Let's be honest here ... all of this shit is noise ...
I hear a lot of shit talking from Hillary about how she's for the lower and middle classes ... but the results over Obama's tenure shows that that's just not the fact. THIS will be the issue that will decide the election (and in many respects is WHY Trump is doing so well with many of the working class):
Excerpt from the article that is very relevant ... Three broad factors appear to be driving much of the weak income performance in the United States. First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs.
Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group. Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.
A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.
And because the total bounty produced by the American economy has not been growing substantially faster here in recent decades than in Canada or Western Europe, most American workers are left receiving meager raises.
Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.
Let's be honest here ... all of this shit is noise ...
I hear a lot of shit talking from Hillary about how she's for the lower and middle classes ... but the results over Obama's tenure shows that that's just not the fact. THIS will be the issue that will decide the election (and in many respects is WHY Trump is doing so well with many of the working class):
Excerpt from the article that is very relevant ... Three broad factors appear to be driving much of the weak income performance in the United States. First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs.
Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group. Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.
A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.
And because the total bounty produced by the American economy has not been growing substantially faster here in recent decades than in Canada or Western Europe, most American workers are left receiving meager raises.
Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.
Let's be honest here ... all of this shit is noise ...
I hear a lot of shit talking from Hillary about how she's for the lower and middle classes ... but the results over Obama's tenure shows that that's just not the fact. THIS will be the issue that will decide the election (and in many respects is WHY Trump is doing so well with many of the working class):
Excerpt from the article that is very relevant ... Three broad factors appear to be driving much of the weak income performance in the United States. First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs.
Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group. Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.
A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.
And because the total bounty produced by the American economy has not been growing substantially faster here in recent decades than in Canada or Western Europe, most American workers are left receiving meager raises.
Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.
No, the income inequality issue will have close to no impact on the election. Otherwise Bernie would be the democratic nominee.
And besides trying to stop the tides of globalization, which will save a few market inefficient middle class jobs that would otherwise be gone, what exactly is Trump doing to combat income inequality? This has been a democratic platform issue for years now, but no one has given enough of a shit to make it matter. The idea that Trump will now become the champion for reversing income inequality is laughable.
Let's be honest here ... all of this shit is noise ...
I hear a lot of shit talking from Hillary about how she's for the lower and middle classes ... but the results over Obama's tenure shows that that's just not the fact. THIS will be the issue that will decide the election (and in many respects is WHY Trump is doing so well with many of the working class):
Excerpt from the article that is very relevant ... Three broad factors appear to be driving much of the weak income performance in the United States. First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs.
Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group. Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.
A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.
And because the total bounty produced by the American economy has not been growing substantially faster here in recent decades than in Canada or Western Europe, most American workers are left receiving meager raises.
Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.
No, the income inequality issue will have close to no impact on the election. Otherwise Bernie would be the democratic nominee.
And besides trying to stop the tides of globalization, which will save a few market inefficient middle class jobs that would otherwise be gone, what exactly is Trump doing to combat income inequality? This has been a democratic platform issue for years now, but no one has given enough of a shit to make it matter. The idea that Trump will now become the champion for reversing income inequality is laughable.
My point wasn't that people cared about income inequality because I don't believe a large percentage of the population cares enough to do anything about it. I do believe though that people care about their earning power and how their own personal income levels translates to their quality of life.
This isn't an issue per se of what Trump is or has done on the topic.
The issue is that Hillary talks until she's blue in her face as being the champion of this cause and all the work that she's done over the past years on this. That's great and all ... but at some point don't you think some people will start asking themselves that if this person is talking about championing their causes but they are no better off (and in some cases worse off) ... they may not quite being so believing of those claims going forward ... possible?
Let's be honest here ... all of this shit is noise ...
I hear a lot of shit talking from Hillary about how she's for the lower and middle classes ... but the results over Obama's tenure shows that that's just not the fact. THIS will be the issue that will decide the election (and in many respects is WHY Trump is doing so well with many of the working class):
Excerpt from the article that is very relevant ... Three broad factors appear to be driving much of the weak income performance in the United States. First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs.
Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group. Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.
A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.
And because the total bounty produced by the American economy has not been growing substantially faster here in recent decades than in Canada or Western Europe, most American workers are left receiving meager raises.
Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.
No, the income inequality issue will have close to no impact on the election. Otherwise Bernie would be the democratic nominee.
And besides trying to stop the tides of globalization, which will save a few market inefficient middle class jobs that would otherwise be gone, what exactly is Trump doing to combat income inequality? This has been a democratic platform issue for years now, but no one has given enough of a shit to make it matter. The idea that Trump will now become the champion for reversing income inequality is laughable.
My point wasn't that people cared about income inequality because I don't believe a large percentage of the population cares enough to do anything about it. I do believe though that people care about their earning power and how their own personal income levels translates to their quality of life.
This isn't an issue per se of what Trump is or has done on the topic.
The issue is that Hillary talks until she's blue in her face as being the champion of this cause and all the work that she's done over the past years on this. That's great and all ... but at some point don't you think some people will start asking themselves that if this person is talking about championing their causes but they are no better off (and in some cases worse off) ... they may not quite being so believing of those claims going forward ... possible?
Just cut taxes on the rich, they'll pass the money to the middle class. Simple yet effective.
Comments
HTH
I hear a lot of shit talking from Hillary about how she's for the lower and middle classes ... but the results over Obama's tenure shows that that's just not the fact. THIS will be the issue that will decide the election (and in many respects is WHY Trump is doing so well with many of the working class):
Article from the New York Times in 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?_r=0
Excerpt from the article that is very relevant ...
Three broad factors appear to be driving much of the weak income performance in the United States. First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs.
Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group. Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.
A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.
And because the total bounty produced by the American economy has not been growing substantially faster here in recent decades than in Canada or Western Europe, most American workers are left receiving meager raises.
Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.
This article breaks it down across some other cross sections that may have some interest as it pertains to this election ... article from Nate Silver's 538 site: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-american-middle-class-hasnt-gotten-a-raise-in-15-years/
And besides trying to stop the tides of globalization, which will save a few market inefficient middle class jobs that would otherwise be gone, what exactly is Trump doing to combat income inequality? This has been a democratic platform issue for years now, but no one has given enough of a shit to make it matter. The idea that Trump will now become the champion for reversing income inequality is laughable.
This isn't an issue per se of what Trump is or has done on the topic.
The issue is that Hillary talks until she's blue in her face as being the champion of this cause and all the work that she's done over the past years on this. That's great and all ... but at some point don't you think some people will start asking themselves that if this person is talking about championing their causes but they are no better off (and in some cases worse off) ... they may not quite being so believing of those claims going forward ... possible?