Explain it like I'm 5 (or pls link me, happy to read more):
Previously the rich were borrowing easily and buying assets that go up in price bc...easy money. i.e. Houses appreciate really quickly, people can't afford them, the median income is outstripped by the median price etc. etc.
Now rates are going up but more people need to lose their job and be able to afford even less just at a lower price? i.e. Houses appreciate slowly but cost so much that even though the median price of a home is lower, most people still can't afford it bc the monthly is too high?
It seems like in both scenarios most working people can't afford things despite the interest rate being in the single digits unlike the 80s bc the interest rate on your money is so low and the cost/ownership of day to day items (say, a phone which was $15 for a house and is now ~100 per person per month) is wildly more.
Raising rates kills relatively inefficient, unproductive jobs, as it's harder to get a loan. So a business needs to be more profitable to survive in a higher-rate environment, to pay down the interest.
Now when the economy is in a crisis, sometimes you want those inefficient, unproductive jobs just to throw anything at the wall and see what sticks to stimulate the economy. That's when you lower rates.
The issue is we've lowered rates to near zero and held them there for so long the economy has gotten addicted to them, so now when the next crisis comes we have nowhere to go. If you think the working man will suffer from raising interest rates now, I think you'd be horrified by the experiment where we keep rates at zero and then a legit crisis comes along, and there's just nothing the fed can do but let market forces play out. That's one way to get great depression part II.
Plus super low rates has other knock on effects. Savings accounts become essentially worthless in the face of even mild inflation, so people speculate/gamble more in the markets. Also the super low interest rates exacerbated the housing shortage by making it profitable, for the first time in history, for financial firms to invest in single family homes en-masse.
I'd say trimming the unproductive jobs from the economy now, and the subsequent relatively mild unemployment it will produce, is the lesser of two evils choice. Interest rates are an incredibly blunt instrument, raise or lower someone always gets hurt.
Previously the rich were borrowing easily and buying assets that go up in price bc...easy money. i.e. Houses appreciate really quickly, people can't afford them, the median income is outstripped by the median price etc. etc.
Now rates are going up but more people need to lose their job and be able to afford even less just at a lower price? i.e. Houses appreciate slowly but cost so much that even though the median price of a home is lower, most people still can't afford it bc the monthly is too high?
It seems like in both scenarios most working people can't afford things despite the interest rate being in the single digits unlike the 80s bc the interest rate on your money is so low and the cost/ownership of day to day items (say, a phone which was $15 for a house and is now ~100 per person per month) is wildly more.