Slashdot Mirror

Wages have increased historically, with a few brief periods else-wise. And CNC programmers do make more than machine operators, who make more than the guy bending sheetmetal to make the CNC machine. Increased productivity and value is typically paid more. You may not think it is paid enough, but facts say wages do increase.

WOW! And a chart for the last two years! Amazing! Well you proved your point! Everything is fine and dandy and the economists who have pointed out that wages have been stagnant for decades are all wrong!

I'm glad there's Slashdot here, filled will web and app programmers who know everything, to let us know what so-called experts are wrong.

Wages have increased historically, with a few brief periods else-wise. And CNC programmers do make more than machine operators, who make more than the guy bending sheetmetal to make the CNC machine. Increased productivity and value is typically paid more. You may not think it is paid enough, but facts say wages do increase.

[remedial knowledge of the subject].

Australia in particular has a minimum wage of $18.93 AUD, which is also indexed to inflation. Speaking of inflation, Australia's rate is less than 2%.

The old saw that more wages for poor workers leading directly to high rates of inflation was never anything but a pile of elitist bullshit.

Wages are up ~4.4% over most of the last year.

It's a rainforest, didn't you even read the summary?

Pretty amusing coming from someone who did not even read the PDF he posted...

It seems to have faced a 2.5 F degree rise in sea temperature since 1900 with a loss or rainfall

We aren't talking about sea insects, now are we? Your OWN PDF states PR has seen a 1*F* (not even C) increase in land temperatures since mid 20th century... vastly less than seasonal variation.

Furthermore the paper speculated rainfall MIGHT lower, based on... nothing at all.

In reality rainfall has been cyclical but remained fairly steady (click on "MAX" below the chart).

This would be obvious to anyone who understands the effect of heat on large bodies of water, which surround PR.... A warmer climate means MORE RAINFALL which I cannot believe how few people, even now, understand.

Sorry to disturb your manufactured panic with actual real data... carry on.

Here you go. Twenty one percent live below the poverty line, and that is in a country with a GDP per capita of below $3000. I'd say that is pretty darn low income. And 50 tons of shrimp sounds like a lot - but it's about 275 pounds a day, and that can be caught locally as warm-water shrimp or farmed in a pretty small area of about 5,000 square meters. Hmmm - catch shrimp at night/early morning, feed whale sharks in the day, earn lots of money (around $100 to $200 per tourist per day), seems like a great way to get out of proverty of making an average of less than $10 per day...

The problem is that with the recent tax cut, the revenues didn't increase nearly enough to offset it. It's nowhere near the levels the Republicans claimed it would rise to when they passed the tax cuts, it's not even to the level that the CBO estimated it would be so this tax cut is likely going to add to the debt even more than the 1.5 TRILLION dollars the Republicans claimed it would. The GDP has grown at similar levels as during the Obama administration and tax revenues have actually gone down on an inflation-adjusted basis. Studies that have looked at the economic impact of the corporate tax cut mostly went to share buybacks, companies didn't use the money to expand or invest, they gave it to their owners. It doesn't seem to have spurred any growth in the economy at all. The result of this tax bill seems to be that the rich got richer and the middle class (and the future middle class) will be paying the price.

You mean those years of ~2% GDP growth? Not the 3%+ that's happened since he was sworn in as President? Or maybe the DJIA that was ~flat from 2014 to the day after the election, rather than the ~40% run-up since then? Or maybe consumer confidence that bumped up 10% in the months right after the election? Those economic recoveries?

Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing. Tuvalu has added 3% more land in the last 50 years, and the Maldives, which famously held a cabinet meeting underwater to show their nation is doomed has no change in land area over the last 60 years.

Coral atolls grow higher when sea levels rise. The question is one of rates. As long as the sea level rises are slow enough, the atolls will be more or less fine. But if the water rises faster than the corals can grow, they'll be inundated. Massive corals of the sort that make up these atoll reefs can grow up to 5mm per year. Over the 20th century the average annual sea level increase was 1.7mm. No problem, they can keep up with that. Since the 90s the rate has averaged 3.2mm per year. The corals can handle that, too... but the rate doesn't have to accelerate much more to overwhelm them.

Indeed, even at current rates, islands are having problems. I was on Rarotonga last month, in the Cook Islands. Natives there told me that their lagoons used to be two to three times deeper than they are now. The problem is that seas are crashing higher over the reefs and depositing more sand, causing the lagoons to fill in. This has created problems for fishing and for the tourist industry (snorkeling in a foot of water isn't much fun). However, it's expected that over the next 20 years the waves will rise higher yet and begin removing sand from the lagoons and the beaches, reversing the shallowing trend and then beginning to eat away at the island. Rarotonga will be fine; it's volcanic and rises over 2000 feet above sea level at its highest point. At worst people will have to move inland a little bit. But it could easily devastate the already-fragile island economy.

I was also on Mangaia and they're facing a different problem. Much of the island's fresh water supply comes from inland lakes which flow through tunnels in the makatea (fossil coral) to the ocean. But sea levels have risen enough that during storms water now flows in through the tunnels, turning the lakes brackish. This is having serious effects on the island ecosystems as well as making fresh water harder to come by.

The bottom line is that for many islanders, climate change is already having very real and very visible effects, mostly due to rising sea levels. And it's going to get much worse. And many low-lying coral atolls may just disappear when the rate of sea level rise exceeds the rate at which the corals can grow.

Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing. Tuvalu has added 3% more land in the last 50 years, and the Maldives, which famously held a cabinet meeting underwater to show their nation is doomed has no change in land area over the last 60 years.

Kinda makes Sweden and Netherlands rates of 50% look good, doesn't it?

do you mean Sweden's 61.85% income tax?

Nearly everything in your post is inaccurate. Maybe the only correct thing was how high income taxes were in the 20, 30, 40's, but I doubt you've given any real critical thought to why taxes were so high. It is ignorant to compare the taxes of two eras the way you have.

Local suppliers will need steel. Last I heard there are higher tariffs on that as well, because we don't make that here anymore either.

The US Steelworker's Union would beg to differ.

https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

Wage growth is up.

Unemployment bottomed out at 5% for the last year of the Obama Administration, then plunged after the election.

GDP was plunging during 2015/2016 and has since turned around.

The DJIA plateaued during 2015 and 2016 and exploded after the election.

NASDAQ followed the same trend as the DJIA, indicating the flat-line in growth was economy-wide, not just specific sectors

Manufacturing job growth is at a 23 year high

Basically you're making stuff up - the facts do not support your positions.

Wage growth is up.

Unemployment bottomed out at 5% for the last year of the Obama Administration, then plunged after the election.

GDP was plunging during 2015/2016 and has since turned around.

The DJIA plateaued during 2015 and 2016 and exploded after the election.

NASDAQ followed the same trend as the DJIA, indicating the flat-line in growth was economy-wide, not just specific sectors

Manufacturing job growth is at a 23 year high

Basically you're making stuff up - the facts do not support your positions.

Incompetent? Can you please tell me the level of Unemployment prevailing at this moment?

Trying to use the unemployment rate as an example of Trump's competency doesn't make a very good argument.
Just look at the 10 year graph of the unemployment rate https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
All Trump managed to do is not screw up the trend that very clearly was established under the previous president.
And it's the same for wage growth: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... although when you compare/contrast vs inflation https://tradingeconomics.com/u... real world wage growth has actually decreased the last two years vs the previous two years.
You can try arguing GDP next, but, https://tradingeconomics.com/u... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... again we're mostly still seeing the same kind of numbers/trends that began in mid/late 2010.

Now, lets have a look at something that did drastically change under Trump, Health Insurance. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
See that big giant increase in the price index at the end of 2017 compared to the rest of the graph? That's the result of the GOP gutting parts of the ACA and Trump refusing to pay out the by law guaranteed Medicare/Medicaid subsidies.

Okay, I'm sure you want something to criticize the previous president for, so here we go: https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
Those are some pretty bad deficit numbers under Obama's first few years. The country hadn't run that big an annual deficit since WW2. On the other hand, he used that deficit to drag the country out of a pretty bad economic recession left behind by the W Bush administration and managed to decrease it back down to 2008 levels by the end of his term. Unfortunately, instead of the deficit continuing to go down under Trump, it's gone up instead thanks to a massive tax give away to the rich and corporations. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

My bad, I guess that wasn't as much of a criticism of the last guy as the graph initially made it out to be.

Ok, here's one we can really criticize Obama for, excessively increased military spending: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... ... or can we?
Oops, sorry. I guess it was actually Bush who decided to start a war in Iraq in 2003 that didn't end until they hauled out Bin Laden in 2011. Oh, let's not forget the War on Terror in Afghanistan from 2001-2014 either, that at least in was in response to us being attacked first on 9/11. Except, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

Incompetent? Can you please tell me the level of Unemployment prevailing at this moment?

Trying to use the unemployment rate as an example of Trump's competency doesn't make a very good argument.
Just look at the 10 year graph of the unemployment rate https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
All Trump managed to do is not screw up the trend that very clearly was established under the previous president.
And it's the same for wage growth: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... although when you compare/contrast vs inflation https://tradingeconomics.com/u... real world wage growth has actually decreased the last two years vs the previous two years.
You can try arguing GDP next, but, https://tradingeconomics.com/u... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... again we're mostly still seeing the same kind of numbers/trends that began in mid/late 2010.

Now, lets have a look at something that did drastically change under Trump, Health Insurance. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
See that big giant increase in the price index at the end of 2017 compared to the rest of the graph? That's the result of the GOP gutting parts of the ACA and Trump refusing to pay out the by law guaranteed Medicare/Medicaid subsidies.

Okay, I'm sure you want something to criticize the previous president for, so here we go: https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
Those are some pretty bad deficit numbers under Obama's first few years. The country hadn't run that big an annual deficit since WW2. On the other hand, he used that deficit to drag the country out of a pretty bad economic recession left behind by the W Bush administration and managed to decrease it back down to 2008 levels by the end of his term. Unfortunately, instead of the deficit continuing to go down under Trump, it's gone up instead thanks to a massive tax give away to the rich and corporations. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

My bad, I guess that wasn't as much of a criticism of the last guy as the graph initially made it out to be.

Ok, here's one we can really criticize Obama for, excessively increased military spending: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... ... or can we?
Oops, sorry. I guess it was actually Bush who decided to start a war in Iraq in 2003 that didn't end until they hauled out Bin Laden in 2011. Oh, let's not forget the War on Terror in Afghanistan from 2001-2014 either, that at least in was in response to us being attacked first on 9/11. Except, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

Incompetent? Can you please tell me the level of Unemployment prevailing at this moment?

Trying to use the unemployment rate as an example of Trump's competency doesn't make a very good argument.
Just look at the 10 year graph of the unemployment rate https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
All Trump managed to do is not screw up the trend that very clearly was established under the previous president.
And it's the same for wage growth: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... although when you compare/contrast vs inflation https://tradingeconomics.com/u... real world wage growth has actually decreased the last two years vs the previous two years.
You can try arguing GDP next, but, https://tradingeconomics.com/u... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... again we're mostly still seeing the same kind of numbers/trends that began in mid/late 2010.

Now, lets have a look at something that did drastically change under Trump, Health Insurance. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
See that big giant increase in the price index at the end of 2017 compared to the rest of the graph? That's the result of the GOP gutting parts of the ACA and Trump refusing to pay out the by law guaranteed Medicare/Medicaid subsidies.

Okay, I'm sure you want something to criticize the previous president for, so here we go: https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
Those are some pretty bad deficit numbers under Obama's first few years. The country hadn't run that big an annual deficit since WW2. On the other hand, he used that deficit to drag the country out of a pretty bad economic recession left behind by the W Bush administration and managed to decrease it back down to 2008 levels by the end of his term. Unfortunately, instead of the deficit continuing to go down under Trump, it's gone up instead thanks to a massive tax give away to the rich and corporations. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

My bad, I guess that wasn't as much of a criticism of the last guy as the graph initially made it out to be.

Ok, here's one we can really criticize Obama for, excessively increased military spending: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... ... or can we?
Oops, sorry. I guess it was actually Bush who decided to start a war in Iraq in 2003 that didn't end until they hauled out Bin Laden in 2011. Oh, let's not forget the War on Terror in Afghanistan from 2001-2014 either, that at least in was in response to us being attacked first on 9/11. Except, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

Incompetent? Can you please tell me the level of Unemployment prevailing at this moment?

Trying to use the unemployment rate as an example of Trump's competency doesn't make a very good argument.
Just look at the 10 year graph of the unemployment rate https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
All Trump managed to do is not screw up the trend that very clearly was established under the previous president.
And it's the same for wage growth: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... although when you compare/contrast vs inflation https://tradingeconomics.com/u... real world wage growth has actually decreased the last two years vs the previous two years.
You can try arguing GDP next, but, https://tradingeconomics.com/u... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... again we're mostly still seeing the same kind of numbers/trends that began in mid/late 2010.

Now, lets have a look at something that did drastically change under Trump, Health Insurance. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
See that big giant increase in the price index at the end of 2017 compared to the rest of the graph? That's the result of the GOP gutting parts of the ACA and Trump refusing to pay out the by law guaranteed Medicare/Medicaid subsidies.

Okay, I'm sure you want something to criticize the previous president for, so here we go: https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
Those are some pretty bad deficit numbers under Obama's first few years. The country hadn't run that big an annual deficit since WW2. On the other hand, he used that deficit to drag the country out of a pretty bad economic recession left behind by the W Bush administration and managed to decrease it back down to 2008 levels by the end of his term. Unfortunately, instead of the deficit continuing to go down under Trump, it's gone up instead thanks to a massive tax give away to the rich and corporations. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

My bad, I guess that wasn't as much of a criticism of the last guy as the graph initially made it out to be.

Ok, here's one we can really criticize Obama for, excessively increased military spending: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... ... or can we?
Oops, sorry. I guess it was actually Bush who decided to start a war in Iraq in 2003 that didn't end until they hauled out Bin Laden in 2011. Oh, let's not forget the War on Terror in Afghanistan from 2001-2014 either, that at least in was in response to us being attacked first on 9/11. Except, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

Incompetent? Can you please tell me the level of Unemployment prevailing at this moment?

Trying to use the unemployment rate as an example of Trump's competency doesn't make a very good argument.
Just look at the 10 year graph of the unemployment rate https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
All Trump managed to do is not screw up the trend that very clearly was established under the previous president.
And it's the same for wage growth: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... although when you compare/contrast vs inflation https://tradingeconomics.com/u... real world wage growth has actually decreased the last two years vs the previous two years.
You can try arguing GDP next, but, https://tradingeconomics.com/u... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... again we're mostly still seeing the same kind of numbers/trends that began in mid/late 2010.

Now, lets have a look at something that did drastically change under Trump, Health Insurance. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
See that big giant increase in the price index at the end of 2017 compared to the rest of the graph? That's the result of the GOP gutting parts of the ACA and Trump refusing to pay out the by law guaranteed Medicare/Medicaid subsidies.

Okay, I'm sure you want something to criticize the previous president for, so here we go: https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
Those are some pretty bad deficit numbers under Obama's first few years. The country hadn't run that big an annual deficit since WW2. On the other hand, he used that deficit to drag the country out of a pretty bad economic recession left behind by the W Bush administration and managed to decrease it back down to 2008 levels by the end of his term. Unfortunately, instead of the deficit continuing to go down under Trump, it's gone up instead thanks to a massive tax give away to the rich and corporations. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

My bad, I guess that wasn't as much of a criticism of the last guy as the graph initially made it out to be.

Ok, here's one we can really criticize Obama for, excessively increased military spending: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... ... or can we?
Oops, sorry. I guess it was actually Bush who decided to start a war in Iraq in 2003 that didn't end until they hauled out Bin Laden in 2011. Oh, let's not forget the War on Terror in Afghanistan from 2001-2014 either, that at least in was in response to us being attacked first on 9/11. Except, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

Incompetent? Can you please tell me the level of Unemployment prevailing at this moment?

Trying to use the unemployment rate as an example of Trump's competency doesn't make a very good argument.
Just look at the 10 year graph of the unemployment rate https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
All Trump managed to do is not screw up the trend that very clearly was established under the previous president.
And it's the same for wage growth: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... although when you compare/contrast vs inflation https://tradingeconomics.com/u... real world wage growth has actually decreased the last two years vs the previous two years.
You can try arguing GDP next, but, https://tradingeconomics.com/u... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... again we're mostly still seeing the same kind of numbers/trends that began in mid/late 2010.

Now, lets have a look at something that did drastically change under Trump, Health Insurance. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
See that big giant increase in the price index at the end of 2017 compared to the rest of the graph? That's the result of the GOP gutting parts of the ACA and Trump refusing to pay out the by law guaranteed Medicare/Medicaid subsidies.

Okay, I'm sure you want something to criticize the previous president for, so here we go: https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
Those are some pretty bad deficit numbers under Obama's first few years. The country hadn't run that big an annual deficit since WW2. On the other hand, he used that deficit to drag the country out of a pretty bad economic recession left behind by the W Bush administration and managed to decrease it back down to 2008 levels by the end of his term. Unfortunately, instead of the deficit continuing to go down under Trump, it's gone up instead thanks to a massive tax give away to the rich and corporations. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

My bad, I guess that wasn't as much of a criticism of the last guy as the graph initially made it out to be.

Ok, here's one we can really criticize Obama for, excessively increased military spending: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... ... or can we?
Oops, sorry. I guess it was actually Bush who decided to start a war in Iraq in 2003 that didn't end until they hauled out Bin Laden in 2011. Oh, let's not forget the War on Terror in Afghanistan from 2001-2014 either, that at least in was in response to us being attacked first on 9/11. Except, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

Incompetent? Can you please tell me the level of Unemployment prevailing at this moment?

Trying to use the unemployment rate as an example of Trump's competency doesn't make a very good argument.
Just look at the 10 year graph of the unemployment rate https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
All Trump managed to do is not screw up the trend that very clearly was established under the previous president.
And it's the same for wage growth: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... although when you compare/contrast vs inflation https://tradingeconomics.com/u... real world wage growth has actually decreased the last two years vs the previous two years.
You can try arguing GDP next, but, https://tradingeconomics.com/u... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... again we're mostly still seeing the same kind of numbers/trends that began in mid/late 2010.

Now, lets have a look at something that did drastically change under Trump, Health Insurance. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
See that big giant increase in the price index at the end of 2017 compared to the rest of the graph? That's the result of the GOP gutting parts of the ACA and Trump refusing to pay out the by law guaranteed Medicare/Medicaid subsidies.

Okay, I'm sure you want something to criticize the previous president for, so here we go: https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
Those are some pretty bad deficit numbers under Obama's first few years. The country hadn't run that big an annual deficit since WW2. On the other hand, he used that deficit to drag the country out of a pretty bad economic recession left behind by the W Bush administration and managed to decrease it back down to 2008 levels by the end of his term. Unfortunately, instead of the deficit continuing to go down under Trump, it's gone up instead thanks to a massive tax give away to the rich and corporations. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

My bad, I guess that wasn't as much of a criticism of the last guy as the graph initially made it out to be.

Ok, here's one we can really criticize Obama for, excessively increased military spending: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... ... or can we?
Oops, sorry. I guess it was actually Bush who decided to start a war in Iraq in 2003 that didn't end until they hauled out Bin Laden in 2011. Oh, let's not forget the War on Terror in Afghanistan from 2001-2014 either, that at least in was in response to us being attacked first on 9/11. Except, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

Incompetent? Can you please tell me the level of Unemployment prevailing at this moment?

Trying to use the unemployment rate as an example of Trump's competency doesn't make a very good argument.
Just look at the 10 year graph of the unemployment rate https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
All Trump managed to do is not screw up the trend that very clearly was established under the previous president.
And it's the same for wage growth: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... although when you compare/contrast vs inflation https://tradingeconomics.com/u... real world wage growth has actually decreased the last two years vs the previous two years.
You can try arguing GDP next, but, https://tradingeconomics.com/u... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... again we're mostly still seeing the same kind of numbers/trends that began in mid/late 2010.

Now, lets have a look at something that did drastically change under Trump, Health Insurance. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
See that big giant increase in the price index at the end of 2017 compared to the rest of the graph? That's the result of the GOP gutting parts of the ACA and Trump refusing to pay out the by law guaranteed Medicare/Medicaid subsidies.

Okay, I'm sure you want something to criticize the previous president for, so here we go: https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
Those are some pretty bad deficit numbers under Obama's first few years. The country hadn't run that big an annual deficit since WW2. On the other hand, he used that deficit to drag the country out of a pretty bad economic recession left behind by the W Bush administration and managed to decrease it back down to 2008 levels by the end of his term. Unfortunately, instead of the deficit continuing to go down under Trump, it's gone up instead thanks to a massive tax give away to the rich and corporations. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

My bad, I guess that wasn't as much of a criticism of the last guy as the graph initially made it out to be.

Ok, here's one we can really criticize Obama for, excessively increased military spending: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... ... or can we?
Oops, sorry. I guess it was actually Bush who decided to start a war in Iraq in 2003 that didn't end until they hauled out Bin Laden in 2011. Oh, let's not forget the War on Terror in Afghanistan from 2001-2014 either, that at least in was in response to us being attacked first on 9/11. Except, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

Incompetent? Can you please tell me the level of Unemployment prevailing at this moment?

Trying to use the unemployment rate as an example of Trump's competency doesn't make a very good argument.
Just look at the 10 year graph of the unemployment rate https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
All Trump managed to do is not screw up the trend that very clearly was established under the previous president.
And it's the same for wage growth: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... although when you compare/contrast vs inflation https://tradingeconomics.com/u... real world wage growth has actually decreased the last two years vs the previous two years.
You can try arguing GDP next, but, https://tradingeconomics.com/u... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... again we're mostly still seeing the same kind of numbers/trends that began in mid/late 2010.

Now, lets have a look at something that did drastically change under Trump, Health Insurance. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
See that big giant increase in the price index at the end of 2017 compared to the rest of the graph? That's the result of the GOP gutting parts of the ACA and Trump refusing to pay out the by law guaranteed Medicare/Medicaid subsidies.

Okay, I'm sure you want something to criticize the previous president for, so here we go: https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
Those are some pretty bad deficit numbers under Obama's first few years. The country hadn't run that big an annual deficit since WW2. On the other hand, he used that deficit to drag the country out of a pretty bad economic recession left behind by the W Bush administration and managed to decrease it back down to 2008 levels by the end of his term. Unfortunately, instead of the deficit continuing to go down under Trump, it's gone up instead thanks to a massive tax give away to the rich and corporations. https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

My bad, I guess that wasn't as much of a criticism of the last guy as the graph initially made it out to be.

Ok, here's one we can really criticize Obama for, excessively increased military spending: https://tradingeconomics.com/u... ... or can we?
Oops, sorry. I guess it was actually Bush who decided to start a war in Iraq in 2003 that didn't end until they hauled out Bin Laden in 2011. Oh, let's not forget the War on Terror in Afghanistan from 2001-2014 either, that at least in was in response to us being attacked first on 9/11. Except, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

If you want some solid evidence that you don't need to clear out the past generations to progress a cause, consider how fast recent social shifts have occurred. From 2004-2017, opposition to gay marriage in the US went from 60% to 32% (http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/). The US didn't lose 28% of its population in 13 years, it lost around 10.9% of its population in that time frame (calculated from this https://tradingeconomics.com/u...). Even assuming that every old person was in opposition, there's still at least a 17% shift in public opinion that has nothing to do with the elderly dying out. While it is true that the slower demographic trend helped reduce opposition to gay marriage, the real change has been driven by people changing their minds.

If you break down the numbers further (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States), you'll also see that which US state a person is in (or their political ideology) are better indicators than just age (although age is still a good indicator). States in the northeast and on the west coast have overwhelming support for this issue, while states in the midwest and southeast are on the fence about it, even though none of these states have a serious age skew. Democratic Silent Generation individuals are less likely to oppose gay marriage than their Republican Millennial Generation counterparts. Changing public opinions come from changing people's minds, not removing old people with outdated opinions that they refuse to change.

It's also quite possible that healthy old people would actually be more mentally flexible than today's crippled old people. By reducing the damage of aging to the brain, very old people would likely not get so set in their ways. In addition, a lot of very old people today are basically just waiting around to die, instead of interacting with the mainstream society, so this reduces the pressure to change they would normally have applied to them. As long as they can hole up in their paid-off home and live off their retirement money and/or social security and/or have their family care for them, what do they care what other people think? However, if they were healthy then they'd almost certainly prefer to get out and interact (or at least do other activities that end up with frequent social interaction), leading to them changing their minds to keep up and fit in.

People from hundreds of years ago who were kept alive and well by science would have eventually shifted their opinions to match the prevailing social climate, and today they wouldn't really be that different from the current population, other than having seen more history firsthand (well, and having had hundreds of years to accumulate wealth...I don't think it'd really have that big an impact on social progress for a variety of reasons, after all it's not like wealthy and powerful people are young today, and the wealthy very old folks would be massively outgunned by wealthy younger old folks from more recent generations that had been oppressed by the oldest folks in the past, and pretty much everyone alive today would have lived through past periods of extreme inequality and instability and realize that working together to create a relatively equitable and well functioning system is much better for all than the current dysfunctional short-range thinking winner-takes-all system (meanwhile, the current winner takes all system makes perfect sense for the powerful when they have limited lifespans and life is relatively cheap, as they need to get everything now while the getting is good)).

Personally, I believe the concept of "progress", especially social progress, is a modern myth. Various situations get better and worse, social fashions change, but humans are still the same humans they've always been.

The idea of progress assumes there's some sort of perfect state that we're moving towards, but I

Tax revenue initially fell after Bush's tax cut, but picked up again after the tech bubble-caused recession. Same for the housing bubble - tax revenue fell during the recession, but returned to historical levels post-recession. In other words, the tax cuts didn't cause the growing deficits and debt.

It's increased spending which is causing the growing deficits. Primarily growth in Social Security, Medicare, and other health programs. Spending on other programs - even defense - has been falling. So Social Security, Medicare, and other health programs are what we need to rein in if we want to get the budget under control. Unfortunately, those are the programs Democrats consider sacrosanct and refuse to allow us to modify.

I'll also point out that the flip side of the stimulus spending under Obama to jump-start the economy, is that once the economy gets going again you reduce spending to below historical levels. Basically government spending should act as a stabilizer, 180 degrees out of phase with the economy (stimulating the economy when it's poor, slowing it down when it's good to prevent it from overheating) The government saves up during good times, so it has a piggy back it can use to spend during bad times.. I agreed that stimulus spending was the correct thing to do after the housing bubble, but opposed it because I knew the second half (reduced spending) would never happen. Leaving us further mired in debt (which went from about 60% of GDP to over 100% under Obama). Unless we get that debt reduced, the only thing saving us right now is the low interest rates. If those go up, the interest on the debt will balloon and begin to dominate the budget.

The top 1% earn about $1.5 million on average; the top 25% average about $139,000. And that is several tiers down...

The median and mean household income is also quite close, being around $75,000 and $72,000 respectively.

I know it's popular to push a "hate the rich" meme on many places, but the data does not support the huge income disparity so often claimed. Median and mean incomes are close together, income disparity from the top 1% down to the bottom 50% is about 80 (which is significantly less than your estimate of 300 from the top 1% to the next tier, which would be top 5%), and in general wages are up an average of 4% annually for the last 18 months or so.

>. Well, now we have a bunch of professions that no longer work full time"

Except it didn't happen. The number of part time employees has been slowly decreasing since ObamaCare passed.

https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

In August, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 10 cents to $27.16. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 77 cents, or 2.9 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 7 cents to $22.73 in August. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

So, I guess unless you're a management type that inflation rate of 2.9%--the highest level since 2012--is probably going to hurt a bit. Given that this next round will effectively hit everything on the shelves of Walmart, things might get rather uncomfortable indeed for his voting base.

Great! The Germans secure their own physical boarders as well. The 2017 US expenditures increased to $43B on Germany alon3:
https://tradingeconomics.com/g...
If they want independence from the US, they can flip the entire bill for their country. I'm sure we can find some roads, bridges or schools that need some investment here in the US with that 43 billion dollar windfall.

Your 43% is way off - https://tradingeconomics.com/c... [tradingeconomics.com]

As a matter of fact, his numbers are accurate. Your link only shows Income Tax. You forget that every dollar you take home after that is taxed again with sales tax. Then there's gas, booze and cigarette taxes. I'd bet 43% is actually a bit low.

Data sources vary depending on the methodology. I grabbed mine from https://tradingeconomics.com/c...

Your 43% is way off - https://tradingeconomics.com/c...

As to the "less every year", it's different from year to year as priorities change. Just because the things you may use seem "less" does not mean other more important things aren't being covered elsewhere.

Data sources vary depending on the methodology. I grabbed mine from https://tradingeconomics.com/c...

Your 43% is way off - https://tradingeconomics.com/c...

As to the "less every year", it's different from year to year as priorities change. Just because the things you may use seem "less" does not mean other more important things aren't being covered elsewhere.

German imports a lot of solar panels from China.
https://www.popsci.com/solar-p...

China is the largest source of imports to Germany.
https://tradingeconomics.com/g...

I really wonder why idiots on /. always claim such bullshit.

Yes, I wonder.

I don't see a problem in need of a solution - only a potential future problem predicted in much the same way that futurists, fortune tellers, divinators, politicians and con men have been predicting the future for quite some. This is not foresight attempting to come up with a pragmatic solution before a problem becomes major - it is a solution in search of a problem. In every instance I've replace a portion of a job, the capable person who's job I replaced has thanked me for creating a program to do the most mindless, boring, portions of their job. When someone was fired, it was actually for not working towards automating their own job quickly enough, freeing them to work on more interesting things. They were fired for being complacent and happy with a mindless job that a machine could do.

I don't actually believe universal basic income would come anywhere close to preventing the *possible* collapse of western society. If that is your goal, I think ecological issues should all be in the top ten. The U.S. unemployment is at 3.6% according to Google. This is SUPER low. Like, historically low. Like, so low that I think it's actually not correct, either due to some kind of crazy hot employment bubble (systemic problem), or tons of discouraged workers stopping looking for a job and/or being stuck in part time solutions (problem with measurements.)

Purchasing Power Parity for all of the Caribbean and Latin America nations (thus not including Puerto Rico). Trinidad and Tobago are tops with around $32,200 PPP. For Puerto Rico we find a PPP around $35,000. Indeed, Puerto Rico is the richest place in the Caribbean, even by purchasing power parity.

T&T has a GDP around $44 billion; PR has a GDP around $105 billion.

If you use the "PPP" purchasing power parity ranking T&T is the richest independent country in the Caribbean. Once territories are included, it changes. Puerto Rico would be at the top of that list with 2015 data of $35,291.80 vs. T&T's $32,194.28.

If you look at median wage growth, though, it's pretty weak - not much wage inflation. In a tight employment market (4% unemployment), and a period of GDP growth, you'd expect more wage inflation.

"The current U6 unemployment rate as of May 2018 is 7.60." And let's face it, even that is a lie. The actual unemployment rate is somewhere between the U6 rate and the inverse of the labor participation rate, which is currently 37.3 — the participation rate currently being 62.7%.

Stop repeating this nonsense about 4% unemployment. It is a total falsehood.

Australia has gone 26 years without a recession because their economy is based on mining iron and coal for sale to China. The more China's economy goes up, the more Australia's does. In the last 26 years Australia's exports have gone up by 600%, so of course the economy has gone up.

https://tradingeconomics.com/a...

In the US, corporate profits for 2017 were around 6.8 trillion dollars*, 1% of that would be 68 billion. Divided among the 325 million residents of the US, each citizen would receive around $208. Personal income was around $16 trillion** (a lot of that is the aforementioned corporate profits, but we'll double count them for now), that would add anther $492 to the tally, so your scheme would result in a UBI of around $700. I don't know about you, but having $700 extra per year wouldn't change my lifestyle at all.

* https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
** https://www.statista.com/stati...

Trump inherited a terrible economy. People really have no idea just how bad off we were.

Seriously? Are you even in touch with reality?

In Detroit they were changing neighbourhoods back into farm land. Chicago was a shooting gallery, still is due to the Democrats running things.

I don't believe either of those things have materially changed, as you note for the second.

Obama's first two years we were in free fall, sky rocketing unemployment, things were terrible.

Why, yes they were. A continuation of the Republican delivered deregulation of the banking industry that resulted in that little depression back in 2008. Do recall who handed the government over to Obama. And what was the condition Bush got the economy in? Oh right, one of the best ever handed off, at least until this latest hand-off.

He also piled on the useless regulations. It was like a land mine field. Screw up and you can go to jail. Over nothing.

I think you're confused there. Seriously confused. But, that goes back to my first statement in this post. Those regulations were useful, although they do prevent unbridled capitalism, which is a good thing actually. Unbridled capitalism leads to things like the crash of 1929 or 2008....

Obama couldn't pull even a 3% growth in GDP. There was a nice chart of all of this and for some reason I can't even pull up www.bea.gov. Sigh. Anyhow, China overtook us - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Look at average values of GDP, not nominal. We just overtook China recently Making American Great Again.

You might want to check those GDP numbers Trump's broken 3% barely, while Obama broke 5% at least one quarter. Granted, Trump's policies have only really had 6 full months of unfettered potential - neither quarter broke 3%. As for GDP, the average for 5 years includes a couple of really bad ones from the 2008 crash. In terms of GDP, we're still almost twice as large as China with 1/6th the population. We also have a lot less pollution and other issues that in concert with Trump's trade war is going to possibly crash China's economy. The only question is whether we go down with it. Making America Great shouldn't be done by sinking everyone and crawling over the corpses.

About the balanced budget - No you don't. There has been one balanced budget and it was because the Republicans made Bill Clinton sign the bill kicking and screaming by shutting down the government. I remember it all too well.

And you're wrong again.

So let me bring you back to the e-mail server. This is something that there is no dispute on. She clearly violated the espionage act and I think everyone knows it. She tried to destroy all of that with bleach bit and hammers to the cell phones. Does this sound like a woman that is innocent? There is no intent in the law. If it were you or I, we'd be in a cell right now. In my case probably for what's left of my life.

Unlike you, I actually worked in a job with those types of restrictions. I also happen to know about a few real violations. Trust me, I have yet to see anything on Hillary that violates anything other than policy. I've had this discussion with others and they have failed to provide any proof other than... but but but.. she must be dirty. She can't even be nailed for using private email for government work, as that was apparently "acceptable" at the time. Not in my job, but apparently my dept works under different and more strict rules.

In your response I see a lot of basic misunderstandings. The last part a lot of people don't understand. Your party affiliation is important during t

Here's the problem. The regulations Obama put into place, hurt wages a lot. It discentivized employers to hire new people or increasing the rate of pay. With things like the ACA, forced mandates and so on, that further pushed employers to cut back, or even lay people off. Which is why when the regulations dropped off wages started spiking upwards(something they haven't done since ~2002).

Really? Because I found this chart
https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

I don't know what your definition of wages spiking is but the chart shows wages had its share of ups during the Obama years, even after Obamacare went into effect, with those peaks being higher % than the parts when Trump is in office.

Remember Obama's words that low GDP growth was the new normal? Why did it spike just after Trump was elected.

Again, where are you getting this?

https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

This chart shows GDP growth has just been going back and forth around 2% even after Trump. Perhaps it is you who are conflating GDP growth with some other number, and you meant something else?

If you can provide a citation or something, it would clear up a lot of things.

Here's the problem. The regulations Obama put into place, hurt wages a lot. It discentivized employers to hire new people or increasing the rate of pay. With things like the ACA, forced mandates and so on, that further pushed employers to cut back, or even lay people off. Which is why when the regulations dropped off wages started spiking upwards(something they haven't done since ~2002).

Really? Because I found this chart
https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

I don't know what your definition of wages spiking is but the chart shows wages had its share of ups during the Obama years, even after Obamacare went into effect, with those peaks being higher % than the parts when Trump is in office.

Remember Obama's words that low GDP growth was the new normal? Why did it spike just after Trump was elected.

Again, where are you getting this?

https://tradingeconomics.com/u...

This chart shows GDP growth has just been going back and forth around 2% even after Trump. Perhaps it is you who are conflating GDP growth with some other number, and you meant something else?

If you can provide a citation or something, it would clear up a lot of things.

Chinese currency peg. In a sense, we have one worldwide monetary policy.

Except that China's current account surplus has mostly disappeared. China actually slipped into deficit for 1Q18.

Currently, dividends are taxed as profit (was 35% in 2016), then taxed again when paid to shareholders as capital gains (15%), bringing the total to a 44.75% tax rate.

This is misleading on four counts. The effective tax rate was not 35%, and dividends are often paid independently of profit.

The tax rate was 35% and dividends are paid out of profits. Dividends paid are never deductible from taxes. Corporations can hold the money in a bank account for a little while and pay dividends in loss years; however, the corporations must eventually make profitable income, retain that income as reportable income in the United States, pay taxes on that income, and so forth.

No, depreciation doesn't change that: you simply don't have the income (you spent it) to distribute when you buy things, even if you don't really "spend" the money for tax purposes until later (that means you've already paid taxes on those expenses and no longer have the money on hand).

The specific money paid as dividends are always exposed to the full corporate income tax marginal rate.

For instance, GE only recently reduced their dividend despite many consecutive losses. And even now, they still pay a dividend.

Because GE already made that money and paid taxes on it long ago at a 35% marginal rate.

You also leave capital gains out of the argument, and you are using last year's significantly higher tax rate.

I specifically said they pay 35%, then pay capital gains (15%) again on what's left after paying 35%.

Good on them - their stock price will likely reflect their cash hoard and you get them on capital gains.

You wouldn't get them on capital gains until the shareholders sold stock. Being shareholders, they can use their stock as voting rights to direct Apple to buy other companies with the tax-sheltered money held by Apple, and none of this ever gets taxed.

Again this is misleading. It has only worked that way for short-term capital gains. Long term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate.

I used the 15% long-term capital gains rate compounded on the 35% corporate income tax rate.

That's an absurd statement - it would go to zero... there would be no taxes for corporations to avoid. Individuals would need to do all of the avoiding, and they do not have a giant accounting department at their disposal - nor do they have the same number of lobbyists to carve out tax exemptions.

The individuals wouldn't be exposed to higher tax liability, and the billions and billions of dollars of income being held in accounts currently subject to tax when earned would be subject to no tax. That is: they wouldn't be subject to taxes paid by the corporation OR by any other person.

What shelter? Presumably rich people want to do things with their money? Tax it when it comes out of the corporation.

Nope! You hold stock (don't sell it and you don't pay capital gains) and you say, "Hey, board members, let's all vote to buy that yacht club over there!" Then you own a yacht club, a bunch of yachts, and can go boating. You don't pay one red cent in taxes through the whole transaction.

What you do, you organize a holding company as an LLC taxed as a C-corp, and you make the yacht club a member. Then you sell that yacht club to the rich folks who own Apple and Google, and your LLC holds the money so you don't have to pay income taxes on it. You can then buy yourself a smaller yacht club start-up and wash, rinse, repeat. 0% tax rate for C-corp so hooray, no taxes ever again!

... because Zimbabwe ain't got no fucking money

The GDP value of Zimbabwe represents 0.03 percent of the world economy.

.

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.
Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China. But, it does not. It continues to grow. It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal. But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.
China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future?
Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Finally, you speak of GDP growth.
Here is America
Here is China
Here is EU
Out of all 3, America is doing the best. Should we be allowed to grow our CO2 just because our GDP is going up faster? Nope. The world can not afford this. We need ALL NATIONS to lower their emissions, and that includes China, India, etc. We need to get down to Sweden's level. THAT is how you stop AGW.
And CHina IS a developed nation.

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.
Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China. But, it does not. It continues to grow. It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal. But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.
China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future?
Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Finally, you speak of GDP growth.
Here is America
Here is China
Here is EU
Out of all 3, America is doing the best. Should we be allowed to grow our CO2 just because our GDP is going up faster? Nope. The world can not afford this. We need ALL NATIONS to lower their emissions, and that includes China, India, etc. We need to get down to Sweden's level. THAT is how you stop AGW.
And CHina IS a developed nation.

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.
Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China. But, it does not. It continues to grow. It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal. But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.
China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future?
Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Finally, you speak of GDP growth.
Here is America
Here is China
Here is EU
Out of all 3, America is doing the best. Should we be allowed to grow our CO2 just because our GDP is going up faster? Nope. The world can not afford this. We need ALL NATIONS to lower their emissions, and that includes China, India, etc. We need to get down to Sweden's level. THAT is how you stop AGW.
And CHina IS a developed nation.

Are you also going to pretend the euro was forced down too?

Currencies fluctuate all the time depending on the conditions in the economies. This is basic stuff.
Where is this high Chinese inflation over the last 5 years? Looks like the opposite of what you claim.

You are completely clueless about everything.

China was dumping U.S. Treasuries in 2016 so that it could buy its own currency -- the yuan -- to counter downward pressure caused by a huge outflow of cash from its economy.

To be this wrong about everything you say, you can only be trolling. Even anti-China idiots have a grain of truth they try to hold on to, but not you windtroll.

Rich people? Is that all you have in your play book? Class envy?

So you are saying a corporate tax cut won't have any positive effects on the economy? All it needs to do is 1% GDP growth improvemnt to break even.

Guess what, we are getting that.... https://tradingeconomics.com/u... GDP growth under Trump has averaged above this target. The stock market has been doing *really* well overall. Unemployment continues to fall with the labor participation rate staying steady, after 8 years of falling under Obama.

Things are getting better for a lot of folks jobs wise.... Under Obama things where getting worse because GDP growth wasn't enough to cover the population increases. Now we are breaking even or better under Trump.

Not all is roses, but it's not a compost heap like it was, when Obama was telling us that 3% GDP growth wasn't in our future anymore. http://www.aei.org/publication... Well Under TRUMP it apparently IS here again.