The Left Should Target Social Reproduction Costs, Not Consumer Goods Prices, to Address the Affordability Crisis
Source: Robbie Nelson. "Focus on the Real Drivers of the Affordability Crisis." October 27, 2026. jacobin.com
The Gist
The author argues that although eggs and gas prices dominate political talk about affordability, the bigger long-term squeeze on American families comes from child care, health care, and education. The Left should therefore push big, universal, easy-to-see public programs that take these services out of the market, rather than focusing mainly on consumer prices or housing.
Conclusion
The Left's affordability politics should move beyond consumer goods prices like eggs and gas and focus on decommodifying social reproduction (child care, health care, education) through universal, solidaristic, and visible social programs, because these are the real drivers of household cost pressure.
Premises
- Compared with forty years ago, American households spend a smaller share of income on food, transportation, clothing, and personal care, and a much larger share on health care, education, and retirement and financial products. The 2020–24 uptick in food and transportation shares does not change this long-run trend.
- For households with children, the share of spending on education and child care has nearly tripled.
- These shifts stem from the neoliberal class compromise of the late 1970s: globalization lowered consumer goods prices while social reproduction was marketized, leaving households to buy child care, education, insurance, health care, and retirement security on the market amid runaway cost spirals in health care and education.
- Housing, the largest single expense at about a third of the budget, has risen only modestly nationally (about 30% to 33% of expenditures, 1984–2024). Its regional variation and its mixed effects on homeowners make it a poor centerpiece for national Left policy and messaging, though local measures and more federal funding for social housing are still worthwhile.
- Consumer goods dominate cost-of-living discourse because they are bought frequently and their prices are publicly visible, such as gas station signs. Health care and education costs are opaque, private, and fragmented, so they get less political attention despite their greater weight in household budgets.
- Higher spending on health care and education has not brought better outcomes. The US ranked higher on health in 1984 when it spent a lower share on health care.
Assumptions
- Household budget shares are a good measure of what drives the affordability crisis and what people experience as the crisis.
- Changes in budget shares reflect rising prices and marketization, not just changes in consumption choices, quality, or demand (e.g., more education, longer lifespans).
- Decommodifying social reproduction through universal programs is politically feasible and would effectively lower household costs.
- Policy and messaging that targets the structurally largest cost drivers will be more effective than messaging on salient, visible prices.
- Programs that are visible and universal can overcome the opacity of health care and education pricing and build durable political support.
- National averages are an adequate basis for choosing national policy priorities, even with big regional differences.