Casting a Ballot Based on Family Finances

Rising grocery bills, climbing housing costs, escalating insurance premiums (health, home, and auto), and ever-increasing energy expenses shape more than our monthly budgets—they influence how we see the world, set our priorities, and ultimately, how we vote. Politicians understand this instinctively. They promise to “bring relief” to your wallet, knowing that personal finances are among the most powerful motivators at the ballot box. The reality, however, is far more complicated than any campaign slogan or soundbite.

Over the past two decades, essential living expenses in the United States have shown a consistent upward trajectory with few signs of reversal. Food prices, for example, have risen steadily from 2000 to 2025, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for food in U.S. cities climbing from 172 to more than 341 during that period.

Housing costs tell a similar story, both nationally and locally. In Springfield, Missouri, the average home price increased from roughly $88,000 in 2010 to about $236,944 in 2025, while median household income

Imagined Home For Sale

grew from approximately $41,000 to $58,000. That means the price-to-income ratio—a common measure of housing affordability—rose from about 2.15 in 2010 to 4.08 in 2025, showing that homes in Springfield have become nearly twice as expensive relative to income in just 15 years.

Springfield is not an anomaly. In Mobile, Alabama, the median household income in 2010 was around $50,403, while the median home value in the county was about $105,000. By 2025, the median listing home price in the Mobile metro area reached $264,900, while the median household income was roughly $51,090. That translates to a price-to-income ratio rising from about 2.08 in 2010 to 5.19 in 2025, meaning homes in Mobile have become more than twice as expensive relative to income in just 15 years.

Knoxville, Tennessee tells a similar story. The median home value in 2025 was approximately $365,764 (Zillow), and the FHFA All-Transactions House Price Index suggests a comparable 2010 value of around $147,966. Using county median household income estimates of $44,074 (2010) and $70,457 (2023), the price-to-income ratio rose from 3.36 to about 5.19, meaning housing in the Knoxville area now costs roughly five times the median household income—up sharply from 2010.

Energy costs have also climbed steadily. In Missouri, the average residential electricity rate reached 15.84¢ per kWh in 2025, rising roughly 20% from 2020 to 2023—adding hundreds of dollars annually to the average household bill. Ameren Missouri’s $14-per-month increase for typical users is just one example of how these hikes persist, even in states with relatively low energy costs.

Imagined Power Plant

In Knoxville, the average residential electricity rate in 2025 is about 12.51¢ per kWh, while in Mobile, it’s around 16.81¢ per kWh. Even in places with moderate or below-average rates, households continue

to face unrelenting price pressure and rising annual energy costs.

The truth is that neither political party has been able to reverse the long-term upward trend in energy costs. Even with strong clean-energy pushes, residential electricity rates continue to climb due to underlying factors such as fuel prices, infrastructure costs, grid maintenance, and rising demand.

While some sectors—especially technology—have seen costs fall thanks to innovation, scale, and global supply chains, essential goods and services have not followed suit. Flat-screen TVs, laptops, and cloud software seem cheaper every year, but groceries, housing, and energy remain subject to scarcity, regulation, and structural inefficiencies. Once consumers absorb higher prices in these essential sectors, they rarely see them fall—creating a new baseline that becomes the “new normal.”

Casting a Ballot

For voters, the challenge is clear: chasing nostalgia for cheaper groceries, housing, or energy is futile. Short-term political promises may offer temporary relief, but they rarely address the root causes of rising costs. The more effective approach is to support policies that expand supply, improve infrastructure, and build resilience—increasing the availability of affordable housing, investing in sustainable energy systems, and strengthening domestic food production (stop planting corn and soybeans) and supply chains.

Voting with a long-term economic vision—rather than reacting to short-term wallet pain—gives citizens a better chance to shape a future where costs are managed, not merely endured. Casting your ballot solely for “economic relief” is like casting a line into an empty pond—you may catch a turtle, perhaps a frog, but not the fish you’re hoping for. The real problem is that the pond’s been drained, and those in charge have no intention of restocking it.

Rising costs inevitably influence how people vote—and that’s understandable—but it shouldn’t be the only consideration before your ballot is cast. Prices don’t rewind; they rise, and once absorbed, they stick. The choice for voters is whether to cast ballots based on survival in the moment or to support policies that build long-term affordability, resilience, and economic stability for themselves, their families, their neighbors, and their communities. November 4 is around the corner. Do your research—not just through your favorite outlet, which will only tell you what you want to hear—then dig deeper. And when you’ve done that, cast your ballot.