Among many other things, this one particular thing frustrates me more than anything. It's the Democrats constant claim that "income is stagnant" (absolutely not true), and that the Middle Class is shrinking.
This article posted the other day on MarketWatch, and it sat-up all day with no corrections until early this morning. Rex Nutting is the poster-boy on Market Watch for extremely left-leaning articles... he always has been. The two claims the Democrats have been making under the Trump administration have been:
1 - The wealth gap is increasing. 2 - The middle class is shrinking.
BOTH are correct, but not for the reasons you think.
#1 - Yes... there are poor people in the United States. But the reason why the wealth gap has increased is due to the fact that wealth has grown significantly in the United States. We've had an influx of billionaires in this country over the past 3 years, and even more so... the number of millionaires that have increased in the United States is almost exponential. Dead serious... and this is shocking... but it's true. The United States gained almost 1 million more millionaires in just 2017 alone... !!! Here's proof: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/0...onaires-in-2017.html That number doubled in 2018, and in 2019, we have over 11.8 million millionaires in the United States: https://nypost.com/2019/03/...n-greece-has-people/ Mathematically, averages are typically determined by determining the mean between the lowest low, and the highest-high... so for Democrats, this is a misrepresentation of the numbers.
#2 - Yes... Rex is correct, the middle class is shrinking. But what he's not telling you, is WHERE those who have left the middle class have gone. This is key, because they certainly didn't fall into poverty... because that too shrunk. Those considered "in poverty" shrank from 13.5% in 2016 to 11.2% in 2018 (2019 numbers aren't out yet).Historical PovertySo where did the middle class go? They went UP!!! Here are several articles proving this: 30% of Americans too Rich to be Middle Class Now Middle Class Shrinking, Because they're moving up! The Shrinking Middle Class
So... you ask, why do I love this article? Because of this "FORCED CORRECTION" to Rex's article which was obviously done, not by him... it shows the intellectual dishonesty from this guy, and many of the people who are incorrectly trying to push a narrative:
"CORRECTION: This is an update to correct an error. An earlier version of this story misstated how much wealth has been gained by the bottom 50% since 2016. It’s $680 billion, not $680 million."
Here's a good chart to explain everything, simply. I'm not a huge fan of it, because it doesn't show the changes made in 2017, 2018, and soon 2019. Those changes were significant over the past three years, and these numbers in this chart have improved almost exponentially. The poor are down below 28%, and the wealthy are up above 30%, and the middle class has shrunk further.
What frustrates me the most is the fact that this isn't a misunderstanding, but an absolute... absolute outright lie.
I would very much like to hear from Ronald, and Boonie, and some of the others on here, and a show of hands if you actually knew this? Ron, I love you man, but please no long diatribes about random stuff. I just want a YES or NO. Did you know about this? I've known about this for a while, but only after seeing this article did I get my ass bit to come on here and post about it.
What I don't understand is... are Democrats this "in the dark" about this information, or are they purposely misrepresenting this information for political gain? or both???
I absolutely love it. I have to ask, if things are going so well... why the push to make things bad? What possibly could be gained by trying to destroy this and forcing a totally false narrative???
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 11-02-2019).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I have to ask, ...
Todd, no knocks on your thoughts of ponder but I don't care if the wealth gap is increasing. I don't care if the middle class is shrinking. I will leave that for the 'free ice cream' pushers. The same ones who claim that Woke Math Aims to Teach Seattle Kids That ‘Western’ Math Is Racist
What possibly could be gained by trying to destroy this and forcing a totally false narrative???
Donald Keech asked the same question. After his democratic diatribe against me. One of us is a business owner. The other sprays bowling shoes and never made it past the 8th grade. But what could I know? Severe TDS. I am not a victim, nor am I anyone's ism.
Originally posted by Tony Kania: I am not a victim, nor am I anyone's ism.
Nope, you are a petty little douche bag.
I've asked you time and time again to stop using my given name here. My forum identifier here is Boondawg. Everyone here but you & Randy seem to respect that rule.
Why don't you tell the other grown men around here why your honor wont allow you to do that, if you can.
I've asked you time and time again to stop using my given name here. My forum identifier here is Boondawg. Everyone here but you & Randy seem to respect that rule. .
I think this is right up 82-T/A [At Work]'s "alley."
Maybe he will see this and render a verdict. "Annie Lowrey is a Bullsh*t Artist." Or "Annie is a Rocket Scientist." Or "Between Truth as White and Falsehood as Black, Annie Lowrey is one of Fifty Shades of Grey."
My assessment is that I do not have the total life experience or diversified data sourcing fusion capabilities to offer a reliable verdict.
I'm kind of "recusing" myself.
The Great Affordability Crisis Breaking America In one of the best decades the American economy has ever recorded, families were bled dry. Annie Lowrey for The Atlantic; February 7, 2020.
quote
In the 2010s, the national unemployment rate dropped from a high of 9.9 percent to its current rate of just 3.5 percent. The economy expanded each and every year. Wages picked up for high-income workers as soon as the Great Recession ended, and picked up for lower-income workers in the second half of the decade. Americans’ confidence in the economy hit its highest point since 2000, right before the dot-com bubble burst. The headline economic numbers looked good, if not great.
But beyond the headline economic numbers, a multifarious and strangely invisible economic crisis metastasized: Let’s call it the Great Affordability Crisis. This crisis involved not just what families earned but the other half of the ledger, too—how they spent their earnings. In one of the best decades the American economy has ever recorded, families were bled dry by landlords, hospital administrators, university bursars, and child-care centers. For millions, a roaring economy felt precarious or downright terrible.
Just the first two paragraphs of a fairly brief report, as magazine-style reports go.
Originally posted by randye: Translation: You don't know what you're talking about.
That's pretty much everybody's assessment of you on everything.
Well, that and you're also profoundly mentally ill and need professional help.
You must get a real hard-on, imagining how much you are in line with the collective wisdom of the forum about "rinselberg."
I think you are just delusional about that; nevertheless, let me wish you a hearty Go F*ck Yourself, and while I'm at it, add a few more words; not for you, but for anyone else who could be reading along here.
It must test, and test sorely, a man's faith (or character.) He leads an exemplary life, never a false step or a less than perfect thought or idea held between his ears or expelled onto the Internet via his keyboard. This, by his own telling, and who [sarcasm] could find even the smallest reason in even a single one of his 1000s of Pennock's forum messages to doubt it? [/sarcasm]
Yet, after 50-odd years, some of the most basic amenities of human life are now unavailable to him--but not unavailable to "crazy" [Commie-leftist pond scum] like "Ronald." Amenities like standing up from a seat in front of a desktop computer system and walking a few feet to a refrigerator for a Coke or a Coors. (Purposeful alliteration, as Coors wouldn't be my first choice.)
It seems so unjust. What hath the Supreme Intelligence of the Cosmos wrought?
Is it just an act? The wheelchair. An affectation? An accessory that he uses to live out some very peculiar fantasy? Is this who he so desperately wants to be?
That wouldn't be my first hypothesis.
But who knows? For all I know, that can also be me. Maybe before the next sunrise. A road vehicle accident. A stroke. Some other medical condition that manifests, without having been previously diagnosed or predicted. Every novitiate to the roster of wheelchair users has to have a "first day" or "membership date." What's his?
Could I add his to my iPhone calendar, so I could mark the yearly recurrence of the month and day of the blessed event, with a snifter of fine cognac and a toast to the excellence of paralyzing medical conditions?
I wouldn't expect to cope at all well with it, myself--with the circumstance of wheelchair dependence. It's among the worst outcomes that I can imagine. But would it transform me (?) into another foul-mouthed and altogether disgusting Internet troll, like [redacted] here, who can only continue to detract from this forum in the vacuum that's been created by the discontinuation of any sensible forum moderation. A moderator who is, for whatever reason(s), "MIA", or if not that, then doesn't interpret the Posting Guidelines in any way that I could describe as "mainstream."
That, and an idea--the idea of a self-moderating forum, realized though a ratings system or (more likely) direct, member to member communications--that has finally come down to only apathy and disinterest, or resignation to what seems to be the inevitable, or "Yeah, he's a f*cking A-hole, but he's 'our' f*cking A-hole. An A-hole with an 'R' for Republican (or maybe a 'T for Trump), implicitly appended to his screen name. We're all OK with that."
I've talked many times about the Posting Guidelines, but really, it's just a matter of common sense. When I come here, I see a list of topics--like this:
When [redacted] comes here, all he sees is this:
F*ck "Ronald" because he doesn't prostrate himself before my excellence, and is conspicuous in that way.
F*ck anyone else who would deign not to prostrate himself before my excellence, and be conspicuous in that way.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
His endless harping about another forum member--it's captured in the quoted text that I used to start this "chalk talk"--subverts the Posting Guidelines caution against "starting threads about other threads" by turning it on it's head. He makes (part of) every thread into the same thread. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
He could render the forum a service by starting a new "F*ck Ronald" topic (or whatever other title he would find suitable) and keeping his endlessly repetitive and compost-ready expressions about me completely organized and all in one convenient place. A definite improvement. I might not so much as "select" it, to see any of what could float up from such a vile backed-up drain, but the forum would be better for it.
In summary, I am here to remind this august assembly that there is exactly one Pennock's member account that, were it to be terminated or become inactive for any reason, there would be no downside to it (for me.) None whatsoever. I can't say that about even a single other forum member. Not yet. Not presently.
Lord, hear our prayer.
See? I'm just like Nancy Pelosi. A person of "faith."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-10-2020).]
The good news? President Pete and the First Man will soon be boarding Air Force One for the first overseas visit of the newly inaugurated Buttigieg administration.
And the bad news?
Their first stop is Saudi Arabia.Click to show
I'm Future Guy, and that's my early morning report.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-11-2020).]
To be honest I really haven't paid that much attention to the details of the US economy.
But I can tell you this for a fact.
From 2003-2007 I made 17-19/hr doing contract work in the auto sector.
The exact same job now advertises 14-15/hr in the same area. Meanwhile inflation over past 15 years has raised prices roughly 30-40%.
So you have people making 75% of what they used to, but paying 1.5x what they did pre-crash.
That's NOT what I call an economic recovery, growth, gain, or anything close to robust.
That's a downward spiral to mass poverty
The per hour costs of labor in the auto sector have a lot to do with the enormous shift that's occurred in auto manufacturing. Back in the 1980s, it was almost all done in Detroit. After NAFTA, it shifted to Canada because Canada started a tax against anything made outside of Canada... so therefor, parts manufacturers moved just across the border so they could be sold in the US and Canada without incurring taxes. Then some cars were made in Canada. Then, everything moved to Mexico, hurting both Canada and the USA, and driving down the cost of manufacturing and thus... the ability to charge for labor.
Regulations have also nearly doubled on auto manufacturers over the past 15 years. So much more manufacturer regulation, and pretty much every engine now is built to the precision to what a Ferrari motor was 20 years ago just to meet the emissions requirements. This has dramatically raised the cost of vehicles. Have you seen what the new Ford Explorer costs?
This right here is a $67k vehicle:
So... all different, but that doesn't change the fact that the economy is spectacular.
Rinse... if I understand you correctly, you're basically saying you don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. You've never agreed with me, so this is about as close as I think you've ever come to agreeing with me. So the way I will take this is that you acknowledge the economy is spectacular, and respectfully hold your comments because you're either not happy about it, or don't like that Trump was successful. Understood... but I'm glad the USA is doing well again.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
For you Todd:
That song was awesome!!!
Can you imagine Candice Owens running the View? That would be amazing.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 02-12-2020).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Rinse... if I understand you correctly, you're basically saying you don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. You've never agreed with me, so this is about as close as I think you've ever come to agreeing with me. So the way I will take this is that you acknowledge the economy is spectacular, and respectfully hold your comments because you're either not happy about it, or don't like that Trump was successful. Understood... but I'm glad the USA is doing well again.
I was just trying to create some interest in that particular report, from The Atlantic (magazine.) Especially interest on your part. Saying something "odd" or in an "odd" way ... I think that's a "thing" that can be used from time to time by someone who is trying to create some interest. Of course, it can be overdone. I don't think it would make sense to always say something "odd" or in an "odd" way, just for the sake of trying to create interest.
Whether or not you or anyone else likes that report, or finds (any) truth in it ... that's not very important to me.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2020).]
I was just trying to create some interest in that particular report, from The Atlantic (magazine.) Especially interest on your part. Saying something "odd" or in an "odd" way ... I think that's a "thing" that can be used from time to time by someone who is trying to create some interest. Of course, it can be overdone. I don't think it would make sense to always say something "odd" or in an "odd" way, just for the sake of trying to create interest.
Whether or not you or anyone else likes that report, or finds (any) truth in it ... that's not very important to me.
Hi Rinse, I just read it. I don't know why I missed it the first time. You even quoted from it, but I totally missed it. So I've read it, and here are my thoughts. Immediately on the right, I see a few different other articles that she's written including:
Cancel Billionaires
Trump Didn't Make This Economy
The Rich Are Different From You And Me, They Pay Less Taxes
So... there's an axe to grind here, and I assumed this going into the article, but still read it none the less.
Her primary argument is that, while the economy "seems" to be doing well, costs have soared for everyone, and for everything. My promise to you Rinse, is that I will break all of this down. Let's start with her introductory statement:
quote
In one of the best decades the American economy has ever recorded, families were bled dry by landlords, hospital administrators, university bursars, and child-care centers. For millions, a roaring economy felt precarious or downright terrible.
LANDLORDS: Rent prices are determined by the market value, and as such, that is determined by supply / demand. In urban areas, you typically have a lot of younger people because adults with children generally don't live in cities to raise their kids. Millennials, in particular, have been one generation that has been completely uninterested in purchasing homes and instead have been interested in renting. This increases demand for rent, since they all want to rent and there are more renters and less home buyers. This has nothing to do with Trump, or Trump's economy, this has to do with Millennials being Millennial.
HEALTHCARE: The cost of healthcare, or more specifically, the increase in healthcare costs, has actually slowed over the past three years. Healthcare costs skyrocketted after the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The reason for this has to do with the regulations imposed by the new rules for the ACA. One of these is the passage of the preexisting condition clause, which I personally support and feel it was a good thing. But the largest increase had to do with the fact that everyone pays the same. When the ACA was passed, it required everyone to have "full coverage" on everything. They also intended to make it "fair" by charging everyone the same. More specifically, men are required to carry prenatal care. Don't be confused thinking that these men can use this for their spouses. No, that's not what that means. Men are required to carry prenatal care as a condition of it being "fair" so that everyone pays the same. Men cannot get pregnant, obviously, so this was a waste. Never the less, it raised the cost to everyone. But over the past three years, healthcare cost increases have slowed, and for two years even remained the same... which was totally unexpected. This is due to the fact that Trump passed several executive orders that allow for less regulation in healthcare. For what it's worth, prior to the ACA, you could purchase any number of different insurance plans from different companies that allowed for less expensive and insurance plans that fit your interests and requirements. This is no longer allowed. So, again... has nothing to do with Trump's economy. This is a problem that existed before Trump, and one that has actually gotten better with Trump.
COLLEGE / UNIVERSITIES: This again is odd to me. Educational costs were far less before the government got involved and "nationalized" college loans. Do you guys remember 8-9 years ago when you could just go get a student loan from your bank? I don't even remember why President Obama nationalized the college education system. It wasn't because there was any particular problem, but I suspected it was because they wanted to "take control" of this segment, and "enslave" young adults to the Government. Big shock, almost a decade later, students are crying about student loans... a problem in part caused by Government regulation, and now the young and dumb population is asking the Government to solve a problem it caused, with more Government intervention? Regardless... this has nothing to do with Trump. It also has nothing to do with his economy. I also don't see how anyone here should be paying for anyone else's college education. I paid my own way out of pocket, while working full time and raising a child. I would be furious if we elected someone that paid off everyone else's college loans. I'd really like someone to explain to me how paying off everyone's student loans is fair, when so many of us paid for them ourselves. The fact that this one is in here, is ridiculous. No one forced these kids to go to expensive schools. You can get an entire Associates Degree for $7k total, and then transfer to a 4 year school having knocked out 2 years already, and get your bachelors now for half the cost it would have cost you. There are also plenty of excellent schools where you can get a Masters for $20k or less... which I did.
CHILDCARE: This one is also ridiculous... how does this have to do with Trump? This was a problem before Trump, and actually, the cost of childcare has gone down the past couple of years. Furthermore, there are many Republican states which actually offer free VPK, like Florida.
Ultimately, almost all of these things have gotten better under Trump, and none of them have gotten worse. Furthermore, the ability for people to pay for these things has gotten better under Trump with a spectacular economy. For the first time in my life... I do not live paycheck to paycheck. My 401ks have exploded, and with my increased monthly income, I've been able to save enough to the point where, while my paycheck does pay my monthly bills... I have a significant net income, rather than breaking even. When the tax law was passed, I started getting $400 more a month back in my paychecks, and... that saw no change to my taxes due at the end of the year either. This economy has been spectacular.
But we're not done, here's another nugget from the article:
quote
Along with the rise of inequality, the slowdown in productivity growth, and the shrinking of the middle class, the spiraling cost of living has become a central facet of American economic life.
I've already explained... the middle class has SHRUNK because people have literally moved up to the wealthy class. When the lower class, and middle class have both shrunk, and the upper income class has increased... there is literally only one conclusion you can make... and that is that the poor and middle class have moved up. So right there, we know this article is bunk. I want to be VERY clear about this. This is FACT... not subjective, not opinion. The middle class shrunk because the poor and middle class moved to the upper class. So when it's used in an article such as this, it either means the writer is purposely being dishonest in her writing, or she actually doesn't know any better. You can take your pick.
But we're not done yet...
quote
The price of housing represents the most acute part of this crisis. In metro areas such as the Bay Area, Seattle, and Boston, severe supply shortages have led to soaring prices—millions of low- and middle-income families are no longer able to purchase centrally located homes.
The price of housing is based on supply and demand, and only increases when economies are doing well. Which they are. There's no way to have a decrease in housing prices and an upbeat economy at the same time unless there is a purposeful intent to decentralize business. The cost of housing in these markets has absolutely nothing to do with the President of the United States, and everything to do with the local city Governments. Not a one of them wants to be responsible for reducing home values. All of those cities mentioned are liberally-run cities. If you have a problem with those cities... talk to those local Governments. Donald Trump cannot force Seattle to build new homes. Also... the rising costs of those homes, means the current owners (including those in poor areas) can now sell these homes at increased prices. I definitely do not see a problem with this.
There's more of the same in the rest of the article. I have to say Ronald, this is a pretty garbage article, and I've probably spent way more time than I should have, because you will totally discard my opinion anyway.
Originally posted by maryjane: So the actual purpose for posting it was???????????
To bring it to general attention, but particularly, the attention of "one" 82-T/A [At Work]. It's obvious that he's "big" on this economy-related stuff. He's even said so much, himself.
I thought this was one article he should want to be aware of, and consider for his review.
He doesn't have to agree with it.
I think it's good work, on the part of the reporter at The Atlantic.
But the pros and cons of the national economy... not something I would call transparent or easy to understand.
The price of housing is based on supply and demand, and only increases when economies are doing well. Which they are. There's no way to have a decrease in housing prices and an upbeat economy at the same time unless there is a purposeful intent to decentralize business. The cost of housing in these markets has absolutely nothing to do with the President of the United States, and everything to do with the local city Governments. Not a one of them wants to be responsible for reducing home values. All of those cities mentioned are liberally-run cities. If you have a problem with those cities... talk to those local Governments. Donald Trump cannot force Seattle to build new homes. Also... the rising costs of those homes, means the current owners (including those in poor areas) can now sell these homes at increased prices. I definitely do not see a problem with this. .
That is not necessarily true. I just left a major city where market manipulation is a huge problem. Middle Eastern oil money is buying up everything they can, leaving a lot of them empty or under "long term renovation or development " then jacking the prices on the rest to insane levels. It's a country-wide problem here, so much so that laws have been and are being passed restricting foreign investment. Out west it is Asian money doing the same thing.
When it comes to housing and real estate, we are pretty much under a hostile foreign take over.
That is not necessarily true. I just left a major city where market manipulation is a huge problem. Middle Eastern oil money is buying up everything they can, leaving a lot of them empty or under "long term renovation or development " then jacking the prices on the rest to insane levels. It's a country-wide problem here, so much so that laws have been and are being passed restricting foreign investment. Out west it is Asian money doing the same thing.
When it comes to housing and real estate, we are pretty much under a hostile foreign take over.
MEM, it's absolutely true by majority, but that doesn't mean there are additional reasons for the cost increases. There isn't a hostile foreign take-over, but in fact a significant number of wealthy that have fled other countries and moved (and brought their wealth) to the United States. There's speculation... where people buy condos and hang on to them, leaving them vacant. This is common in South Florida and a few other cities. But most of these homes and condos that are being purchased with cash, are being lived in.
Never the less, this is the responsibility of the city to ensure that housing is properly managed so that people who provide services can afford to live in the city as well. A friend of mine, a Millennial, told me a couple of years ago, how horrible the housing crisis was. He then went on to say, "My wife's grandmother has a house by the beach. I'll never be able to afford a house by the beach in my lifetime, it's not fair how things have turned out." I had a hard time looking at him with a straight face, but he was serious. I'm sorry my friend cannot afford a house by the beach. But there is only so much land.
There are millions of acres out in New Mexico that you can buy for pennies. One day, that too will be worth millions. Regardless, NONE of this has to do with the Trump economy. This has everything to do with wealthy Democrat elites in the individual liberal cities not wanting to reduce their property values. There are hundreds of large cities with affordable housing and excellent jobs. If you want to live in San Francisco... you're going to have to pay for it. I'm sorry, that's life. If you (proverbially you) want to live in Battery Park in NYC... well **** ... it's going to cost you.
"My wife's grandmother has a house by the beach. I'll never be able to afford a house by the beach in my lifetime, it's not fair how things have turned out." I had a hard time looking at him with a straight face, but he was serious. I'm sorry my friend cannot afford a house by the beach. But there is only so much land.
I saw the same'complaint' posted here at PFF by a NorthEast USA member here a few years ago. I tried to explain to him, that his grandparents likely as not did not buy their big nice home when they were young, but scrimped and saved for it for several decades. Wasn't good enough for him...he wanted it 'now' "while he was young enough to enjoy it".
Prices for property are indeed going up. The 17.4 acres I bought in 2010 for under $40K and sold in 2015 for $120K is now on the market again. Asking price is $350K. I don't think he'll get it due to the flood history, but you never know. I saw every inch of that place under 4- 8 ft of water in 2017, including the built-on-slab at ground level house.
One of us is a business owner. The other sprays bowling shoes and never made it past the 8th grade. But what could I know?
