Why the Cost-of-Living Crisis is not an "Economic Phase" - But a Political Choice
By Iris Wang
​
We are often told that the cost-of-living crisis is unavoidable. As inflation rises, interest rates follow. As a result, ordinary people are expected to tighten their belts. Economic hardship is presented as a natural cycle - something technical, distant, and beyond our control. But rising living costs are not just the result of abstract economic forces. They are the outcome of political choices. Treating them as inevitable allows governments to escape accountability.
In recent years, wages have lagged behind prices while essentials such as housing, energy, and food have become increasingly unaffordable. For young people, the consequences are particularly severe. University feels riskier, home ownership feels impossible, and financial independence is pushed further into the future. Yet most public discourses continue to frame this crisis as temporary turbulence rather than a structural failure.
This framing matters. When rising costs are portrayed as an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice to “stabilise the economy,” the burden consistently falls on the same groups — students, low-income families, and young workers. Meanwhile, wealth inequality widens quietly in the background, all over the world.
Economic policy is never neutral. Decisions about interest rates, taxation, public spending, and welfare are value judgments about who should bear the cost of stability. Choosing not to cap rents, not to increase minimum wages in line with inflation, or not to invest in public services are political decisions disguised as economic necessity.
The cost-of-living crisis should force us to rethink what economic success actually means to society. If growth exists on paper while living standards decline in reality, something is fundamentally wrong. An economy should not be judged by stock markets or GDP alone, but by whether ordinary people can afford to live with dignity.
Calling this crisis an “economic phase” is comforting in a sense, but misleading. It implies passivity, patience, and silence. Recognising it as a political choice does the opposite – it demands debate, accountability, and reform. And for young people inheriting today’s economy, silence is not an option.