Economist's rosy view of US economy sparks backlash among workers

A Growing Divide Between Economic Data and Everyday Reality

The state of the U.S. economy has become a flashpoint in public discourse, and a recent commentary from a prominent economist has only intensified the debate. Kathy Bostjancic, chief economist at Nationwide, said in commentary issued Thursday that Americans benefited from a robust labor market, a buoyant stock market, bigger tax refunds and savings. Her assessment was quickly amplified by national media outlets, which framed it as evidence that the economy is fundamentally sound. Yet for many Americans, the statement rings hollow—an example of what critics describe as economic gaslighting from a media establishment that has an incentive to downplay structural decline.

The reaction to Bostjancic’s comments reveals a deep frustration among people who say they cannot find work that provides dignity, pays enough to cover bills, feeds a family, and secures housing. For them, the headline unemployment numbers do not reflect the reality of underemployment, gig work, and jobs that fail to offer stability or benefits. The disconnect has sparked a broader conversation about whether the official economic narrative is serving the public or protecting institutional interests.

The Economist’s Optimistic Assessment

Bostjancic’s commentary was published against a backdrop of mixed economic signals. On the surface, several indicators appear healthy. The unemployment rate has remained low by historical standards, and the stock market has shown resilience despite periodic volatility. Tax refunds have been larger in some cases, and household savings, while down from pandemic peaks, still provide a cushion for some families. These are the metrics that Bostjancic appears to be referencing in her assessment.

Her comments were not made in a vacuum. They come at a time when the Biden administration and many mainstream economists have emphasized the strength of the labor market and consumer spending as evidence that the economy is on solid footing. Inflation, while cooler than its 2022 peak, has remained stubbornly above pre-pandemic levels. The Federal Reserve has kept interest rates elevated, and signs of slowing wage growth have begun to emerge. Yet the official messaging has often focused on the positive, painting a picture of an economy that is managing a soft landing.

The Backlash and Public Skepticism

Bostjancic’s remarks have drawn sharp criticism from workers and economic commentators who argue that the optimism is disconnected from lived experience. Social media users have shared stories of being unable to find stable employment, of having to piece together multiple gig economy jobs to make ends meet, and of watching their paychecks lose purchasing power to rent, groceries, and healthcare costs. One recurring theme is the inadequacy of the unemployment rate as a measure of economic health. It does not capture those who have given up looking for work, those working part-time but seeking full-time positions, or those trapped in low-wage jobs with no benefits or upward mobility.

The critique also targets the media’s incentives. National news organizations rely on advertising revenue and audience engagement, and some argue that relentlessly negative or even neutral economic coverage can be perceived as bad for business. Similarly, economists and financial analysts often have ties to investment firms, banks, and corporate interests that benefit from a narrative of stability. As a result, structural problems—such as income inequality, the decline of manufacturing, and the erosion of worker bargaining power—are often downplayed or ignored.

The Data Behind the Disconnect

To understand the backlash, it helps to look at the data beyond the headline unemployment rate. The U-6 measure, which includes discouraged workers and those working part-time for economic reasons, remains significantly higher than the official U-3 rate. Real wages, adjusted for inflation, have only recently recovered to their levels from before the pandemic, and for many workers, especially those in lower-income brackets, wages have not kept pace with the cost of housing, education, and healthcare. The stock market’s gains are concentrated among the wealthiest households; according to Federal Reserve data, the top 10% of Americans own more than 85% of all corporate equities and mutual fund shares. Therefore, a buoyant stock market does little for the majority of families whose wealth is tied up in a home, if they own one at all.

Savings rates also tell a different story. While excess savings accumulated during the pandemic initially supported spending, those buffers have been largely depleted. A 2024 Federal Reserve survey found that a majority of Americans would struggle to cover an unexpected $400 expense. The increase in tax refunds, while welcomed, has been attributed in part to adjusted tax brackets and credits, but it has not been enough to offset broader inflation pressures.

Structural Challenges and Regional Disparities

Beyond the aggregate numbers, there are structural issues that the optimistic narrative overlooks. The labor market has seen a shift toward gig and contract work, which often lacks health insurance, retirement plans, and paid leave. Many of these jobs are labeled as “flexible” but in practice offer little security. Manufacturing jobs, once a ladder to the middle class, have not recovered to pre-2008 levels. Automation and offshoring continue to eliminate routine jobs, while the transition to a green economy, necessary as it is, has left some communities behind without adequate retraining programs.

Regional disparities further complicate the picture. While coastal metropolitan areas enjoy booming tech sectors and high salaries, rural areas and parts of the Midwest and South struggle with hospital closures, abandoned main streets, and poverty rates that rival developing nations. The national unemployment rate masks these differences. For example, the unemployment rate in South Dakota might be under 2%, while in some counties of West Virginia it exceeds 8%—and underemployment is far higher.

Implications and What’s Next

The gap between the official economic narrative and public perception is not just a matter of opinion—it has real consequences. When people believe the economy is doing well, they may be more likely to take on debt, stay in jobs that underpay them, or accept that their struggles are personal failings rather than systemic failures. This can lead to poor decisions in elections, personal finance, and even mental health. The sense of being gaslit by media and experts can breed cynicism and erode trust in institutions, which is already at historic lows.

Economists and policymakers are beginning to acknowledge that perception matters. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index has remained low even as inflation cooled, an anomaly that some researchers attribute to the lingering psychological effects of the price spikes. Others point to the cumulative effect of decades of stagnant wages and growing inequality. The Biden administration has sought to address some of these issues with infrastructure spending, student debt relief, and efforts to support domestic manufacturing, but the effects of these policies are slow to materialize and often are not felt directly by the individuals who are most skeptical.

In the coming months, the economy will face additional headwinds. The Federal Reserve’s high interest rates have increased borrowing costs for homes, cars, and small businesses. The resumption of student loan payments has drained consumer budgets. Geopolitical tensions, including conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, have introduced new uncertainties in energy prices and global supply chains. The upcoming election will be a referendum on the economy, and the outcome may hinge on whether voters believe the recovery is real or a fiction designed to protect the powerful.

Bridging the Gap

To address the disconnect, some economists and journalists are calling for a more honest and granular approach to economic reporting. This includes focusing not just on GDP growth and stock indices but also on median wages, housing affordability, child care costs, and the quality of new jobs being created. Others advocate for better measures of economic well-being, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator or the Human Development Index, which account for income distribution and environmental costs.

For policymakers, the challenge is to craft policies that genuinely improve the lives of working families—not just the aggregate statistics. This might involve stronger labor protections, such as portable benefits for gig workers, raising the minimum wage in line with productivity, investing in affordable housing, and restructuring the tax code to reduce regressive payroll taxes. It also means acknowledging that for many Americans, the economy is not performing well, regardless of what the headline numbers say.

The debate over Bostjancic’s comments is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. But it has served to highlight the growing chasm between those who benefit from the current system and those who are left behind. As the election approaches and the economic outlook remains uncertain, the question—"whose economy is it anyway?"—will define the national conversation.