• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NAFFFFFTA

The Don said:
Why do you want him to do so much worse than Obama ? Under his administration more than 25 million have been added to the non-farm seasonally adjusted payroll number:

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

To get this straight, Reagan adding 16 million jobs was a great victory and a vindication for Reaganomics and Trump adding 16 million would be a great performance.
Click to expand...

Too late to edit the post to hide my stupidity :o

Why do you want him to do no better than Obama ? Under his administration more than 15 million have been added to the non-farm seasonally adjusted payroll number:

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

To get this straight, Reagan adding 16 million jobs was a great victory and a vindication for Reaganomics and Trump adding 16 million would be a great performance.

OTOH Obama adding 15 million is a damning indictment of his "terrible" economic policies which are "destroying the economy"
 
logger said:
You really can't figure it out can you?

I'll explain. NAFTA was not good for many in this country. Republicans were for it including me. Democrats were against it, they were correct.
Click to expand...

logger said:
The left used to be against this. It has decimated our manufacturing base, which was predicted, all to make a few rich men even richer. But of course the leftists here are for it now.
Click to expand...

You mean you are for it because Democrats are against it even though they were correct and even though they were for it? But Trump is against it because even though he must be for it, like you?
 
logger said:
The left used to be against this. It has decimated our manufacturing base, which was predicted, all to make a few rich men even richer. But of course the leftists here are for it now.
Click to expand...

Which is one of the things that made it easier for Russia to swing voters to Trump.

As someone who has always been against these unfair, unbalanced, and unjust "trade deals", I find myself in a very uncomfortable place when an unelected usurper psuedo-President actually advocates a policy I agree with.
 
The Don said:
Too late to edit the post to hide my stupidity :o

Why do you want him to do no better than Obama ? Under his administration more than 15 million have been added to the non-farm seasonally adjusted payroll number:

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

To get this straight, Reagan adding 16 million jobs was a great victory and a vindication for Reaganomics and Trump adding 16 million would be a great performance.

OTOH Obama adding 15 million is a damning indictment of his "terrible" economic policies which are "destroying the economy"
Click to expand...

As always, those numbers are misleading, once you get into the details. What KIND of jobs? Full/part time? Decent/minimum wage? Benefits?

Taking a computer engineer and turning him into a Starbucks barrista does not represent economic progress.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
As always, those numbers are misleading, once you get into the details. What KIND of jobs? Full/part time? Decent/minimum wage? Benefits?

Taking a computer engineer and turning him into a Starbucks barrista does not represent economic progress.
Click to expand...
Has there really been much of that going on in the last eight years?

There's always a burger-flipping component of the economy, supported by the custom of the better-off. There can hardly be fifteen million more such jobs without any more better-paid jobs being created.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Which is one of the things that made it easier for Russia to swing voters to Trump.

As someone who has always been against these unfair, unbalanced, and unjust "trade deals", I find myself in a very uncomfortable place when an unelected usurper psuedo-President actually advocates a policy I agree with.
Click to expand...
The increasing concentration of wealth has been a global phaenomenon since 1979 and the arrival of Thatcher-Reaganism. Keynes was declared dead : long live monetarism. It has nothing to do with "unfair" free trade, and everything to do with the creation of a rentier economy.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
As always, those numbers are misleading, once you get into the details. What KIND of jobs? Full/part time? Decent/minimum wage? Benefits?

Taking a computer engineer and turning him into a Starbucks barrista does not represent economic progress.
Click to expand...

If it is for productivity reasons, it is absolutely progress.

Suppose the output before trade was one computer program. If after trade we have one program and one latte that is growth....Growth we were not getting in the first scenario.
 
dudalb said:
I think it was a case of a Hostile Takeover,but, yeah, they supported him, now they have to deal with him.
Click to expand...

They backed him to the hilt. Maybe not during the primaries, in which it is customary for in-party fighting, but afterwards, just about everyone has sucked up to him.
 
CapelDodger said:
Has there really been much of that going on in the last eight years?
Click to expand...

Yes. Most of the so-called "recovery" from the Meltdown was this sort of "downgrading" of jobs.

There's always a burger-flipping component of the economy, supported by the custom of the better-off. There can hardly be fifteen million more such jobs without any more better-paid jobs being created.
Click to expand...

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/01/business/la-fi-low-paying-jobs-20120901

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/low-paying-jobs_n_3266737.html


http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capito...ed-in-this-recovery-are-low-wage-study-finds/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...ew-york-millennials-languish-in-low-wage-jobs

This is a continuation of a long-term trend, this joke is from the early 00s. I remember it being told back in the mid 90s.

slide_10.jpg
 
BobTheCoward said:
If it is for productivity reasons, it is absolutely progress.

Suppose the output before trade was one computer program. If after trade we have one program and one latte that is growth....Growth we were not getting in the first scenario.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the computer programmer, who probably was forced to train his own H1B replacement.
 
CapelDodger said:
Trump ran over them. They were like rabbits in the headlights.
Click to expand...

They endorsed him and backed him. This was voluntary behaviour on their part, so they are responsible for him and I hope nobody forgets it when Trump's idiocy becomes undeniable. I hope nobody will be taken in by their claims that they were against him all along. But they will be.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Yes. Most of the so-called "recovery" from the Meltdown was this sort of "downgrading" of jobs.
Click to expand...
I still think it unlikely that there are fewer computer engineers employed in the US than eight years ago, just after the 2007-8 crash.

This is a continuation of a long-term trend, this joke is from the early 00s. I remember it being told back in the mid 90s.
Click to expand...
A trend not confined to the US and the NAFTA area. You perhaps also remember the MBA orthodoxy of the 80's and 90's : Flatten the hierarchy. There began the hollowing out of the middle classes, a process that continues. The nature of employment has changed pretty radically in the last decade, so any job creation was going to show this pattern. NAFTA notwithstanding.
 
angrysoba said:
They endorsed him and backed him. This was voluntary behaviour on their part, so they are responsible for him and I hope nobody forgets it when Trump's idiocy becomes undeniable. I hope nobody will be taken in by their claims that they were against him all along. But they will be.
Click to expand...
A lot of them were explicitly against him before they were for him. That argument always works, doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom