|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 15 2020 14:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2020 09:08 farvacola wrote:On January 15 2020 08:41 IgnE wrote:On January 15 2020 08:04 Wombat_NI wrote:
The abstract economy really doesn’t matter to a lot of people, at least in any way they can see in their day-to-day if we’re going with people living in a news blackout.
It does work against Trump as well. You can’t stoke anti-immigrant sentiment in such a hypothetical scenario, bar perhaps those who live in certain areas.
i am talking about low unemployment and slight real wage growth. as much as people against trump would not like to admit it, the economy is doing well for more people than not. and regardless of whether or not trump is responsible, a good economy adds to a large incumbent advantage There are numerous reasons to conclude the opposite, that things are bad and getting worse for a significant number of people across the shrinking middle class and lower class. 7 year car loans are being given regularly, the high risk personal loan market is booming without much check in sight, and iirc at least some measures of mobility suggest that shifting between classes is harder now than it has been decades. Real wage growth, especially when it takes student loan debt into account and sets off the inflationary effect of benefits-as-income, is fairly bad and has been for a while now. Conservative economic think tanks think they’ve got a good argument when they insist that any measure of real wages must include face value benefits numbers, which evens out the difference between productivity and wage gains, but this tack totally fails to address the economic impact of paying workers in benefits instead of cash. That impact includes what I like to call a “race to the top” problem in which the benefits industry, primarily health insurance, is encouraged to seek high rents from employer funded sources, which then leads to inflated provider prices that push out from the market many of the folks who need health insurance where an employer is not involved. All of this is to say that economic intuitions point in contradicting directions at present  I don't think any of that matters until a recession hits. Most people don't think that deeply about it. They just look at their checks and what they can buy and compare their yearly income to last year. Car leases have never been more popular, so car loans are an afterthought. And most of those trends were just as bad or worse from 2011-2016. I actually think mobility is as vigorous as its been in a long time but feel free to show me where I'm wrong on that. When a recession hits and the Airbnb petty mogul real estate bubble pops and people can't afford to bring Uber Eats to their door every night because they lost their job then we can talk about how fragile the economy is. Until then I think most people see it as good times right now. More than a decade without a recession and pay checks going up.
1) Pay checks have grown negligibly.
2) Huge swaths of certain industries are being crushed due to Trump's trade policies.
3) Both medical and student debt is higher than ever with no relief in sight.
4) The stats have been pretty conclusive on this country's lack of upward mobility for decades. It hasn't improved.
Your economic view seems to come from a relatively sheltered place.
|
On January 15 2020 22:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2020 14:37 IgnE wrote:On January 15 2020 09:08 farvacola wrote:On January 15 2020 08:41 IgnE wrote:On January 15 2020 08:04 Wombat_NI wrote:
The abstract economy really doesn’t matter to a lot of people, at least in any way they can see in their day-to-day if we’re going with people living in a news blackout.
It does work against Trump as well. You can’t stoke anti-immigrant sentiment in such a hypothetical scenario, bar perhaps those who live in certain areas.
i am talking about low unemployment and slight real wage growth. as much as people against trump would not like to admit it, the economy is doing well for more people than not. and regardless of whether or not trump is responsible, a good economy adds to a large incumbent advantage There are numerous reasons to conclude the opposite, that things are bad and getting worse for a significant number of people across the shrinking middle class and lower class. 7 year car loans are being given regularly, the high risk personal loan market is booming without much check in sight, and iirc at least some measures of mobility suggest that shifting between classes is harder now than it has been decades. Real wage growth, especially when it takes student loan debt into account and sets off the inflationary effect of benefits-as-income, is fairly bad and has been for a while now. Conservative economic think tanks think they’ve got a good argument when they insist that any measure of real wages must include face value benefits numbers, which evens out the difference between productivity and wage gains, but this tack totally fails to address the economic impact of paying workers in benefits instead of cash. That impact includes what I like to call a “race to the top” problem in which the benefits industry, primarily health insurance, is encouraged to seek high rents from employer funded sources, which then leads to inflated provider prices that push out from the market many of the folks who need health insurance where an employer is not involved. All of this is to say that economic intuitions point in contradicting directions at present I don't think any of that matters until a recession hits. Most people don't think that deeply about it. They just look at their checks and what they can buy and compare their yearly income to last year. Car leases have never been more popular, so car loans are an afterthought. And most of those trends were just as bad or worse from 2011-2016. I actually think mobility is as vigorous as its been in a long time but feel free to show me where I'm wrong on that. When a recession hits and the Airbnb petty mogul real estate bubble pops and people can't afford to bring Uber Eats to their door every night because they lost their job then we can talk about how fragile the economy is. Until then I think most people see it as good times right now. More than a decade without a recession and pay checks going up. 1) Pay checks have grown negligibly. 2) Huge swaths of certain industries are being crushed due to Trump's trade policies. 3) Both medical and student debt is higher than ever with no relief in sight. 4) The stats have been pretty conclusive on this country's lack of upward mobility for decades. It hasn't improved. Your economic view seems to come from a relatively sheltered place.
1) pay checks have grown negligibly since the late 60s, what is your point? economic indicators are that they've at least grown a little bit rather than been flat in the last few years. look at the Obama years in this chart. the tail end of his presidency has, by now, been intermixed in memory with the start of Trump's and adds to the perceived rise.
![[image loading]](https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/bls-average-weekly-earnings1.jpg)
if you want to dispute what's perceivable "growth" or not go for it, my argument is that most people feel fine or slightly better, but that the status quo under Trump hasn't gotten worse
2) "huge" is relative. i admitted that some people might have come out poorly in the trump era, but they are offset by all the minor winners. if this really mattered we would see it in the economic statistics. there are always economic losers in America. but it matters how many there are, and whether they are offset by economic winners
3) yeah student debt is high. yet people keep taking loans. the trend was there long before Trump.
4) Raj Chetty, Emmanuel Saez, et. al suggest that intergenerational mobility has been extremely stable. See the graph on page 21. It's much higher than it is in Canada, for example.
For children born between 1971 and 1986, we measureintergenerational mobility based on the correlation between parent and child income percentile ranks.For more recent cohorts, we measure mobility as the correlation between a child’s probability of attendingcollege and her parents’ income rank. We also calculate transition probabilities, such as a child’s chancesof reaching the top quintile of the income distribution starting from the bottom quintile. Based on allof these measures, we find that children entering the labor market today have the same chances ofmoving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s
my view is that wealth inequality continues to get worse and that millennials are having a hard time acquiring property relative to their parents, but that income inequality is a more important indicator for perceived status, perceived quality of life, the justification for those college loans people took out, for leasing their car, taking instagrammable trips, and ordering stuff through amazon. the fact that a lot of people own nothing won't matter till a recession hits. then it will matter a lot.
|
How do you factor in Trump using populism in his electoral strategy?
|
i don’t understand the question.
|
This is sort of the moment I was talking about when I said it's going to be awkward when Trump does something much worse than he's being impeached for.
Pelosi is about to announce impeachment managers for an impeachment focused on "Abuse of power" relating to foreign policy and "obstruction of congress"
Nowhere in those articles is anything about the president abusing his power and disregarding congress (and the law) to assassinate a prominent foreign official.
|
On January 15 2020 23:46 IgnE wrote:
i don’t understand the question.
The way I understand your argument, people will overall perceive that the system is fine right now and will only really feel the burden of additional wealth and income inequality when the next recession happens. Based on that premise, we can deduce that arguments against the current economy are less likely to hit with the electorate.
I see a disconnect with the '16 election there, based on Clinton's total support of the establishment and its economic policies, compared with Trump's attempts at populism when he was trying to get elected (and specifically economic populism for this conversation).
|
On January 16 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:The way I understand your argument, people will overall perceive that the system is fine right now and will only really feel the burden of additional wealth and income inequality when the next recession happens. Based on that premise, we can deduce that arguments against the current economy are less likely to hit with the electorate. I see a disconnect with the '16 election there, based on Clinton's total support of the establishment and its economic policies, compared with Trump's attempts at populism when he was trying to get elected (and specifically economic populism for this conversation).
I don’t see a disconnect. You had a widespread feeling of precarity before Trump that could be mobilized in anti-immigrant sentiment. After Trump things are stable if still precarious and maybe slightly better. People have jobs even if they are crummy ones and maybe slightly better pay. It is easy for a “swing voter” or right leaning or Trump supporter to say “Trump has done well.”
|
On January 16 2020 01:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On January 15 2020 23:46 IgnE wrote:
i don’t understand the question. The way I understand your argument, people will overall perceive that the system is fine right now and will only really feel the burden of additional wealth and income inequality when the next recession happens. Based on that premise, we can deduce that arguments against the current economy are less likely to hit with the electorate. I see a disconnect with the '16 election there, based on Clinton's total support of the establishment and its economic policies, compared with Trump's attempts at populism when he was trying to get elected (and specifically economic populism for this conversation). I don’t see a disconnect. You had a widespread feeling of precarity before Trump that could be mobilized in anti-immigrant sentiment. After Trump things are stable if still precarious and maybe slightly better. People have jobs even if they are crummy ones and maybe slightly better pay. It is easy for a “swing voter” or right leaning or Trump supporter to say “Trump has done well.”
Such a metric for him doing well by necessity excludes, among other things, foreign affairs and immigration, which conveniently leaves his atrocities in that regard at the door. Those are things that will be a slow burn to feel as our position in the world slips. I understand what you're saying in that that's how people will still claim that Trump has "done well", but I would not take ownership of that. I would put that on the person who refuses to see anything but their own paycheck.
|
|
|
On January 16 2020 02:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 01:55 IgnE wrote:On January 16 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On January 15 2020 23:46 IgnE wrote:
i don’t understand the question. The way I understand your argument, people will overall perceive that the system is fine right now and will only really feel the burden of additional wealth and income inequality when the next recession happens. Based on that premise, we can deduce that arguments against the current economy are less likely to hit with the electorate. I see a disconnect with the '16 election there, based on Clinton's total support of the establishment and its economic policies, compared with Trump's attempts at populism when he was trying to get elected (and specifically economic populism for this conversation). I don’t see a disconnect. You had a widespread feeling of precarity before Trump that could be mobilized in anti-immigrant sentiment. After Trump things are stable if still precarious and maybe slightly better. People have jobs even if they are crummy ones and maybe slightly better pay. It is easy for a “swing voter” or right leaning or Trump supporter to say “Trump has done well.” Am I right to say that you are not saying that Trump is doing well (you are not making a determination one way or the other) but rather you are pointing out how it will be fairly common for people to perceive that he has done well in regards to the economy?
I think in many regards, better education is the beginning of a solution for a lot of the country's problems, and I think in this case, convincing people that the world is bigger than them is a big one, both in terms of difficulty and importance. For people who consider Trump to be doing well, they can only do so because his fuck-ups don't affect them. But other people assuredly feel it to this day.
|
On January 16 2020 02:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I think in many regards, better education is the beginning of a solution for a lot of the country's problems, and I think in this case, convincing people that the world is bigger than them is a big one, both in terms of difficulty and importance. For people who consider Trump to be doing well, they can only do so because his fuck-ups don't affect them. But other people assuredly feel it to this day.
What do you mean when you say "better education"?
|
On January 16 2020 02:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 01:55 IgnE wrote:On January 16 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On January 15 2020 23:46 IgnE wrote:
i don’t understand the question. The way I understand your argument, people will overall perceive that the system is fine right now and will only really feel the burden of additional wealth and income inequality when the next recession happens. Based on that premise, we can deduce that arguments against the current economy are less likely to hit with the electorate. I see a disconnect with the '16 election there, based on Clinton's total support of the establishment and its economic policies, compared with Trump's attempts at populism when he was trying to get elected (and specifically economic populism for this conversation). I don’t see a disconnect. You had a widespread feeling of precarity before Trump that could be mobilized in anti-immigrant sentiment. After Trump things are stable if still precarious and maybe slightly better. People have jobs even if they are crummy ones and maybe slightly better pay. It is easy for a “swing voter” or right leaning or Trump supporter to say “Trump has done well.” Am I right to say that you are not saying that Trump is doing well (you are not making a determination one way or the other) but rather you are pointing out how it will be fairly common for people to perceive that he has done well in regards to the economy?
Yes you are right. My point is that it’s far from obvious to many many people that Trump has actually been a train wreck anywhere except the public discourse. There’s an inertia buoyed by the status quo that may lessen the urgency to vote Trump out of office.
|
It might be my bubble working against me, but I have not seen a single peep indicating "maybe Bernie actually is sexist". It's like the entire internet all turned against Warren in the blink of an eye
|
|
|
On January 16 2020 02:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 02:12 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2020 01:55 IgnE wrote:On January 16 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On January 15 2020 23:46 IgnE wrote:
i don’t understand the question. The way I understand your argument, people will overall perceive that the system is fine right now and will only really feel the burden of additional wealth and income inequality when the next recession happens. Based on that premise, we can deduce that arguments against the current economy are less likely to hit with the electorate. I see a disconnect with the '16 election there, based on Clinton's total support of the establishment and its economic policies, compared with Trump's attempts at populism when he was trying to get elected (and specifically economic populism for this conversation). I don’t see a disconnect. You had a widespread feeling of precarity before Trump that could be mobilized in anti-immigrant sentiment. After Trump things are stable if still precarious and maybe slightly better. People have jobs even if they are crummy ones and maybe slightly better pay. It is easy for a “swing voter” or right leaning or Trump supporter to say “Trump has done well.” Am I right to say that you are not saying that Trump is doing well (you are not making a determination one way or the other) but rather you are pointing out how it will be fairly common for people to perceive that he has done well in regards to the economy? Yes you are right. My point is that it’s far from obvious to many many people that Trump has actually been a train wreck anywhere except the public discourse. There’s an inertia buoyed by the status quo that may lessen the urgency to vote Trump out of office.
Agreed. Effects will be felt later (and probably attributed by idiots to the next president who will have to take unpopular measures to save things).
|
On January 16 2020 01:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On January 15 2020 23:46 IgnE wrote:
i don’t understand the question. The way I understand your argument, people will overall perceive that the system is fine right now and will only really feel the burden of additional wealth and income inequality when the next recession happens. Based on that premise, we can deduce that arguments against the current economy are less likely to hit with the electorate. I see a disconnect with the '16 election there, based on Clinton's total support of the establishment and its economic policies, compared with Trump's attempts at populism when he was trying to get elected (and specifically economic populism for this conversation). I don’t see a disconnect. You had a widespread feeling of precarity before Trump that could be mobilized in anti-immigrant sentiment. After Trump things are stable if still precarious and maybe slightly better. People have jobs even if they are crummy ones and maybe slightly better pay. It is easy for a “swing voter” or right leaning or Trump supporter to say “Trump has done well.”
Oh okay, that's interesting. I guess I don't really see a meaningful difference between the portrayal of the economy that you give for today and what I heard about it in 2016. I'm already pro-Bernie obviously but I think it would be extra fun to see Trump defend the system in an election vs an outsider like Bernie given Trump's history.
|
|
|
There doesn’t have to be a logical connection between people’s general feelings that things are pretty fine under Trump and whatever Trump says. The question is: is the great recession sufficiently far behind us now that Bernie’s platform is ever so slightly less resonant and that an ever so slight fraction of anti-Trump voters won’t even bother to vote. I think any non-Bernie candidate will fail to win, except maybe, maybe Buttigieg
|
On January 16 2020 03:37 IgnE wrote:
There doesn’t have to be a logical connection between people’s general feelings that things are pretty fine under Trump and whatever Trump says. The question is: is the great recession sufficiently far behind us now that Bernie’s platform is ever so slightly less resonant and that an ever so slight fraction of anti-Trump voters won’t even bother to vote. I think any non-Bernie candidate will fail to win, except maybe, maybe Buttigieg
I'll believe the rescission has blown over when it doesn't take 33+ hours of work in my area to get a single bedroom apartment without assistance.
|
On January 15 2020 22:33 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2020 22:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 15 2020 14:37 IgnE wrote:On January 15 2020 09:08 farvacola wrote:On January 15 2020 08:41 IgnE wrote:On January 15 2020 08:04 Wombat_NI wrote:
The abstract economy really doesn’t matter to a lot of people, at least in any way they can see in their day-to-day if we’re going with people living in a news blackout.
It does work against Trump as well. You can’t stoke anti-immigrant sentiment in such a hypothetical scenario, bar perhaps those who live in certain areas.
i am talking about low unemployment and slight real wage growth. as much as people against trump would not like to admit it, the economy is doing well for more people than not. and regardless of whether or not trump is responsible, a good economy adds to a large incumbent advantage There are numerous reasons to conclude the opposite, that things are bad and getting worse for a significant number of people across the shrinking middle class and lower class. 7 year car loans are being given regularly, the high risk personal loan market is booming without much check in sight, and iirc at least some measures of mobility suggest that shifting between classes is harder now than it has been decades. Real wage growth, especially when it takes student loan debt into account and sets off the inflationary effect of benefits-as-income, is fairly bad and has been for a while now. Conservative economic think tanks think they’ve got a good argument when they insist that any measure of real wages must include face value benefits numbers, which evens out the difference between productivity and wage gains, but this tack totally fails to address the economic impact of paying workers in benefits instead of cash. That impact includes what I like to call a “race to the top” problem in which the benefits industry, primarily health insurance, is encouraged to seek high rents from employer funded sources, which then leads to inflated provider prices that push out from the market many of the folks who need health insurance where an employer is not involved. All of this is to say that economic intuitions point in contradicting directions at present I don't think any of that matters until a recession hits. Most people don't think that deeply about it. They just look at their checks and what they can buy and compare their yearly income to last year. Car leases have never been more popular, so car loans are an afterthought. And most of those trends were just as bad or worse from 2011-2016. I actually think mobility is as vigorous as its been in a long time but feel free to show me where I'm wrong on that. When a recession hits and the Airbnb petty mogul real estate bubble pops and people can't afford to bring Uber Eats to their door every night because they lost their job then we can talk about how fragile the economy is. Until then I think most people see it as good times right now. More than a decade without a recession and pay checks going up. 1) Pay checks have grown negligibly. 2) Huge swaths of certain industries are being crushed due to Trump's trade policies. 3) Both medical and student debt is higher than ever with no relief in sight. 4) The stats have been pretty conclusive on this country's lack of upward mobility for decades. It hasn't improved. Your economic view seems to come from a relatively sheltered place. 1) pay checks have grown negligibly since the late 60s, what is your point? economic indicators are that they've at least grown a little bit rather than been flat in the last few years. look at the Obama years in this chart. the tail end of his presidency has, by now, been intermixed in memory with the start of Trump's and adds to the perceived rise. if you want to dispute what's perceivable "growth" or not go for it, my argument is that most people feel fine or slightly better, but that the status quo under Trump hasn't gotten worse 2) "huge" is relative. i admitted that some people might have come out poorly in the trump era, but they are offset by all the minor winners. if this really mattered we would see it in the economic statistics. there are always economic losers in America. but it matters how many there are, and whether they are offset by economic winners 3) yeah student debt is high. yet people keep taking loans. the trend was there long before Trump. 4) Raj Chetty, Emmanuel Saez, et. al suggest that intergenerational mobility has been extremely stable. See the graph on page 21. It's much higher than it is in Canada, for example. Show nested quote +For children born between 1971 and 1986, we measureintergenerational mobility based on the correlation between parent and child income percentile ranks.For more recent cohorts, we measure mobility as the correlation between a child’s probability of attendingcollege and her parents’ income rank. We also calculate transition probabilities, such as a child’s chancesof reaching the top quintile of the income distribution starting from the bottom quintile. Based on allof these measures, we find that children entering the labor market today have the same chances ofmoving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s my view is that wealth inequality continues to get worse and that millennials are having a hard time acquiring property relative to their parents, but that income inequality is a more important indicator for perceived status, perceived quality of life, the justification for those college loans people took out, for leasing their car, taking instagrammable trips, and ordering stuff through amazon. the fact that a lot of people own nothing won't matter till a recession hits. then it will matter a lot.
What percentage of the US population are "production and nonsupervisory employees"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
