Trump acts like a child while everyone else stands for the anthem

[AzogtheDefiler]

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

 

[colfax_m]

Bluster and hyperbole are a good euphemism for lying. Plenty of people believed his lies as well.

I think there’s plenty of Trump supporters who did vote for him based on the economy. (Just ask Azog) The perception that Obama’s economy was dismal almost certainly had an effect and was basically totally fabricated.

1. Bluster and hyperbole are not euphemisms for lying.

2. The economy was not working, and has not been working for workers, for a long time. Trade was not an Obama issue, but a bigger issue than him. Immigration was not an Obama issue, but a bigger issue than him.

Bluster and hyperbole are euphemisms to excuse his behavior. Saying real unemployment is 42% is not hyperbole. It’s a lie.
The economy was working for people. Jobs were increasing. Unemployment was down. Wages were rising. There is no fundamental difference between the economy then and now.

Saying the economy wasn’t a fundamental campaign issue is pure revisionism.

1. Making a point about the number of people not working vs the official unemployment number is valid. Calculating a new number from that, and saying that that is the "real" unemployment number is not a lie. If he had calculated that number and presented it, without explaining what it was, that would have been a lie.


2.How versed are you on the wage stagnation issue?

It’s a lie. No where in the history of the country has anyone described unemployment as the percentage of people not working. That includes people who have retired, students, homemakers. It’s ludicrous. He didn’t explain that.

How one measures wages is tricky. It’s always best to adjust for inflation in my opinion but that doesn’t seem to be reported much. Real wages for working Americans hasn’t moved much.
View attachment 304754

But even without inflation and taking all employees, wage growth has been climbing steadily for years. This is what one would expect from a tightening labor market. The tightening labor market is a result of a decade of consistent job growth. It’s not revolutionary. It’s not a Trump miracle.
View attachment 304755

You are ignoring that wages used to rise with productivity. For some reason, back in the late 60S or early 70s, that stopped happening.


AND looking at the average of all wages, hides that the effect has really been harsh on the lower end working class poor.

It seems like you’re just jumping from one argument to another. You’re right about the disconnect between productivity and wages, however did you know that productivity has been nearly stagnant for a decade? Given our labor force is also stagnant, we are looking at a rather dismal outlook for GDP growth.

Anyway, I’m not ignoring it, but it’s just that I don’t see the relevance here.

 

[Faun]

Not as fringe as you want to believe.

How so?

And why is it, that you WANT to believe that they are not fringe?


What does it gain you, to have White Supremacists be "not fringe"?

Depends on what you mean by fringe I guess, but if you spend any time online, you’d see that white supremacist ideology has either grown or been unmasked.

Judging reality from what you see online, is a good way to be wrong.


And my question stands. Why do you WANT this to be true?

I disagree. People are afraid to openly admit to harboring white supremacist ideologies. Online, they are free to express their ideology. The internet provides a valuable insight to this. It pops up openly from time to time. Sometimes very obvious:

White supremacist Coast Guard officer sentenced to 13 years in prison

Sometimes more subtle:
Rio Arriba County sheriff flashes controversial hand gesture

Sometimes violently:
El Paso Walmart Shooting Suspect Pleads Not Guilty

Who said I want it to be true? I think it is true and the truth doesn’t care what I want or don’t want.

Sure. The very, very few who hold such ideologies are afraid to admit it in real life and thus they spend a lot of time online, creating the illusion that they are more numerous than they really are.


YOu look at any numbers in real life, and they are vanishingly small. David Duke, when he ran for Presidency, got .04 % of the national vote.


Why do you want this to be true?

And when he ran for a state House seat as a Republican, he got elected.

 

[Faun]

Facts and figures aren’t going to do anything.

Trump told them the economy was dismal under Obama and the best ever under Trump despite no fundamental differences. The data is irrelevant. It’s all about feelings.

Trump has an odd and often off putting style, with lots of bluster and hyperbole.


Playing games with numbers like that, is not what got him elected.


HIs platform was trade and immigration. Those are real issues that appealed to real voters.

Bluster and hyperbole are a good euphemism for lying. Plenty of people believed his lies as well.

I think there’s plenty of Trump supporters who did vote for him based on the economy. (Just ask Azog) The perception that Obama’s economy was dismal almost certainly had an effect and was basically totally fabricated.

1. Bluster and hyperbole are not euphemisms for lying.

2. The economy was not working, and has not been working for workers, for a long time. Trade was not an Obama issue, but a bigger issue than him. Immigration was not an Obama issue, but a bigger issue than him.

Bluster and hyperbole are euphemisms to excuse his behavior. Saying real unemployment is 42% is not hyperbole. It’s a lie.
The economy was working for people. Jobs were increasing. Unemployment was down. Wages were rising. There is no fundamental difference between the economy then and now.

Saying the economy wasn’t a fundamental campaign issue is pure revisionism.

1. Making a point about the number of people not working vs the official unemployment number is valid. Calculating a new number from that, and saying that that is the "real" unemployment number is not a lie. If he had calculated that number and presented it, without explaining what it was, that would have been a lie.


2.How versed are you on the wage stagnation issue?

"Making a point about the number of people not working vs the official unemployment number is valid."

If that were true, Impeached Trump would be saying that now.

Also, suggesting the unemployment rate was as high as 42% is not making a point of his that many people are not working, it's a lie. The unemployment rate is based on how many people want to work but are not. Including everyone not working by choice and claiming they're driving the unemployment rate up is a lie.

 

[colfax_m]

Fundamentally, there really isn’t very much difference in the current economy as compared to Obama.

Job growth is steady. Wage growth has been climbing consistent with the labor market tightening. Manufacturing output is stable to growing slightly, manufacturing jobs had been increasing for years. GDP growth is basically unchanged.

There is no economic miracle. It’s steady as she goes. Anyone claiming that the economy was dismal under Obama and now exploding has no idea what they’re talking about.

 

[Faun]

Fundamentally, there really isn’t very much difference in the current economy as compared to Obama.

Job growth is steady. Wage growth has been climbing consistent with the labor market tightening. Manufacturing output is stable to growing slightly, manufacturing jobs had been increasing for years. GDP growth is basically unchanged.

There is no economic miracle. It’s steady as she goes. Anyone claiming that the economy was dismal under Obama and now exploding has no idea what they’re talking about.

Watch as cons celebrate the coming massive government job growth over the next few months.

 

[Pogo]

I find it hard to believe Trump is honest about anything. He said there were fine people that showed up to a white supremacist rally. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, be my guest but it’s not right to criticize people who don’t.

He explicitly stated that he was not speaking of the white supremacists and the media and the liberals are lying about what he said.

THey are not making the case that he was wrong. They are lying.

And white supremacists NEVER get attendance in the hundreds. They are lucky to get into double digits. A dozen? A massive win. TWENTY? Once in a lifetime.

You are being lied to.

He also explicitly said his father was born in Germany. Again and again he repeated it.

So yes, we are all being lied to. The only difference is which one of us will admit it.

Yet, you libs and media are not saying that he lied or was wrong when he said that there were good people on both sides there.

Instead they LIED AND ARE STILL LYING about what he said.

Are you claiming he lied when he said "not white supremacists" or are you lying and claiming he did not say that?

It has to be one or the other.

Actually it's you lying. I've never claimed Rump said "good people". He said "very fine" people. And yes he was clearly. that is, clearly to everybody not swimming in the toxic soup of self-delusion, walking back his earlier rational egalitarian criticism and playing footsie with the Klannic/fascist element. That's exactly why he got into so much heated controversy, for making excuses for the Nazi element......

He did no such thing.

To support your poisonous accusation all you have is a tweet from David Duke. What you need to suport your vicious smear, is an action from the President. Which you have none.

AND, this is what this is about. So that when the President is discussed, people like you have a very vicious smear to spread.

THe media lied. There is no way around it.

Are you claiming he lied when he said "not white supremacists" or are you lying and claiming he did not say that?

It has to be one or the other.

I do indeed have the tweet from David Dooky, which I posted. IN that tweet you can see the Rump tweet he's responding to, which is the rational, egalitarian, even dare I say Presidential previous comment from Rump where he calls for everybody to come together.

Whelp, David Dooky didn't care for that, so he chided Rump reminding him "who voted for you". And Rump responded obediently, abandoning the Presidential unification stance and pivoting back to his more customary childish stir-the-shit divisive tantrum mentality, the same old "us vs them" childish mentality, sending a barrage of "I'm sorry, I'll do better" messages to Dooky and his ilk with the "very fine people" bullshit, inventing an "alt left" as a childish Tu Quoque fantasy to deflect from the very real sins of the alt-right, and even bringing in George Washington and Thomas Jefferson into a controversy that has zero to do with either of them as an appeal to the Cult of Ignorance ---- which again circles right back down the drain to the Nazi/Skinhead/fascist/white supremacist/Dooky element, the "who voted for you" crowd as Dooky put it, that is, his base, because gods forbid Agent Orange should offend his base, also known as the Poorly Educated.

Offend women, Mexicans, Muslims, countless foreign countries, his predecessor, the press, football players, the people of Iowa, entire swaths of the country all day, but NEVER offend the "very fine people" who voted for you and by the way who is David Dooky, I know nothing about him even though I knew him very well fifteen years ago. My ass.

Now then. What did the media "lie" about here? I mean the whole thing is on frickin' videotape.

 

[Correll]

1. Bluster and hyperbole are not euphemisms for lying.

2. The economy was not working, and has not been working for workers, for a long time. Trade was not an Obama issue, but a bigger issue than him. Immigration was not an Obama issue, but a bigger issue than him.

Bluster and hyperbole are euphemisms to excuse his behavior. Saying real unemployment is 42% is not hyperbole. It’s a lie.
The economy was working for people. Jobs were increasing. Unemployment was down. Wages were rising. There is no fundamental difference between the economy then and now.

Saying the economy wasn’t a fundamental campaign issue is pure revisionism.

1. Making a point about the number of people not working vs the official unemployment number is valid. Calculating a new number from that, and saying that that is the "real" unemployment number is not a lie. If he had calculated that number and presented it, without explaining what it was, that would have been a lie.


2.How versed are you on the wage stagnation issue?

It’s a lie. No where in the history of the country has anyone described unemployment as the percentage of people not working. That includes people who have retired, students, homemakers. It’s ludicrous. He didn’t explain that.

How one measures wages is tricky. It’s always best to adjust for inflation in my opinion but that doesn’t seem to be reported much. Real wages for working Americans hasn’t moved much.
View attachment 304754

But even without inflation and taking all employees, wage growth has been climbing steadily for years. This is what one would expect from a tightening labor market. The tightening labor market is a result of a decade of consistent job growth. It’s not revolutionary. It’s not a Trump miracle.
View attachment 304755

You are ignoring that wages used to rise with productivity. For some reason, back in the late 60S or early 70s, that stopped happening.


AND looking at the average of all wages, hides that the effect has really been harsh on the lower end working class poor.

It seems like you’re just jumping from one argument to another. You’re right about the disconnect between productivity and wages, however did you know that productivity has been nearly stagnant for a decade? Given our labor force is also stagnant, we are looking at a rather dismal outlook for GDP growth.

Anyway, I’m not ignoring it, but it’s just that I don’t see the relevance here.

It is all the same topic. That the "working man" has been suffering under policies that do not serve his interests and Trump offered a platform of change.


Change that initial results, seem to be occurring. Wages are increasing, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.


YOur refusal to admit the validity of the interests or concerns of those you disagree with, is just you having a closed mind.

 

[Correll]

How so?

And why is it, that you WANT to believe that they are not fringe?


What does it gain you, to have White Supremacists be "not fringe"?

Depends on what you mean by fringe I guess, but if you spend any time online, you’d see that white supremacist ideology has either grown or been unmasked.

Judging reality from what you see online, is a good way to be wrong.


And my question stands. Why do you WANT this to be true?

I disagree. People are afraid to openly admit to harboring white supremacist ideologies. Online, they are free to express their ideology. The internet provides a valuable insight to this. It pops up openly from time to time. Sometimes very obvious:

White supremacist Coast Guard officer sentenced to 13 years in prison

Sometimes more subtle:
Rio Arriba County sheriff flashes controversial hand gesture

Sometimes violently:
El Paso Walmart Shooting Suspect Pleads Not Guilty

Who said I want it to be true? I think it is true and the truth doesn’t care what I want or don’t want.

Sure. The very, very few who hold such ideologies are afraid to admit it in real life and thus they spend a lot of time online, creating the illusion that they are more numerous than they really are.


YOu look at any numbers in real life, and they are vanishingly small. David Duke, when he ran for Presidency, got .04 % of the national vote.


Why do you want this to be true?

And when he ran for a state House seat as a Republican, he got elected.

So, you are admitting that his showing in the national election is proof of how the white supremacists are a pathetic fringe of no importance?


Because that is the implication of beginning your response with "and".


YOu are implicitly agreeing to what you are responding to.

 

[colfax_m]

Bluster and hyperbole are euphemisms to excuse his behavior. Saying real unemployment is 42% is not hyperbole. It’s a lie.
The economy was working for people. Jobs were increasing. Unemployment was down. Wages were rising. There is no fundamental difference between the economy then and now.

Saying the economy wasn’t a fundamental campaign issue is pure revisionism.

1. Making a point about the number of people not working vs the official unemployment number is valid. Calculating a new number from that, and saying that that is the "real" unemployment number is not a lie. If he had calculated that number and presented it, without explaining what it was, that would have been a lie.


2.How versed are you on the wage stagnation issue?

It’s a lie. No where in the history of the country has anyone described unemployment as the percentage of people not working. That includes people who have retired, students, homemakers. It’s ludicrous. He didn’t explain that.

How one measures wages is tricky. It’s always best to adjust for inflation in my opinion but that doesn’t seem to be reported much. Real wages for working Americans hasn’t moved much.
View attachment 304754

But even without inflation and taking all employees, wage growth has been climbing steadily for years. This is what one would expect from a tightening labor market. The tightening labor market is a result of a decade of consistent job growth. It’s not revolutionary. It’s not a Trump miracle.
View attachment 304755

You are ignoring that wages used to rise with productivity. For some reason, back in the late 60S or early 70s, that stopped happening.


AND looking at the average of all wages, hides that the effect has really been harsh on the lower end working class poor.

It seems like you’re just jumping from one argument to another. You’re right about the disconnect between productivity and wages, however did you know that productivity has been nearly stagnant for a decade? Given our labor force is also stagnant, we are looking at a rather dismal outlook for GDP growth.

Anyway, I’m not ignoring it, but it’s just that I don’t see the relevance here.

It is all the same topic. That the "working man" has been suffering under policies that do not serve his interests and Trump offered a platform of change.


Change that initial results, seem to be occurring. Wages are increasing, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.


YOur refusal to admit the validity of the interests or concerns of those you disagree with, is just you having a closed mind.

How does one tell if wages are going up because of Trump or going up as expected from a tightening labor market or for any other reason (such as increases in minimum wage)? Wages were increasing prior to Trump coming into office, were they not? Giving credit is not so easy.

 

[Correll]

Trump has an odd and often off putting style, with lots of bluster and hyperbole.


Playing games with numbers like that, is not what got him elected.


HIs platform was trade and immigration. Those are real issues that appealed to real voters.

Bluster and hyperbole are a good euphemism for lying. Plenty of people believed his lies as well.

I think there’s plenty of Trump supporters who did vote for him based on the economy. (Just ask Azog) The perception that Obama’s economy was dismal almost certainly had an effect and was basically totally fabricated.

1. Bluster and hyperbole are not euphemisms for lying.

2. The economy was not working, and has not been working for workers, for a long time. Trade was not an Obama issue, but a bigger issue than him. Immigration was not an Obama issue, but a bigger issue than him.

Bluster and hyperbole are euphemisms to excuse his behavior. Saying real unemployment is 42% is not hyperbole. It’s a lie.
The economy was working for people. Jobs were increasing. Unemployment was down. Wages were rising. There is no fundamental difference between the economy then and now.

Saying the economy wasn’t a fundamental campaign issue is pure revisionism.

1. Making a point about the number of people not working vs the official unemployment number is valid. Calculating a new number from that, and saying that that is the "real" unemployment number is not a lie. If he had calculated that number and presented it, without explaining what it was, that would have been a lie.


2.How versed are you on the wage stagnation issue?

"Making a point about the number of people not working vs the official unemployment number is valid."

If that were true, Impeached Trump would be saying that now.

Also, suggesting the unemployment rate was as high as 42% is not making a point of his that many people are not working, it's a lie. The unemployment rate is based on how many people want to work but are not. Including everyone not working by choice and claiming they're driving the unemployment rate up is a lie.

LOL!!!! You are hilariously lacking in self awareness.

You are claiming that the fact that a politician made an accusation before he took office, and then did not apply the same rules once he took office, proves that it was a lie before.


When it is obvious that it is completely possible that he was telling the truth before and now does not want to admit any shortcomings on his watch.


IRONICALLY, by your own delusional and unfair standard of what constitutes a "lie", this omission on you part, makes YOU A LIAR TOO.


Except that no one calls you on it, because everyone knows that libs like you, just say shit, and don't mean shit by it.


Oddly similar to the hyperbole that Trump does. Except that you demand to be taken seriously, and you are far, far meaner.

 

[Correll]

He explicitly stated that he was not speaking of the white supremacists and the media and the liberals are lying about what he said.

THey are not making the case that he was wrong. They are lying.

And white supremacists NEVER get attendance in the hundreds. They are lucky to get into double digits. A dozen? A massive win. TWENTY? Once in a lifetime.

You are being lied to.

He also explicitly said his father was born in Germany. Again and again he repeated it.

So yes, we are all being lied to. The only difference is which one of us will admit it.

Yet, you libs and media are not saying that he lied or was wrong when he said that there were good people on both sides there.

Instead they LIED AND ARE STILL LYING about what he said.

Are you claiming he lied when he said "not white supremacists" or are you lying and claiming he did not say that?

It has to be one or the other.

Actually it's you lying. I've never claimed Rump said "good people". He said "very fine" people. And yes he was clearly. that is, clearly to everybody not swimming in the toxic soup of self-delusion, walking back his earlier rational egalitarian criticism and playing footsie with the Klannic/fascist element. That's exactly why he got into so much heated controversy, for making excuses for the Nazi element......

He did no such thing.

To support your poisonous accusation all you have is a tweet from David Duke. What you need to suport your vicious smear, is an action from the President. Which you have none.

AND, this is what this is about. So that when the President is discussed, people like you have a very vicious smear to spread.

THe media lied. There is no way around it.

Are you claiming he lied when he said "not white supremacists" or are you lying and claiming he did not say that?

It has to be one or the other.

....

Now then. What did the media "lie" about here? I mean the whole thing is on frickin' videotape.

Are you really so twisted, that you cannot see that those positions are mutually contradictory?



If he "LIED" as you claim, when he said he was NOT speaking of white supremacists,


then he did not EXPLICITLY state, that nazis are "very fine people".


Meanwhile, in the real world, he was quite clear that he was not speaking of the white supremacists, and explicitly condemned them.


That you cite the tape, to support your delusions, is incredible.

 

[Correll]

1. Making a point about the number of people not working vs the official unemployment number is valid. Calculating a new number from that, and saying that that is the "real" unemployment number is not a lie. If he had calculated that number and presented it, without explaining what it was, that would have been a lie.


2.How versed are you on the wage stagnation issue?

It’s a lie. No where in the history of the country has anyone described unemployment as the percentage of people not working. That includes people who have retired, students, homemakers. It’s ludicrous. He didn’t explain that.

How one measures wages is tricky. It’s always best to adjust for inflation in my opinion but that doesn’t seem to be reported much. Real wages for working Americans hasn’t moved much.
View attachment 304754

But even without inflation and taking all employees, wage growth has been climbing steadily for years. This is what one would expect from a tightening labor market. The tightening labor market is a result of a decade of consistent job growth. It’s not revolutionary. It’s not a Trump miracle.
View attachment 304755

You are ignoring that wages used to rise with productivity. For some reason, back in the late 60S or early 70s, that stopped happening.


AND looking at the average of all wages, hides that the effect has really been harsh on the lower end working class poor.

It seems like you’re just jumping from one argument to another. You’re right about the disconnect between productivity and wages, however did you know that productivity has been nearly stagnant for a decade? Given our labor force is also stagnant, we are looking at a rather dismal outlook for GDP growth.

Anyway, I’m not ignoring it, but it’s just that I don’t see the relevance here.

It is all the same topic. That the "working man" has been suffering under policies that do not serve his interests and Trump offered a platform of change.


Change that initial results, seem to be occurring. Wages are increasing, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.


YOur refusal to admit the validity of the interests or concerns of those you disagree with, is just you having a closed mind.

How does one tell if wages are going up because of Trump or going up as expected from a tightening labor market or for any other reason (such as increases in minimum wage)? Wages were increasing prior to Trump coming into office, were they not? Giving credit is not so easy.

Well, there is the historical fact that those "expectations" have not been met, for many years, prior to now.


Have you ever looked into the wage stagnation issue before?

 

[colfax_m]

It’s a lie. No where in the history of the country has anyone described unemployment as the percentage of people not working. That includes people who have retired, students, homemakers. It’s ludicrous. He didn’t explain that.

How one measures wages is tricky. It’s always best to adjust for inflation in my opinion but that doesn’t seem to be reported much. Real wages for working Americans hasn’t moved much.
View attachment 304754

But even without inflation and taking all employees, wage growth has been climbing steadily for years. This is what one would expect from a tightening labor market. The tightening labor market is a result of a decade of consistent job growth. It’s not revolutionary. It’s not a Trump miracle.
View attachment 304755

You are ignoring that wages used to rise with productivity. For some reason, back in the late 60S or early 70s, that stopped happening.


AND looking at the average of all wages, hides that the effect has really been harsh on the lower end working class poor.

It seems like you’re just jumping from one argument to another. You’re right about the disconnect between productivity and wages, however did you know that productivity has been nearly stagnant for a decade? Given our labor force is also stagnant, we are looking at a rather dismal outlook for GDP growth.

Anyway, I’m not ignoring it, but it’s just that I don’t see the relevance here.

It is all the same topic. That the "working man" has been suffering under policies that do not serve his interests and Trump offered a platform of change.


Change that initial results, seem to be occurring. Wages are increasing, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.


YOur refusal to admit the validity of the interests or concerns of those you disagree with, is just you having a closed mind.

How does one tell if wages are going up because of Trump or going up as expected from a tightening labor market or for any other reason (such as increases in minimum wage)? Wages were increasing prior to Trump coming into office, were they not? Giving credit is not so easy.

Well, there is the historical fact that those "expectations" have not been met, for many years, prior to now.


Have you ever looked into the wage stagnation issue before?

Are you sure about that? What measure should we use to look at historical wage growth?

 

[deanrd]

Ah, the usual Trump hypocrisy. Acting like a jackass during the anthem is okay but kneeling is blasphemy!

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article239913588.html

Clearly it’s OK because he’s a Republican and he’s white.

 

[Correll]

You are ignoring that wages used to rise with productivity. For some reason, back in the late 60S or early 70s, that stopped happening.


AND looking at the average of all wages, hides that the effect has really been harsh on the lower end working class poor.

It seems like you’re just jumping from one argument to another. You’re right about the disconnect between productivity and wages, however did you know that productivity has been nearly stagnant for a decade? Given our labor force is also stagnant, we are looking at a rather dismal outlook for GDP growth.

Anyway, I’m not ignoring it, but it’s just that I don’t see the relevance here.

It is all the same topic. That the "working man" has been suffering under policies that do not serve his interests and Trump offered a platform of change.


Change that initial results, seem to be occurring. Wages are increasing, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.


YOur refusal to admit the validity of the interests or concerns of those you disagree with, is just you having a closed mind.

How does one tell if wages are going up because of Trump or going up as expected from a tightening labor market or for any other reason (such as increases in minimum wage)? Wages were increasing prior to Trump coming into office, were they not? Giving credit is not so easy.

Well, there is the historical fact that those "expectations" have not been met, for many years, prior to now.


Have you ever looked into the wage stagnation issue before?

Are you sure about that? What measure should we use to look at historical wage growth?

Historical wage growth adjusted for inflation and compared to how it tracks with increases in productivity, or eventually fails to.


Especially broken down by income categories, instead of an average, which can hide important information.

 

[colfax_m]

It seems like you’re just jumping from one argument to another. You’re right about the disconnect between productivity and wages, however did you know that productivity has been nearly stagnant for a decade? Given our labor force is also stagnant, we are looking at a rather dismal outlook for GDP growth.

Anyway, I’m not ignoring it, but it’s just that I don’t see the relevance here.

It is all the same topic. That the "working man" has been suffering under policies that do not serve his interests and Trump offered a platform of change.


Change that initial results, seem to be occurring. Wages are increasing, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.


YOur refusal to admit the validity of the interests or concerns of those you disagree with, is just you having a closed mind.

How does one tell if wages are going up because of Trump or going up as expected from a tightening labor market or for any other reason (such as increases in minimum wage)? Wages were increasing prior to Trump coming into office, were they not? Giving credit is not so easy.

Well, there is the historical fact that those "expectations" have not been met, for many years, prior to now.


Have you ever looked into the wage stagnation issue before?

Are you sure about that? What measure should we use to look at historical wage growth?

Historical wage growth adjusted for inflation and compared to how it tracks with increases in productivity, or eventually fails to.


Especially broken down by income categories, instead of an average, which can hide important information.

Great. And do you have any of that info?

 

[Correll]

It is all the same topic. That the "working man" has been suffering under policies that do not serve his interests and Trump offered a platform of change.


Change that initial results, seem to be occurring. Wages are increasing, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.


YOur refusal to admit the validity of the interests or concerns of those you disagree with, is just you having a closed mind.

How does one tell if wages are going up because of Trump or going up as expected from a tightening labor market or for any other reason (such as increases in minimum wage)? Wages were increasing prior to Trump coming into office, were they not? Giving credit is not so easy.

Well, there is the historical fact that those "expectations" have not been met, for many years, prior to now.


Have you ever looked into the wage stagnation issue before?

Are you sure about that? What measure should we use to look at historical wage growth?

Historical wage growth adjusted for inflation and compared to how it tracks with increases in productivity, or eventually fails to.


Especially broken down by income categories, instead of an average, which can hide important information.

Great. And do you have any of that info?

Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts

 

[colfax_m]

How does one tell if wages are going up because of Trump or going up as expected from a tightening labor market or for any other reason (such as increases in minimum wage)? Wages were increasing prior to Trump coming into office, were they not? Giving credit is not so easy.

Well, there is the historical fact that those "expectations" have not been met, for many years, prior to now.


Have you ever looked into the wage stagnation issue before?

Are you sure about that? What measure should we use to look at historical wage growth?

Historical wage growth adjusted for inflation and compared to how it tracks with increases in productivity, or eventually fails to.


Especially broken down by income categories, instead of an average, which can hide important information.

Great. And do you have any of that info?

Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts

But hold on, this info is way out of date. Isn’t your contention that Trump has solved this problem?