions are seen through the lens of what enriched their owners.

Oren Cass, a traditionally conservative economist, has argued this has led to the “financialization” of the economy, which is the single largest cause of the soaring inequity. He shows how this has infected every corner of our society.

Neither Clinton nor Obama, unfortunately, directly confronted the fact that maintaining the economic well-being of the entire society requires robust government oversight and instead focused on what would grow the overall economy. They missed that while “a rising tide might lift all boats” that it would not lift them equally—or even close to that. In the absence of countervailing efforts, the economic elite will consolidate power to increase its advantages. And then the advantages of economic growth go almost solely to those who already have wealth.

Almost a century ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis warned “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” The current political situation bears this out.

Addressing this will require specific measures to lessen the concentration of wealth in individuals and to narrow the power of corporations to write their own rules for the benefit of their stockholders.

This Is Not an Easy Path

Democrats like to think of themselves as the defenders of the lower two-thirds of the economy. But the growing income and wealth divides make it clear that they have not been able to do so effectively.

As I suggested above, the biggest problem is that Democratic leaders have been as concerned about maintaining overall economic growth as they have been about the distribution of that wealth. On the one hand, trying to change distribution without continuing economic growth has rarely been a recipe for a successful society. On the other hand, distribution of resources will never become equitable on its own. People who have advantages use them. In many ways this is good for society. But unless limits are created and maintained, a society winds up with the kind of economic distribution shown above.

The tension between overall growth and distribution is regularly played out in debates about how progressive the Democratic agenda should be on economic issues. While this is a real issue, it is apparent that to date, Democrats have not had the right formula. As the distribution of wealth has gotten more extreme, the lack of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party has gotten worse.

While one can (and probably should) be skeptical of any single poll, the number of polls that show the voting public is significantly unhappy with the Democratic Party are so numerous and consistent, it is delusional to pretend this is not a problem. Yes, voters do not like Donald Trump. But unhappiness with Trump is not the same as support for the Democrats. By itself, it is unlikely to lead to a lasting majority, particularly once Trump is gone. An economic reset is going to be a long-term project. Without a big House majority and a veto-proof Senate, it is hard to see how this happens. Neither of these is likely by 2028. Which is why there needs to deep support behind a party that is trying to do this.

But, for instance, a recent NBC poll shows that as much as Trump is “underwater,” the Democratic Party fares worse.

I think this is a function of two things.

First, disappointment that the Democrats have failed to fix the economic situation. Voters don’t expect Republicans to address distribution of income issues. That’s the job of Democrats. And when they don’t do it, they are disproportionately rejected.

Second, there is a sense among many voters (for one example, see this discussion of a focus group in Pennsylvania) that the Democratic Party has become too focused on meeting the needs of various groups at the expense of supporting the broader middle class. The position of once Democratic Ruy Teixeira may be a bit extreme, but clearly reflects a broader sentiment.

Neither of these criticisms are entirely fair but neither are they entirely without basis. And, whether fair or not, these are clearly sentiments about the Democratic Party held by many voters. While one might argue that the success of Democratic Party per se is not important, the problem is that with our current (kind of stupid) political structure, voters need to choose one of two groups. When they turn on the Democratic Party, they wind up supporting a Republican Party—not only against their best interests, but against the interests of the entire society, as is being played out daily.

The Obstacles Ahead

Democrats first obstacle is to achieve some consensus around taking on corporations and the wealthy, something they have not been able to do for generations.

Part of their problem stems from a real understanding of the beneficial effects on society from overall economic growth. But there is also reliance on the wealthy for campaign funds. Republicans are probably more reliant, but this doesn’t cause a problem for them since their core mission is to protect these people. I don’t know how willing Democrats outside certain districts will be to risk support by buying into a campaign against concentrated wealth. Nor do I know how, if they took that risk, it would play out.

Related, Democratic candidates are often psychically and culturally more at home with the top third of the economy in their daily life. The days of Democratic ward bosses and union leaders who were closer to the working class in social terms are gone; the Democratic base has grown to include a large portion of college educated professionals. While these folks hate many parts of the Trumplican agenda, their overall position in society is comfortable and they are wary of radical changes. They rationally recognize the problems that corporate financialization have brought to the country, but they have many reasons to question what might come next.

All of this can become somewhat self-fulfilling. If candidates and would-be candidates fear that there would be pushback from financial supporters and friends, they might hedge their willingness to commit to an economic reset. Same with voters who fear, despite their own analysis of the facts, that coming across as “too far left” on economic issues would cause them to be seen as “fringe.”

What Is the Alternative?

I assume Democrats would continue their juggling act of supporting cultural progress and being sort of progressive on the economy. In the short term, given the Trump backlash, this should be enough to do well this November and might even lead to a Democratic president in 2028. While those are good things, it is hard to see that leading to major changes in our society. Those require a fundamental break with the status quo.

In the absence of that, the two parties will probably continue splitting up small margins and we will lurch from one party to the other as the voters keep thrashing about looking for someone to address the core problem of American society—the growing inequality that is destroying our democracy. Letting that happen seems morally irresponsible.

Closing Note

Getting a party to unite around a high-level strategy is a sine non qua for achieving a meaningful majority. But it is not sufficient. Voters, even the strongest supporters, also need to believe you have defensible ideas behind the grand strategy and the ability to execute those ideas. And you need a candidate who can carry the message. I hope to address these in subsequent posts. But for the time being, Democrats should start by demonstrating a clear commitment to people over excessive wealth and corporate excess.

Donald Trump Is an Act of Desperation

By Mike Koetting March 17, 2026

It’s hardly a newsflash that Donald Trump is so singularly focused on his own interests that anything, or anyone, outside those exists only as a potential obstacle.

This is not normal. I can think of no religion or system of philosophy that doesn’t recognize that humans have something in common, have some universal decency and have certain responsibilities to one another. Donald Trump reflects not a shred of these. He over and over reminds us his world is irreconcilably divided between people who are of use to him and people who are “trash.”

At no point in the history of this country has a man so devoid of common decency—or at least so unwilling to even pretend– been elected to the presidency. Maybe it’s worth spending a minute or so thinking about what it tells us about our society.

I reject the idea that there has always been this great, brooding indifference to humanity lurking specifically in our society. I readily acknowledge that Americans have often in the past defined the category of “fellow human” more narrowly than we do today. But this is true of virtually the entire world. I know of no historical record that reflects a society that sprang into existence with a fully extensive notion of who is indeed a fellow human, and, accordingly, demanded some basic respect. Everywhere this has been a gradual evolution. At some points the US led this struggle, at other times was kicking and screaming to avoid such an expansion. But the complete rejection of the idea of a larger human community is an aberration. Period.

So why have so many people come to accept this behavior from the President of the United States?

My own thinking is that it is a desperate response to both the steady loss of personal agency, primarily due to corporate elites, and to the thinning out of social threads that hold people together. This combination of anger and alienation leads people to lash out on an emotional basis, unrelated to any values or policy.

Loss of Personal Agency

Our lives can be viewed through multiple lenses but perhaps the most pervasive is the economic structures of our day-to-day lives. When we find the economy working for us, life seems manageable. But when that turns every day into a struggle, all the other things in our life are impacted. Riffing a bit off a blog by Dick Dowdell, the underlying machinery of our society has changed over the last fifty years. Three key elements in particular have changed in adverse ways—the richest (and their corporations) exercise more power in individual lives by significantly increasing their role in political life; opportunities for meaningful economic and social mobility have diminished; and individual economic life has become less secure. Whether or not people would articulate these concerns in the same way, a large portion of the society feels the room closing in.

Twelve years ago, political scientists showed empirically what most people feel intuitively: the affluent wield outsize power in determining political outcomes. Citizens United actually went so far as to make this a principle and there is every reason to believe their sway has gotten more powerful since. It is less which party rules and much more that the wealthy are able to maintain the fundamental rule that whatever happens, the rich keep reaping a bigger share.

Again, there has been considerable academic work showing that in the middle of the last century, economic mobility was common. As the century went on, mobility declined. Now it’s a coin flip as to whether you will do as well financially as your parents and, insult to injury, the odds are greater that you will if you start relatively affluent. And, in some sense, the issue is even more blunt than whether you make more or less than your parents; the issue is whether you can afford to have your own home

Underlying economic security is similar. If you feel you’re only one accident away from the whole game spinning out of control, you’re much less inclined to think that the existing political order is worth endorsing. Here again, academics provide documentation that when economic uncertainty overwhelms, political values erode. As the authors of one study put it:

“When respondents were financially secure, support for liberal democratic principles increased. When respondents were economically disadvantaged, they became more tolerant of illiberal conditions, including biased media, weakened checks on leaders and unequal treatment under the law.“

As all three of the conditions referenced above—elite control of public life, lack of social mobility and persistent economic insecurity—became worse over many years, those most impacted stop trusting mainstream parties because things keep getting worse regardless of which is in charge. People intuitively understand that these trends are a result of policy choices that could have been made differently, indeed, used to be made differently. Republicans have done more to impact these dynamics but Democrats have contributed—and certainly failed to prevent them. Should we be surprised, then, if people are willing to take a chance on anyone who looks like he will break the existing consensus, particularly if he reflects their own sense of grievance.

Weakening the Ties that Bind

These concerns are even greater when paired with the overall weakening of the social ties that should hold a society together.

America has never been a cohesive social whole because, unlike many other countries that grew organically over a long period of time, it was an “assembled” country with pieces from all over. But, generally, there have been various veins of coherence that made it possible for people to see their common elements, or at least to find a way to work together. The last fifty years have been hard on that.

Part of what has happened is in fact the broadening of who deserves to get full respect as a human. This is a good and necessary thing. But like any other major change, it produces secondary effects. The assaults by those who make profit from stoking division, which includes Donald Trump, are designed specifically to narrow the bonds among people, to draw lines between some group and the “unworthies.” Hate can be used to generate money and profits.

The declining communal nature of our lives makes these divisions easier. The metaphor of Robert Putnam’s book, Bowling Alone, remains powerful—there has been a retreat from activities that bring people together. From civic organizations to bowling leagues, people do fewer things with other people. And this retreat from communal action has gotten worse in the 25 years since Putnam’s book. The decline in church and unions—organizations with specific communal values—has been particularly steep. Also, this disconnectedness affects the working class more significantly.

These Get Us a Psychopath

The growing anger at the powerless of daily life and the loss of personal connection to the broader society deadens people sensitivities to what seem like the most basic requirement to be president of the United States—to be a discernibly normal human being.

For some Trump voters, Trump’s indifference to the norms of the broader society was a positive attraction. But I believe these were the minority. More Trump voters were aware of this and accepted it as a downside of his opposition to Democrats–economically, cultural, or both. With various degrees of awareness, they hoped that his pathologies would not go so far as to completely upset the apple cart. Another large group was people who are disappointed at their lives and Donald Trump was apparently offering quick fixes. At the very least he seemed to reflect their visceral sense that something was robbing them. Whether he had correctly identified the people responsible, let alone whether he had either the requisite psychological underpinnings or motivation to successfully change America in their favor, didn’t seem important.

Only the first group got what they bargained for. Oops.

It’s Ugly but the Answer Is Still “No”

By Mike Koetting March 3, 2026

It’s a well-known legal adage that hard cases make bad law. The current situation of Iran is a classic case.

The existing regime in Iran is a bad actor. Very bad. They are a menace to their own people—never on fuller display than killing thousands of Iranians in the last few weeks—and are a major destabilizing force in the Middle East. It is hard to imagine the world wouldn’t be improved by their removal from power.

On the other side of the equation is the idea that one country should not interfere in the affairs of another country. This idea has much more currency if there is evidence that the affairs of the country reflect some version of the common will. The evidence in Iran runs counter.

So how should we feel about the intervention in Iran?

My answer: potentially favorable consequences aside, this is a bad thing.

In Undermines the Rule of Law

Again, it’s not like the Ayatollah and his henchmen are contributing to the maintenance of a more just society. No person with a broad definition of human freedoms would lament their removal.

But we are weighing crummy options here: intervene or let the current regime run roughshod over its population in addition to causing trouble elsewhere. While international law is strictly against overthrowing governments of other countries, no society should be allowed to exist in a moral vacuum. Some actions are so repellent they should be stopped. On the other hand, a society should be extraordinarily careful about intervening in another country. The argument against intervention is not one of moral indifference, but the practical consideration of the longer-term implications. It is much easier to start wars than end them.

Restraining interventions in other countries supports the principle that one country does not get to decide what happens in other countries simply because it has a stronger military. Denying this principle leads to an escalation of military over diplomatic solutions–to the detriment of all.

Stephen Miller’s assertion that we “live in a world…that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power” is a prelude to things spiraling out of control. As an empirical matter, he has a point. But that is also the crux of the problem. When a society has huge force and moral certainty, it eventually makes bad decisions for itself and others. This is true even in the presence of general moral benevolence. Despite having been a largely, and important, force for good in the world during the Twentieth Century, the United States made big mistakes when it felt empowered to enforce its will in other countries, Vietnam being the largest, but by no means the only one.

Either way, mistakes will happen. But the default option should be to keep the hell out of other people’s affairs as long as you can, even if keeping a wary eye on them.

Which raises another point. Trump flamboyantly walked away from the nuclear treaty negotiated by President Obama. This was an imperfect deal. Among other things, Iran continued to be a major source of conventional trouble throughout the region. But it was a deal and left open the opportunities for other deals and discussions. When Trump makes it clear that he doesn’t value deals but lives in a “my way or nothing” world, it undermines any notion that a less adversarial approach to relationships is possible. In that context, how surprising is it that negotiations with Iran weren’t going well.

Finally, turning to the domestic rule of law, Trump’s lack of consultation with Congress on this matter is troubling, not to mention unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the sole power to declare war. While presidents of both parties have been chipping away at this over the years, these erosions have demonstrated that when presidents make decisions on their own, the whole country stands a good chance of regretting the decision. This particular case would have been an excellent opportunity to return some power to Congress. It’s not like there was any specific urgency. A more open discussion would have slowed down the rush to bombs and could well have led the Iranians to conclude that a different set of negotiation tactics might be possible.

Innocent People Are Being Killed

This is a by-product of all wars. It is also one of the most compelling reasons why war should be an instrument of absolutely last resort. We don’t yet know who all the casualties will be. But by now everyone is aware of a large number of victims at a girls school. These are the definition of innocent. I get that there are trade-offs between victims created by the regime’s vicious crack-down on opposition (present and future) and victims of an attempt at regime change. Both are lamentable and there certainly is no percentage in counting the deaths as if one or the other being greater proves any point.

And failing to intervene can also lead to deaths. But once America decides to intervene (or, as is currently the case, it is decided for us), we bear the responsibility for the deaths from intervention. It is crucial that we are convinced there is no other option. I am not an expert on Iran. But based on what I hear from people more knowledgeable than me, it is hard to be comfortable there was no other way to get better behavior from the Mullahs. Which means the deaths of war sit more heavily on us.

It Comes from Donald Trump

I will admit from the outset that this is an ad hominem argument, potentially open to arguments of Trump Derangement Syndrome. I will nevertheless stick by it. It is foolish to judge every act, particularly complex acts, as if they exist separate from all the others by the same person. If a person has a history of making decisions based more on their own needs and desires rather than any external yardstick of good, one would be a fool to easily take any action at face value.

Trump’s Venezuela coup is a case in point. He calls Maduro’s removal a blow against tyranny. Okay. Maduro was also a majorly bad guy. But Trump’s next move was to give the keys to Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro’s Number Two and a known supporter of Maduro’s regime while denying any role for Maria Marchado, who has real popular support. There is certainly grounds for suspicion that Rodriguez’ major qualification was a willingness to play along with whatever Trump wanted in the way of oil.

Maybe it’s just coincidence, but Saudi Arabia, another authoritarian regime with whom Trump and his family have significant business interests, are also anxious to get rid of the Iranian regime. Moreover, Trump has always shown an unseemly interest in desiring to look like a strong man. Roughing up a notorious bad actor gives him the perfect showcase. It’s not an ipso facto reason for saying he’s wrong, but it sure calls for a second thought.

The Involvement of Israel

Even in a world of complex considerations, this is a particularly thorny one. Israel has a right to exist. It got birthed in a terribly awkward way and the enmity that came its way from the surrounding Arab states was understandable, albeit unfortunate. Worse yet, over many years, those states have pursued the least helpful course imaginable given that Israel had in fact—like it or not—come into existence.

But, in further support of the argument that wrong begets wrong, Israel’s response to the Arab states over the years has served to further exacerbate an already bad situation, and the entire region became entangled in a race to the bottom. Israel has taken the conflict as a license to pursue whatever tactic it wanted and, even when reacting for good reason, overreacted in ways that often overshowed the original cause.

Yes, it would have been asking a lot of Israel to approach their situation with more recognition of how it came into existence and the limits of that forced birth. It would have required an amazingly skillful set of leaders to thread that needle. But it has done the opposite. It has responded with iron force and behaves as if it had an absolute right to all the land, including, now, the West Bank. When Yitzak Rabin argued for a less bellicose approach, he was assassinated.

The current leader apparently derives his source of power from the Israel uber alles element of the country. The net result is that, despite having a sympathetic, even if blemished, origin story, Israel has turned itself into a rogue state. It is apparently not uncomfortable living outside the bounds of international acceptance. And, while some of the enmity from other states can be dismissed as simply Arab reaction to the loss of Arab lands, or even knee-jerk dislike for White Europeans taking lands from non-Europeans, there is a broader level of discomfort with the idea of a state whose basic posture is might makes right. A lesson the United States might do well to learn, if it is not already too late.

Minimize Harm

This is a lousy state of affairs. I shed not a tear for overthrowing the current Iranian regime, if that is what happens. But I deeply lament the course of action unilaterally chosen by Donald Trump. Not only do I believe it comes from his own warped sense of personal needs, I believe it does not serve the long-run interests of America.

I will acutely resent anyone who tries to paint me in the box that if I don’t support Trump’s reckless actions, I support the Mullahs. No. I support the rule of law and the need to make tough calls that don’t make bad situations worse. Trump’s incursion is all too likely to do the latter.

A Modest Strategy of Great Ambition

By Mike Koetting February 17, 2026

While the mid-term elections are ten months off, and ten months is a political eternity, polling suggests it is very likely Democrats will gain a majority in the House and might even eke out a tiny Senate margin. Inshallah.

One hopes this would allow the Democrats to serve as a somewhat greater brake on Donald Trump’s worst impulses. The degree to which that will happen is unclear since so much of what he does is, to be generous, extra-legal. Thus, the ability to slow him will play out in real time when we get there.

Still, having a plan might be good. Here are a broad set of strategies that Democrats might use as a framework for the following two years—if they are willing and able to do so. I think the difficulty of following these strategies will be less a function of Trumplican opposition and more a function of the party’s internal workings, which, by the way, are not unique to Dems but are inherent in the way we allowed our pollical and cultural environments to evolve.

Deflating the Future

By Mike Koetting February 3, 2026

This is the third, and for the moment, final post in my series on how we are failing to prepare the next generation for a fulfilling life. The first two posts focused on broad, but tangible issues, the economy facing young people and the confusion of post-secondary education. Today’s post is about something more diffuse but arguably more important—failing to create a sense of a robust future in young people.

Brief History of the Future

The idea of “the future” is a relatively new idea in history. All the ancient religions had some sense of the magic and mystical beyond day to day, mundane life. And all had a broad notion that fate served some people better than others. To create some degree of protection against the fickle fingers of fate, they conjured rituals and rules. But this was not “future” as we think of it; it was simply the awareness of the random distribution of events from a relatively limited set of possibilities.

We’ve Muffed Post-Secondary Education

By Mike Koetting January 18, 2026

This is the second in a series of posts on how we are bungling the preparation of young people for their lives. Today’s post considers post-secondary education. As noted in the previous post, college student debt is one of the most salient features of young adult society in 2026 America. While this is fueled by the precipitous rise in the cost of college, the bigger problem is that as a society we have misunderstood the economic relationship between college and a good life. This is part of a much bigger problem—what gets taught in college and how—but those are for a different day.

How We Got Here

The problem starts with the fact that historically there was a significant “wage premium” (to use economic jargon) for graduating from college. In the great economic expansion following WWII college graduates did much better economically…and were less likely to wind up in Vietnam.

At the same time, the official US, locked in a geopolitical struggle with Russia, began to worry about the efficacy of American scientific and technical training and engaged in many programs to increase the number of people going to college. It was also a period of starting to address historical divisions in society and one of the politically safest ways to do something was to promote increased educational opportunities as a way of equalizing major income discrepancies.

Then, starting during the Reagan administration, income differentials in the US started to take off. This was due to a series of policy decisions that facilitated exactly such differentials. These policies followed from a set of assumptions about the primacy of capital over labor that led to a significant reconceptualization of how corporations should behave in our society. There should have been a much greater fight over the resulting policy changes since they did not necessarily speak to the well-being of the whole society. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party, the logical–indeed only–group capable of forcing such a reconsideration, itself flirted so heavily with that ideology that no effective opposition was raised.

The Economy for Young People

By Mike Koetting January 6, 2026

The question of what one generation owes to the next is a complicated one, but I am struggling to find any register on which American society is doing a good job of giving young people what they need to have good and fulfilling lives.

This and subsequent posts will look at three important areas where as a society we seem to be doing a particularly poor job facilitating the next generation’s route to good lives. Today’s post will focus on young people in the economy. The next two will consider how we are treating post-secondary education, and, finally but more broadly, what view of the future we are giving to the people who will live it.

Widespread Problems Have Disparate Impacts

Many—perhaps most—of the problems in our economy apply to many age groups, not just young people. But, as I will try to show, the damage to young people is particular, mostly because of the way it shapes their outlooks and their life-long trajectories.

The core problem of the American economy is that the benefits of the economy are going disproportionately to capital rather than labor. We’ve all seen the graphs.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Which, of course, has led to a serious divergence in income growth among various cohorts of the economy, with after-inflation growth of the top tiers seriously outpacing the rest of society.

Again, while this impacts everyone in the bottom 80% of the income distribution, the impacts on young are magnified. They have no resources on which to fall back. They are seeking for the first time many of the things all adults want to have–their own car, have their own place, be able to imagine starting a family.

One consequence of these immediate difficulties is that a great number of young people can’t understand how they are going to make their way in life. This is a major change in the social framework of our society. From the end of World War II until, somewhat arbitrarily, the 2008 recession, there seemed to be multiple life paths. Not that they were equal and their real-life availability varied across the population. And cracks started showing well before 2008. Still, most people coming of age over that period could readily imagine a track to a good life—professional, white collar, gray collar, or blue collar. All of these tracks, in varying degrees, promised employment at a wage that afforded a house, a car, and a vacation. It was simply assumed that these jobs would offer health insurance and pension. In that context, marriage and kids made sense. The gradual accretion of women into the labor force helped ice the economic cake, even if it created other issues

By contrast, most of today’s young people are deeply skeptical these pathways will be available to them. For many, they are already facing serious headwinds. In a poll of young people by the Harvard Institute of Politics 43% of people in their sample reported struggling or getting by with limited financial security— and this strain is especially pronounced among Black and Hispanic young people and those without a college degree. In another study of young people, nearly 40 percent of survey participants said they were taking on additional jobs to make ends meet.

Bad Job Market

One of the biggest problems for young people is that the job market is inhospitable. Even those who have graduated from college can find the sledding difficult.

The three-month moving average unemployment rate for recent U.S. grads sits around 5.3% versus 4.2% for the overall workforce; on some measures for degree-holders it pushes ~6–7%. This is being driven by a number of factors. In some cases, it is in fact AI, or, more likely, the expectation of AI. It also reflects the economy of not hiring people who will take a while to ramp up their skills. Both of these have become problematic for today’s cohort because it is looking increasingly likely that during the economic “bounce back” from the pandemic many companies over hired on the assumption their growth would continue at that pace. It hasn’t. With insufficient demand, companies would have to lay off workers to make new hires. They don’t want to. And the problem is amplified because consumer confidence is in the toilet and people are unwilling to leave the jobs they already have. When there are fewer voluntary movers, the number of job openings decreases. All of this generates a longer-term problem because when young people don’t get starting jobs, they are blocked from the opportunity of on-the-job learning and run the risk of permanently lower income and skill levels.

The problems for those who would otherwise head into blue collar jobs are different in particulars, but similar in outcome. On balance, manufacturing jobs in the US have declined as a part of the workforce. This has been going on for years but has recently accelerated dramatically, falling by almost 25% since 2020. This is driven by both automation and trade policies. When total jobs in a field disappear, there are inevitably fewer job openings, which of course is disproportionately felt by young people, setting in motion a chain of problems that stretch over a lifetime.

Student Debt

I have heard many adults dismiss the issue of student debt as some version of “entitled young people”. I am not sure they understand the magnitude of the issue. One in four adults under the age of 40 have student loan debt. This totals to about $1.8 trillion held by 42 million different people, most of them between the ages of 20 and 40. In 2025, the average amount of the loan debt is $50,000, And while there are some people in this mix for whom the student loan was the ticket to a very well-off life style, there are many more for whom this was a marginal investment, or, worse yet, yielded no tangible economic advantage.

To be sure, what’s going on with student debt is intractably related to the cost of college and, further, its role in our society. I will return to these in the next post, but here I am simply pointing out that student debt is a major economic fact in the lives of young people. There is evidence that by itself it reduces home ownership and negatively impacts family formation. It can materially impair credit scores, which leads to higher rates for everything from credit cards to mortgages.

It is hard to put these policies into a global perspective because so many aspects of American post-secondary education are unique. But other countries have chosen different approaches that result in little to none of the anxiety that we have created in America. For all the heat the discussion has attracted, neither party has put forth an agenda remotely commensurate with the problem. Impact of recent changes as part of the Trump administration is still being sorted out—and may include some very modestly useful reforms. But the decision to renew garnishing salaries for delinquent student loans will certainly cause some real hardships.

Housing

The increase in housing costs is well discussed as a problem afflicting all portions of the population. Inflation-adjusted housing costs, rent and purchase, have increased almost 25% more than median wages in the last five years. The result is that the entire bottom range of the income distribution is facing increasing difficulties in affording housing.

But, again, the impact on young people is particularly stark. Median age of first time home ownership, for instance, reached 40 this year, an all-time high according to the National Association of Realtors. The following chart is a poster for the problem.

U.S. Census Bureau

In Short

Darren Walker, President of the Ford Foundation, said “Hope is the oxygen of democracy.” But it’s not at all clear that the current economic situation is generating hope in young people. Rather, it is raising concerns as to whether they will find jobs that pay enough for a comfortable life, be able to own their own home, be confident they will have health insurance, be able to afford children or retire at a reasonable age. And while all young people have some degree of apprehension, it would be inexcusable to overlook the greater pessimism about having a good life among those who start out with few advantages. It is no wonder so many feel the game is rigged.

Rather than generating hope, then, I am worried the current situation is generating fear in young people. That is a very bad thing. As Yoda says: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate.”

And hate, as we have seen, is a threat to democracy.

Progress on Reducing Violence in Chicago

By Mike Koetting November 25, 2025

Today’s post focuses on fighting gun violence in Chicago, although the issues have national resonance.

The good news is that Chicago gun homicides have decreased significantly since their recent peak in 2021. This is true in most of the nation, but Chicago’s rate of decline was greater than the national average. This is not, of course, due to Operation Midway Blitz, as the Trump administration has ridiculously claimed. It was under way well before then and links in part to specific actions taken in the city and state.

It is still too high. The loss of life and disruption to the community is, and should be, unacceptable. It is also a political problem because ”crime” is a major issue for many voters, even if they aren’t keen on the Trump approach

The Reality of a Progressive-Populist Alliance

By Mike Koetting November 11, 2025

In my last post, I suggested that at least one way forward is some kind of populist-progressive alliance. Although more thinking about such an alliance raises some concerns, as last week’s election results illustrate, this is probably the way forward.

Obvious Convergence on Economic Issues

The primary basis for such an alliance is the concern over economic issues. We are currently in an anomalous situation where the stock market continues to boom. And while numerous other macroeconomic indicators are not plunging, the underlying realities are increasingly wobbly and the stress for many individuals and families acute.

The Unnecessary Scarcity We Tolerate Is Tearing Up the Country

By Mike Koetting October 28, 2025

I’ve been thinking that Abundance, the Ezra Klein-Derek Thompson book, has the right idea but the focus is too narrow.

The Klein-Thompson book starts with the observation that scarcity is a choice. It then proceeds to assume that the way out of the scarcity trap is to make it easier to create more stuff so that all may experience the abundance of what our technology can produce. This clearly has an element of truth. They correctly identify bottlenecks in our current production of social goods and they are right that there is no political appetite for “degrowth.” So power to their suggestions.

That said, however, they miss the urgency of the situation. A large chunk of the population is furious. Trying to remove obstacles to creating greater supply of desired goods, while laudable, is simply not a solution commensurate with the degree of anger in the body politic. I think Michael Hirschorn, in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, has a better handle on where we are: “Trumpism is more than politics. It’s an emotional gas-main explosion, from people who felt unheard, patronized, left behind.”