You have no qualms about stealing from those who trusted you to perform the duties you promised to perform upon entering your mutually agreed upon contract.
You are currently proving that the worker cannot be trusted.
Like I said, I’m not going to bother ripping into a partisan think tank piece until you show you actually have any sort of grasp of macro economics beyond bumper sticker talking points.
Holy shit. I already said for the sake of argument I’ll agree your assertion of stagnate wages are 100% in line with what YOU think is the case. I’ll do this in order to see if you can answer how it’s possible to have the following 3 factors happen all at the same time:
stagnant wages
inflation
increased profits
Please for the love of Christ try and make your insults at least witty.
Chart 2. Productivity since 1973 is up 243% wages 108%
Could this be due to advances in technology that don’t necessitate physical labor? A business owner buys new equipment, takes all the risk and increases productivity. The increased profit has little to do with labor. Wages aren’t increased because the value of labor has not changed.
Chart 5. Wages of college graduates are stagnant or falling.
Simple supply and demand. Far more people are going to college, and as a consequence the market is saturated with college degrees.
Chart 6. Cutting employer based health care.
This one is pretty obvious. Sharp decline around 2008 recession, coupled with Obamacare debate and subsequent passage in 2010.
Chart 9. Union participation is down.
This one wants the reader to believe the only way wages are increased is by collective bargaining. It says that non union workers benefit from it as well. How can that be? If union force is the only way to get those rich pigs at the top to pay higher wages, why would non union members elsewhere benefit if they can not collectively bargain? Wouldn’t those at the top just continue to lap up the profits of increased productivity at the non union workers expense?
I’m very much anti lumping people into groups based on demographics, as I see the world as a collection of individuals, and don’t judge people based on what group they belong to. However, the numbers don’t tend to lie that certain groups tend to trend certain ways, and not a whole hell of a lot of groups trend Trumps way.
He has a messaging problem that hurts him with people of color. Add that to the fact POC tend to be wary of non-democrats automatically (being told over and over again “republicans are da racist” works) and people start to place a lot of emphasis on his word choices.
Things like “look at my African American” or whatever the quote was and “binders full of women” are tiny little gaffs that if said by a democrat would be rightfully laughed off as a misspoken phrase, but said by a republican feed into the left’s narrative. (A narrative largely manufactured and nonsense, but when pressed to the point it has, effective in collecting all the “bad” in a little box.)
This is what I’m thinking. He isn’t trying to woo a small subset of a minority subset of voters anymore (people who vote in R primaries). He’s trying to woo everyone who votes…
Another for instance. He could have slammed the judge and not come off as a sleazy bigot doing it. His word choice was lacking, and is pretty hard to defend there, even if the intention wasn’t to sound that way, and was backed up by fact.
Keep in mind that nothing, absolutely NOTHING will cause black Americans to vote for a republican. Oh there’s always going to be a small percentage that will do it. But, overall they are one group of people that will remain loyal to the democrat party. I wouldn’t waste a dime trying to influence them.
It’s true that Trump comes off as a bigot plenty of times when his intention might not even lean in that direction.
As for him winning the general keep in mind that the republicans turned out 5 million more voters in the primaries than the democrats did. That usually transfers to the general. So, it’s not that more people want Trump to be President but the ones that do will go through hell to get to the voting booth. Hillary on the other hand does not have that sort of enthusiasm on her side.
I also agree with therajraj in that Trump will turn New Jersey red along with several other heavy union democrat states. They dislike Hillary’s nut job attitude toward global warming and they love Trump’s “back to work” position. Also, many will not admit it but when they get in the voting booth they will pull the Trump lever.
I think this is the kind of Presidential race that can show Hilary ahead by maybe 3 or 4 points and end up losing the election. That is should Hilary be the nominee…we still don’t know about that pesky little FBI investigation that is going on relative to her emails and the Clinton Foundation.
While it is, without question an uphill battle to beat back the drums of the false narrative given Hollywood, and the rest of the entertainment media, including most news outlets save a few select publications with integrity, this attitude is one to ensure the Republican party is dead in the water, and the new choices are between Europe and Communism.
Choose your battles, but this is one the party would do well to choose.
NOT PANDER mind you, but show people how the general ideas of freedom and economic prosperity will help all people of all colors, etc.