Where is Trump's Balanced Budget?

[Conservative]

Globalization has 10X the impact of illegal immigration on wages. Technology has a bigger impact than globalization. Blaming it on illegals is just victimizing the least powerful, who were in fact invited here by the plutocrats and allowed to work here by their government enablers.

And you are wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I argue that the destruction of jobs is a problem because we're obliterating entire job categories and replacing them with low wage, low skill service jobs. Your counterargument is the market will find something for those displaced workers to do! Great! Well, when illegals come in and take bottom rung jobs like hotel cleaning, agriculture, meat packing, landscaping and they free up all those educated white people, where are the jobs, that will be created when we imported cheap labor to do those tasks and that have freed up educated whites to do something more productive than pick berries in the hot sun 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in season?

Why is the impact virtuous when technology obliterates a million cashiers jobs, but pernicious/destructive when it's illegals taking those bottom rung jobs?



I'll just say I agree with at least some of that which is why I vote Democratic now.

The problem is you are for unions, and free or cheaper education and more technology spending by government, but the GOP will cut off their right arms before allowing unions a foothold where they've been obliterated, and the last thing the Fortune 500 and the billionaire donor class want is workers with more bargaining power, so in what reality do we bring back unions, because it's not this one.

And the problem for education is education to do what? We've got 1.5 billion Chinese or so, just as smart on average, who make a fraction of the pay. What kind of education will bring back those jobs in a globalized world?




The answer the rest of the world has come up isn't to not pay raises, but provide universal healthcare, and in large part get employers out of the health insurance business entirely in most of the world. That's just an excuse, but even if valid (and I don't think it is on a macro level) the problem is you're opposed to that when none of the other items on your list are even seriously ON THE TABLE. I think healthcare could get passed because employers would LOVE to be relieved of that massive burden, and it would do a lot to level playing fields between small business and the behemoths who can use their size to lower healthcare costs versus a 10 man shop.

It's the same thing with minimum wages. Yes, they're bad, but given the NOTHING on the table as substitutes, they are less bad than the NOTHING which is often the alternative.

Obviously this is a passionate issue for you which makes me question the benefit you are supposedly going to get if the Democrats retake the Congress and the WH in the future? It does seem that you are clueless when it comes to minimum wage as your state can set whatever wage the people of your state support which is why many states in this country have their own. Why is this even a federal issue? We have 50 states and 50 different cost of livings but you want a mandated wage set by federal bureaucrats in D.C. because obviously you are incapable of getting your state to react. What is preventing you from paying more than minimum wage in Tenn?

I ran a network of 138 Convenience stores in TX and La. never paying minimum wage because competition wouldn't allow it but competition seems to be a foreign concept to the radical left just like it is with trying to create mandatory unions. You want unions, sell it to your state and local governments but quit expecting a federal bureaucrat to do it for you.

Globalization sounds great on paper but isn't in reality due to different governments, different laws, different cost of livings, and different govt. involvement. Seems you want the cafeteria approach to business picking and choosing programs that suit you and discarding others while ignoring all the benefits in this country that made it the largest and greatest economy on the face of the earth due to innovation, risk taking, and having very little to do if anything to unions. Where is your outrage over the 6 digit salaries of all upper union management for the productivity and benefits they provide?

We have laws on the books now to protect individual rights. Like with all liberal programs they go way too far over time. Unions are a perfect example of liberal overreach today with laws protecting workers so no need of unions

 

[JasperL]

Obviously this is a passionate issue for you which makes me question the benefit you are supposedly going to get if the Democrats retake the Congress and the WH in the future? It does seem that you are clueless when it comes to minimum wage as your state can set whatever wage the people of your state support which is why many states in this country have their own. Why is this even a federal issue? We have 50 states and 50 different cost of livings but you want a mandated wage set by federal bureaucrats in D.C. because obviously you are incapable of getting your state to react. What is preventing you from paying more than minimum wage in Tenn?

I ran a network of 138 Convenience stores in TX and La. never paying minimum wage because competition wouldn't allow it but competition seems to be a foreign concept to the radical left just like it is with trying to create mandatory unions. You want unions, sell it to your state and local governments but quit expecting a federal bureaucrat to do it for you.

Globalization sounds great on paper but isn't in reality due to different governments, different laws, different cost of livings, and different govt. involvement. Seems you want the cafeteria approach to business picking and choosing programs that suit you and discarding others while ignoring all the benefits in this country that made it the largest and greatest economy on the face of the earth due to innovation, risk taking, and having very little to do if anything to unions. Where is your outrage over the 6 digit salaries of all upper union management for the productivity and benefits they provide?

We have laws on the books now to protect individual rights. Like with all liberal programs they go way too far over time. Unions are a perfect example of liberal overreach today with laws protecting workers so no need of unions

At least you're consistent. As far as I can tell, you ignored every word only to repeat a bunch of talking points and argue against points I'm not making. Just for example, when did I support a federally mandated increase in the minimum wage? Oh, right, I didn't! You made that up. How about "mandatory" unions? Oh, right, I never supported that either!

Etc.

 

[Conservative]

At least you're consistent. As far as I can tell, you ignored every word only to repeat a bunch of talking points and argue against points I'm not making. Just for example, when did I support a federally mandated increase in the minimum wage? Oh, right, I didn't! You made that up. How about "mandatory" unions? Oh, right, I never supported that either!

Etc.

So you didn't mention minimum wage? You have no opinion on minimum wage As for no responding looks like that possible is a perfect example of what you do. Are you telling me you support right to work states and don't support worker bargaining rights? Interesting, sure looks like that in your posts. why don't you tell us exactly what you want instead of being anti Everything today?

 

[Geoist]

In what "reality" is blowing a trillion dollar hole in the deficit with tax cuts going to magically make the deficit better? Can you explain this magic?

Also, after hearing conservatives scream for 8 years about the deficit then suddenly not caring as soon as a Republican comes in office, you have no credibility left.

Republicans have excuses for their hypocrisy: They need to get re-elected. I wonder what Mycroft's and Fletch's excuses are?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Republicans have excuses for their hypocrisy: They need to get re-elected. I wonder what Mycroft's and Fletch's excuses are?

That applies to both sides.

 

[Geoist]

That applies to both sides.

Oh I agree, LoP, both sides have their hypocrites. However, on the issue of national debt/deficit the hypocrisy is especially egregious on the right. Most on the left don’t pretend to be fiscal hawks.

 

[Media_Truth]

We have to get back to more social mobility.. and removing the barriers to wage pressure. Not by arbitrarily and artificially "redistributing income".. that's a failure right from the get go.

Agreed!!!



See that left bar. That's the people that the Republicans want to take Social Security from, even though they've paid into it all their lives.

 

[jaeger19]

Globalization has 10X the impact of illegal immigration on wages. .

Yeah.. not really.. not when you think WHY do we have low unemployment and yet wage stagnation in THIS country. Demand for labor should push up wages.. but it has not in this country. Globalization has played a role to some degree when companies can outsource say a call center to india.. but again.. its not really explaining the low unemployment but stagnant wages.

Blaming it on illegals is just victimizing the least powerful, who were in fact invited here by the plutocrats and allowed to work here by their government enablers.

funny.. you need to listen to yourself. "victimizes the least powerful".. THAT ARE INVITED HERE BY THE PUTOCRATS AND THE GOVERNMENT ENABLERS. Again.. look at you last sentence..., I bolded it for you. WHY.. do you think they were invited.. why do you think the government enables this? Oh.. do you think because it lowers the cost of wages and undermines wage and labor laws in this country.. and so these plutocrats make a bunch of money off those lower wage costs? guess what. its a major way you can have growth in the economy.. in fact. most studies will show that a flood of immigrants legal or otherwise increased economic growth. BUT FOR WHO? for those that benefit from the cheap labor and the downward pressure on wages.

I am not victimizing anyone here. illegal immigrants are by and large good people.. hard working people.. that just want to make a better life for themselves. I get that. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that they DO decrease the wage pressure in this country.. that they DO undermine our labor and wage laws.. and this is a contributor a major contributor to wage stagnation. Its just plain economics.. more people for jobs equals less wage pressure. More people willing to work for less.. equals less wage pressure.. more people who are not willing to complain or whistleblow when wage laws are not followed, when overtime is not paid, when working conditions are unsafe.. and so on.. lowers wage pressure.

I argue that the destruction of jobs is a problem because we're obliterating entire job categories and replacing them with low wage, low skill service jobs.

Yeah.. we are not replacing job categories to "replace" those categories with low wage low skilled jobs. Just as always.. we obliterated entire job categories.. like mule skinner.. and created entirely different job categories.. like coal shoveler. That's still happening.. or otherwise unemployment would be higher.

Your counterargument is the market will find something for those displaced workers to do

Well it has.. otherwise unemployment would be much higher.

Well, when illegals come in and take bottom rung jobs like hotel cleaning, agriculture, meat packing, landscaping and they free up all those educated white people, where are the jobs, that will be created when we imported cheap labor to do those tasks and that have freed up educated whites to do something more productive than pick berries in the hot sun 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in season?

How about you stop with the racist, elitist bs you are spouting? Okay. first.. a good portion of those folks that are working in the fields, picking berries, agriculture, and hotel cleaning and landscaping.. ARE LEGAL CITIZENS... many of them happen to be brown.. but that does not make them illegal. Secondly.. those jobs are NOT "bottom rung jobs"... meatpacking used to be a job that paid a good wages.. the same with landscaping and agriculture and hotel cleaning. Those WERE jobs that people could make a living at. Also they used to unionized.. farm workers were unionized to some degree.. meatcutters were unionized.. so to hotel services...

What do you think happens when you introduce millions of folks willing to work without a union, for lower wages and willing to not whistleblow on abuses?

Why is the impact virtuous when technology obliterates a million cashiers jobs

Whoa their cowboy.. WHO said anything about ?virtue? Sure as heck wasn;t me. I didn;t make that statement. I made the statement that when technology "obliterates" cashier jobs.. it often also increases jobs in tons of other fields. Its why unemployment runs so low. It doesn;t meant that its "virtuous".

but pernicious/destructive when it's illegals taking those bottom rung jobs?

Well it makes sense that more people for jobs.. lowers wage pressure.. pretty easy to understand huh?

 

[jaeger19]

The problem is you are for unions, and free or cheaper education and more technology spending by government, but the GOP will cut off their right arms before allowing unions a foothold where they've been obliterated, and the last thing the Fortune 500 and the billionaire donor class want is workers with more bargaining power, so in what reality do we bring back unions, because it's not this one.

sure it is. Look.. you don't even have to bring back the unions.. just bring back the THREAT of unions and that will be enough. Heck.. look at automotive workers.. who are not union. they make as much or in some cases MORE than those we ARE union.. because employers don't want the threat of being unionized and the hassles. All that needs to happen is to reduce the pressures that decrease unionization. One of those is illegal immigration.. others are anti union laws.. which are not that hard to change. In fact.. a lot of folks that vote republican.. are ALSO union members and support unions. My dad has always voted republican.. he was a union representative. In a red state.. I was part of the movement that got anti union legislation reversed by public referendum. I live in a red state.. and it could only happen with a ton of republican support.. in fact.. majority of support.

And the problem for education is education to do what?

Well.. first.. trades and things within the manufacturing and service fields that we have. We don't have good transition between our highschools and employers. Other countries.. notably Germany.. do a much better job of educating their students so they are prepared for work. their are downsides to this when it comes to potential social mobility issues.. but its definitely a smarter way. A worker that can handle a machine or computer and make sure the robot arms work in sync and properly.. is a lot better than a worker that can only pull a lever. And the education requirement is not huge.. it just needs to be targeted.

What kind of education will bring back those jobs in a globalized world?

NOTHING.. absolutely NOTHING.. is going to "bring back those jobs". that's a pipe dream of the old people.. your generation. those jobs are lost.. just as we lost jobs during the 1950 and 1960's and 1970's etc.. just as we lost buggy whip making jobs and mule skinners. What HAS happened in the past? Its that our education system and our technology has adapted. We revamped our education.. we have always pushed for more education and we also as a nation invested in technology and infrastructure. Sure a Chinese worker could do a job cheaper.. but an American worker could use a machine and do 10x that work for less cost. then.. when a Chinese worker could use that machine.. the American worker was producing a higher technological product.. or maybe a service that required more. the problem is.. we have stagnated when it comes to our education and we certainly have stagnated when it comes to the government tech innovation. WE used to race to the stars.. the first to the moon. now we are the first to the fridge and reality tv. When that Chinese guy is making a refrigerator.. we need to be making a satellite phone. or producing renewable energy etc.

The answer the rest of the world has come up isn't to not pay raises, but provide universal healthcare, and in large part get employers out of the health insurance business entirely in most of the world.

Actually no.. in fact.. Canada, Germany and France have healthcare system in which employers still provide healthcare insurance benefits to make up what the government insurance doesn;t pay for . I believe a number of other countries do the same.

I think healthcare could get passed because employers would LOVE to be relieved of that massive burden,

Actually probably not.. first.. its a huge tax advantage.. as you have pointed out. Secondly.. because of the increased taxes to pay for it.. it would mean that every time I gave a person a raise.. it would probably mean an increase in my healthcare cost... OR anytime I made more profit.. I would have to pay more in healthcare tax. Where as now.. my healthcare costs are more finite.

It's the same thing with minimum wages. Yes, they're bad, but given the NOTHING on the table as substitutes

Except I didn;t offer "nothing".. fix immigration, fix education, invest in more technology and license technology for all American companies.. etc.. not nothing.. and a hell of a lot smarter than 1. Raising minimum wage regardless of the market situation in various industries which could cause massive layoffs. OR could cause squashing of the middle class as employers shift the cost of higher minimum wage.. by decreasing wages or decreasing wage increases on the middle class. This is particularly problematic when employees do not have a lot of wage pressure.

 

[jaeger19]

Oh I agree, LoP, both sides have their hypocrites. However, on the issue of national debt/deficit the hypocrisy is especially egregious on the right. Most on the left don’t pretend to be fiscal hawks.

Whoa their cowboy... how many of them have been lambasting trump for the deficit. When it suits their purpose.. they seem to be deficit hawks as well.

 

[jaeger19]

Agreed!!!

View attachment 67242516

See that left bar. That's the people that the Republicans want to take Social Security from, even though they've paid into it all their lives.

Just to point out. that's not a measure of social mobility.

And the republicans don't want to take social security from ANY of those incomes...

they want to take it away from my generation and my kids.

 

[Media_Truth]

Just to point out. that's not a measure of social mobility.

And the republicans don't want to take social security from ANY of those incomes...

they want to take it away from my generation and my kids.

And what income level do you think they want to rob from your generation? Do you honestly think that those in the upper income levels even need SS? Don't you get it? To them, government is just another investment. And they get a hefty ROI (return on investment) from the Republican Party.

 

[JasperL]

Yeah.. not really.. not when you think WHY do we have low unemployment and yet wage stagnation in THIS country. Demand for labor should push up wages.. but it has not in this country. Globalization has played a role to some degree when companies can outsource say a call center to india.. but again.. its not really explaining the low unemployment but stagnant wages.

You're insisting that the kind of jobs don't matter and I just don't believe you're right. And if you're not willing to admit that globalization has a bigger impact than illegals, then I don't really think you're arguing honestly. 30 years ago the clear majority if not nearly everything in a Walmart was made here - now almost none of it is. And if it's made here, it has to compete with goods from China, Taiwan, etc. which is made with sub $1 (now maybe $3 an hour) an hour labor, no work rules, no environmental rules. So it's not that U.S. manufacturers CAN pay $40 and hour and don't because they're greedy, it's that they're competing with a firm in China that pays $1.80/hour, and dumps its waste untreated into the nearest river and the sky is so polluted you can't see a quarter mile.

funny.. you need to listen to yourself. "victimizes the least powerful".. THAT ARE INVITED HERE BY THE PUTOCRATS AND THE GOVERNMENT ENABLERS. Again.. look at you last sentence..... in fact. most studies will show that a flood of immigrants legal or otherwise increased economic growth. BUT FOR WHO? for those that benefit from the cheap labor and the downward pressure on wages

.

It's a FAR smaller but other side of the coin of globalization. And there is still no difference between a bunch of robots moving goods in an Amazon warehouse freeing up surplus labor for other jobs, that will miraculously emerge in the future, versus illegal immigrants coming in and taking those jobs. Same effect, but the outcome in one you don't worry about but if it's "illegals" causing it, it's a BIG FACTOR! It doesn't make any sense on any intellectual level.

I am not victimizing anyone here. illegal immigrants are by and large good people.. hard working people.. that just want to make a better life for themselves. I get that. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that they DO decrease the wage pressure in this country.. that they DO undermine our labor and wage laws.. and this is a contributor a major contributor to wage stagnation. Its just plain economics.. more people for jobs equals less wage pressure. More people willing to work for less.. equals less wage pressure.. more people who are not willing to complain or whistleblow when wage laws are not followed, when overtime is not paid, when working conditions are unsafe.. and so on.. lowers wage pressure.

It's not just illegal immigrants but women, babies born here, legal immigrants, jobs offshored to China AND technology - all those either eliminate jobs, or increase the number in the workforce in America and all of them depress wages by supply and demand.

How about you stop with the racist, elitist bs you are spouting?

Maybe I'm a little jumpy. In case you didn't know it, blaming immigrants is "in" now for the Trump GOP and I'm frankly sick of people demonizing "illegals" for our problems. For the past 8 years, we've had roughly ZERO growth in illegals, and wages still stayed flat. If they are the problem, it's a small piece of it.

Plus the whole disconnect between "free trade" and "immigration" drives me nuts. It's OK and you shrug that a manufacturer decides to uproot a plant in Michigan and move it to Mexico or China or India or whatever, so CAPITAL and obviously goods are free to cross borders and chase opportunity! Yeah, freedom! But some guy moves here from Mexico to work on a roofing crew, and we blame him for all our wages being flat for 40 years.

What do you think happens when you introduce millions of folks willing to work without a union, for lower wages and willing to not whistleblow on abuses?

Yeah, blame the illegals for the unions killed off by the Republicans...

Whoa their cowboy.. WHO said anything about ?virtue? Sure as heck wasn;t me. I didn;t make that statement. I made the statement that when technology "obliterates" cashier jobs.. it often also increases jobs in tons of other fields. Its why unemployment runs so low. It doesn;t meant that its "virtuous".

Well, when illegals "obliterate" jobs for good red blooded Americans, why doesn't that process increase jobs in tons of other fields? What is different between a robot taking that job and Juan from Mexico?

 

[code1211]

Sure, just like Boehner and the Tea Party fanatics worked with Obama???

Under Obama, the Debt just about Doubled.

Under Bush, the debt did double, but, to be fair, Obama was responsible for spending half of the $750K TARP and Bush got the whole hit on his "budget". Using the word "budget", however, in relation to our national spending is laughable.

Enter Trump. To maintain the "Double the Debt" pace of both of his predecessors, Trump needs to add about $20 Trillion to our debt in 8 years. To hit that lofty goal, he needs to increase the debt by $2.5 Trillion each year.

In 2017, the debt grew by only about $672 Billion. Obama came close to that low one year, but just couldn't quite get there.

By the standards set by the two clowns that came before, Trump is a piker. He needs to increase his pace by just under 4 times to hit the standard set by Obama and Bush.

Given the weak start he's had, he now has to increase the pace on the debt increase to about $2.75 Trillion per year. He's gotta get crackin'!

A little departure from the road to ruin traveled by Bush and Obama might be a good thing.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

 

[code1211]

Not to be outdone with his HUSH money lies, Trump's lies of a balanced budget will affect us and our children for many years to come.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ional-debt-in-eight-years-good-luck-with-that

Donald Trump told the Washington Post he would get rid of the national debt “over a period of eight years.”

And it's worse than that. He not only isn't balancing the budget. He is skyrocketing the deficit, and it will soon pass the $1 Trillion threshhold.

View attachment 67242135

Republicans hold all three legislative branches of government. They need only look into a mirror if they want to see irresponsible fiscal policy.

Both Bush and Obama increased the debt to about double of what they inherited.

Trump is far below the level of debt increase he needs to achieve to keep pace with that lofty standard.

If you are trying to come to a stop, the best fist step is start slowing down.

This is what Trump HAS ALREADY DONE.

As a side note to this, Trump's first deficit was lower than any deficit produced by Obama. Not by Bush, but they were bigger dollars back than.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

 

[Media_Truth]

Both Bush and Obama increased the debt to about double of what they inherited.

Trump is far below the level of debt increase he needs to achieve to keep pace with that lofty standard.

If you are trying to come to a stop, the best fist step is start slowing down.

This is what Trump HAS ALREADY DONE.

As a side note to this, Trump's first deficit was lower than any deficit produced by Obama. Not by Bush, but they were bigger dollars back than.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

So is that the target? As long as Trump doesn't double deficit spending, he's a success? Clinton/Gore balanced the budget. I think that should be the bar. Trump will not have a 2nd term. He won't even run for president again. Mueller will release his findings during the Republican Primary. You see - Mueller is a lifetime Republican, and that's why he will wait til the Primary; so that the findings do the least damage to the Party - a new candidate will emerge.

 

[jaeger19]

And what income level do you think they want to rob from your generation? .

All income levels.

Do you honestly think that those in the upper income levels even need SS?

nope..but not the point. The only way that social security has survived as long as it has.. is because if you pay in.. you get out.. regardless of your income or wealth. You start making it "needs based"..and it goes away and gets lambasted as just another welfare program. That's why politicians are very careful with social security and medicare. However, when you design the cuts to only affect a generation that is too small to matter or to young to matter when it comes to votes.... well there is the possibility to screw it up.

Don't you get it

Starting as a lower middle class or even poor person.... and now I am in the 1%? Yeah.. I "get it" a lot more than most.

To them, government is just another investment. And they get a hefty ROI (return on investment) from the Republican Party.

That's funny. Look man.. do you really think the wealthy care about political party.. really? They care about power. I give to republicans when I figure they will be the ones likely to win.. and I give to democrats as well. Its what rich people do. Wealthy people understand the game.. if you want to have a chip in the game.. you have to pay.. and it makes no sense to only bet on red.. or blue. Hey... how did rich people do under Obama and the democrat party? Wait. they did very well did they not? Hmmmm

You need to think on that for a bit.

 

[jaeger19]

You're insisting that the kind of jobs don't matter and I just don't believe you're right.

Well history pretty much is on my side. how many people used to be employed by the whaling industry in the US...how many now? and where is the high unemployment? So yeah.. its seems that technology has not been a great negative when it comes to jobs.

And if you're not willing to admit that globalization has a bigger impact than illegals,

Bigger impact.. okay.. bigger negative impact? Hmmm.. not so.. in many cases globalization is a boon to the American economy and American workers as well. And you are not going to "fix globalization"..which is why trumps trade war was a non starter from the get go and ultimately is hurting the us economy. What a twit... what does he think is going to happen when foreign countries don't have us supply? they will find and ARE finding alternative products and suppliers.. and when the trade war ends.. the us will not get those markets back most likely.

But.. if you are not willing to admit that millions of people coming to the us illegally to work.. willing to work for less.. and not willing to whistleblow on abuses etc.. does not have a negative effect on wages? YOU are not willing to argue honestly.

So it's not that U.S. manufacturers CAN pay $40 and hour and don't because they're greedy, it's that they're competing with a firm in China that pays $1.80/hour, and dumps its waste untreated into the nearest river and the sky is so polluted you can't see a quarter mile.

Right.. but here is your intelllectual disconnect. So then you have a US company that is paying 10 dollars an hour.. and is making a profit because they are competing with the Chinese on quality and efficiency (pay more but have less people)... but you. say.. "hey company.. we have arbitrarily decided to increase your wage cost by 33% and now you have to pay 15 dollars an hour..".. and you don't expect any negative effect on wages or unemployment.

Wait.. and it gets better.. when those workers get laid off and supplanted by automation.. because NOW.. automation or simply closing becomes a better otion for the company?... what do liberals say... "well if you can't pay 15 dollars an hour.. well you don't deserve to be in business"... !!!!!

And there is still no difference between a bunch of robots moving goods in an Amazon warehouse freeing up surplus labor for other jobs, that will miraculously emerge in the future, versus illegal immigrants coming in and taking those jobs

Actually yes there is. Because automation often occurs because labor costs get too high because supply of workers is too low.. in other words.. its a natural consequence of higher wages and lower worker supply.

Illegal immigration upends that dynamic.. there is supply of workers providing job.. and then bang.. here comes more workers and wage pressure drops. and that has a wave through all the wages above as well. Not to mention the effect on labor laws..overtime and unions.

Same effect, but the outcome in one you don't worry about but if it's "illegals" causing it, it's a BIG FACTOR! It doesn't make any sense on any intellectual level.

Oh yes it does on an intellectual level..see above.

 

[jaeger19]

Maybe I'm a little jumpy

No.. you are just a bit bigoted. and you just got called on it.

For the past 8 years, we've had roughly ZERO growth in illegals, and wages still stayed flat. If they are the problem, it's a small piece of it.

Right.. so millions of people still here.. still competing for those jobs.. and because of no growth.. you expect like what? A huge decrease in a problem that has occurred as a result of decades of illegal immigration? Come on man.

Plus.. Trumps activities have probably worsened the problem because when before.. illegal workers would work for a time and then leave the US.. certain they could come back.. many illegals have probably decided its better to stay.. than risk coming over the border again.

It's OK and you shrug that a manufacturer decides to uproot a plant in Michigan and move it to Mexico or China or India or whatever, so CAPITAL and obviously goods are free to cross borders and chase opportunity

! Who is the persons shrugging? Not me. I believe that we need to be investing in education and technology so that when mexico and china or india can produce gizmos now cheaper than we can.. we are making more expensive and difficult whatzits. Its what we have done before.. its what we need to do now.

Yeah, blame the illegals for the unions killed off by the Republicans

Stop with the dishonesty. I have already stated.. MULTIPLE TIMES.. that we need to roll back anti union legislation.. and actually pointed out that I was personally and financially involved (to the tune of thousands of dollars) in defeating anti union legislation in my red state. YOU need to be honest that millions of illegal immigrants do hurt unionization and our labor laws.

Well, when illegals "obliterate" jobs for good red blooded Americans, why doesn't that process increase jobs in tons of other fields

Well. I would think that would be obvious. What is new that is created? When I take a field that was irrigated with gated pipe.. and I automate it with a pivot.. well.. I don't need workers to pull that pipe and to open and close and clean the gates... BUT I now create demand for pump makers.. and pivot producers, and electricians.. solar panels (I use solar to run them).. etc.. so actually more jobs and better paying jobs are created.

BUT.. lets say that suddenly I have 200 people available to pull that gaited pipe and clean and open and close the gaits.. when prior to that.. I had 100 people willing to do that work? Well now.. I can simply pay less. and.. if I am willing to hire people illegally.. I can pay them less than minimum wage.. avoid FICA taxes.. and so forth.. great for me.. not so for the US citizens that used to work for me.

Can you tell me where I am wrong?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Stop with the dishonesty. I have already stated.. MULTIPLE TIMES.. that we need to roll back anti union legislation.. and actually pointed out that I was personally and financially involved (to the tune of thousands of dollars) in defeating anti union legislation in my red state. YOU need to be honest that millions of illegal immigrants do hurt unionization and our labor laws.

So true.

The work for construction contractors at reduced rates, making the union worker finding it hard to compete. At least here in Oregon. Construction work used to be a much better paying job than today.

 

[jaeger19]

So true.

The work for construction contractors at reduced rates, making the union worker finding it hard to compete. At least here in Oregon. Construction work used to be a much better paying job than today.

Yep.. I had a buddy that had a concrete contracting business. He paid union workers 20 plus an hour during the heyday of building homes.. and even during the housing boom.. he eventually had to close.. because he could not compete with companies that were underbidding him because they were paying 9 dollars an hour for illegal labor. not to mention not paying fica etc.

Its a scam.. so one legal fellow.. he becomes a labor contractor.. and hires 20 illegal immigrants.. the one labor contractor.. then contracts with the concrete contractor for workers.

the big contractor can now disavow any hiring of illegals because he is going through this other labor contractor... If anyone checks.. the labor contractor disappears as do the workers.. poof.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yep.. I had a buddy that had a concrete contracting business. He paid union workers 20 plus an hour during the heyday of building homes.. and even during the housing boom.. he eventually had to close.. because he could not compete with companies that were underbidding him because they were paying 9 dollars an hour for illegal labor. not to mention not paying fica etc.

Its a scam.. so one legal fellow.. he becomes a labor contractor.. and hires 20 illegal immigrants.. the one labor contractor.. then contracts with the concrete contractor for workers.

the big contractor can now disavow any hiring of illegals because he is going through this other labor contractor... If anyone checks.. the labor contractor disappears as do the workers.. poof.

These people just don't understand the damage these illegals do to family wage jobs, then cry about minimum wage not being a family wage, because that's all they can find now.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yeah.. not really.. not when you think WHY do we have low unemployment and yet wage stagnation in THIS country. Demand for labor should push up wages.. but it has not in this country. Globalization has played a role to some degree when companies can outsource say a call center to india.. but again.. its not really explaining the low unemployment but stagnant wages.

The economic sectors that can be easily outsourced are the sectors where we see the most stagnant wages. Call centers, manufacturing, low level IT jobs, human resources and so on. Jobs that are not easily outsourced have seen the bulk of wage growth. Example: healthcare, higher level IT jobs, financial advisers and so on. Automation and container ships have more to do with the decline of manufacturing jobs than anything else. Illegal immigration does have some impact at the bottom of the wage scale, but the biggest factor in terms of flat income growth is flat productivity growth. No one has came up with anything that significantly increases worker productivity in nearly 20 years now.

For example, in the 1990s illegal immigration was very high, yet the median household income went up every single one of the Clinton years, poverty rates went down every single one of the Clinton years (reaching some of the lowest levels on record), and there was significant wage growth at all income demographics. That is the only time that has happened in 40 years. Now, while some people would credit the Clinton Administration with that, they are not the primary reason for it, but rather it was the IT revolution of the 90s. For example, in the late 80s, had you walked into an auto parts store, the guy behind the desk would have had to look up a part in huge book and then call around warehouses to see if he could find it assuming it wasn't in the back (with each of those warehouses looking through inventory books). By the early to mid 90s, every parts chain in the country was going to digital inventories where they could find a part within a couple of keystrokes. The same is true with company financials, business services, business operations and so on. The 90s saw the biggest jump in productivity since the 60s and as a result wages grew and the economy was stronger than at any time since the 1960s (before or since the 1960s for that matter). This was all despite rampant illegal immigration in the 90s.

For us to see strong wage growth again, we are going to have to figure out a way to get strong productivity growth again.

 

[Media_Truth]

All income levels.
nope..but not the point. The only way that social security has survived as long as it has.. is because if you pay in.. you get out.. regardless of your income or wealth. You start making it "needs based"..and it goes away and gets lambasted as just another welfare program. That's why politicians are very careful with social security and medicare. However, when you design the cuts to only affect a generation that is too small to matter or to young to matter when it comes to votes.... well there is the possibility to screw it up.

Starting as a lower middle class or even poor person.... and now I am in the 1%? Yeah.. I "get it" a lot more than most.


That's funny. Look man.. do you really think the wealthy care about political party.. really? They care about power. I give to republicans when I figure they will be the ones likely to win.. and I give to democrats as well. Its what rich people do. Wealthy people understand the game.. if you want to have a chip in the game.. you have to pay.. and it makes no sense to only bet on red.. or blue. Hey... how did rich people do under Obama and the democrat party? Wait. they did very well did they not? Hmmmm

You need to think on that for a bit.

Absolutely - wealthy care about Political Party. About 95% are Republicans, because they support policies of widening income gaps, which make the rich even richer.

 

[upsideguy]

If you liberals had given a crap about deficits and debt while Obama ran up ten trillion in debt during his term, you might have some credibility on the subject now. You didnt, so you dont.

Let me reconcile this for you: Obama did nothing to run up the debt. Accordingly, informed persons and democrats do not hold the change in debt against him.

Obama inherited a deep, deep recession which curtailed revenues. Over his term, the economy improved and the annual deficits narrowed. Obama only did two things to run up the debt: 1) the Stimulus, which worked to end the recession and 2) the tax cuts of 2013. The largest contributors to the deficits under Obama were the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003; and Medicare Part D (passed by the Republican Congress).

In stark contrast, Trump allowed a significant tax cut to happen when the US government was running deficits during a robust economy. That, sir, is a real debt contributor AND down right stupid*


* - on a stand alone basis. However, we really know the Republican game plan is to achieve smaller government by "starving the beast": cut taxes, run up huge deficits, complain that deficits are caused by spending, attack the social safety net, cut taxes again, rinse and repeat.