Congratulations to the President. Trump's tariffs are winning...

[Hafar1014]

Sounds good until you count the populations.

USA 338.02
CANADA 39.19

The US has almost 9 times the population. Figuring that in and you come up with Canada is doing almost 9.2 times better than the US.

So move to Canada and experience reality youll come crawling back her so fast the bears wont catch you

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So move to Canada and experience reality youll come crawling back her so fast the bears wont catch you

Your posts are so bizarre and dumb

Too much Newsmax and pillow guy for you

 

[Vrenn]

So move to Canada and experience reality youll come crawling back her so fast the bears wont catch you

Tell you what, since you seem to think you have the power to tell me to leave my home, that means I have the power to tell you to leave America. Hell, I'll even pay for the one way Uhaul.

 

[Nostra]

Sounds good until you count the populations.

USA 338.02
CANADA 39.19

The US has almost 9 times the population. Figuring that in and you come up with Canada is doing almost 9.2 times better than the US.

Another economically illiterate Dimwinger.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Sounds good until you count the populations.

USA 338.02
CANADA 39.19

The US has almost 9 times the population. Figuring that in and you come up with Canada is doing almost 9.2 times better than the US.

Damn, Dims are ******* stupid.

 

[Correll]

I'm confused. When I used Covid as an example it wasn't fine for you. To you it invalidated the entire analogy. This despite the mechanisms being described. Yet now you're saying that you don't need to make a clear correlation yourself.

I'm not sure what you are expecting. We are looking at historical trends and trying to see patterns.

We aren't going to get a pile of memos from employers stating that they decided to hire cheap third world labor, to save a few bucks. Or NOT.

CLEAR, is likely not going to happen.

Don't you think the "ranking" of the factors is important. The basis of your entire thesis is that Trump policies are improving the real wages of middle class and lower class American's. And as an example of that, you picked immigration policy. The problem you are having though is that you can't draw a clear line from immigration to those real wages. In fact, the graph you provided, shows an 8 year gap between immigration and those wages stagnating. You can label it as "not long after that" but 8 years is a significant time period before it being reflected.

"Draw a clear line"? How would that be done?

On the other hand, if immigration influences, just as a hypothetical, the wages by 1 percent, and the upper bracket of the income scale hoarding the wealth by, an equally hypothetical 80 percent, and Trump's policies influence both. Wouldn't the ranking matter for the accuracy of your argument?

My point is that the flooding of the labor market depresses wages. If that is true, it is true. That other factors may or may not be in play, doesn't change that being accurate or not.


If we create a labor market where the rich are forced to raise wages, that will be money flowing from the rich to the workers.

If Trump policies reduce wage pressure on lower an middle class Americans by deporting Illegals by one percent but increases those same pressures by... I don't know... levying tarifs and decreasing the tax burden for the higher incomes disproportianally compared to the lower and middle class by 20 percent invalidate your premise?

IF Trump deportation policy increases worker's leverage to demand more raises, but at teh same time tariffs raise prices by more than that,

that would NOT invalidate my premise. It would just mean that the negative effect of the one policy outweighted teh positive effect of the other policy.

Indeed, in that scenario, the immigration policy is still very good, because otherwise the American workers would be dealing with higher prices WITHOUT the benefit of higher wages. As has been the norm for the last 50 years.

Your higher taxes argument assumes that increased taxes paid by the rich translates to benefits for the poor/middle class and not the politicians, who actually would control that tax money.

Sure. The thing is your graph shows production going up by 150 percent while average real wages stay stagnant. Meaning that unless you want to claim they paid illegals a multitude than they are paying American workers, the money that was earned by those stagnating wages and increased production went elsewhere.

Of course it went elsewhere. Higher profits for the employers. Why would you even mention the possibility of immigrants making absurdly higher wages?

 

[berg80]

I'm not sure what you are expecting. We are looking at historical trends and trying to see patterns.

We aren't going to get a pile of memos from employers stating that they decided to hire cheap third world labor, to save a few bucks. Or NOT.

CLEAR, is likely not going to happen.






"Draw a clear line"? How would that be done?



My point is that the flooding of the labor market depresses wages. If that is true, it is true. That other factors may or may not be in play, doesn't change that being accurate or not.


If we create a labor market where the rich are forced to raise wages, that will be money flowing from the rich to the workers.






IF Trump deportation policy increases worker's leverage to demand more raises, but at teh same time tariffs raise prices by more than that,

that would NOT invalidate my premise. It would just mean that the negative effect of the one policy outweighted teh positive effect of the other policy.

Indeed, in that scenario, the immigration policy is still very good, because otherwise the American workers would be dealing with higher prices WITHOUT the benefit of higher wages. As has been the norm for the last 50 years.

Your higher taxes argument assumes that increased taxes paid by the rich translates to benefits for the poor/middle class and not the politicians, who actually would control that tax money.





Of course it went elsewhere. Higher profits for the employers. Why would you even mention the possibility of immigrants making absurdly higher wages?

New York Fed’s Williams says tariff burden falls ‘overwhelmingly’ on U.S. businesses and consumers​

New York Fed's Williams says tariff burden falls 'overwhelmingly' on U.S. businesses and consumers

Williams said that not only were the tariffs being felt at home, but they also were keeping the Fed from reaching its 2% inflation goal.

www.cnbc.com

 

[forkup]

I'm not sure what you are expecting. We are looking at historical trends and trying to see patterns.

No "we" aren't. You are asserting a pattern exists, and claiming that suggesting that such a pattern needs to be established before it's claimed to be true is somehow an ureasonable demand.
While at the same time claiming that me establishing a pattern of wages not keeping up with inflation during Covid isn't valid because I didn't include "printing of money" in the equation.

Altough I mentioned what I considered undisputable documented factors, that I'm willing to back up when asked.

In short I expect that you and me carry a similar burden of proof when challenged.

Draw a clear line"? How would that be done?

You are the one making the claim. So it's on you to support it. The fact that you are asking me is telling.

I will however answer. If you want to use the graph you showed to support the assertion that immigration reform in 1967 was a contributing factor to real wages starting to stagnate in 1975. You could try to look up immigration numbers for that period. If those numbers spiked in 1975 you could be onto something. Or you could look for spikes in your graph and see if you can corrolate those with mass deportations or mass migration years.

See the problem isn't that it can't be done. The problem is that the data provided doesn't support your premise. If it did I'm pretty sure you would present it as such.

My point is that the flooding of the labor market depresses wages. If that is true, it is true. That other factors may or may not be in play, doesn't change that being accurate or not.

No it's probably true that flooding the labor market depresses wages. The question is by how much and if those depressed wages cause deflationary pressure large enough to be a net benefit.
It's a question you don't even attempt to resolve no matter how many times I ask.

If we create a labor market where the rich are forced to raise wages, that will be money flowing from the rich to the workers.

By what margin? Does it keep up with inflation? Not to mention that as your graph shows the rich don't have to do squat.

that would NOT invalidate my premise. It would just mean that the negative effect of the one policy outweighted teh positive effect of the other policy.

Your premise is that Trumps policies are beneficial to the middle class. Something that's invalidated if the negative effects of his policies outweighs your (perceived) beneficial policies.

To put it in an analogy. If a pickpocket steals your wallet that has a 1000 bucks in it. And a few days later he sends you a note saying " I felt bad for you so I bought a scratcher with a grand price of a 100 bucks and promise to send you the money if I win."
I'm betting your response won't be. "How generous"

Your higher taxes argument assumes that increased taxes paid by the rich translates to benefits for the poor/middle class and not the politicians, who actually would control that tax money.

The tax rates for the fifties, sixties and seventies were considerably higher than they are today. It was a time were the middle class could afford to support their family on a single income more often then not. Since "we" are talking historical patterns.

And yes, the government having more money is likely to benefit the poor and middle class. If for no other reason (and there are other reasons) that it helps them get elected.

In fact, it's kind of weird that the reason you question the rich paying more taxes is because you believe that politicians are selfish. It's like saying that you're against the fire department putting out a house fire because you fear water damage.

 

[Correll]

No "we" aren't. You are asserting a pattern exists, and claiming that suggesting that such a pattern needs to be established before it's claimed to be true is somehow an ureasonable demand.

The pattern of high immigration and wage stagnation occurring together, is there. I am asserting it is there.

"Established"? The graph shows it.

While at the same time claiming that me establishing a pattern of wages not keeping up with inflation during Covid isn't valid because I didn't include "printing of money" in the equation.

We had been printing money like crazy before covid and then we printed money even more during covid. IMO it is likely that such a huge influx of money into the money supply was probably the primary contributor to inflation, at that time.

Altough I mentioned what I considered undisputable documented factors, that I'm willing to back up when asked.

In short I expect that you and me carry a similar burden of proof when challenged.

You are the one making the claim. So it's on you to support it. The fact that you are asking me is telling.

I will however answer. If you want to use the graph you showed to support the assertion that immigration reform in 1967 was a contributing factor to real wages starting to stagnate in 1975. You could try to look up immigration numbers for that period. If those numbers spiked in 1975 you could be onto something. Or you could look for spikes in your graph and see if you can corrolate those with mass deportations or mass migration years.

See the problem isn't that it can't be done. The problem is that the data provided doesn't support your premise. If it did I'm pretty sure you would present it as such.

I could see why a spike with immediate or quick response would be more convincing, but my argument does not depend on it.

No it's probably true that flooding the labor market depresses wages.

WHY DO YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THIS? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

The question is by how much and if those depressed wages cause deflationary pressure large enough to be a net benefit.
It's a question you don't even attempt to resolve no matter how many times I ask.

Because I don't care about the possible BENEFIT of deflationary pressure from lowered wages. I want HIGHER WAGES.

By what margin? Does it keep up with inflation?

The goal is to EXCEED inflation, so that we get a real improvement in standard of living.

Not to mention that as your graph shows the rich don't have to do squat.

That makes no sense. My graph shows nothing of that sort. It says NOTHING about the actions or inactions of the rich.

Seriously, what are you talking about here?

Your premise is that Trumps policies are beneficial to the middle class. Something that's invalidated if the negative effects of his policies outweighs your (perceived) beneficial policies.

That is just wrong. My CONCLUSION is that Trump's immigration policy is beneficial to the middle class and lower class. I have explained my reasoning. If you want to argue against my reasoning, that is valid. If you suspect that I am lying, you need to explain why you think that.

...

The tax rates for the fifties, sixties and seventies were considerably higher than they are today. It was a time were the middle class could afford to support their family on a single income more often then not. Since "we" are talking historical patterns.

Would you like to return to a time when a single income could support a family, more often than not?

And yes, the government having more money is likely to benefit the poor and middle class. If for no other reason (and there are other reasons) that it helps them get elected.

The government has been focused on helping blacks for generations. Untold billions hvae been poured into that cause.

You happy with the results?

 

[forkup]

Established"? The graph shows it.

Your graph shows that wages stagnated 8 years, AFTER immigration reform happened. One event does NOT corrolate witht the time frame of the other. So you need to establish that corrolation with more than your feelings.

We had been printing money like crazy before covid and then we printed money even more during covid. IMO it is likely that such a huge influx of money into the money supply was probably the primary contributor to inflation, at that time.

If we printed money.before and during Covid and inflation went rampant after Covid you are again weakening the corrolation. In fact, it was the labor shocks and supply issues resulting from the pandemic that were unique.

For the record. I don't doubt the stimilus provided contributed to inflation. But I would go to the unique factors first.

I could see why a spike with immediate or quick response would be more convincing, but my argument does not depend on it.

Sure, it depends on it. What's the differemce between you blaming immigration for wages stagnating and me blaming Nixon? Both theories are equally vissible in your graph. That's to say not at all. Would you attribute any explanatory value to Nixon in this context?

WHY DO YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THIS? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

I did in my very first post, when I gave you your steelman.

The goal is to EXCEED inflation, so that we get a real improvement in standard of living.

I agree, yet you seem to be, actually outright state that you are completely uninterested in examening if your chosen policy of immigration does. As long as wages go up, you don't care, were your words.

That makes no sense. My graph shows nothing of that sort. It says NOTHING about the actions or inactions of the rich.

Please keep your story straight.

Of course it went elsewhere. Higher profits for the employers.

That is just wrong. My CONCLUSION is that Trump's immigration policy is beneficial to the middle class and lower class

No your conclusion is that wages likely will go up. Avoiding the questionn of how inflationary it is completely.

Would you like to return to a time when a single income could support a family, more often than not?

I supported my wife and kid on a single middle class wage for about ten years, after my daughter was born. But then again, I live in a country that has high enough taxes to support such a lifestyle.

( my wife is.American , I'm Belgian)

The government has been focused on helping blacks for generations. Untold billions hvae been poured into that cause.

You happy with the results?

This is a non-sequitor.