In a country of 330 million people, how can we say the unemployment rate is just 4% when nearly 100 million Americans are not working? The official explanation from economic institutions like the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is that many of these non-working individuals are retired, homemakers, students, or simply “not looking” for a job. But does this tell the whole story?

Take the BLS’s own definition of "employment": if you work for even one hour a week, you're counted as “employed.” This statistic includes part-time workers, gig economy participants, and self-employed individuals—whether it’s someone driving an Uber for an hour or selling a few tomatoes on a Sunday morning. All these people count in the same category as those working 40-hour weeks with stable wages and benefits. Naturally, they’re excluded from the 4% unemployment rate, but should they be? How about starting with a more accurate metric, like the number of Americans earning a living wage?

The past 50 years have seen an intensifying class struggle, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, with significant transfers of wealth to large corporations. With the 2010 Citizens United ruling, corporations can now buy influence with unprecedented transparency. Real wages have stagnated over the last five decades despite massive gains in productivity and economic growth. So, why are the “experts” constantly assuring us that the economy is in great shape?

If we dig a little deeper, it’s easy to see cracks in this shiny exterior. The U.S. spends three to four times what other developed nations spend on healthcare, yet we lead the world in chronic disease rates. Education, often sold as the “golden ticket,” is a debt trap for non-STEM graduates, leaving many saddled with loans for degrees that may lead to weak or unstable career paths. The defense sector feeds off narratives that justify endless wars, while billions are funneled to defense contractors. The tech sector cycles through booms and busts, yet produces little that truly improves life on an existential level. Where is the “real” economy—the one not built on empty promises, debt, and offshoring?

The financial sector, meanwhile, receives bailouts whenever it stumbles, with the cost borne by the public. Illegal immigration has also become a tool for corporations seeking cheap labor, further driving down wages and increasing competition for low-paying jobs. For many, this has crushed real wages to levels that barely cover basic expenses.

Whether or not the economy is labeled as being in a "recession" seems to depend more on political agendas than on the real economic landscape for most Americans. The official measures of economic health, as presented in mainstream media, often reflect only the strength of corporate profits and asset portfolios, most of which are owned by the wealthiest 10-20%. If a company replaces workers with AI to boost “productivity,” GDP might soar, but what happens to the displaced workers? They’re rendered invisible in a system that praises profit over people.

One of my current goals is to encourage the MAGA movement to turn its attention to economic critique. Just as MAGA has moved away from neoconservative foreign policies, it should reconsider the neoliberal economic policies that have shaped both Republican and Democratic legacies for decades. These policies have left tens of millions struggling in their wake. Both parties tell us that anxiety comes from "the other side," but the truth is that this frustration is deeply rooted in a bipartisan system that serves elite interests over public welfare.

Recently, Trump appeared on Patrick Bet-David’s podcast, where he was asked, “Who’s really in charge?” His response—that no single person holds ultimate control, but rather an amorphous group of power brokers across industries—rings true. This “mafia state” has become a permanent fixture, blending public and private influence in ways that serve the elite, not the people. And while establishment Republicans and the so-called Deep State view Trump as a threat, it’s because he’s unpredictable; he doesn’t always follow the elite’s playbook. This is what makes him both dangerous and potentially transformative.

The reality is that breaking this entrenched system requires a force outside the norm, someone willing to confront a “mafia” of institutional power and influence. Even well-regarded outsiders like Bernie Sanders or RFK Jr. might struggle to bring about meaningful change without confronting the deeper systemic issues. Trump, with all his flaws and risks, represents a possible disruption to this status quo. Yet, if he challenges the system, he’ll undoubtedly face fierce resistance from those who benefit from keeping it as it is.

In this climate, Harris and the Democratic establishment appear committed to maintaining the current trajectory, which prioritizes elite interests over substantive reform. If Trump wins, he may have the potential to shake things up, but only if he resists the pressures of the system that has co-opted so many before him.

Anonymous is a writer based in New York City. Holding a master’s degree in economics, he has experience working on Wall Street and with the United Nations.