Elizabeth Warren's call for the Federal Reserve to cut rates has sparked responses from Americans on the left and the right. Most perceive her actions and recent press release as overly progressive or socialist leaning. Those who support her measures want to find greater means of reaching economic equality.

Overall, sentiment towards Elizabeth Warren's economic policies, tax platform, and desire for rate cuts are largely negative. Most voters react with skepticism and opposition, which can be seen in many of her tweets that get significantly ratioed.

If we tax the rich, we can fund opportunity for all.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 10, 2024

Warren’s Rate Cut Proposal

U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Jacky Rosen, and John Hickenlooper wrote to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, urging him to lower the federal funds interest rates from their current high of 5.5%. They argue high rates are worsening the housing and auto insurance costs, which are key drivers of inflation. They believe rates are widening the economic gap between the U.S. and Europe, where central banks are cutting rates.

Warren asserts the Fed's policy is not reducing inflation as intended but is instead harming the economy and risking a recession.

Many Americans seem to believe current high interest rates benefit the wealthy and are detrimental to average citizens. However, most online discourse doesn’t specifically mention Warren’s call for rate cuts. This could indicate either a lack of understanding of the direct impact of federal interest rates on citizens’ daily lives or lack of interest in the topic.

• Warren’s overall approval dipped to 38% in the last few days with an increase in her online mentions.
• Approval for Warren on the topics of banking, the economy, and taxes are also dismal, falling as low as 32% for banking and 31% for taxes in the last two weeks.

Opinions of Warren’s Policies are Mostly Partisan

Many Americans discuss the potential impacts of a Fed rate cut, discussing whether it would remedy the economic strain citizens are feeling. Liberals generally support rate cuts, arguing for economic stimulus. Republicans and the fiscally conservative tend to be wary that artificially low interest rates will worsen runaway inflation.

Arguments Supporting Rate Cuts

• Liberals say lowering interest rates could stimulate economic activity by making borrowing cheaper for businesses and consumers, potentially leading to increased investment and spending.
• Reduced mortgage rates would likely encourage more home sales and purchases.
• High interest rates do not address the underlying causes of rising auto insurance costs, but lower rates could ease financial conditions for consumers facing these expenses.
• With other major central banks cutting rates, lowering U.S. rates could help prevent the dollar from strengthening too much, which can tighten financial conditions domestically.
• High interest rates risk pushing the economy into a recession, leading to job losses and business closures. Lowering rates could mitigate this risk and support job growth.

Arguments Against Rate Cuts

• Conservatives tend to say high interest are more effective at controlling inflation. Lowering rates risks worsening inflationary pressures, undermining efforts to stabilize prices.
• Maintaining higher rates could contribute to long-term economic stability by preventing overheating and speculative bubbles in asset markets, including housing.
• Higher interest rates benefit savers by providing better returns on deposits and fixed-income investments, which is important for retirees and others relying on interest income.
• Sudden changes in monetary policy can create uncertainty and volatility in financial markets, potentially destabilizing investment environments
• While other central banks are cutting rates, maintaining relatively higher rates in the U.S. can attract foreign investment, supporting the dollar and providing a buffer against global economic shocks.

The Political Divide on Economic Issues

More conservative and libertarian voters vehemently oppose Warren's proposals. They fear her approaches lean socialist or communist. They argue government involvement should be minimal and the Fed has little power to improve the economy.

They fundamentally disagree with the Federal Reserve controlling capital or being involved in “handing out” opportunities. They see Warren's actions as promoting over-dependence on government, which in their view contradicts their understanding of personal responsibility and paves the way toward an unsustainable economic system.

Liberal voter opinions on Fed policy are more difficult to discern. It appears there is segment of voters who support Warren's call for lowering rates, although they do not or cannot discuss the intricacies of the policy or why it would be beneficial. Among them, some voters in Michigan seem appreciative of her progressive stance. This group advocates government intervention to balance power dynamics and believes that equity of outcome should be a primary economic objective.

Overall, Warren's call to cut rates has prompted polarized reactions. Critiques correlate her call to socialist or communist principles, advocating for smaller government and personal responsibility. However, there are supporters who want economic equality and justice by any means.

Since Governor Gavin Newsom enacted a $20-per-hour mandate for fast food employees in April, California has lost 10,000 jobs and numerous franchises closed locations. MIG Reports analysis show distinct disapproval from Californians in their discussion of Newsom.

• In 2024, Gavin Newsom’s approval on the economy is trending downward, currently at 35%, which is 7 points below his six-month average of 42%.

Economic Issues

• Public sentiment is highly negative about the wage mandate's impact on fast-food jobs in California, blaming Governor Newsom's policies.
• Californians are discussing their desire for lower taxes as the current tax rates as detrimental to businesses and leading to job losses like the 10,000 fast-food employees.
• Newsom is perceived as ineffective in managing the state's economy and addressing the needs of lower-income families, leading to feelings of disenfranchisement.
• Concerns include increasing crime rates, high costs of living, and more people leaving the state. These make it difficult for many to afford essentials like fuel, food, utilities, and medication.

Fiscal Policy

Governor Newsom’s name is mentioned frequently and mostly negatively. Most Californians criticize him for how he handles the state's budget and transforming a surplus into a deficit.

Some voters interpret California's large budget deficit as contributing to the loss of 10,000 fast food employees. There isn't a specific emphasis on the wage mandate, but complaints are often tied back to overall economic mismanagement.

Many California residents complain about the cost of living, prices for gas and food, and a decrease in their savings. They directly point to the governor's policies as a reason for these changes.

Overall, Californians seem to distrust Governor Newsom, which seems largely due to his financial decisions. People are voicing their frustrations about the state's budget deficit and the perceived negative impact of Newsom's economic policies on their personal finances.

Sentiment about the overall economic health of the state is negative. Voters express concerns over job loss, increased living costs, and overall poor management of California's economy.

There is also a sense of exasperation, as people feel their concerns and hardships are not being addressed. They urge Newsom to "sit down” and get in touch with the people.

People are frustrated and dissatisfied with Newsom's leadership and many call for fresh leaders who can manage the economy better.

Recent reports of increasing credit card debt and delinquencies are indicative of continuing economic hardships for Americans. Debts are reaching higher highs in quarterly reporting for both Q4 2023 and Q1 2024. Specifically, delinquency is increasing for maxed‑out borrowers. There’s a feeling of unavoidability towards debt in MIG Reports data, which also shows increased discussions over time with a decrease in sentiment.

On the topic of personal finances, which includes credit card debt and late payments, there are numerous viewpoint trends and demographic patterns.

What Americans Are Saying

Discussion trends mainly orbit around the surge in prices, especially for consumer goods like food and fuel. Most Americans say these significantly contribute to their financial distress. Inflation realities, rising housing prices, and cost of living are prominent in these discussions.

Terms like “inflation” and “corporate greed” frequently appear in voter discussions, indicating dissatisfaction with the current economic situation under Biden’s administration.

General sentiment within these discussions leans negative. Most people express frustration, anxiety, and dismay over rising costs. They also decry the lack action by corporations and the president.

A noteworthy pattern across multiple discussions is the relationship between price rises and political leadership. Many voters routinely blame the political establishment for their financial woes – especially the current administration. However, a very vocal segment of voters denies any correlation between the two.

Demographic Trends

Rising costs and financial struggles are a common conversation across age groups and socioeconomic status. Detailed nuances between demographic patterns aren't explicitly clear from the data. However, recurring references to Joe Biden and swing states, suggest a potential geographic pattern of swing state voters feeling a greater impact from rising prices.

There are many mentions of credit card debt rising, indicating Americans’ increasing reliance on credit to manage their expenses. Late payments on car loans, rent, or mortgages, indicate increased financial distress for many demographic groups.

Those in lower-income brackets or in precarious work situations might be hit harder by the rising costs of essential items like food and energy. Similarly, demographics living in areas where housing prices are falling, amid an inflationary economy, may find themselves struggling with contradictory economic pressures more than their counterparts in other states.

Consumers sometimes blame corporate greed for price hikes, linking increased profit margins for large supermarkets to inflation. This is also a talking point frequently presented by the Biden administration, suggesting voters should place more blame on corporations than on politicians. Others feel increased prices are a result of improved quality, indicating a split in sentiment regarding the cost of goods.

Red Lobster’s sudden bankruptcy announcement and restaurant closures sparked various reactions from American diners. People express disappointment, nostalgia, and overarching economic concerns. MIG Reports explores sentiments, demographic patterns, topics of conversation, and potential third-order effects resulting from the news.

What Americans Are Saying

Disappointment and Nostalgia

Many Americans shared memories and emotional attachments to Red Lobster, often tied to family gatherings and special occasions. Red Lobster is often seen as a staple of Americana, and its closure is perceived as the loss of a cultural icon.

Economic Concerns

There's significant concern about the employees who will lose their jobs, many of whom are part-time workers, students, or from lower-income backgrounds. Communities where Red Lobster restaurants were a significant employer or attraction are worried about the broader economic impact on small local businesses that relied on Red Lobster for foot traffic.

Corporate Responsibility

Some criticize the corporate decisions leading to Red Lobster’s bankruptcy, discussing how closures could have been mitigated. There are calls for the company to support displaced workers through severance packages or job placement programs.

Consumer Choice and Dining Options

Some consumers express concern over their dining options shrinking, particularly in smaller towns where Red Lobster might have been one of the few sit-down restaurants. Many are also discussing possible alternatives, such as other seafood restaurants or different types of cuisine.

Demographic Group Reactions

Age Groups

Older adults, particularly Baby Boomers and Gen X, express more nostalgia and emotional attachment to Red Lobster. Millennials and Gen Z are more focused on the economic implications and job losses.

Geographic Distribution

Urban areas have more dining alternatives, so the impact is less severe. Rural areas show greater concern due to fewer dining options and more significant local economic impact. Coastal areas, where seafood is a more significant part of the local diet, are particularly affected.

Socioeconomic Status

Lower income groups are concerned about job losses and economic impacts on their communities. Those who already struggle to afford food may also lose their jobs if more businesses continue to close. Middle to upper income groups are more focused on the nostalgic and cultural loss.

Potential Third-Order Effects of Red Lobster’s Bankruptcy

Shifting Dining Trends

One hope that some express over a chain like Red Lobster closing is the potential increased patronage for local, independent seafood restaurants. Other dining establishments may gain Red Lobster customers, leading to a potential boost in local businesses. Consumers may also shift towards cooking seafood at home due to rising restaurant costs, boosting sales in grocery stores and seafood markets.

Labor Market Adjustments

Displaced workers will increase competition in the job market, particularly in the food service and hospitality industries. Workers may seek to diversify their skills, leading to an uptick in enrollment in vocational training programs.

Community and Economic Development

Heavily impacted communities might focus on diversifying their local economies to reduce dependence on any single employer. There may be increased demand for social programs and community support initiatives to help displaced workers and their families.

Corporate Reputation and Consumer Trust

The abrupt closure may lead to a loss of trust in corporate chains, pushing consumers towards businesses perceived as more stable and community focused. Former Red Lobster patrons may transfer their loyalty to other brands, impacting the competitive landscape in the food service industry.

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie recently garnered attention by introducing a bill aimed at abolishing the Federal Reserve, calling it the "End the Fed" bill. The bill sparked a range of reactions among voters and political commentators.

A poll Massie posted on X attracted more than 115,000 participants with 86.6% responding in favor of ending the Federal Reserve. Massie’s announcement of his bill the following day then sparked energy and excitement among anti-establishment voters.

Should I introduce a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve?

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) May 15, 2024

Arguments Against the Federal Reserve

Many Americans argue abolishing the Federal Reserve (Fed) would restore economic control to individuals and states. There is a strong wish that ending the Fed would also lead to the abolition of federal taxes, allowing states to manage their own financial affairs better.

Much of the conversation centers on the idea of returning to the gold standard, suggesting many supporters believe in the intrinsic value of gold over fiat currency. Vocal cryptocurrency supporters also frequently speak up in favor of abolishing current financial systems, including the Federal Reserve.

Some voters draw parallels between the current financial system and historical examples of debased currencies, say it reminds them of, “Rome nipping off pieces of silver from every tax coin."

Support for Massie’s End the Fed Bill

Libertarians and fiscal conservatives form a significant base of support for Massie's bill. These groups have long criticized the Federal Reserve for its role in monetary policy, which they believe contributes to inflation, economic instability, and undue government influence over the economy.

Most libertarians see the Federal Reserve as an unconstitutional entity which distorts free-market economics. They draw parallels between Massie and Ron Paul, a former congressman known for his staunch opposition to the Fed.

There are vocal accusations that the Fed only serves the interests of the wealthy elite at the expense of ordinary citizens. Many also feel completely helpless and at the mercy of runaway inflation – a subject which plays into larger negative sentiments about the economy and jobs.

Massie's supporters often express disillusionment with the Federal Reserve's recent actions, such as printing stimulus checks and raising interest rates. They see the bill as a necessary step in addressing what they perceive as financial mismanagement and economic manipulation.

Apprehension About the Bill’s Practicality

While some moderate conservatives are sympathetic to the notion of reducing Federal Reserve power, they express concerns about the practical implications of abolishing the institution.

This group questions what would replace the Federal Reserve and who would manage interest rates and monetary policy in its absence. Rather than total abolition, they advocate for significant reforms to increase transparency and accountability within the Federal Reserve.

Those who express skepticism or seek further clarification about the implications of abolishing the Fed frequently ask questions like:

• "What will Ending the Fed do?"
• "Who would set interest rates after the Fed is abolished?"

These voters are not necessarily opposed to Massie's proposal but are concerned about the practicalities and potential fallout of dismantling such an entrenched institution.

Opposition to Ending the Fed

Many voters who support government institutions are deeply skeptical or outright opposed to the "End the Fed" initiative. They often cite concerns about economic stability and the lack of viable alternatives.

This group fears abolishing the Federal Reserve could lead to economic chaos. They argue that while the Federal Reserve is not perfect, it plays a crucial role in managing the economy.

However, some critics emphasize the need for a more informed debate on the issue. They suggest proponents of the bill lack a deep understanding of economic history and the complexities of monetary policy.

MIG Reports analysis of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Employment Situation Summary,” known as the jobs report, reveals American sentiment is predominantly negative. Many stakeholders and observers are describing the job numbers as "horrible," "not strong," and indicative of a struggling economy. This is no surprise after skepticism around previous jobs reports this year.

Notably, there are concerns about the authenticity and impact of the reported job numbers. While there are some optimistic takes regarding potential interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, which could boost the stock market, the overall sentiment leans toward concern and dissatisfaction with the current state of job creation.

What Americans Are Saying

• Credibility of Job Numbers: There is a notable discussion about the authenticity and reliability of the job numbers released. Some question the methods and political influences behind these report figures.
• Political Impact: The reactions are heavily polarized along political lines, with figures like Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi’s comments on MSBNC featuring in discussions about job loss records and economic performance.
• Economic Policies: Legislation like the CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act are mentioned in the context of their supposed impact on job creation, with differing views on their effectiveness.
• Interest Rates and Stock Market: There's a recurring theme about how bad job numbers might lead to lower interest rates, which could paradoxically benefit the stock market.

Public Confidence in the Numbers

The belief in the accuracy of the job numbers is mixed. Some commentators and political figures express stark criticism and disbelief regarding the reported job statistics, attributing them to political maneuvering. Meanwhile, others accept them at face value but interpret them as signs of poor economic management.

Online discussions indicate a significant trust gap between the public and the institutions reporting these numbers, with political affiliation appearing to influence perceptions significantly. This could lead to continued uncertainty and polarized opinions about the state of the economy as summer 2024 approaches.

This distrust is evident in a recent tweet from Joe Biden which drew heavy criticism in replies and quote tweets, a social media phenomenon known as getting “ratioed.” The President’s post had significantly fewer likes than comments, indicating a ratio and negative reception.

Wages are rising faster than prices, incomes are higher than before the pandemic, and unemployment has remained below 4% for the longest stretch in 50 years.

We have more to do to lower costs for hardworking families, but we’re making real progress.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 5, 2024

Forecast for Summer 2024

Given the prevailing negative sentiment and skepticism about the job numbers, the public mood going into the summer of 2024 could be cautious, if not pessimistic, unless there are significant and tangible improvements in job creation and economic indicators.

Voters will likely remain skeptical about Bidne’s economic policies and their effectiveness in addressing unemployment and job quality. As jobs and the economy continue to be a very high priority issues for Americans, sentiment on this front could tangibly impact voter decisions in the fall.

Joe Biden's plan to effectively ban coal power plants is a contentious issue for Americans. MIG Reports analysis shows voter opinions on this matter are largely influenced by their beliefs about energy production, energy costs, and the environment. Additionally, it seems many Americans remain unaware of the ramifications of Biden’s unilateral action, given international conflict dominating social media and news coverage.

Online discussions which favor Biden's plan frame it as a necessary step towards sustainability and combating climate change. Those who hold this view often highlight the benefits of green energy, such as solar and wind power, in terms of its environmental impact and potential cost savings. They advocate for continuing to develop renewable energy technologies and infrastructure. They also express optimism about the potential for these sources to replace traditional fossil fuels.

Many others oppose Biden's coal regulation plan, often citing concerns about its impact on the economy and energy costs. This group frequently points to the role of fossil fuels in supporting American energy independence, as well as the jobs and economic activity generated by the oil and gas industry. They express concerns about the potential for green energy technologies to drive up energy costs, often arguing for a more balanced approach that includes both renewable and traditional energy sources.

There is also a group expressing skepticism of the green energy movement, viewing it as a political agenda rather than a practical solution to energy and environmental challenges. They argue the push for green energy overlooks its environmental impact and the cost of producing and disposing of renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines.

Energy Production

There seems to be a divide in which some push for aggressive measures to tackle climate change. Others voice concerns about potential economic implications and energy costs. A considerable number of Americans are calling for the expansion of nuclear power plants, asserting they are the most feasible solution to meet the country's energy demands while reducing carbon emissions. Many are hopeful toward Jigar Shah, the director of the U.S. Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office, highlighting the possibility of reactivating dormant nuclear power plants.

Simultaneously, there is vehement opposition to fracking due to its alleged environmental impact. Some voters criticize New York Governor Kathy Hochul for considering its use. Various people point out the irony of politicians celebrating natural parks while supporting fracking.

Despite this, there are voices of skepticism regarding the feasibility and environmental implications of renewable energy sources. Some claim renewable energy production is insufficient to meet the country's energy and fuel needs, arguing that nuclear power and natural gas are more reliable alternatives.

The recent inflation report and Consumer Price Index (CPI) report show a significant increase in prices. The inflation rate has soared, signaling a heightened cost of living for Americans. The CPI report, a measure that examines the weighted average of prices of a basket of consumer goods and services, such as transportation, food, and medical care, has seen a corresponding spike.

Sentiment among Americans towards these economic indicators is largely negative. This is not only rooted in the immediate impact of higher prices but also in a broader concern about the state of the economy. Confidence in the market is shaky, and this uncertainty seems to decrease public trust towards the Biden administration.

Along demographic lines, political affiliation plays a significant role in shaping sentiments. Democrats are more likely to view the situation as temporary or a result of global economic conditions. Republicans are more inclined to blame the current administration for the economic situation.

Race also plays a role in voter perceptions. Minority communities, particularly African Americans and Hispanics who are more likely to be in the lower economic strata, are feeling the brunt of the inflation more and struggling to get jobs. Their sentiment towards the current economic situation and trust in the government can be described as highly skeptical and frustrated.

The middle and lower classes are the most impacted by rising inflation. These groups are expressing a higher degree of dissatisfaction and are more likely to hold a negative perception of the market and the current administration.

Geographically, there is a negative outlook – but for varying reasons. In urban areas, where public transportation is more accessible, the impact of gas prices may be less felt than in suburban and rural areas where people rely heavily on personal vehicles. However, price increases on food and general cost of living have increased concerns about inflation for most Americans. The reasons for negative sentiment and a lack of confidence in the government vary among voter groups but are similar in terms of volume.

Increasing prices, such as the surge in the national gas prices from $3.61 for regular, $4.39 for premium, and $4.05 for diesel since February 19, has also sparked concerns and discontent. These price jumps are impacting American households and businesses, particularly those in lower economic classes and in regions where commuting is essential.

Other timely economic indicators seem to mirror distrust and general dissatisfaction. Following the inflation and CPI reports being released, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 300 points. Several news outlets are covering the issue despite a history of complying with President Biden’s request to cover economic news with more positively.

MIG Reports analysis found the public reaction to the recent jobs report largely conveys skepticism and criticism, with some undertones of frustration and disappointment. This is a stark contrast from what Joe Biden has determined as, “A milestone in America’s comeback.”

The March jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics claimed 303,000 jobs added and a lower unemployment rate of 3.8%. Federal Reserve Employment Data, however, reveals that 100,000 of those jobs belong to foreign-born workers.

Many criticisms also point out that full-time employment is at its lowest since October of 2020, while part-time is the category that is increasing. This is less optimistic since many workers need full-time work to make ends meet. The report also doesn’t fully consider those not seeking employment.

Americans are questioning the reliability of positive job reports, expressing doubts about the reality of these statistics. They voice concerns that these positive reports do not accurately reflect the struggle of many individuals who are unable to secure jobs. There is also an implication of mistrust towards government and authorities, suggesting a perceived disconnect between them and the average American.

The two general themes that emerge from the discourse are:

Discrepancy between job reports and reality

Voters express skepticism about the accuracy of positive job reports, highlighting the struggle of many who are unable to secure jobs despite applying for hundreds. The sentiment suggests the positive statistics do not match the reality on the ground, painting a picture of an economy in distress, despite official reports.

Mistrust towards authorities

There is a recurring theme of mistrust towards government, the media, and financial authorities. American suggest the ruling class is out of touch with the reality most of the population faces daily. By blaming economic woes on the general public, these authorities are seen as failing to address the root causes of job scarcity and economic distress.

Among other demographics, there is a sentiment of dissatisfaction for those who belong to the lower economic classes. They feel ignored by the positive job reports and express their struggle with finding jobs. Their perception is that the distress they experience is not reflected in the data.

American voters remain unconvinced of the Biden administration’s jobs reports. Fueling this distrust are real-world factors such as increased competitiveness from migrants receiving federal employment benefits and other economic factors such as high inflation. With many previous jobs reports being ‘adjusted’ weeks after their respective initial release, it is possible the current report may have to be adjusted as well, giving further justification to the distrust from Americans.