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

[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

A bit more up to date, it seems that real hourly wage growth was actually was better under Obama.

Hmm

 

[Correll]

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But hold on, this info is way out of date.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?

Nothing I have said, could possibly be interpreted that way.


Are you employing hyperbole or are you lying? Strawmaning me? What sort of dishonest game are you playing at?

 

[colfax_m]

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But hold on, this info is way out of date.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?

Nothing I have said, could possibly be interpreted that way.


Are you employing hyperbole or are you lying? Strawmaning me? What sort of dishonest game are you playing at?

This is what I was going off of:

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

The expectations referred to here is wage growth. You say that the wage growth was not met “until now” which I took to mean that the wage stagnation was a problem “until now”. If I’m mistaken it wasn’t because I was doing so dishonestly. I was just interpreting your statement which wasn’t terribly specific.

So what is your point? My point is that there is very little difference in the economy under Trump.

 

[Correll]

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?

Nothing I have said, could possibly be interpreted that way.


Are you employing hyperbole or are you lying? Strawmaning me? What sort of dishonest game are you playing at?

This is what I was going off of:

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

The expectations referred to here is wage growth. You say that the wage growth was not met “until now” which I took to mean that the wage stagnation was a problem “until now”. If I’m mistaken it wasn’t because I was doing so dishonestly. I was just interpreting your statement which wasn’t terribly specific.

So what is your point? My point is that there is very little difference in the economy under Trump.

I have repeatedly stated that initial results are encouraging. Please do not strawman me. I am treating your statements honestly and seriously and expect the same treatment in return.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Nothing I have said, could possibly be interpreted that way.


Are you employing hyperbole or are you lying? Strawmaning me? What sort of dishonest game are you playing at?

This is what I was going off of:

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

The expectations referred to here is wage growth. You say that the wage growth was not met “until now” which I took to mean that the wage stagnation was a problem “until now”. If I’m mistaken it wasn’t because I was doing so dishonestly. I was just interpreting your statement which wasn’t terribly specific.

So what is your point? My point is that there is very little difference in the economy under Trump.

I have repeatedly stated that initial results are encouraging. Please do not strawman me. I am treating your statements honestly and seriously and expect the same treatment in return.

I’m not trying to strawman you, but sometimes your statements aren’t super precise. I’m doing my best.

I just don’t see where the real difference is. Not to be a Debbie downer but nothing massive has changed.

 

[Correll]

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?

Nothing I have said, could possibly be interpreted that way.


Are you employing hyperbole or are you lying? Strawmaning me? What sort of dishonest game are you playing at?

This is what I was going off of:

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

The expectations referred to here is wage growth. You say that the wage growth was not met “until now” which I took to mean that the wage stagnation was a problem “until now”. If I’m mistaken it wasn’t because I was doing so dishonestly. I was just interpreting your statement which wasn’t terribly specific.

So what is your point? My point is that there is very little difference in the economy under Trump.

I have repeatedly stated that initial results are encouraging. Please do not strawman me. I am treating your statements honestly and seriously and expect the same treatment in return.

I’m not trying to strawman you, but sometimes your statements aren’t super precise. I’m doing my best.

I just don’t see where the real difference is. Not to be a Debbie downer but nothing massive has changed.
View attachment 304821

Most of it is behind pay walls at this point, but if you goggle "lower end wages" you can see reports that if you break it up, you can see a change.

 

[colfax_m]

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

Nothing I have said, could possibly be interpreted that way.


Are you employing hyperbole or are you lying? Strawmaning me? What sort of dishonest game are you playing at?

This is what I was going off of:

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

The expectations referred to here is wage growth. You say that the wage growth was not met “until now” which I took to mean that the wage stagnation was a problem “until now”. If I’m mistaken it wasn’t because I was doing so dishonestly. I was just interpreting your statement which wasn’t terribly specific.

So what is your point? My point is that there is very little difference in the economy under Trump.

I have repeatedly stated that initial results are encouraging. Please do not strawman me. I am treating your statements honestly and seriously and expect the same treatment in return.

I’m not trying to strawman you, but sometimes your statements aren’t super precise. I’m doing my best.

I just don’t see where the real difference is. Not to be a Debbie downer but nothing massive has changed.
View attachment 304821

Most of it is behind pay walls at this point, but if you goggle "lower end wages" you can see reports that if you break it up, you can see a change.

It would appear that most of the difference comes from minimum wage increases...

from the wapo:

 

[Correll]

Nothing I have said, could possibly be interpreted that way.


Are you employing hyperbole or are you lying? Strawmaning me? What sort of dishonest game are you playing at?

This is what I was going off of:

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

The expectations referred to here is wage growth. You say that the wage growth was not met “until now” which I took to mean that the wage stagnation was a problem “until now”. If I’m mistaken it wasn’t because I was doing so dishonestly. I was just interpreting your statement which wasn’t terribly specific.

So what is your point? My point is that there is very little difference in the economy under Trump.

I have repeatedly stated that initial results are encouraging. Please do not strawman me. I am treating your statements honestly and seriously and expect the same treatment in return.

I’m not trying to strawman you, but sometimes your statements aren’t super precise. I’m doing my best.

I just don’t see where the real difference is. Not to be a Debbie downer but nothing massive has changed.
View attachment 304821

Most of it is behind pay walls at this point, but if you goggle "lower end wages" you can see reports that if you break it up, you can see a change.

It would appear that most of the difference comes from minimum wage increases...

from the wapo:

That is one of the defensive claims from people that don't want to give Trump's trade and immigration policies any credit.


The increases in wages are MORE than required by the changes in law and not limited to the states with the changes in law.

 

[colfax_m]

This is what I was going off of:
The expectations referred to here is wage growth. You say that the wage growth was not met “until now” which I took to mean that the wage stagnation was a problem “until now”. If I’m mistaken it wasn’t because I was doing so dishonestly. I was just interpreting your statement which wasn’t terribly specific.

So what is your point? My point is that there is very little difference in the economy under Trump.

I have repeatedly stated that initial results are encouraging. Please do not strawman me. I am treating your statements honestly and seriously and expect the same treatment in return.

I’m not trying to strawman you, but sometimes your statements aren’t super precise. I’m doing my best.

I just don’t see where the real difference is. Not to be a Debbie downer but nothing massive has changed.
View attachment 304821

Most of it is behind pay walls at this point, but if you goggle "lower end wages" you can see reports that if you break it up, you can see a change.

It would appear that most of the difference comes from minimum wage increases...

from the wapo:

That is one of the defensive claims from people that don't want to give Trump's trade and immigration policies any credit.


The increases in wages are MORE than required by the changes in law and not limited to the states with the changes in law.

No, but as you can see the increases in wages are dramatically larger in states that did change laws. The states that didn’t increase wages have much lower growth, and only marginally higher than the rest of the population.

I’m just saying that if you want to give credit to his immigration and trade policies, you have to show your work. I think that’s fair.

 

[Correll]

I have repeatedly stated that initial results are encouraging. Please do not strawman me. I am treating your statements honestly and seriously and expect the same treatment in return.

I’m not trying to strawman you, but sometimes your statements aren’t super precise. I’m doing my best.

I just don’t see where the real difference is. Not to be a Debbie downer but nothing massive has changed.
View attachment 304821

Most of it is behind pay walls at this point, but if you goggle "lower end wages" you can see reports that if you break it up, you can see a change.

It would appear that most of the difference comes from minimum wage increases...

from the wapo:

That is one of the defensive claims from people that don't want to give Trump's trade and immigration policies any credit.


The increases in wages are MORE than required by the changes in law and not limited to the states with the changes in law.

No, but as you can see the increases in wages are dramatically larger in states that did change laws. The states that didn’t increase wages have much lower growth, and only marginally higher than the rest of the population.

I’m just saying that if you want to give credit to his immigration and trade policies, you have to show your work. I think that’s fair.

Can you "show your work" that the rise was dramatically larger in states that did change the law?

 

[colfax_m]

I’m not trying to strawman you, but sometimes your statements aren’t super precise. I’m doing my best.

I just don’t see where the real difference is. Not to be a Debbie downer but nothing massive has changed.
View attachment 304821

Most of it is behind pay walls at this point, but if you goggle "lower end wages" you can see reports that if you break it up, you can see a change.

It would appear that most of the difference comes from minimum wage increases...

from the wapo:

That is one of the defensive claims from people that don't want to give Trump's trade and immigration policies any credit.


The increases in wages are MORE than required by the changes in law and not limited to the states with the changes in law.

No, but as you can see the increases in wages are dramatically larger in states that did change laws. The states that didn’t increase wages have much lower growth, and only marginally higher than the rest of the population.

I’m just saying that if you want to give credit to his immigration and trade policies, you have to show your work. I think that’s fair.

Can you "show your work" that the rise was dramatically larger in states that did change the law?

Yes, it was in the picture that I linked in my previous post.

 

[Correll]

Most of it is behind pay walls at this point, but if you goggle "lower end wages" you can see reports that if you break it up, you can see a change.

It would appear that most of the difference comes from minimum wage increases...

from the wapo:

That is one of the defensive claims from people that don't want to give Trump's trade and immigration policies any credit.


The increases in wages are MORE than required by the changes in law and not limited to the states with the changes in law.

No, but as you can see the increases in wages are dramatically larger in states that did change laws. The states that didn’t increase wages have much lower growth, and only marginally higher than the rest of the population.

I’m just saying that if you want to give credit to his immigration and trade policies, you have to show your work. I think that’s fair.

Can you "show your work" that the rise was dramatically larger in states that did change the law?

Yes, it was in the picture that I linked in my previous post.

Looking at the picture, the gap looks much smaller than the overall increase.


It is NOT like non-law change states had 1 percent and the law change states had 6 percent.


It was more like 4 vs 5.5.


Seems like other factors were more significant.

 

[colfax_m]

It would appear that most of the difference comes from minimum wage increases...

from the wapo:

That is one of the defensive claims from people that don't want to give Trump's trade and immigration policies any credit.


The increases in wages are MORE than required by the changes in law and not limited to the states with the changes in law.

No, but as you can see the increases in wages are dramatically larger in states that did change laws. The states that didn’t increase wages have much lower growth, and only marginally higher than the rest of the population.

I’m just saying that if you want to give credit to his immigration and trade policies, you have to show your work. I think that’s fair.

Can you "show your work" that the rise was dramatically larger in states that did change the law?

Yes, it was in the picture that I linked in my previous post.

Looking at the picture, the gap looks much smaller than the overall increase.


It is NOT like non-law change states had 1 percent and the law change states had 6 percent.


It was more like 4 vs 5.5.


Seems like other factors were more significant.

Like the fact that the labor market is tightening?

Look at the difference between wage growth in the low income brackets in states without law changes and look at the rest of the 75% income earners. There’s barely any difference, like 3.5 to 4%. Those other factors are helping the lower income people, but marginally as compared to everyone else.

 

[Correll]

That is one of the defensive claims from people that don't want to give Trump's trade and immigration policies any credit.


The increases in wages are MORE than required by the changes in law and not limited to the states with the changes in law.

No, but as you can see the increases in wages are dramatically larger in states that did change laws. The states that didn’t increase wages have much lower growth, and only marginally higher than the rest of the population.

I’m just saying that if you want to give credit to his immigration and trade policies, you have to show your work. I think that’s fair.

Can you "show your work" that the rise was dramatically larger in states that did change the law?

Yes, it was in the picture that I linked in my previous post.

Looking at the picture, the gap looks much smaller than the overall increase.


It is NOT like non-law change states had 1 percent and the law change states had 6 percent.


It was more like 4 vs 5.5.


Seems like other factors were more significant.

Like the fact that the labor market is tightening?

Look at the difference between wage growth in the low income brackets in states without law changes and look at the rest of the 75% income earners. There’s barely any difference, like 3.5 to 4%. Those other factors are helping the lower income people, but marginally as compared to everyone else.

in the past, for the last couple of decades, the lower end people were ending up getting LESS than the higher wage earners.


And the tight labor market, YOu think that might have something to do with Trump's Trade and immigration policies?


Increase demand, and decrease supply.

It is not rocket science. But it seems to be working.


What are you afraid of, if we keep trying more of it?

 

[colfax_m]

in the past, for the last couple of decades, the lower end people were ending up getting LESS than the higher wage earners.

Let’s assume that’s true although I haven’t seen that data. When did the reversal happen? When did the lower income people’s income growth overtake everyone else’s? The chart in Washington Post looks like 2015.

And the tight labor market, YOu think that might have something to do with Trump's Trade and immigration policies?

I think it might have a lot to do with the 4.7% unemployment rate when Trump took office.

Increase demand, and decrease supply.

It is not rocket science. But it seems to be working.


What are you afraid of, if we keep trying more of it?

I just want to give credit where credit is due. So far I haven’t seen much evidence of the impact of Trump’s policies.

 

[Correll]

in the past, for the last couple of decades, the lower end people were ending up getting LESS than the higher wage earners.

Let’s assume that’s true although I haven’t seen that data. When did the reversal happen? When did the lower income people’s income growth overtake everyone else’s? The chart in Washington Post looks like 2015.

And the tight labor market, YOu think that might have something to do with Trump's Trade and immigration policies?

I think it might have a lot to do with the 4.7% unemployment rate when Trump took office.

Increase demand, and decrease supply.

It is not rocket science. But it seems to be working.


What are you afraid of, if we keep trying more of it?

I just want to give credit where credit is due. So far I haven’t seen much evidence of the impact of Trump’s policies.

I doubt that this is the first period of low unemployment that we have had since the early 70s.

 

[colfax_m]

in the past, for the last couple of decades, the lower end people were ending up getting LESS than the higher wage earners.

Let’s assume that’s true although I haven’t seen that data. When did the reversal happen? When did the lower income people’s income growth overtake everyone else’s? The chart in Washington Post looks like 2015.

And the tight labor market, YOu think that might have something to do with Trump's Trade and immigration policies?

I think it might have a lot to do with the 4.7% unemployment rate when Trump took office.

Increase demand, and decrease supply.

It is not rocket science. But it seems to be working.


What are you afraid of, if we keep trying more of it?

I just want to give credit where credit is due. So far I haven’t seen much evidence of the impact of Trump’s policies.

I doubt that this is the first period of low unemployment that we have had since the early 70s.

No, of course not. And when looking back over the last few decades, there’s nothing particularly special about our wage growth currently.

 

[Correll]

in the past, for the last couple of decades, the lower end people were ending up getting LESS than the higher wage earners.

Let’s assume that’s true although I haven’t seen that data. When did the reversal happen? When did the lower income people’s income growth overtake everyone else’s? The chart in Washington Post looks like 2015.

And the tight labor market, YOu think that might have something to do with Trump's Trade and immigration policies?

I think it might have a lot to do with the 4.7% unemployment rate when Trump took office.

Increase demand, and decrease supply.

It is not rocket science. But it seems to be working.


What are you afraid of, if we keep trying more of it?

I just want to give credit where credit is due. So far I haven’t seen much evidence of the impact of Trump’s policies.

I doubt that this is the first period of low unemployment that we have had since the early 70s.

No, of course not. And when looking back over the last few decades, there’s nothing particularly special about our wage growth currently.

It's been a while since lower end workers have been getting more increases than upper.



Overall, do you think that basing policies on increasing demand for labor, and decreasing supply of labor, could increase cost, ie wages?

 

[colfax_m]

in the past, for the last couple of decades, the lower end people were ending up getting LESS than the higher wage earners.

Let’s assume that’s true although I haven’t seen that data. When did the reversal happen? When did the lower income people’s income growth overtake everyone else’s? The chart in Washington Post looks like 2015.

And the tight labor market, YOu think that might have something to do with Trump's Trade and immigration policies?

I think it might have a lot to do with the 4.7% unemployment rate when Trump took office.

Increase demand, and decrease supply.

It is not rocket science. But it seems to be working.


What are you afraid of, if we keep trying more of it?

I just want to give credit where credit is due. So far I haven’t seen much evidence of the impact of Trump’s policies.

I doubt that this is the first period of low unemployment that we have had since the early 70s.

No, of course not. And when looking back over the last few decades, there’s nothing particularly special about our wage growth currently.

It's been a while since lower end workers have been getting more increases than upper.

Do you have the data that shows this?

 

[Correll]

in the past, for the last couple of decades, the lower end people were ending up getting LESS than the higher wage earners.

Let’s assume that’s true although I haven’t seen that data. When did the reversal happen? When did the lower income people’s income growth overtake everyone else’s? The chart in Washington Post looks like 2015.

And the tight labor market, YOu think that might have something to do with Trump's Trade and immigration policies?

I think it might have a lot to do with the 4.7% unemployment rate when Trump took office.

Increase demand, and decrease supply.

It is not rocket science. But it seems to be working.


What are you afraid of, if we keep trying more of it?

I just want to give credit where credit is due. So far I haven’t seen much evidence of the impact of Trump’s policies.

I doubt that this is the first period of low unemployment that we have had since the early 70s.

No, of course not. And when looking back over the last few decades, there’s nothing particularly special about our wage growth currently.

It's been a while since lower end workers have been getting more increases than upper.

Do you have the data that shows this?

All the reports seem to be behind pay walls.


Wages rising: The US economy is now working best for lower-wage workers | American Enterprise Institute - AEI


"Over 2018, wage growth in low-wage industries was 4.4%, while in middle- and high-wage industries it didn’t top 3%. Put another way: low-wage workers are likely the ones who are seeing the benefits of accelerating wage growth. A tighter labor market seems to be putting particular pressure on the lower-paid end."