“Our economy should be measured by how the bottom 30% are doing in the supermarket — not how the top 1% are doing in the stock market.”
Circulating anonymously, set over borrowed cartoon characters. No author is credited anywhere on it, so none is invented here; if you know who wrote the line, tell the house and it gets credited.
What it actually claims
Underneath the joke is a real and unusually clean argument, and it is definitional rather than statistical. It says the country has been grading itself on the wrong instrument. An index of asset prices measures what assets are worth. It does not measure whether a person can fill a cart. Those are two different questions, and only one of them gets read aloud on the news as though it were the score.
That is a claim about measurement, not about anybody’s greed, and it is the strongest form of the argument because it survives no matter what the market does. A rising index and a family that cannot afford eggs are not a contradiction; they are two accurate readings from two instruments pointed at two different things.
The house has made this argument in its own register already: a budget is a values document, and what a country chooses to count is what it has decided to care about. Choose the supermarket as the instrument and a different set of policies starts to look like success.
The strongest objection
The stock market is not only a rich person’s scoreboard. A majority of American households hold equities somewhere, mostly inside retirement accounts they never think about, so an index that falls for a decade lands on ordinary people through their pensions and their employers’ willingness to hire. Markets also carry real information about earnings, investment, and employment; treating them as noise throws away a working instrument.
And “the bottom 30% in the supermarket” is not itself a published number. It is a vivid way of saying something closer to food costs as a share of income at the bottom of the distribution, which is measurable but is not what the sentence literally proposes. A meme that criticises a bad measurement should be held to whether it names a good one.
Ruling. The core claim holds; the phrasing overreaches slightly. Both instruments are real and both measure something true, so the honest version is not stop using the market but stop reading one instrument aloud as though it were the whole score. The meme is right that a single headline number is doing work it was never built to do, and right that the number chosen reveals whose experience counts as the economy. It is loose about the replacement, and a serious version would name the measure it wants: cost of essentials as a share of income at the bottom, reported beside the index rather than instead of it.
Check it yourself — the four places the numbers live
Rather than hand you a figure, here is the shorter path: the exact sources, named precisely enough that you can pull each one in under a minute and hold this page to it.
- Who owns the stock market. The Federal Reserve’s Distributional Financial Accounts, at federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/ — select Corporate equities and mutual fund shares and read the share held by each wealth group. The same series are mirrored on FRED as WFRBST01122 (top 1% share) and WFRBSN40176 (50th–90th percentiles).
- How many households hold stock at all. The Survey of Consumer Finances bulletin, Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2019 to 2022, at federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf23.pdf — the table on stock holdings, direct and indirect. This is the number the objection above rests on, so it is the one that most deserves checking.
- What groceries actually did. The BLS Consumer Price Index release at bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm — the twelve-month change for food at home, which is the supermarket line specifically rather than the headline rate. Series CUUR0000SAF11.
- The measure this ruling actually asked for. The BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, income-quintile tables, at bls.gov/cex/tables.htm — food spending as a share of income at the bottom of the distribution. This is the instrument the meme gestures at and does not name; it exists, it is published, and almost nobody quotes it.