Gosh, so many reasons. But what was posed was a rhetorical question not really seeking an answer. So I'll offer just one of many reasons.
Many institutions have (or had) a rule that they could only invest in securities rated AAA by at least two of the big three NRSROs. A downgrade by one wouldn't have triggered this rule.
If you're really interested in some of these rules, here's one place to start (Pace University Security Law Research Guide):
https://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/c.php?g=319368&p=2133759
Now go forth and learn.

Nothing significant on last direct deposit May 14. Of curiosity, the bank robo was still depicting the transfer as “pending” on the due date rather than deposited as in the past. However, 100% was available to me. I wondered at the time if I’d perhaps detected some small change in the govt.’s methodology.
Thanks @Mark. It helps to know how our SS money is handled.

You omitted a link to the May 18 post you quoted, here it is:
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/deindustrialization-causes-and-consequences
What I'm assuming is that Krugman meant something. You might have stopped with "hard to tell exactly what".
Here's the fuller context of the sentence (or phrase) in question:

A century and a half ago, despite the growth of manufacturing, America was still largely a nation of farmers. Today hardly any of us work on the land:

Oh, and many, possibly a majority of farm workers are foreign-born, and many of them undocumented.
Although some politicians still portray rural areas and small towns as the “real America,” you don’t hear a lot of nostalgia for the days when agriculture dominated American employment. (If you ask me, Queens, New York comes a lot closer to being who we are now.)

ISTM he's writing about rural vs. urban and foreign-born vs. home-grown. And percentage of people working on farms.
I addressed the foreign vs native, albeit somewhat indirectly. For completeness, let me address the other two metrics. Farming? The only (semi) active farm in Queens is the Queens County Farm Museum. The land, all 47 acres of it, is owned by NYC. I feel confident that far fewer than 1% of Queens residents farm that land (that would be over 20,000 workers). So Queens is not representative of agricultural employment in the US. I doubt anyone would suggest otherwise.

"But there was active farm life in Queens until at least 1910," he said. "The museum is the last existing example of agricultural life in Queens."
The museum site operated as a truck farm from 1850 to 1910. The produce was grown specifically for markets in Manhattan. Crops are still to be found growing on the farm, but now the site is used mostly for educational purposes.

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/nyregion/playing-in-the-neighborhood-floral-park-down-on-the-farm-in-the-big-city.html
Rural vs. urban? Queens has long been known as the bedroom borough of NYC. That's meant as a put down. But it does mean that Queens does not fit the urban image that many people have of NYC. Why it even has a farm :-)
Still, in terms of population, it is far more densely populated than the typical county in the US. Here's a 2010 population density map:
https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/thematic/us_popdensity_2010map.pdf
If you squint very hard, you'll see a few counties that are colored deep purple (2,000 or more people per square mile). Queens has ten times that (22,000). Despite its "bedroom" reputation, Queens is far more urban than is the US generally (who we are).
One aspect of Queens that is close to who we are now is its household income. The Census Bureau estimates the median household income in the US in 2022 at $77.5K. The figure it gives for Queens based on its five year American Community Survey ending in 2022 is $82.4K. While an economist might be very likely to think in terms of numbers like these, this statistic does not fit into the subject matter of his post.
So what do you think Krugman meant by "who we are now"? What metric did his writing communicate to you?

If the ripple effect is so severe why it didn't happen already?
We had a downgrade in 2011.

Hi @WABAC
Thanks for the site. But, I don't care for the wording for an answer.
$1,000 in 2000 'has the same buying power' as $1,900 has in 2025.
Very misleading IMHO.
The real close answer with proper wording is that $1,000 in the year 2000 would require $1,900 in the year 2025 for similar purchasing power. A CPI of about 86% for the time period.
I suppose this should be expected from some functions of the government.
I imagine we should take advantage right now of all things government, cause we surely don't know what their functions will be in the future.

You may want to check if your local library provides access to the Morningstar Investing Center platform.

+1 yes, a great idea. I'm pleasantly surprised with the stuff provided by Schwab, too.

Schedule calendar at SSA, https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10031-2025.pdf

Hi @msf Fully agree. I only placed the note for the heck of it. An extreme comparison today that is pretty much meaningless for pricing and what one 'gets' is to compare a 1987 home computer system against today. My late 1980's NEC computer system had a 'full blown' hard drive capacity of 20 meg and I recall 640k of ram memory. The Canon dot matrix printer was really decent for the period.

Side note: I traveled round trip from NYC to Luxembourg for $400 in 1973. I don't how that compares to prices today; but that was a hell of a lot of money at the time. And as you note, market places vary a lot depending on the product or service.
It's a little unfair to compare 1973 airline prices with ones today. The industry deregulated in 1978 and prices, um, crashed. It's sort of like comparing brokerage prices in 1973 with ones in the 1990s, with deregulation starting in 1975.
It used to be that you could get a nice steak and a comfortable seat in economy, even shortly post deregulation. Now you're crammed into a seat so tight that the government has looked into it as a safety hazard.
https://www.popsci.com/science/why-are-airline-seats-so-small/ (starting in 1978)
It used to be that you could talk with a broker, get help with transactions, phone in a trade (heck, just get a phone call answered, cf Vanguard). Now it's all DIY.

Both of you are correct @Yogi &@catch22. Too many “balls in motion” to get an accurate read. But I was surprised (not comforted) that the amount remaining in my IRAs today, after appreciation of course, (in theory) should “buy” more goods & services today than the initial amount would have bought in 1998. Would not have expected that after more than 2 decades of “healthy” withdrawals.
Missing in my rough calc are - exact withdrawal amounts and when (though I keep pretty accurate records), changes in home equity, increased medical needs with aging, changes in pension / SS, changes in taxation, timing of withdrawals, evolving insurance needs + and all the changes in lifestyle adding to increased income needs.

"Reactivate your Investor access for $149.00."
Nope. No way.

“ … the only investment site I’ve seen where political posts—by a huge margin from one side of the aisle—have hijacked the conversation and driven incivility to the forefront.”
@FD1000 - I just counted the threads directly under this one and saw 15 consecutive ones that focus entirely on investment related topics. While there was a period following the Inauguration when I’d have agreed to some extent with your assessment, that is no longer the case.
Civility? I don’t read the off-topic section anymore and try to skip political posts on this side of the board, so can’t comment. But all of the investing threads (the vast majority of threads now) sound civil to me.
My advice to @FD: ”When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!”
And also, “Become a part of the change you seek to bring about.”

Hi hank, I don't know how I could use the calculator to do the math on fluctuating annual investment returns, and that isn't the intention. It's CPI based data only.
This calculator is very good and simple. I posted this a few years ago. However, this is for forward assumptions and returns. It is set with default numbers that one can replace for their own numbers. It's fun to play with.
Side note: I traveled round trip from NYC to Luxembourg for $400 in 1973. I don't how that compares to prices today; but that was a hell of a lot of money at the time. And as you note, market places vary a lot depending on the product or service.

Here's another theory. Lipper data is stale.
I went back and checked old docs. While the May 1, 2025 prospectus (and Schwab and Fidelity) report ERs of 1.61 (gross) and 1.30 (net), the May 1, 2024 prospectus reports ERs of 4.24% (gross) and 3.78% (net). It looks like this old prospectus is where Lipper got its 3.78% figure.
Regarding M*, in addition to reporting an adjusted ER of 1.26% as you described (i.e. excluding leverage/shorting costs), M* reports an "unadulterated" ER of 3.55%.
According to M*, that figure comes straight from the 2024 annual report.

Morningstar does not calculate fund expense ratios. The figure is culled directly from the financial section of the most recent annual shareholder report."

https://awgmain.morningstar.com/webhelp/glossary_definitions/va_vl/Fund_Expense_Ratio.html
There are multiple errors here. The first is mine - I misread the Dec 2024 annual report., quoting the ER for open (retail) shares, not institutional shares (LEOIX). The other errors are Lazard's.
According to this excerpt of the annual report for LEOIX, the 2024 annual costs were 3.52%. But in the more detailed financial tables, on p. 48, Lazard reports the net expense ratio as 3.55%. So that's where M* got this figure.
Lazard also misreported the NAV of LEOIX for several days in 1Q25.
https://www.lazardassetmanagement.com/content/dam/lazard-asset-management/lmap-documents/257770/LazardEnhancedOpportunitiesPortfolioReprocessingLetter.pdf

Results of the 2 calculators seem pretty close. Thanks Catch. Were I to believe this nonsense, my accrued savings / investments are worth more in buying power today than when I retired 25+ years ago, despite generous withdrawals for all sorts of things over that time.
No way, Jose!
Some thoughts why one might feel poorer today than 25 years ago despite having the equivalent amount of “purchasing power”
- Look at the quality of and features on new cars today compared to 1998. In the case of trucks, a late 90s pickup bears little resemblance to the big rigs of today. My last 2 new cars had limited self-driving features, anti-collision systems, larger wheels & tires than common 25 years ago for better driving. Plus much more in the way of entertainment / navigation features.
- The cost for the data we consume today for streaming video, audio, cellphones and the like. Few possessed cellphones or internet connectivity in the 90s.
- We take air travel for granted today. In the 90s air travel was more limited. There were fare wars as I recall that kept costs lower. (I actually date back to before wheeled luggage appeared. We carried our hefty luggage!)

Jeffrey Ptak from M* discovered that the Redwood Private Real Estate Debt interval fund
recorded a loss on just three days since its June 2023 inception.
This fund gained 7.2% a year from 07/01/2023 - 04/30/2025 with a standard deviation of just 0.5%!
Only thirteen OEFs/ETFs had a higher Sharpe Ratio (4.0) over this time period.
As it turns out, seven other interval funds (out of 79 total) delivered a higher Sharpe Ratio
than the Redwood fund during the same period.
Are some interval funds too good to be true?
Caveat emptor!
https://jeffreyptak.substack.com/p/what-new-sorcery-is-this

Speaking of data inconsistencies, what's the correct ER for LEOIX?
The prospectus says 1.61% - 0.31% (fee waiver) = 1.30% net
Schwab and Fidelity also report these figures.
M* says the ER is 3.55%. When "adjusted" (for borrowing costs, etc.) this becomes 1.26%
Dec 2024 annual report says 3.78%.
Both MFO and Marketwatch report this same figure and source their data from Lipper.
Lazard's fact sheet for the fund reports 3.8% net (the same as 3.78%, rounded), adding that the gross expenses are 4.2%.
Are the prospectus figures merely "wishful thinking" (prospective) while annual report figures are real (retrospective)? Then what are we to make of M*'s figures?

"On Monday, Moody’s Ratings announced a downgrade in the long-term ratings for several major U.S. banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America"
News from Thailand https://www.kaohooninternational.com/markets/558008
https://www.tradingview.com/news/zacks:93124ead9094b:0-u-s-banks-ratings-cut-by-moody-s-on-rising-sovereign-debt-concerns/

Thanks, hank. I've used the below for a number of years and posted in the way back days. This is set at default for 1913.....look at the rate of change as a percentage and value. Anyway, enter a year and dollar value to arrive at current cost or value and percentage change. One may move forward or backward with date entry. They also offer a decent write on methodology of CPI. READ the brief instruction info above the data entry area.
I used this site, mostly in the past; related to bullion pricing. The site is operated by COIN NEWS.
Inflation calculator

Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Jan 1, 2014.
https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X