Stop with the attempt to divert and derail and prove your claim it is only minimum wage and that the median wage in the country is minimum wage.
"Real median incomes grew 9% for Americans who haven’t completed high school and 6.3% for those with only a high-school diploma while declining 2.3% among those with a college degree." suggests to me this may very well be the result of minimum wage increases given those without McJobs are doing worse as a whole.
I gave you the salient points and sites behind paywalls like the NYT and WaPo are routinely cited here so stop with excuse making. The Republicans took back Congress in 2015 and Trump immediately began instituting his policies including but not limited to tax rate cuts and deregulation. The facts speak for themselves at this end to his first term. Address them.
And you're complaining? The claim and attack by the left has been that THOSE workers were being left behind while those at the top where showing HUGE increases in their incomes. Not true according the the WSJ as they show. Now those workers don't matter anymore? And the increase was for median incomes, the middle class.
Yes we had a Republican Congress and once you reach full employment with everyone you're not going to show new job increases as fast as when you have 10% unemployment and the worst labor particiaption rate in modern history as we had under the Democrats. And as I and others have said having the full employment and glut, over 7,000,000, of job openings is the best way to raise incomes and DING that is what happened So now with the COVID hit on the economy and we need to rebuild which policies should we use?
No, you are the one complaining. I am just pointing out this may not be the silver bullet you see it as being. If you want to be political, then perhaps you should have noted that the wealthy who did better under Obama than Trump may not be keen on supporting him.
Obama took unemployment from a high of 11% at the height of the Bush recession down to 4.7% the day Dirty Donald assumed office on January 20,2017. In his 3 plus years Dirty Donald at one point got the rate down to 3.4% for a maximum gain 1.3% in the employment rate. His average per year employment gains were not as good as Obamas were for a longer period. Black home ownership sank to a low not seen since 1970 in 2019 before Covid hit us, Since then it has fallen even further to it's current all time low.
You will probably face an onslaught. As one signature here states (paraphrasing) facts are usually not the friend of leftists.
Slow your roll, I merely said I can't read your article as in being fully transparent. And the GOP congress was stifled by a democratic president who still controlled the legislative agenda with the veto, so few if any of their policies made it past his desk untouched by democrats. That means there's nothing from 2015 until 2017 that was 100%, pure GOP. That DID happen from January 2017 until January 2019. You're first mistake is saying facts speak for themselves. They don't. The sky is blue is fact. What does that say? Not much. Secondly, I can't verify your facts from the opinion piece. Why? No news outlet is reporting those same facts that I can find as of this morning. Hence my statement above about the paid article. Sorry, if it came from the Washington Post I would have the same problem, wouldn't I? Thirdly, I went to the source document from the Fed and it readily disproves your claim that taxes make a difference. It's long and I'm not able to go through it page by page. If you want to, please do. I noted some key take away points that of course counter the rosy, cherry picked ones you are relying on above. They don't erase them, but balance them with some sobering facts and logical conclusions. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf Note that the income used in the report is pre-tax. So if the tax rate is 0% or 1000% it's a non-factor. That's key because it allows an apples to apples comparison that after tax data would not allow for. Regulations are expenses incurred by businesses to comply with the law. There is NOTHING that says cost savings in a business are paid to workers. Can you cite data that shows an explicit correlation to deregulation and higher pay? Not at all. That's because workers are paid for the market value of their work, not by how much extra cash a business has on hand. The value of work has inputs such as how much that work is valued by consumers, how scarce is the labor with the required skill set, and others. None of which include overhead such as regulatory cost requirements. This report also shows some troubling stats too. Namely increased debt on the parts of those same families that saw an increase in income. Also, the net worth of lower income families improved, but mostly because home ownership was slightly up. You know what increases with home ownership with people in lower income ranges? Their debt. Because they have a mortgage now. So while owning the home you live in may seem like an "improvement," it's not really an asset given you have to live in it and can't easily liquidate it. You can borrow against it..which is more debt...and the only wealthy guy I know who loves debt is...your guy. So you left that part out. That means that if job losses, like the 28,000 Disney just announced the over 50,000 the airlines are expecting happen, those bills won't get paid. Then what happens? You also left out the part about how participation in retirement savings is down hard for low income families. So all that extra income seems to be going to buying crap and buying more crap by adding debt. That's not good for long sustainability. Reported savings is also up, which is reported as they can't measure that without looking at bank accounts, which means it's probably an indicator of overconfidence than actual savings. Even so, the reported savings increase is pretty minimal, though something that would be good if it correlated to a decrease in debt. The other large take away that you and your article left out is that overall, the trend on most of these measures has been upward since 2013. In fact, many of the measures you cite as wins for Trump improved MORE for families in years under Obama. So there's that. Finally, you're going to want to blame the pandemic and I feel you there, but bad news: we could have avoided much of the economic slow down if we had been prepared. Now that's not ALL Trump's fault, most Americans didn't want to be prepared. That is, they didn't want to spend the money up front to prepare for a known threat when they could spend that money elsewhere at the time. Short sighted thinking on our part. But nonetheless, Trump could have changed that thinking the day he took office. He didn't. And now he has to answer for his greatest claim, being an economic guru, as we see the fallout kill jobs. Sorry, but nothing erases good news from a year ago like bad news today.
The rise in wages at the lower income scales isn't news. We have seen this for a couple of years. I'm surprised it is new to the left. Apparently their media has ignored it.
Bush was out of office for two years when the Dem Congress and Obama and Biden got UE up to double digits...it took a massive, and historic election rejection of the Dems and their policies to get the economy turned around in starting in 2010 and it literally took a Chinese Virus pandemic to slow down the massive growth created by the GOP and Trump.....with that said, we are in the fastest recovery ever thankfully to Trump's leadership.
The Democrats took the 4.5% the Republicans handed them January 2007 to that 11%. The Obama/Biden stimulus was supposed to hold it at 8% and then quickly bring it down. It stayed OVER 8% for 4 years while the labor force participation rate went over the cliff. And the more the Republicans took back the government the lower it got. And then with that Republican Congress and a Republican president we had the best numbers EVER for minorities and THAT is what it takes to get black homeownership up and increasing. That all fell under the Dem/Obama/Biden policies, the worst minority unemployment in modern history. The Trump/Republican policies are turning that around.
Complaining? I was pointing out the good new what are you talking about, you are the one trying to dismiss it. And it seems you side with this canard that the higher earners and wealthy want the lower classed to be poor and not do well.
Your dancing banana may not be aware of the results in Nancy's district. In fact, the whole state is under Dem control and results speak for themselves.
He hasn't had a Democrat Congress and the polices were passed with a Republican Congress. The Democrats have only prevent more good policies for the country to be passed.
And such cites are quoted routinely and I gave you the points of discussion so stop spinning your wheels about it The Democrats took back the Congress January of 2007 a year before the recession began and then the WH in 2009 and held all three until 2011. Obama and Biden got their plan passed and it was a total failure even my their own measure. The Republicans were more than willing to work with Obama but he refused to even propose and send them measures or budgets, they forced the sequester and austerity that cut the deficits he claims to have cut and gave some confidence back into the markets and consumers to help get the economy going again. If we were debating the color of the sky it would say it is blue and looking up the facts speak for themselves. Not my problem and I are you saying the Wall Street Journal is making up facts? "The Federal Reserve on Monday published its Survey of Consumer Finances as it does every three years. The report provides a snapshot of American household debt, income and wealth across demographic groups. Median real incomes grew 5% from 2016 to 2019, the Fed reports, but it buries the lead." You just said you could not verify what the WSJ posted even though I posted who was their source then you admit you went and looked it up? Stop with the run around. And then you say well you can't refute it using that but then try to refute what I said. Where does the Fed report say lower tax rates had nothing to do with it? Doesn't matter. So your claim is cutting regulatory cost does not help business and the economy? Can you prove that? Can your prove higher regulatory cost increases employment and thus wages? When people have jobs and more income and more confidence in the economy they can increase their debt as in buying more cars and more houses and other items there is nothing unusal about that and in fact shows a strong economy. I wasn't address retirement plans or level, I specifically posted about INCOME and wealth gap, do try to focus. It notes the the higher incomes were increasing more and now they aren't it's the lower incomes that are making the gains. Are you denying the global pandemic caused the economic downturn and not economic policy? And how does that refute the fact that the lower incomes increased the incomes more that the higher incomes? Throwing spaghetti on the wall hoping something sticks refutes nothing. The facts speak for themselves.
Aside from your timeline, this is mostly personal opinion. What measure would you like to use? The CBO said this of the recovery act of 2009: And this is what Obama said about the Budget Control Act of 2011: He sounds really forced. Actually, it sounds like he was saying it's a compromise to achieve the alleged common goal. Not sure how willing the GOP was to do that, but both sides avoided the sequester. We're not. We're debating WHY it's blue, what caused it to be blue. No, I said they were being very selective and there's no lead to bury. The federal reserve isn't a new organization, it doesn't do "Leads." This was to show that you are relying on an opinion piece as opposed to reading the report for yourself. I'm not going to debate you on the WSJ's behalf. When they said they used pre-tax income. How is that not clear? Pre-tax income. That means if my company says they pay me 125,000 a year, that's pre-tax. So if my income improved 5%, pre tax, it went to 131,250. Post tax, I may take home more or less depending on what my new effective tax rate is. And as income goes up, and varies by source, post tax income varies greatly. So for their analysis, they took taxes out of the equation. Incomes rose because the labor market improved. That's a good thing. But tax cuts can't make more skilled labor. They can spur consumer spending, but that alone doesn't create higher incomes or more jobs. A business must have a NEED to pay more or create a job. More sales doesn't inherently lead to that. It does. I didn't say it "doesn't help the economy." I said it doesn't improve wages. I already outlined several time what drives wages. Business overhead is not one of them. A business considers paying it's workers as PART of it's overhead. If it can make more money by cutting other overhead, WHY would they pay their people more if there's no need? The need must come from the market, as in, a shortage of labor or skills needed to do the work they employ. The latter is what happened as we emerged from the recession. The former is all about satisfying ideology. And when they lose those jobs, which is starting to happen, what happens to that debt/economy? More over, you still want to credit the wrong things for this "improvement" in increased debt. You mean focus only where you want to because you somehow get paid to lick Trump's boots? I don't think so. Is one's retirement account not part of their WEALTH? Ask your financial planner. Go on. Nice try, but you failed to consider it because your opinion piece left it out. Retirement accounts are CRUCIAL for determining one's wealth, more so than one's income. You can have a high income and be low in wealth. They gained more in prior decades based on the 2013 data included in the report. Not at all. But you seem to be denying the fact that while a pandemic always "costs", we could have pre paid many of those costs. Like being prepared with a national response. Having adequate PPE and ventilators on hand. Preparing social distancing and mask wearing so it wasn't a sudden shut down and shock to the economy. None of that pre-payment was done, hence the loss now. I don't refute it. Again, I'm just saying, you're ignoring the full picture because it has ugly parts that don't support your deeply held beliefs. I'm Italian, I would never throw spaghetti. That's a moronic Midwestern thing. If facts were all that was needed, we would have no need for any profession. Facts are useless on their own. They are invaluable when used with logic to draw effective conclusions and make equally effective plans. You can't do that if you ignore the facts you dislike because they don't make Trump look good.
