The Rational ModerateSearch

Economics, Social Issues

The State of the 2026 Economy: Why It Feels Worse Than the Data

GDP and unemployment can look fine while affordability collapses. Here is what is driving the squeeze, what tariffs change, and who is actually doing well.

Checked The full check
  • 27 claims
  • 26 match a source
  • 0 need one
  • 0 unreachable
  • 1 corrected

26 of 27 claims match a source; 1 corrected

Claim by claim: what the check found
Each claim in this article and whether it matches a source, checked September 30, 2026
ClaimFinding
The New York Fed uses import data through November 2025 to estimate who pays the 2025 tariffsMatches a source
The average statutory tariff rate on U.S. imports was 2.6% at the start of 2025Matches a source
The same rate was 13% after rising over 2025Matches a source
The New York Fed analysis examines the split between domestic and foreign burdenMatches a source
The New York Fed post is dated Feb. 12, 2026Matches a source
CBO's February 2026 outlook flags higher tariffs as a key reason its inflation projections are higher than last yearMatches a source
CBO's outlook shows 2026 with decent growth and inflation shaped by tariffsMatches a source
CBO's report is "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036" (February 2026)Matches a source
The Yale Budget Lab tracks tariff revenue and price effects in near-real timeMatches a source
The Yale tracker was updated March 2, 2026Matches a source
Stanford's SIEPR publications hub gives tariffs and inflation contextMatches a source
Food prices jumped substantially since 2020Matches a source
Live chart: consumer price inflation, all items and food at home, 12-month changeMatches a source
Live chart: average hourly earnings growth compared with consumer pricesMatches a source
Live chart: the unemployment rateMatches a source
When rates are materially higher than the 2020 to 2021 era, a normal house can translate into a radically different paymentMatches a source
This is how living paycheck to paycheck can reach into six-figure households: 22% of adults with family income of $100,000 or more spent about as much as their income in the prior month, and 12% spent moreMatches a source
Many insured families skip care, including visits to a doctor or specialist, or take on medical debt; 26% of insured adults went without some medical care in 2024 because they could not afford it, and 17% of all adults had medical debtMatches a source
Before the correction: since a large share of imports are inputs into domestic production, sweeping tariffs can raise costs for U.S. firms as much as they raise sticker prices for householdsCorrected to match its source
Student loan payments re-enter the household budgetMatches a source
The 13% rate is the average statutory tariff rate at the end of 2025, weighted by 2024 importsMatches a source
Almost all of the 2025 rise in customs receipts came from tariffs imposed under IEEPA or, for national security, under Section 232, according to CBOMatches a source
On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffsMatches a source
The IEEPA tariffs were removed and a temporary tariff under Section 122 took their place; on the Budget Lab at Yale's measure, the average rate was 11.1% on April 2, 2026; the two figures come from different sources for different dates, so the gap between them does not measure the ruling's effectMatches a source
In February 2026, CBO estimated that higher tariffs cut projected deficits for 2026 to 2035 by $3.0 trillion, counting effects on the economy and interest costs; it expects an increase in the domestic production of some import-competing goodsMatches a source
The Budget Lab at Yale counts $214.7 billion in added customs revenue, adjusted for inflation, above the 2022 to 2024 average through February 2026; about $165 billion collected under IEEPA may be refunded to importers, which would leave $49.7 billion of revenue raised through February 2026Matches a source
CBO assumed the tariffs in effect on Nov. 20, 2025, stay in place throughout its projections; about 41 percent of 2025 customs duties were imposed under IEEPA, though CBO expected the Administration could replicate most of those tariffs under other lawsMatches a source

Clarified September 28, 2026. When this post was published on March 15, 2026, it gave the 13% average tariff rate for the end of 2025 without noting that on Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court had ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, or that the IEEPA tariffs had then been removed. The post now says the 13% rate is for the end of 2025 and adds the ruling. The 13% figure is unchanged.

Corrected September 30, 2026. An earlier version of this post said "paycheck-to-paycheck can reach well into six-figure households in high-cost regions." We found no source for "well into", and the Federal Reserve survey now cited does not break its figures out by region. The post now gives what the survey found: in 2024, 22% of adults with family income of $100,000 or more spent about as much as their income in the prior month, and 12% spent more. It also said many insured families "delay care, skip specialist visits, or take on medical debt." The survey measures care people went without, not care they delayed, so the post now says they skip care, including visits to a doctor or specialist, or take on medical debt, and gives the same survey's figures: 26% of insured adults went without some medical care in 2024 because they could not afford it, and 17% of all adults had medical debt. And it said that "a large share of imports are inputs into domestic production" and that sweeping tariffs "can raise costs for U.S. firms as much as they raise sticker prices for households." The Congressional Budget Office's outlook, which the post cites, estimates that foreign exporters absorb 5 percent of tariff costs and that the 95 percent borne in the United States reaches consumers: in the near term, businesses absorb 30 percent of their import price increases and pass 70 percent on, and competing domestic producers raise their prices enough that, on net, consumer prices rise by the full 95 percent. The post now says that many imports are used as inputs in domestic production, so sweeping tariffs raise costs for U.S. firms as well as sticker prices for households, and cites CBO.

Illustration of a grocery receipt and a notice of rent increase, with a red shipping container labeled "Tariff"

Executive summary

In early 2026, the U.S. economy can look good on paper and still feel bad for a large share of households. That disconnect is not mass delusion. It is a combination of measurement and distribution. Headline indicators average everything together. Households live in the distribution, and they experience the economy through the level of their monthly bills, not the rate of change in macro aggregates.

The core claim is that 2026 is an affordability economy. Housing, food, health care, and childcare behave like semi-fixed costs for many families. If those costs stay high, modest improvements in inflation or job growth do not translate into relief. Tariffs matter here too. Whatever the strategic argument, tariffs function like a tax on imports that tends to show up as higher prices and higher input costs. The useful question is not whether tariffs have costs. The useful question is who pays them and where they land. The result is a familiar pattern in American economics and politics. Aggregate stability can coexist with household fragility.


The theme of 2026: stability at the top, stress in the middle

A lot of commentary treats “the economy” like a single number. In real life, there are at least three economies that matter at once. There is the economy of national aggregates like GDP, unemployment, and inflation. There is the economy of household budgets, where rent, groceries, insurance, and childcare dominate attention. There is also the economy of balance sheets, where assets, debt, and buffers determine whether a family can absorb a surprise.

In early 2026, those views do not line up neatly. GDP can grow while bills stay high. Unemployment can stay low while job quality and job security remain uneven. Inflation can cool while the price level remains elevated. That creates a predictable gap between the story people hear and the story they live.


I. The data vs. the experience

The “data says good, life says bad” dynamic becomes easier to understand once you separate two ideas that are routinely mixed up. Inflation is a rate. Affordability is a level problem. If inflation cools from 6% to 3%, prices are still rising. They are simply rising more slowly. A household does not feel disinflation. A household feels a rent renewal, a grocery run, and a health plan deductible.

This is why the macro story and the lived story can both be true at once. The economy can be growing, unemployment can be low, and inflation can be cooler than its peak. At the same time, the median household can feel squeezed, the middle can be one shock away from debt, and a large share of earnings can go to the same categories every month. The disconnect is not a paradox. It is arithmetic.

Inflation: consumer prices compared with a year earlier

Percent change from the same month a year earlier. A falling line that stays above zero means prices are still rising, just more slowly. Click a series name to hide or show it.

No figure for October 2025: the Bureau of Labor Statistics could not collect prices during the federal government shutdown (Oct. 1 to Nov. 12, 2025) and published no October 2025 index for most consumer price series. Source: BLS, 2025 federal government shutdown impact on the Consumer Price Index. The line connects the readings on either side, and the data table marks the gap “not published.”

-5%0%5%10%15%200020052010201520202025

  • Months with no published figure
Data table
dateAll itemsFood at home
2000-01-012.791.16
2000-02-013.221.4
2000-03-013.761.84
2000-04-013.011.83
2000-05-013.132.07
2000-06-013.732.2
2000-07-013.62.81
2000-08-013.352.99
2000-09-013.462.67
2000-10-013.452.36
2000-11-013.442.3
2000-12-013.442.84
2001-01-013.723.09
2001-02-013.533.31
2001-03-012.983.43
2001-04-013.223.54
2001-05-013.563.23
2001-06-013.193.58
2001-07-012.723.26
2001-08-012.723.2
2001-09-012.593.13
2001-10-012.133.61
2001-11-011.893.49
2001-12-011.62.64
2002-01-011.22.93
2002-02-011.142.39
2002-03-011.362.38
2002-04-011.642.43
2002-05-011.241.56
2002-06-011.070.98
2002-07-011.470.75
2002-08-011.750.4
2002-09-011.520.57
2002-10-012.03-0.06
2002-11-012.250.34
2002-12-012.480.69
2003-01-012.760.34
2003-02-013.150.85
2003-03-013.030.74
2003-04-012.180.51
2003-05-011.891.37
2003-06-011.952.28
2003-07-012.062.11
2003-08-012.222.8
2003-09-012.382.91
2003-10-012.043.66
2003-11-011.933.98
2003-12-012.044.55
2004-01-012.034.15
2004-02-011.693.67
2004-03-011.743.72
2004-04-012.293.77
2004-05-012.94.89
2004-06-013.174.35
2004-07-012.944.58
2004-08-012.553.89
2004-09-012.543.27
2004-10-013.193.47
2004-11-013.623.23
2004-12-013.342.45
2005-01-012.842.62
2005-02-013.052.18
2005-03-013.212.17
2005-04-013.363.09
2005-05-012.871.93
2005-06-012.541.39
2005-07-013.071.5
2005-08-013.651.5
2005-09-014.742.04
2005-10-014.351.55
2005-11-013.341.48
2005-12-013.341.75
2006-01-014.022.34
2006-02-013.642.4
2006-03-013.422.23
2006-04-013.610.95
2006-05-013.980.84
2006-06-014.181.48
2006-07-014.11.47
2006-08-013.931.9
2006-09-012.012.16
2006-10-011.412.2
2006-11-011.971.67
2006-12-012.521.41
2007-01-012.081.78
2007-02-012.422.88
2007-03-012.83.39
2007-04-012.593.88
2007-05-012.714.4
2007-06-012.694.55
2007-07-012.324.56
2007-08-011.94.62
2007-09-012.834.63
2007-10-013.614.76
2007-11-014.375.41
2007-12-014.115.71
2008-01-014.295.71
2008-02-014.145.12
2008-03-013.974.67
2008-04-013.95.85
2008-05-014.095.77
2008-06-014.946.06
2008-07-015.57.16
2008-08-015.317.47
2008-09-014.957.6
2008-10-013.737.57
2008-11-011.17.09
2008-12-01-0.026.65
2009-01-01-0.115.72
2009-02-010.014.85
2009-03-01-0.454.26
2009-04-01-0.582.33
2009-05-01-1.021.54
2009-06-01-1.230.76
2009-07-01-1.96-0.92
2009-08-01-1.48-1.69
2009-09-01-1.38-2.5
2009-10-01-0.22-2.76
2009-11-011.91-2.86
2009-12-012.81-2.43
2010-01-012.62-1.93
2010-02-012.15-1.47
2010-03-012.29-0.64
2010-04-012.21-0.04
2010-05-012.00.3
2010-06-011.120.24
2010-07-011.340.66
2010-08-011.150.74
2010-09-011.121.34
2010-10-011.171.43
2010-11-011.081.74
2010-12-011.441.67
2011-01-011.72.1
2011-02-012.122.8
2011-03-012.623.55
2011-04-013.083.88
2011-05-013.464.44
2011-06-013.54.82
2011-07-013.585.44
2011-08-013.756.1
2011-09-013.816.37
2011-10-013.526.22
2011-11-013.455.92
2011-12-013.065.98
2012-01-013.015.33
2012-02-012.94.48
2012-03-012.583.52
2012-04-012.273.26
2012-05-011.742.67
2012-06-011.652.59
2012-07-011.421.97
2012-08-011.691.47
2012-09-011.950.81
2012-10-012.161.05
2012-11-011.81.28
2012-12-011.761.28
2013-01-011.681.19
2013-02-012.021.26
2013-03-011.521.09
2013-04-011.141.03
2013-05-011.390.81
2013-06-011.720.9
2013-07-011.890.96
2013-08-011.540.96
2013-09-011.090.97
2013-10-010.880.78
2013-11-011.230.54
2013-12-011.510.4
2014-01-011.560.44
2014-02-011.120.97
2014-03-011.611.49
2014-04-012.021.78
2014-05-012.172.76
2014-06-012.062.51
2014-07-011.972.68
2014-08-011.722.83
2014-09-011.683.11
2014-10-011.613.16
2014-11-011.233.32
2014-12-010.653.66
2015-01-01-0.233.34
2015-02-01-0.092.89
2015-03-01-0.021.93
2015-04-01-0.11.33
2015-05-010.040.62
2015-06-010.180.93
2015-07-010.230.87
2015-08-010.240.9
2015-09-010.010.77
2015-10-010.130.69
2015-11-010.440.29
2015-12-010.64-0.42
2016-01-011.24-0.41
2016-02-010.85-0.35
2016-03-010.89-0.5
2016-04-011.17-0.32
2016-05-011.08-0.73
2016-06-011.08-1.31
2016-07-010.87-1.6
2016-08-011.06-1.95
2016-09-011.55-2.19
2016-10-011.69-2.29
2016-11-011.68-2.13
2016-12-012.05-1.96
2017-01-012.51-1.86
2017-02-012.81-1.62
2017-03-012.44-0.84
2017-04-012.18-0.74
2017-05-011.86-0.19
2017-06-011.64-0.11
2017-07-011.730.22
2017-08-011.930.28
2017-09-012.180.41
2017-10-012.020.55
2017-11-012.170.63
2017-12-012.130.94
2018-01-012.151.17
2018-02-012.260.57
2018-03-012.330.32
2018-04-012.470.41
2018-05-012.78-0.0
2018-06-012.810.23
2018-07-012.850.28
2018-08-012.640.41
2018-09-012.330.47
2018-10-012.490.23
2018-11-012.150.54
2018-12-012.00.74
2019-01-011.490.72
2019-02-011.521.22
2019-03-011.881.39
2019-04-012.00.7
2019-05-011.81.15
2019-06-011.670.91
2019-07-011.830.59
2019-08-011.740.48
2019-09-011.680.6
2019-10-011.731.02
2019-11-012.091.04
2019-12-012.320.73
2020-01-012.60.8
2020-02-012.340.86
2020-03-011.491.05
2020-04-010.314.08
2020-05-010.24.8
2020-06-010.725.58
2020-07-011.04.57
2020-08-011.284.65
2020-09-011.394.04
2020-10-011.233.98
2020-11-011.183.56
2020-12-011.323.97
2021-01-011.373.71
2021-02-011.673.53
2021-03-012.673.23
2021-04-014.131.22
2021-05-014.920.72
2021-06-015.30.94
2021-07-015.252.57
2021-08-015.152.96
2021-09-015.354.5
2021-10-016.245.34
2021-11-016.96.41
2021-12-017.176.51
2022-01-017.567.38
2022-02-017.948.66
2022-03-018.5710.04
2022-04-018.2310.81
2022-05-018.5411.95
2022-06-018.9812.26
2022-07-018.4613.14
2022-08-018.2213.59
2022-09-018.1912.93
2022-10-017.7612.4
2022-11-017.1211.95
2022-12-016.411.74
2023-01-016.3311.25
2023-02-015.9610.09
2023-03-014.928.31
2023-04-014.957.18
2023-05-014.135.84
2023-06-013.074.67
2023-07-013.293.6
2023-08-013.722.97
2023-09-013.692.38
2023-10-013.252.15
2023-11-013.131.63
2023-12-013.321.31
2024-01-013.091.16
2024-02-013.160.99
2024-03-013.491.18
2024-04-013.361.17
2024-05-013.241.07
2024-06-012.971.17
2024-07-012.941.09
2024-08-012.610.91
2024-09-012.431.26
2024-10-012.581.15
2024-11-012.721.56
2024-12-012.871.73
2025-01-012.991.84
2025-02-012.81.81
2025-03-012.382.34
2025-04-012.331.99
2025-05-012.382.25
2025-06-012.682.42
2025-07-012.742.2
2025-08-012.942.69
2025-09-013.022.7
2025-10-01not publishednot published
2025-11-012.71.91
2025-12-012.652.33
2026-01-012.392.18
2026-02-012.432.58
2026-03-013.292.02
2026-04-013.782.95
2026-05-014.172.73
2026-06-013.462.7
2026-07-013.32.61
2026-08-013.352.13
2026-09-013.721.77

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED. CPIAUCSL, CPILFESL, CUSR0000SAF11 · retrieved Oct. 19, 2026 · 320 rows · as of September 2026 · monthly. Download CSV


II. The affordability crisis (the big four)

Affordability is not one thing. It is the cumulative effect of a few large categories that behave like fixed costs for most households. These costs are hard to shop around, hard to delay, and hard to avoid without real lifestyle changes. That is why households can feel stuck even when the macro data improves.

A. Housing: the payment is the economy

Housing is the single biggest driver of the modern affordability story because it is a payment, not a price. For homeowners, what matters is not the sticker price of a home. What matters is the monthly mortgage payment. That payment is the product of home prices, interest rates, and the ongoing add-ons that rarely make it into political talking points, including taxes and insurance.

When rates are materially higher than the 2020 to 2021 era, a “normal” house can translate into a radically different payment.[10] Even a period of flat home prices can still feel brutal if the interest-rate component makes the payment unreachable. Affordability improves only when the full system relaxes. Prices need to stop racing ahead of incomes, supply needs to expand in high-demand areas, and financing costs need to stop doing the heavy lifting.

For renters, the mechanism is different but the pressure is similar. If rents rise faster than wage growth, households lose buffer. When the rent renewal arrives, it effectively becomes the economy.

B. Groceries: disinflation does not refill the cart

Food inflation is a classic example of why rate-based narratives frustrate people. If food prices jumped substantially since 2020 and then the rate of increase slows, households do not get a refund. They are left with a new, higher price level embedded in the weekly routine.

This is also why “my wages are up” can coexist with “I feel poorer.” If wages rose 10 to 15% but food rose more, the day-to-day category people see most often delivers the emotional conclusion. It becomes easy to believe that the economy is broken even if the macro trend is improving.

Wages versus prices, 2008 to 2026

Both lines are percent change from a year earlier.

No figure for October 2025: the Bureau of Labor Statistics could not collect prices during the federal government shutdown (Oct. 1 to Nov. 12, 2025) and published no October 2025 index for most consumer price series. Source: BLS, 2025 federal government shutdown impact on the Consumer Price Index. The line connects the readings on either side, and the data table marks the gap “not published.”

-5%0%5%10%2010201520202025

  • Months with no published figure
Data table
dateAverage hourly earningsConsumer prices
2008-01-012.914.29
2008-02-012.854.14
2008-03-013.093.97
2008-04-012.843.9
2008-05-013.024.09
2008-06-012.724.94
2008-07-013.155.5
2008-08-013.335.31
2008-09-013.284.95
2008-10-013.323.73
2008-11-013.51.1
2008-12-013.73-0.02
2009-01-013.63-0.11
2009-02-013.340.01
2009-03-013.23-0.45
2009-04-013.37-0.58
2009-05-013.03-1.02
2009-06-012.88-1.23
2009-07-012.69-1.96
2009-08-012.44-1.48
2009-09-012.49-1.38
2009-10-012.53-0.22
2009-11-012.21.91
2009-12-011.912.81
2010-01-012.02.62
2010-02-012.182.15
2010-03-011.862.29
2010-04-011.762.21
2010-05-011.762.0
2010-06-011.761.12
2010-07-011.851.34
2010-08-011.751.15
2010-09-011.81.12
2010-10-011.881.17
2010-11-011.751.08
2010-12-011.741.44
2011-01-012.11.7
2011-02-011.832.12
2011-03-011.832.62
2011-04-011.873.08
2011-05-012.043.46
2011-06-012.093.5
2011-07-012.33.58
2011-08-011.953.75
2011-09-011.943.81
2011-10-011.983.52
2011-11-012.023.45
2011-12-012.023.06
2012-01-011.713.01
2012-02-011.792.9
2012-03-012.142.58
2012-04-012.12.27
2012-05-011.921.74
2012-06-012.01.65
2012-07-011.641.42
2012-08-011.821.69
2012-09-011.991.95
2012-10-011.642.16
2012-11-011.91.8
2012-12-012.151.76
2013-01-012.061.68
2013-02-012.152.02
2013-03-011.881.52
2013-04-012.051.14
2013-05-012.051.39
2013-06-012.131.72
2013-07-012.091.89
2013-08-012.31.54
2013-09-012.081.09
2013-10-012.250.88
2013-11-012.241.23
2013-12-011.941.51
2014-01-012.021.56
2014-02-012.311.12
2014-03-012.141.61
2014-04-011.972.02
2014-05-012.132.17
2014-06-012.092.06
2014-07-012.091.97
2014-08-012.161.72
2014-09-012.081.68
2014-10-012.081.61
2014-11-012.071.23
2014-12-011.860.65
2015-01-012.15-0.23
2015-02-011.89-0.09
2015-03-012.22-0.02
2015-04-012.26-0.1
2015-05-012.340.04
2015-06-012.090.18
2015-07-012.170.23
2015-08-012.280.24
2015-09-012.240.01
2015-10-012.480.13
2015-11-012.390.44
2015-12-012.520.64
2016-01-012.551.24
2016-02-012.380.85
2016-03-012.410.89
2016-04-012.571.17
2016-05-012.441.08
2016-06-012.61.08
2016-07-012.720.87
2016-08-012.431.06
2016-09-012.631.55
2016-10-012.781.69
2016-11-012.571.68
2016-12-012.692.05
2017-01-012.482.51
2017-02-012.722.81
2017-03-012.592.44
2017-04-012.552.18
2017-05-012.461.86
2017-06-012.51.64
2017-07-012.571.73
2017-08-012.571.93
2017-09-012.792.18
2017-10-012.322.02
2017-11-012.472.17
2017-12-012.72.13
2018-01-012.772.15
2018-02-012.572.26
2018-03-012.832.33
2018-04-012.792.47
2018-05-012.942.78
2018-06-012.932.81
2018-07-012.852.85
2018-08-013.192.64
2018-09-013.132.33
2018-10-013.282.49
2018-11-013.392.15
2018-12-013.492.0
2019-01-013.261.49
2019-02-013.551.52
2019-03-013.431.88
2019-04-013.272.0
2019-05-013.341.8
2019-06-013.481.67
2019-07-013.431.83
2019-08-013.421.74
2019-09-013.071.68
2019-10-013.181.73
2019-11-013.282.09
2019-12-012.982.32
2020-01-013.042.6
2020-02-013.072.34
2020-03-013.461.49
2020-04-018.10.31
2020-05-016.60.2
2020-06-015.040.72
2020-07-014.851.0
2020-08-014.81.28
2020-09-014.791.39
2020-10-014.61.23
2020-11-014.591.18
2020-12-015.391.32
2021-01-015.281.37
2021-02-015.291.67
2021-03-014.522.67
2021-04-010.64.13
2021-05-012.324.92
2021-06-013.955.3
2021-07-014.325.25
2021-08-014.375.15
2021-09-014.985.35
2021-10-015.426.24
2021-11-015.366.9
2021-12-014.957.17
2022-01-015.587.56
2022-02-015.297.94
2022-03-015.898.57
2022-04-015.768.23
2022-05-015.568.54
2022-06-015.48.98
2022-07-015.488.46
2022-08-015.398.22
2022-09-015.138.19
2022-10-015.017.76
2022-11-015.097.12
2022-12-014.946.4
2023-01-014.496.33
2023-02-014.775.96
2023-03-014.624.92
2023-04-014.64.95
2023-05-014.364.13
2023-06-014.663.07
2023-07-014.673.29
2023-08-014.473.72
2023-09-014.423.69
2023-10-014.223.25
2023-11-014.113.13
2023-12-014.13.32
2024-01-014.393.09
2024-02-014.133.16
2024-03-014.153.49
2024-04-013.983.36
2024-05-014.153.24
2024-06-013.922.97
2024-07-013.632.94
2024-08-013.922.61
2024-09-013.912.43
2024-10-014.052.58
2024-11-014.182.72
2024-12-014.082.87
2025-01-013.972.99
2025-02-014.112.8
2025-03-014.212.38
2025-04-013.912.33
2025-05-013.982.38
2025-06-013.862.68
2025-07-013.962.74
2025-08-013.982.94
2025-09-013.853.02
2025-10-013.92not published
2025-11-013.932.7
2025-12-013.732.65
2026-01-013.662.39
2026-02-013.72.43
2026-03-013.433.29
2026-04-013.573.78
2026-05-013.344.17
2026-06-013.383.46
2026-07-013.213.3
2026-08-013.113.35
2026-09-013.023.72

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED. CES0500000003, CPIAUCSL · retrieved Oct. 19, 2026 · 225 rows · as of September 2026 · monthly. Download CSV

C. Health care: high-deductible life, even with insurance

Health care is an affordability problem even for households that are nominally covered. Premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket exposure have become a financial management problem. Many families respond in predictable ways. They skip care, including visits to a doctor or specialist, or take on medical debt. In a Federal Reserve survey, 26% of insured adults went without some medical care in 2024 because they could not afford it, and 17% of all adults had medical debt.[11]

It is hard to feel economically secure when one ER visit or one unexpected diagnosis can destabilize the household budget. In a world of high deductibles, being insured does not always mean being protected.

D. Childcare: the second-income tax

Childcare is often described as a family issue. It is also a labor market issue. For a large share of households with young children, childcare functions like a tax on the second income. In many cases it is the hinge variable that determines whether work decisions align with wages.

This matters for affordability and for the macro economy. If childcare absorbs the second income, households have less buffer. If childcare is unavailable or unstable, labor supply is constrained. Both realities can be true at once, and both show up as stress rather than as a clean macro statistic.

E. The cumulative squeeze

The middle-class squeeze is not any one bill. It is the combination. When housing, food, health care, and childcare each claim a large share of take-home pay, there is little left for savings, emergencies, retirement contributions, or mobility such as moving for a better job. This is how living paycheck to paycheck can reach into six-figure households: in the same Federal Reserve survey, 22% of adults with family income of $100,000 or more spent about as much as their income in the prior month, and 12% spent more.[11]


III. Timely note: tariffs are no longer a background variable (late 2025 to early 2026)

Tariffs moved from a periodic political argument to a live macro variable. That matters because tariffs affect the price level directly, and they affect business costs indirectly.

Key signposts driving the 2026 debate include:

The 13% rate is the average statutory tariff rate at the end of 2025, weighted by 2024 imports.[1] Almost all of the 2025 rise in customs receipts came from tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or, for national security, under Section 232, according to CBO.[2] On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.[9] The IEEPA tariffs were removed, and a temporary tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 took their place.[3] On the Budget Lab at Yale’s measure, which counts both changes, the average rate was 11.1% on April 2, 2026.[3] The two figures come from different sources for different dates, so the gap between them does not measure the ruling’s effect.[1][3]

These links do not prove that tariffs are always wrong. They prove something narrower. Tariffs are not free. If policy chooses tariffs, it should also be explicit about how the cost will be absorbed, and which households and regions will bear it.


IV. The tariff reality check

Tariffs are often sold as job protection or a strategic bargaining tool. Those arguments can be made. But they should not be made with fuzzy economics.

The same sources report what tariffs bring in. In February 2026, CBO estimated that higher tariffs cut projected deficits for 2026 to 2035 by $3.0 trillion, counting their effects on the economy and on interest costs.[2] CBO also expects “an increase in the domestic production of some import-competing goods resulting from higher tariffs.”[2] CBO assumed the tariffs in effect on Nov. 20, 2025, stay in place throughout its projections.[2] About 41 percent of 2025 customs duties were imposed under IEEPA, though CBO expected the Administration could replicate most of those tariffs under other laws.[2] The Budget Lab at Yale counts $214.7 billion in added customs revenue, adjusted for inflation, above the 2022 to 2024 average through February 2026. It notes that about $165 billion collected under IEEPA may be refunded to importers, which would leave $49.7 billion of revenue raised through February 2026.[3]

A tariff is a tax on imports. The importing firm writes the check. The cost then moves through the chain, from exporters to importers and wholesalers to retailers and then, in many cases, to consumers. The incidence is the core question. Who actually bears the cost.

A New York Fed analysis of the 2025 tariff regime frames this precisely and uses import data to examine the split between domestic and foreign burden.

The second question is where tariffs land. If tariffs hit consumer goods, the cost is visible as higher prices. If tariffs hit intermediate inputs, the cost is visible as higher production costs, lower margins, or both. Since many imports are used as inputs in domestic production, sweeping tariffs raise costs for U.S. firms as well as sticker prices for households.[2]

The jobs question, and why it is often unsatisfying

The tariff-to-jobs story tends to disappoint because it runs into three realities. Modern manufacturing is capital-intensive, so reshoring does not necessarily mean lots of jobs. Downstream sectors are often larger than the protected sectors, so higher input costs can lead to job losses elsewhere. Retaliation concentrates pain, and export-oriented regions can take the hit even if the policy is national.

That does not mean tariffs never work. It means they should be evaluated like any other policy, by net effects rather than slogans.

Where a tariff's cost lands
Where the tariff hitsWhere the cost shows up
Consumer goodsHigher prices
Intermediate inputs to U.S. productionHigher production costs, lower margins, or both
Downstream sectors that buy those inputsHigher input costs that can lead to job losses elsewhere
Export-oriented regions, through retaliationConcentrated pain, even though the policy is national

V. The middle-class squeeze in detail

Affordability pressure becomes a squeeze when households lose buffers. When buffers shrink, the short-term solution is usually debt. Credit cards become the shock absorber. Auto loans stretch longer. Student loan payments re-enter the household budget.[12][13]

A. Income growth vs. cost growth

Nominal wages can rise while real purchasing power falls if the largest cost categories rise faster than wages. Even when inflation cools, households still face the higher level of costs that accumulated in the past few years. If the biggest bills rose faster than the paycheck, the lived outcome is not relief. It is stagnation.

B. The two-income trap, revisited

Many households are not choosing a two-income model. They are locked into it. Childcare then becomes the hinge variable. If childcare costs consume the second income, the family is working harder without building stability.

C. Debt and fragility

This is the difference between a stable economy and a stable household. Aggregate indicators can stay fine for longer than household balance sheets can. Fragility increases quietly. It becomes visible only when a layoff, a medical bill, or a car repair pushes a household from stress into delinquency.

D. Geographic disparities

The squeeze is national, but it is not uniform. High-cost metros have extreme housing pressure. Faster-growing regions can combine job growth with rising costs. Lower-cost regions may have fewer opportunities. The distributional reality matters because the average economy is not where most people live.


VI. Who is actually doing well, and why that matters

A key reason macro indicators can stay stable is that some segments are doing very well. Households with substantial assets and stable high incomes are insulated. Asset appreciation supports wealth. Wage growth in certain professional categories stays strong.

Some sectors also have structural tailwinds, including health care due to demand, skilled trades in constrained labor markets, and certain energy segments.

Why the winners story is not a rebuttal

It is tempting to argue that the economy is fine, and to point at the stock market or top-line growth. But a strong top does not cancel stress in the middle. In political terms, a distribution that produces visible winners and broad anxiety is unstable even if aggregate GDP looks fine.


VII. What early-2026 data does and does not tell you

CBO’s February 2026 outlook is useful because it frames a key theme. 2026 can have decent growth with inflation pressures that are meaningfully affected by policy choices such as tariffs.

A practical way to read the early-2026 data is to keep three ideas in your head at once. Growth can be decent while distribution is uneven. Unemployment can be low while job-quality concerns persist. Inflation can cool while the price level remains high. That is why sentiment can stay low even when top-line numbers improve.

Unemployment rate, 2000 to 2026

No figure for October 2025: the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not conduct its household survey that month because of the federal government shutdown (Oct. 1 to Nov. 12, 2025), and there is no estimate for that month. Source: BLS, 2025 federal government shutdown impact on the Current Population Survey. The line connects the readings on either side, and the data table marks the gap “not published.”

0%5%10%15%200020052010201520202025April 2020

  • Months with no published figure
Data table
dateUnemployment rate
2000-01-014.0
2000-02-014.1
2000-03-014.0
2000-04-013.8
2000-05-014.0
2000-06-014.0
2000-07-014.0
2000-08-014.1
2000-09-013.9
2000-10-013.9
2000-11-013.9
2000-12-013.9
2001-01-014.2
2001-02-014.2
2001-03-014.3
2001-04-014.4
2001-05-014.3
2001-06-014.5
2001-07-014.6
2001-08-014.9
2001-09-015.0
2001-10-015.3
2001-11-015.5
2001-12-015.7
2002-01-015.7
2002-02-015.7
2002-03-015.7
2002-04-015.9
2002-05-015.8
2002-06-015.8
2002-07-015.8
2002-08-015.7
2002-09-015.7
2002-10-015.7
2002-11-015.9
2002-12-016.0
2003-01-015.8
2003-02-015.9
2003-03-015.9
2003-04-016.0
2003-05-016.1
2003-06-016.3
2003-07-016.2
2003-08-016.1
2003-09-016.1
2003-10-016.0
2003-11-015.8
2003-12-015.7
2004-01-015.7
2004-02-015.6
2004-03-015.8
2004-04-015.6
2004-05-015.6
2004-06-015.6
2004-07-015.5
2004-08-015.4
2004-09-015.4
2004-10-015.5
2004-11-015.4
2004-12-015.4
2005-01-015.3
2005-02-015.4
2005-03-015.2
2005-04-015.2
2005-05-015.1
2005-06-015.0
2005-07-015.0
2005-08-014.9
2005-09-015.0
2005-10-015.0
2005-11-015.0
2005-12-014.9
2006-01-014.7
2006-02-014.8
2006-03-014.7
2006-04-014.7
2006-05-014.6
2006-06-014.6
2006-07-014.7
2006-08-014.7
2006-09-014.5
2006-10-014.4
2006-11-014.5
2006-12-014.4
2007-01-014.6
2007-02-014.5
2007-03-014.4
2007-04-014.5
2007-05-014.4
2007-06-014.6
2007-07-014.7
2007-08-014.6
2007-09-014.7
2007-10-014.7
2007-11-014.7
2007-12-015.0
2008-01-015.0
2008-02-014.9
2008-03-015.1
2008-04-015.0
2008-05-015.4
2008-06-015.6
2008-07-015.8
2008-08-016.1
2008-09-016.1
2008-10-016.5
2008-11-016.8
2008-12-017.3
2009-01-017.8
2009-02-018.3
2009-03-018.7
2009-04-019.0
2009-05-019.4
2009-06-019.5
2009-07-019.5
2009-08-019.6
2009-09-019.8
2009-10-0110.0
2009-11-019.9
2009-12-019.9
2010-01-019.8
2010-02-019.8
2010-03-019.9
2010-04-019.9
2010-05-019.6
2010-06-019.4
2010-07-019.4
2010-08-019.5
2010-09-019.5
2010-10-019.4
2010-11-019.8
2010-12-019.3
2011-01-019.1
2011-02-019.0
2011-03-019.0
2011-04-019.1
2011-05-019.0
2011-06-019.1
2011-07-019.0
2011-08-019.0
2011-09-019.0
2011-10-018.8
2011-11-018.6
2011-12-018.5
2012-01-018.3
2012-02-018.3
2012-03-018.2
2012-04-018.2
2012-05-018.2
2012-06-018.2
2012-07-018.2
2012-08-018.1
2012-09-017.8
2012-10-017.8
2012-11-017.7
2012-12-017.9
2013-01-018.0
2013-02-017.7
2013-03-017.5
2013-04-017.6
2013-05-017.5
2013-06-017.5
2013-07-017.3
2013-08-017.2
2013-09-017.2
2013-10-017.2
2013-11-016.9
2013-12-016.7
2014-01-016.6
2014-02-016.7
2014-03-016.7
2014-04-016.2
2014-05-016.3
2014-06-016.1
2014-07-016.2
2014-08-016.1
2014-09-015.9
2014-10-015.7
2014-11-015.8
2014-12-015.6
2015-01-015.7
2015-02-015.5
2015-03-015.4
2015-04-015.4
2015-05-015.6
2015-06-015.3
2015-07-015.2
2015-08-015.1
2015-09-015.0
2015-10-015.0
2015-11-015.1
2015-12-015.0
2016-01-014.8
2016-02-014.9
2016-03-015.0
2016-04-015.1
2016-05-014.8
2016-06-014.9
2016-07-014.8
2016-08-014.9
2016-09-015.0
2016-10-014.9
2016-11-014.7
2016-12-014.7
2017-01-014.7
2017-02-014.6
2017-03-014.4
2017-04-014.4
2017-05-014.4
2017-06-014.3
2017-07-014.3
2017-08-014.4
2017-09-014.3
2017-10-014.2
2017-11-014.2
2017-12-014.1
2018-01-014.0
2018-02-014.1
2018-03-014.0
2018-04-014.0
2018-05-013.8
2018-06-014.0
2018-07-013.8
2018-08-013.8
2018-09-013.7
2018-10-013.8
2018-11-013.8
2018-12-013.9
2019-01-014.0
2019-02-013.8
2019-03-013.8
2019-04-013.7
2019-05-013.6
2019-06-013.6
2019-07-013.7
2019-08-013.6
2019-09-013.5
2019-10-013.6
2019-11-013.6
2019-12-013.6
2020-01-013.6
2020-02-013.5
2020-03-014.4
2020-04-0114.8
2020-05-0113.2
2020-06-0111.0
2020-07-0110.2
2020-08-018.4
2020-09-017.8
2020-10-016.9
2020-11-016.7
2020-12-016.7
2021-01-016.4
2021-02-016.2
2021-03-016.1
2021-04-016.1
2021-05-015.8
2021-06-015.9
2021-07-015.4
2021-08-015.1
2021-09-014.7
2021-10-014.5
2021-11-014.1
2021-12-013.9
2022-01-014.0
2022-02-013.9
2022-03-013.7
2022-04-013.7
2022-05-013.6
2022-06-013.6
2022-07-013.5
2022-08-013.6
2022-09-013.5
2022-10-013.6
2022-11-013.6
2022-12-013.5
2023-01-013.5
2023-02-013.6
2023-03-013.5
2023-04-013.4
2023-05-013.6
2023-06-013.6
2023-07-013.5
2023-08-013.7
2023-09-013.7
2023-10-013.9
2023-11-013.7
2023-12-013.8
2024-01-013.7
2024-02-013.9
2024-03-013.9
2024-04-013.9
2024-05-013.9
2024-06-014.1
2024-07-014.2
2024-08-014.2
2024-09-014.1
2024-10-014.1
2024-11-014.2
2024-12-014.1
2025-01-014.0
2025-02-014.2
2025-03-014.2
2025-04-014.2
2025-05-014.3
2025-06-014.1
2025-07-014.3
2025-08-014.3
2025-09-014.4
2025-10-01not published
2025-11-014.5
2025-12-014.4
2026-01-014.3
2026-02-014.4
2026-03-014.3
2026-04-014.3
2026-05-014.3
2026-06-014.2
2026-07-014.1
2026-08-014.1
2026-09-014.2

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED. UNRATE · retrieved Oct. 19, 2026 · 320 rows · as of September 2026 · monthly. Download CSV


VIII. Structural drivers (why this persists)

Affordability is not just a post-pandemic hangover. It is structural.

Concentration and pricing power matter because in concentrated markets firms can maintain higher prices for longer, and wage pressure can remain weak where labor has less bargaining power.

Housing supply constraints are the most structural category. Underbuilding since the post-2008 era, zoning and land-use constraints, and local veto points have made it difficult for supply to respond to demand in high-opportunity regions. If supply does not improve, the affordability problem does not resolve itself.

Health care structure matters too. The U.S. system produces weak price discipline and high complexity, which keeps costs rising faster than many wages.

Labor market power is part of the story as well. In many regions and industries, labor markets do not behave like textbook competition. Monopsony pockets, noncompetes, and weak bargaining structures can suppress wage growth even when employers report shortages.


IX. What this means for 2026

The risk case for 2026 is not immediate collapse. It is sustained erosion.

Affordability is likely to be the dominant mood variable. In an affordability economy, voters do not reward cooler inflation if the monthly bills still feel out of control.

Sustained affordability pressure also changes behavior. It delays family formation, drives migration and household splitting, and raises stress and burnout.

The policy demand signal is straightforward. People want policy that changes levels, not just rates. That usually means housing supply and land-use reform, health care cost containment and transparency, childcare affordability and supply, and wage policy and bargaining power.

Tariffs sit awkwardly in this list because they can be politically popular while adding to price pressures. That tension is part of why tariffs will be a central 2026 argument.


Conclusion

The economy can look stable in the aggregate while the middle experiences instability in the household budget. That is what it means to live in an affordability economy. If affordability does not improve, even good macro outcomes will remain politically fragile.


Additional reading


Sources (high-value, time-sensitive)

Corrections and updates

  • Updated September 26, 2026. This post now carries a live chart of consumer price inflation, for all items and for food at home, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics via FRED. When this note was added, the chart's data ran through August 2026.
  • Updated September 26, 2026. This post now carries a live chart of wage growth (average hourly earnings) compared with consumer price inflation, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics via FRED. When this note was added, the chart's data ran through August 2026.
  • Updated September 26, 2026. This post now carries a live chart of the unemployment rate, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics via FRED. When this note was added, the chart's data ran through August 2026.
  • Updated September 27, 2026. An evidence check was added to this post: on Sept. 27, 2026, its sourced claims and its charts were checked against their sources. The post's text is unchanged.
  • Clarified September 28, 2026. When this post was published on March 15, 2026, it gave the 13% average tariff rate for the end of 2025 without noting that on Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court had ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, or that the IEEPA tariffs had then been removed. The post now says the 13% rate is for the end of 2025 and adds the ruling. The 13% figure is unchanged.
  • Updated September 28, 2026. This post now gives the Budget Lab at Yale's measure of the average tariff rate after the Supreme Court's ruling, 11.1% on April 2, 2026, and says that it comes from a different source, for a different date, than the New York Fed's 13%, so the gap between the two figures does not measure the ruling's effect. Its reference list now names the April 1, 2026 version of the Yale tracker.
  • Updated September 28, 2026. The section on tariffs now gives the gains the post's own sources report: CBO's February 2026 estimate that higher tariffs cut projected deficits for 2026 to 2035 by $3.0 trillion, which assumes that the tariffs in effect on Nov. 20, 2025, stay in place, and the Budget Lab at Yale's count of $214.7 billion in added customs revenue through February 2026, or $49.7 billion if about $165 billion collected under IEEPA is refunded to importers.
  • Updated September 30, 2026. Two statements now cite sources: that when mortgage rates are materially higher than in 2020 and 2021, a normal house can mean a radically different payment (Freddie Mac's weekly average via FRED: 2.65% to 3.72% in 2020 and 2021, and about 6% in early 2026), and that student loan payments are back in household budgets (the U.S. Department of Education and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York). Their wording is unchanged.
  • Corrected September 30, 2026. An earlier version of this post said "paycheck-to-paycheck can reach well into six-figure households in high-cost regions." We found no source for "well into", and the Federal Reserve survey now cited does not break its figures out by region. The post now gives what the survey found: in 2024, 22% of adults with family income of $100,000 or more spent about as much as their income in the prior month, and 12% spent more. It also said many insured families "delay care, skip specialist visits, or take on medical debt." The survey measures care people went without, not care they delayed, so the post now says they skip care, including visits to a doctor or specialist, or take on medical debt, and gives the same survey's figures: 26% of insured adults went without some medical care in 2024 because they could not afford it, and 17% of all adults had medical debt. And it said that "a large share of imports are inputs into domestic production" and that sweeping tariffs "can raise costs for U.S. firms as much as they raise sticker prices for households." The Congressional Budget Office's outlook, which the post cites, estimates that foreign exporters absorb 5 percent of tariff costs and that the 95 percent borne in the United States reaches consumers: in the near term, businesses absorb 30 percent of their import price increases and pass 70 percent on, and competing domestic producers raise their prices enough that, on net, consumer prices rise by the full 95 percent. The post now says that many imports are used as inputs in domestic production, so sweeping tariffs raise costs for U.S. firms as well as sticker prices for households, and cites CBO.
  • Updated October 5, 2026. The chart of wage growth compared with consumer price inflation now adds a month only once both its wage figure and its price figure are published, so the two lines always end in the same month. When this note was added, the chart's data ran through August 2026.
  • Updated October 10, 2026. The inflation, wages versus prices and unemployment rate charts now say why they have no figure for October 2025: during the federal government shutdown, the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not collect prices or conduct its household survey. Each chart shades the month, its data table marks it "not published," and the note links to the bureau's notices. The charts' numbers are unchanged.

Sources

  1. libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org (Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Liberty Street Economics) archived copy, Sept. 17, 2026
  2. cbo.gov (Congressional Budget Office) archived copy, Sept. 20, 2026
  3. budgetlab.yale.edu (The Budget Lab at Yale) archived copy, Sept. 20, 2026
  4. siepr.stanford.edu (Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research) archived copy, May 3, 2023
  5. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items (CPIAUCSL) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, via FRED) accessed archived copy, Sept. 25, 2026
  6. Consumer Price Index: Food at Home (CUSR0000SAF11) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, via FRED) accessed archived copy, Sept. 24, 2026
  7. Average Hourly Earnings of All Employees, Total Private (CES0500000003) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, via FRED) accessed archived copy, Sept. 17, 2026
  8. Unemployment Rate (UNRATE) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, via FRED) accessed archived copy, Sept. 25, 2026
  9. 24-1287 Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (02/20/2026) (Supreme Court of the United States) accessed archived copy, Sept. 27, 2026
  10. 30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgage Average in the United States (MORTGAGE30US) (Freddie Mac, via FRED) accessed archived copy, Sept. 25, 2026
  11. Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2024 (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) accessed archived copy, Sept. 16, 2026
  12. U.S. Department of Education to Begin Federal Student Loan Collections, Other Actions to Help Borrowers Get Back into Repayment (U.S. Department of Education) accessed archived copy, Oct. 2, 2026
  13. Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, 2025:Q1 (Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Center for Microeconomic Data) accessed archived copy, Sept. 22, 2026

Filed under Affordability, ECON, Inflation, Middle Class, Tariffs

Spot an error? See our corrections policy.