 
     |
| Extreme dishonesty from the liberal media regarding incomes... (Page 2/3) |
|
MidEngineManiac
|
FEB 11, 09:03 AM
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
FEB 11, 11:14 AM
|
|
For you Todd:
Thanks Rinselberg for the Future Gay report......
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
FEB 12, 07:37 AM
|
|
You're welcome. Just to be sure, no one should confuse it with the (future) Grey Report.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
FEB 12, 09:58 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:
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).]
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
FEB 12, 10:27 AM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by maryjane:
For you Todd:
QUOTE]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
FEB 13, 04:52 AM
|
|
| quote | 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).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
FEB 13, 05:42 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
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.
|
|
But here you are anyway.....
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
FEB 13, 06:04 AM
|
|
| quote |
Whether or not you or anyone else likes that report, or finds (any) truth in it ... that's not very important to me. |
|
So the actual purpose for posting it was???????????
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
FEB 13, 06:11 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
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:
- 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.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
FEB 13, 06:17 AM
|
|
| quote | 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.
|
|
|
|