EPTHave these tax cuts helped real wages? If so, how so?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 890
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
Have these tax cuts helped real wages? If so, how so? | ||
KwarK
United States42710 Posts
On November 03 2018 08:52 iamthedave wrote: Have these tax cuts helped real wages? If so, how so? No. They’re just pushing up the deficit. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
Michael Cohen, a former Trump confidant, told Vanity Fair that the president had once told him that “black people are too stupid to vote” for him and had challenged Cohen to name “one country run by a black person that’s not a shithole”. source I know republicans will dismiss that as « fake news » and claim that Cohen lies, but if that doesn’t really piss a lot of people off, I don’t know what would. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6213 Posts
On November 03 2018 06:13 Plansix wrote: And Economic boom for whom? The economy is good and unemployment is low, but what do wages look like? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/ At some point the government is going to need to update how it measures the economy and the finances of its citizens. There is no looking at the wage growth, the price of house and student debt and believing the economy is “good” for Americans. Its great for the wealthy though. Furthermore, Trump also tapped into demographic anxiety due to the unstoppable trend of whites becoming a minority in the US. You are right that Trump is the result of rot in the US. Rot that we refuse to accept exist. While real wage growth is too low I don't think it makes sense in the argument he's making. Looking at the data from BLS it's true that real wages haven't budged much from the 70s but that's partly because they went down in the 80s/start of the 90s. It's been steadily (but slowly) going upwards since then. In addition the biggest debt burdens (mortgage, student loan) are denominated in nominal terms. So even if real wages don't rise but nominal wages do (and they do) your debt burden will steadily erode. A much larger problem is general financial illiteracy. I've accepted many mortgages where people loaned as much as their wages would allow or when they've had a job for only a couple of months. A lot of my friends buy an expensive car as well and are the surprised they don't have much cash left. Meanwhile I'm able to save on an average salary. Then again I took out a relatively low mortgage. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
Well that was straightforward :D On November 03 2018 18:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: Not that we are not used to Trump being a racist a-hole, but do you guys think that has any chance of hurting him at all? source I know republicans will dismiss that as « fake news » and claim that Cohen lies, but if that doesn’t really piss a lot of people off, I don’t know what would. Define 'hurts'. What does it say that liberals don't already know? What does it say that Republicans can't deny? Nothing and nothing. A lot of them don't believe he's ever said anything racist, going by what some of the more reasonable Republicans around this site have said.. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21690 Posts
On November 03 2018 18:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: Cohen is working with Mueller, therefor he is a traitor and nothing he says is worth anything.Not that we are not used to Trump being a racist a-hole, but do you guys think that has any chance of hurting him at all? source I know republicans will dismiss that as « fake news » and claim that Cohen lies, but if that doesn’t really piss a lot of people off, I don’t know what would. | ||
|
Panthous
30 Posts
On November 03 2018 06:13 Plansix wrote: And Economic boom for whom? The economy is good and unemployment is low, but what do wages look like? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/ Chomsky has been saying that real wages have been stagnant since 1975 since the early 80'. So this is nothing new or recent. Do you believe voters are more motivated by low wages in times of an economic boom? I would think that people would get really mad if their wages are as shit as always while the financial system is in collapse in 2007, as it was under Bush. In terms of economics, more and more I get the feeling the right gets the reward for the left saving the people from the economic problems created by the right. The financial crisis of 2007 is the most perfect example. It was caused by neoliberal deregulations. What did the voters do in response? They vote right wing if they feel desperate about how the economy is going. Why? Because the right says "we will do what is best for the economy" while the left is saying "yes, the economy is important, but we will also make sure there is some fairness". So naturally people think "Ok the economy is collapsing, fuck fairness, let's vote right wing". And somehow they also see some inverted anti-cyclic reinforcement. Voters definitely give Trump credit for the state of the economy right now. Since the US presidential approval rating is quite strongly correlated with indicators the economic growth (for example, the stock market (not the most perfect indicator I am sure, but a straightforward one)), you actually have to correct the 'real' approval rating with such an indicator. I do see a pattern where the right causes economic issues, the left then corrects them but completely fails to take credit for it, the right then takes credit for it while ruining the economy once again, with the left failing to blame the right, and everything repeats again. | ||
|
Slydie
1920 Posts
I do see a pattern where the right causes economic issues, the left then corrects them but completely fails to take credit for it, the right then takes credit for it while ruining the economy once again, with the left failing to blame the right, and everything repeats again. I think the patern is there, but for different reasons. The economy has natural cycles, and recessions should be expected. When things go badly, more people vote leftwing as "insurance" from the government if they can't support themselves. When things go well, more vote rightwing because they want lower taxes to ger more of the money for themselves. For the left, it is a problem that the political will to increase social benefits is strongest when there is less money to do so... | ||
|
Panthous
30 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On November 03 2018 21:26 Panthous wrote: How can the economy have 'natural' cycles? It is a human creation. Whatever cycle the economy has, and I agree they are there, it must be caused by human actions. That depends on what sense "natural" was meant in. That being said, several factors not immediately and directly due to human actions (for instance, weather trends) have a non-negligible effect on the economy in several important sectors (for instance, agriculture). I'm not necessarily claiming that these are uniquely or primarily responsible for overall economic trends but it is a hole in your argument. | ||
|
Yurie
11843 Posts
On November 03 2018 22:12 Aquanim wrote: That depends on what sense "natural" was meant in. That being said, several factors not immediately and directly due to human actions (for instance, weather trends) have a non-negligible effect on the economy in several important sectors (for instance, agriculture). I'm not necessarily claiming that these are uniquely or primarily responsible for overall economic trends but it is a hole in your argument. The further back you go the bigger impact it has. Pretty recently the economic downturn (and starvation) due to bad weather during the French revolution wrecked the economy and indirectly the monarchy. More modernly we are expecting global warming to take a massive bite out of the economy. Heck, a mega volcano eruption would likely create a global economic depression even now a days. Currently we also have a lot of people moving due to raising water levels or droughts. Though I agree the point regarding there being no natural reason for the boom/bust cycle is true. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
“You know what solves it?” Trump said of America’s alleged troubles during a 2014 interview. “When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell and everything is a disaster. Then you’ll have a [chuckles], you know, you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be when we were great.” From 2014 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-reporters-youre-creating-violence | ||
|
Panthous
30 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On November 03 2018 19:20 iamthedave wrote: Define 'hurts'. What does it say that liberals don't already know? What does it say that Republicans can't deny? Nothing and nothing. A lot of them don't believe he's ever said anything racist, going by what some of the more reasonable Republicans around this site have said.. The core republican vote won't change at all. The moderates who haven't shifted already probably won't. But anger is a really good way to motivate the non-voters, and ultimately that effects voting a lot more than changing people's minds. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On November 04 2018 00:45 Panthous wrote: BTW, not in the US but in Europe, I am surprised that governments, both left and right, with the boom right now are still not applying anti-cyclic policies. Which means that the next crisis will once again be deepened by austerity. I can 'understand' they aren't regulating the financial sector. But just anti-cyclic policies would make a lot of sense. But no, right wing austerity obsessed parties are now handing out financial trinkets, with no thought or economic vision behind it whatsoever, purely for votes. And they have to, because who can defend right wing policy when it hurt so many people when the economy was in downturn when they again hurt people when there is a boom. Thinking for the future doesn't win votes. People want everything to be better NOW, and they're happy to believe it when politicians promise to deliver. Then when there's a 'thing' that gives them some more money NOW at expense of fucking things up later, they don't care, because they have more money NOW. Sad, but that's how politics - and the voting public in large sections of the world - works. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 04 2018 04:33 iamthedave wrote: Thinking for the future doesn't win votes. People want everything to be better NOW, and they're happy to believe it when politicians promise to deliver. Then when there's a 'thing' that gives them some more money NOW at expense of fucking things up later, they don't care, because they have more money NOW. Sad, but that's how politics - and the voting public in large sections of the world - works. Good explanation of why I am so depressed these times, as this applies to nearly all sectors. Seeing us self-detonating our world consciously... I guess we deserve it. Politics these days do not provide hope. Only anger and division, which will lead to war at some point. | ||
|
Panthous
30 Posts
On November 04 2018 04:33 iamthedave wrote: Thinking for the future doesn't win votes. People want everything to be better NOW, and they're happy to believe it when politicians promise to deliver. Then when there's a 'thing' that gives them some more money NOW at expense of fucking things up later, they don't care, because they have more money NOW. Sad, but that's how politics - and the voting public in large sections of the world - works. This cannot be true as obviously people not only are voting based on ideology. We actually have quite a few people voting because of climate change. Those have been hot topics and vote winners in some elections. Yes, not in the US. But just because the US voter is failing, don't make it a feature of democracy. Also, I don't see how other systems of government don't have the same flaw. A dictator that wants to stay in power has to do something in return for those that keep him in power. If they are motivated to be short-sighted, the problem remains. In fact, I think a democracy is better suited to deal with long-term issues. It is just that the politicians don't run with it. And nothing prevents a politician to implement something they never ran on because it gets them votes, but to do so because they think it is the proper thing to do. It happens with certain other policies, good or bad, all the time. And Brexit is actually a good example because while completely false, the story sold to voters that things were going to get worse on the short term, but much better on the long term. And in fact, politicians have run on doing anti-cyclic economic policies. And I just don't mean spending yourself out of a economic depression. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On November 04 2018 06:30 Panthous wrote: This cannot be true as obviously people not only are voting based on ideology. We actually have quite a few people voting because of climate change. Those have been hot topics and vote winners in some elections. Yes, not in the US. But just because the US voter is failing, don't make it a feature of democracy. Also, I don't see how other systems of government don't have the same flaw. A dictator that wants to stay in power has to do something in return for those that keep him in power. If they are motivated to be short-sighted, the problem remains. In fact, I think a democracy is better suited to deal with long-term issues. It is just that the politicians don't run with it. And nothing prevents a politician to implement something they never ran on because it gets them votes, but to do so because they think it is the proper thing to do. It happens with certain other policies, good or bad, all the time. And Brexit is actually a good example because while completely false, the story sold to voters that things were going to get worse on the short term, but much better on the long term. And in fact, politicians have run on doing anti-cyclic economic policies. And I just don't mean spending yourself out of a economic depression. Completely wrong. Brexit was sold on the EU being incredibly repressive and preventing Britain from achieving its true potential, and how once we were free of the chains of EU regulations we could enjoy a booming economy free of the parasitism of payments into the European coffers (FOREIGN COFFERS, no less). Brexit was absolutely sold on things being better immediately, because of the idea that the EU was making things difficult in the here and now. In fact, people turned on Brexit and the Brexit government the second they realised it was a pack of lies and things were almost certainly going to get worse in the short term (even if they do get better in the long term). A couple of people did point out things would get worse, but they weren't the influential speakers. Boris Johnson's 'let's give 350 million to the NHS instead' slogan was 100% all about 'make things better NOW', and painting life outside the EU as being rosy and brilliant. Misguided idealism brought us Brexit, and cynical manipulation of it (or perhaps, gross underestimation of that idealism). | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
| ||
|
Panthous
30 Posts
On November 04 2018 07:41 iamthedave wrote: Completely wrong. Brexit was sold on the EU being incredibly repressive and preventing Britain from achieving its true potential, and how once we were free of the chains of EU regulations we could enjoy a booming economy free of the parasitism of payments into the European coffers (FOREIGN COFFERS, no less). Brexit was absolutely sold on things being better immediately, because of the idea that the EU was making things difficult in the here and now. In fact, people turned on Brexit and the Brexit government the second they realised it was a pack of lies and things were almost certainly going to get worse in the short term (even if they do get better in the long term). A couple of people did point out things would get worse, but they weren't the influential speakers. Boris Johnson's 'let's give 350 million to the NHS instead' slogan was 100% all about 'make things better NOW', and painting life outside the EU as being rosy and brilliant. Misguided idealism brought us Brexit, and cynical manipulation of it (or perhaps, gross underestimation of that idealism). This cannot be true because support for Brexit hasn't completely evaporated and Brexit proponents Gove and Johnson are actually still lying in wait to backstab May and finally achieve their goal of being PM. Yes, I think part of the leave campaign part of the time was actually lying that leaving would immediately improve the country. But I think most leave voters realized that leaving wasn't the 'easiest trade deal in human history' and they did realize that things would get worse at first, but believed it would be better in the long run. And there is also the people that believe that financially the UK will be worse outside the EU, but that there are other more important reasons to choose to leave. So while Brexit was obviously a pile of lies and a complete disaster of the UK (it may turn out to be a blessing for the EU itself), it is still an example of voters voting for long term economic gains or non-economic ideals. | ||
| ||
