Wage stagnation: the real economic issue.

joG said:

Most sociological problems that have been forming for 60 years, it will take a generation to fix. At least. But we don't seem to have even made the first step of honestly discussing it. But that is par for the course. The things we probably need to do are antithetical to the paradigm we have been living and are considered evil.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I am also increasingly buying the argument that not having our heads screwed on straight dates all the way back to the one/two punch of the Depression and WW2..this obsession with sparing ourselves and kids any familiarity with evil to the point that we desire to remain stupid about such things, and also a compulsion towards an easy life, not understanding that an easy life is rarely a good life.

Mass Mental Illness many have called it.

Nap said:

It is rather interesting the switch on free trade. That has been a long held principle of those on the Right yet now the Left and Democrats are picking it up as Trump seems to be leading the Republican party away from it.

Click to expand...

I disagree, Clinton and Obama both were free trade,even criticized for it. I think the vast majority of economists on any side, all sides, agree that it's easily the best course, and most of our past presidents were try-hards that listened to experts.

I think dems are more pro-labor and pro-health insurance and pro-higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy. In other words, let the economy grow and free trade flourish, don't let government intervene there. And based on the biggest winners, shave some of those earnings off and pay the employees that made that possible back, via higher wages, health care, relatively low taxes, and infrastructure, etc.

Imagine a giant "mine' full of precious metals. If government tries to control mining, it will be **** we all agree. If we let private compete and do it, it will be FAR more efficient (in most cases), but if they have no rules at all, monopolistic issues and abuse of workers always occur. Instead, let private do it, but restrict them in ways that force them to do it safely, and to compensate workers fairly.
I see Republicans tend to alwayspush for the corporate interests at the cost of everyone else, and Dems push for the "everyone else" at the cost of the absolute richest and most powerful people...who will arguable not suffer at all if they have to pay a little more from their overflowing coffers.

that got partisan, but it's what I see anyway.

I think liberals/progressives change as information and the times change...its part of what it is to be liberal/progressive. free trade is always the winning strategy, it's just what you do with all the profits from that free trade that we allow. Do you let only the top 0.05% gain the most, or do we ensure that they help share that with the workers that made it possible, but who lack a union or capital to bargain with.

Conaeolos said:

snip
--------------------------------------------------------------"

Like a said though until interest rates return to 4%+ we are going to see growing inequality and less and less total tax revenue even if we put the top bracket to 90% (or raise across the board) I wish more Americans studied the more detailed numbers for Europe not just best cases that have no relation to our situation :-|

Click to expand...

A deeply corrupt tax code and a government that was long pumping $70 billion a month towards rich people in the form of QE sure have been a big part of the problem (dont bother telling me that the Fed is not the government, they say the same thing about Amtrak, it's BS).

Mach said:

I disagree, Clinton and Obama both were free trade,even criticized for it. I think the vast majority of economists on any side, all sides, agree that it's easily the best course, and most of our past presidents were try-hards that listened to experts.

I think dems are more pro-labor and pro-health insurance and pro-higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy. In other words, let the economy grow and free trade flourish, don't let government intervene there. And based on the biggest winners, shave some of those earnings off and pay the employees that made that possible back, via higher wages, health care, relatively low taxes, and infrastructure, etc.

Imagine a giant "mine' full of precious metals. If government tries to control mining, it will be **** we all agree. If we let private compete and do it, it will be FAR more efficient (in most cases), but if they have no rules at all, monopolistic issues and abuse of workers always occur. Instead, let private do it, but restrict them in ways that force them to do it safely, and to compensate workers fairly.
I see Republicans tend to alwayspush for the corporate interests at the cost of everyone else, and Dems push for the "everyone else" at the cost of the absolute richest and most powerful people...who will arguable not suffer at all if they have to pay a little more from their overflowing coffers.

that got partisan, but it's what I see anyway.

I think liberals/progressives change as information and the times change...its part of what it is to be liberal/progressive. free trade is always the winning strategy, it's just what you do with all the profits from that free trade that we allow. Do you let only the top 0.05% gain the most, or do we ensure that they help share that with the workers that made it possible, but who lack a union or capital to bargain with.

Click to expand...

One of my issues with the partisanship that is growing in this country is attributing motive to the other side. Sure, there are those on either side that are corrupt wether it is Republicans pushing corporate issues for personal gain or Democrats pushing unions for personal gain. I believe the vast majority simply believe that their view is the best route (R with Supply side, D with Demand side). It was what I alluded to earlier with both sides have a different focus on how to fix problems and because of the constant fighting the problems do not get fixed.

My issue with Democrats is that largely the views the hold do not follow logically for me. For instance the high taxes, they say that the rich need to "pay their fair share" yet want the rich to pay a higher percentage of their base income. If they were to go after tax credits/breaks I would be more inclined to support that legislation, for me a flat tax without all of the loopholes would be fair but that is largely only being pushed by a minority on the Right.

Stuff like the Paris Accords also, this would have negatively impacted the poor and middle class by causing increases in basic electricity costs. For people living check to check an increase in their electric bill would have been devastating. If the CO2 emissions are the #1 threat to the world, we have an alternative that would eliminate it with nuclear and by investing and research it would become safer over time or at least until a better option comes along.

Another issue is school choice, to me this is the civil rights issue (This and abortion) we face at this time. Restricting people to schools by the location they live is flat out wrong to me. This is one policy that Democrats should be the front runners on since they claim to be the champions of the African American community. I believe a parent should be able to make an informed decision on where their child goes to school and not be limited to the area they can afford to live.

I know it seems like I'm only calling out Democrats but this is due to being in a conversation with you. I have plenty of criticism for the Republicans as well as I think both parties have lost focus on what is good for this country and it's people.

Mach said:

<br>And your post was an example of a thorough critique of something?* Or was it simple-minded and lacking of any detail whatsoever? <br><br>And which article?* The one that agreed wage stagnation was an issue, or the one that suggests wages aren't actually stagnant?* Seems like your deep analysis is in your own mind.

Click to expand...

This isn't a Statistics journal, but rather a casual conversation message board. Why bother going over people heads? I will leave it to you to spot the spurious relationships.

CriticalThought said:

Trump loved to criticize the new job numbers under Obama by calling them "bad jobs" because they were primarily low wage, service sector positions. The new numbers under Trump are not much different. Wages continue to stagnate and he cannot fulfill any real economic promise to his middle class supporters without real solutions to this problem.

Click to expand...

Don't expect anything in the way of better-paying jobs from this Administration. The only entity that will be increasing spending power are the 1%ers. Special advisor Icahn, will work with Trump to keep it that way. Trump has abused his workers for many years.

Hundreds Of Donald Trump?s Employees Have Sued For Alleged Labor Infractions

CriticalThought said:

Trump loved to criticize the new job numbers under Obama by calling them "bad jobs" because they were primarily low wage, service sector positions. The new numbers under Trump are not much different. Wages continue to stagnate and he cannot fulfill any real economic promise to his middle class supporters without real solutions to this problem.

Click to expand...

Incomes for educated citizens are on the rise. Incomes for the "working" class are in decline. These are the people competing with millions of illegal aliens and workers in other countries. Both problems can be fixed but the government doesn't have the stones to fix them.

fmw said:

Incomes for educated citizens are on the rise. Incomes for the "working" class are in decline. These are the people competing with millions of illegal aliens and workers in other countries. Both problems can be fixed but the government doesn't have the stones to fix them.

Click to expand...

The government is working for its sponsors.

They will not fix these problems.

Their bosses like low wages and low taxes.

So that's what we're going to get.

What if...? said:

The government is working for its sponsors.

They will not fix these problems.

Their bosses like low wages and low taxes.

So that's what we're going to get.

Click to expand...

It isn't the government that has sponsors. We are all the sponsors. It is the politicians that have sponsors. Let's continue to demand a single term limit.