Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 232

Thread: The working class is getting royally screwed.

  1. #76 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,010
    Thanks
    14,412
    Thanked 23,579 Times in 16,410 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 583 Times in 559 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by American Man View Post
    False.
    Care to prove me wrong? Or just be a typical liberal and talk out your ass.

  2. #77 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    26,778
    Thanks
    15,296
    Thanked 7,642 Times in 6,269 Posts
    Groans
    492
    Groaned 294 Times in 289 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    Again, let's talk measurables, rather than just making assertions. 40 years ago was 1982. Is the working class better or worse off now than then?

    Well, in 1982, adjusted for inflation, a middle-of-the-road family earned $60,560. Today it's $84,008. So, in terms of earnings, the middle class is about 39% richer. In terms of poverty, in 1982, 14.4% of Americans lived in poverty. The most recent figure is 11.4%. So, considerably less of the country is poor. In 1982, an average of about 10.4% of disposable personal income was being eaten up by household debt service payments. Today it's 9.0%. In 1982, the average unemployment rate was 9.7%. The most recent figure was 3.6%. In addition, the share of Americans covered by health insurance is up, the murder rate is down, the amount of annual free time a typical worker has is up, the home ownership rate is up (as is the median size of homes), life expectancies are way up, and so on.

    So, in terms of measurables, life is far better for most Americans now than it was 40 years ago. Whether or not you want to credit any particular politician for that dramatic improvement is a different question, but I think we have to start with the simple reality that things have, in fact, been getting better.
    No, it's not. Far more of Americans' income goes to housing and food costs per month than 40 years ago. Shove your statistics...you know..

    TVs are cheaper, but so what?

    There's less upward mobility now.

    No link, little girl. I've lived it.

    Know what one of the best songs in 1983 was? This:

    https://my.mail.ru/mail/vyacheslavro...video/499.html

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Matt Dillon For This Post:

    goat (05-24-2022)

  4. #78 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,356
    Thanks
    22,946
    Thanked 18,153 Times in 12,487 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,807 Times in 5,072 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Mina,

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    Yes, your approach would also work to scare off the deadbeats who could pay but want a leg up at the start of their careers.

    Regarding my approach and how it would hit low income people, if you do the math you realize it's not a huge deal. Like let's say you go over your head and need to have $30k of debt wiped out, because currently that means a minimum monthly payment of $333, and you just can't handle that. Well, you can wipe it all out for just a 3-point tax increase. Let's say you are making a modest $10/hour, which works out to about $20k per year if you're working full-time. Well, the standard deduction is $12,950. So, you're only paying taxes on $7,050 of your income. 3% of that is $211.50, or $17.63 per month. So you're getting rid of a $333 monthly expense for just $17.63. It's a great deal. Sure, maybe at some point, 30 or 40 years down the road, you will have paid more in extra taxes than that loan forgiveness was worth (effectively paying it forward to someone else), but you will have gotten relief when you needed it most.

    But say that, instead, you're a lawyer who has a $180k starting job at a fancy firm lined up. Wiping that debt out will save you $333 per month in exchange for a higher tax equal to $418 per month. It's a terrible deal from day one, and just gets worse and worse over time. So you'll just suck it up and pay what you owe.
    Yes, that plan effectively shuts down the rich gaming the system, but it still attaches a life-long punishment to someone who fell on hard times and was unable to complete the education. For that reason I would be more drawn to a plan that still punishes rich greed, but offers total forgiveness to the hard luck case. Taxing the poor, especially the zero net worth poor, just doesn't sit right. I am convinced there must be another equally creative way to achieve both goals.

    What if the government ran the schools, or at least paid a set rate amount for a basic education K-16? If the government controlled the price, the market would be forced to offer the education at the set price. Or the government should simply run the schools, whatever works to keep the cost down. Education costs too much. I don't understand why it has to be so expensive. All that is really happening is knowledge is being shared. People are being given basic training for jobs. The K-16 education doesn't always have to be a traditional 4-year degree, but it can be. Let the government organized education program include trades as well as white collar. The basic ground rule should be that as long as a student is doing the work, acquiring the knowledge and skill sets needed, getting the grades and proficiency, the government keeps paying, up to the equivalent of a 4-year degree.

    It wouldn't hurt to force big business to kick in on this education, either. Big corporations get the benefit of well-trained labor in the long run, so have them pay taxes to fund government education. Maybe tax wall street transactions to fund it.

    There are state and city-run colleges which offer a free education. Our government needs to take a look at how these programs are funded and cookie-cutter that up to a national program. China and other previously backward nations have been out-educating us for quite a while now, and we are slipping behind in the world. It is time to realize that for-profit education can not be our primary system. Education is an area where socialism is definitely the preferred method.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  5. #79 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,356
    Thanks
    22,946
    Thanked 18,153 Times in 12,487 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,807 Times in 5,072 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Our primarily for-profit education system does not serve our nation well enough to compete in today's world. The result is that a good education is a luxury that too many cannot afford. We end up with a nation full of under-educated people who can't tell the difference between real news and rumors, who fall for stupid propaganda, and elect greedy power junkies based on emotional wedge issues. That serves the richest Americans very well, creating a desperate labor market, but it hurts America's competitiveness in the world.

    For-profit education hurts America's working poor.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  6. #80 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,356
    Thanks
    22,946
    Thanked 18,153 Times in 12,487 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,807 Times in 5,072 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Sure, that is a big factor. But, that same time lag would be equally as true under Republican presidents.

    This has no connection to my political ideology but my opposition to using questionable statistics to make partisan arguments. I don't care which party came out "ahead" in the argument, I would be questioning whether it actually showed one party better than the other to make a partisan argument.

    For example, the actual poverty rate is lower under Republican presidents. Personally, I think that is more likely due to economic conditions unrelated to presidential policies. However, the poster concluded just the opposite by using the percentage of decline in the poverty rate to get his desired results.

    They are both reasonable ways to measure the poverty level under different parties, but using the decrease in level could still have a terrible poverty rate while the average percentage in policy does not have such a distorted effect.

    For example, if president A has poverty levels of 60,50,40,30% during his four years that is a substantial decrease in poverty. If president B has poverty levels of 15,15,15,15% that is 0% decrease in level. Yet, the lower poverty levels of B during four years are all lower than A and would certainly be the better situation.

    Choosing the decline in poverty rather than poverty rate was necessary to get the desired result.
    I see what you're getting at but still disagree.

    Holding the line is no improvement.

    Reducing the level is improvement.

    I favor improvement.

    The ultimate goal is to eliminate poverty, not simply accept a certain level and assume nothing can be done.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  7. #81 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    257
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Dillon View Post
    No, it's not. Far more of Americans' income goes to housing and food costs per month than 40 years ago.
    Is that true? I know on a forum like this the custom is generally to assert something that would be helpful to your argument if it were true, and assume that it must actually be, without ever checking. But aren't you at least a little curious if it's actually true? Let's check:

    In 1982, the median family earned $23,433. Today it's $84,008:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA646N

    In 1982, median home price was $62,113. Today it's $366,555:

    https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

    In 1982, a 30-year fixed mortgage rate would cost you 16.67%. Today it's 5.25%:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US

    So, in 1982, the annual cost of a median mortgage was $10,428. Now it's $24,288.

    https://www.mortgagecalculator.org/

    So, in 1982, after paying a typical mortgage, a median family would have $13,005 left over for everything else, or $38,962 in today's money.

    https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

    Today, a median family would have $59,720 left over after that annual cost of a typical mortgage.

    That's all the more interesting considering that in 1982 the average house was 629 sq. ft. per person, whereas now it's 1,058:

    https://247wallst.com/special-report...u-were-born-5/
    https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-u...20size%20house

    So, people are buying homes that are 68% larger in relative terms, yet they have a lot more money left over to spend.

    40 years ago the CPI for food was 97.2, versus 298.379 now. So, food costs 3.07 times as much today:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIUFDSL

    But, again, median household income is 3.59 times as high as it was in 1982. So, again, food is LESS expensive today than it was 40 years ago, relative to median incomes.

    Shove your statistics...
    Unfortunately, that's how debates tend to go on political sites. One side deploys verifiable facts and figures, the other side says "shove your statistics" and insists that their own gut-level personal impressions are all that matters. That is a particularly common approach among the elderly, who have often lost the ability to reason, much less to research, and so they want to treat their own vague impressions from their personal memories as stand-ins for nation-wide experience... never even considering whether their own lives might have been atypical or misremembered.

    There's less upward mobility now.
    If you define "upward mobility" as earning more than your parents in real terms, it's true that upward mobility took a big dip starting with Reagan. However, it's worth noting that this is not a nation-wide thing. Upward mobility is horrible in conservative areas: worst in LA, OK, SC, AL, FL, KY, MS, NC, and TX. But it's still good in many liberal areas: best in MD, NJ, NY, CT, MA, PA, MI, and UT (the one conservative state that often finds itself among liberal states in rankings like that).

    https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...-of-the-states

    Liberal policies tend to help with upward mobility, which is why it remains better in liberal states (and countries), and why in the nation as a whole it took a dip with Reagan and his aristocracy-favoring policies.
    Last edited by Mina; 05-25-2022 at 07:22 AM.

  8. #82 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,356
    Thanks
    22,946
    Thanked 18,153 Times in 12,487 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,807 Times in 5,072 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Verifiable facts and figures win the argument over personal impressions.

    No contest.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Mina (05-25-2022)

  10. #83 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    257
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Yes, that plan effectively shuts down the rich gaming the system, but it still attaches a life-long punishment to someone who fell on hard times and was unable to complete the education.
    I don't think of it as punishment. I think of it as repaying a huge favor the rest of us did them. We paid off a debt they'd taken on, with them slowly repaying us over the course of decades (and possibly never repaying us fully). If it were me, I'd prefer that, anyway, since I hate the idea of being a total deadbeat -- I like the idea of eventually making it up to the people who did me a favor like that, even if it takes me a very long time to do so.

    What if the government ran the schools, or at least paid a set rate amount for a basic education K-16?
    That's a good idea -- basically, have the government add four years of college as part of normal public education. However, if we do that, it needs to be done in the spartan way you see with other countries that publicly finance college, rather than the extravagant spending you see at US colleges. For example, don't insist on lots of little classes with high professor/student ratios. Accept that the intro courses are going to mostly be big lecture halls where one professor can teach scores of students. And don't insist on manicured campuses and resort-style rec facilities and dining accommodations that look like quaint little bistros and lots of elaborately funded money-losing sports. Accept that it'll look very institutional, with the students mostly on their own for recreation and social stuff, to keep prices down.

    There are ways to make university a whole lot cheaper than it is in the US, but it means cutting away as much as possible that isn't critical to education.... and that means cutting away a lot of the social-engineering mission colleges have adopted. You can't have low-cost higher education if you have a dozen assistant deans and other six-figure admin positions with various "diversity," "sustainability," and "community" mandates. When you start paying $200k per year for a Vice Provost of Inclusion and Equity, as well meaning as that may be, you wind up with high prices. It would need to be more bare-bones, the way high schools are (though even more so, since you'd probably also spend less on "special needs" students). Do that, and you could get the cost of college back down to the kinds of price-per-year it once had in the 1960's (albeit in inflation-adjusted terms).

  11. #84 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    257
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    Empire dies by a thousand cuts but NAFTA hemorrhaged the life blood from the working class
    Yes, empires die by a thousand cuts..... but if you look at the actual data, things just didn't play out in a way that implicates NAFTA. Like over the 20 years before NAFTA, we were hemorrhaging badly. In 1993, the last year before NAFTA, the poverty rate was 15.1%, which was the highest in a decade, and four full points higher than a generation before! Life was going to crap. And it wasn't just rising poverty. Unemployment rates had been elevated for almost two decades. We didn't have sub-5% unemployment in even a single month between the start of 1974 and when NAFTA was implemented. Not even once in all that time.

    That's the context to remember. Things were AWFUL before NAFTA. After NAFTA, poverty rates dropped like a rock, and within a few years unemployment rates went under 4% (and went under it again and again in the following years -- in 2000, 2007, 2018, and now.

    I know people are desperate to blame our problems on NAFTA, but the FACT is that things were getting worse before NAFTA and have gotten better since NAFTA. Those facts are stubborn things.

    Again, millennials and zoomers lack the opportunities that we had. They are stuck in a gig economy with little possibility of owning a home.
    Again, there's a huge desire to blame NAFTA for such things, but the stats don't support that. At the end of 1993, right before NAFTA was implemented, the home ownership rate was 64.6%. That was DOWN from a pre-NAFTA high of 65.8% in 1980 -- the dream of home ownership was moving out of the reach of more and more Americans. In fact, as of just before NAFTA, the home ownership rate just before NAFTA was lower even than in the late 1960s. But then things changed. After NAFTA, the home ownership rate in the US soared for over a decade:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

    That's simply not the pattern we'd expect to see if somehow NAFTA were causing homes to be unaffordable. In fact, it's literally the OPPOSITE of the pattern we'd expect to see.

    You tout booming economy when a dem is potus but scream recession when a con is potus. Make up your mind.
    I have no idea what you're saying here. The economy does, in fact, go in out and of recessions. It went into recession Feb 2020, Dec 2007, March 2001, July 1990, July 1981, July 1980, November 1973, December 1969, April 1960, August 1957, and July 1953. I know it's kind of inconvenient for bothsiderists that we had Republican presidents 10 out of 11 times we fell into recession, but history doesn't care about our feelings. What happened happened and the question is simply whether we will allow the facts to influence our understanding, or whether we will insist on our gut feelings and reject the facts.

  12. #85 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    257
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    Care to prove me wrong? Or just be a typical liberal and talk out your ass.
    I think we can get a sense for how many want to do physical work for money just by looking at what happens when new jobs are available that require physical labor and have decent pay and benefits. We see huge lines of job applicants:

    https://apnews.com/article/fall-rive...bea7dbb9735a2a

  13. #86 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    77,245
    Thanks
    6,882
    Thanked 25,062 Times in 16,127 Posts
    Groans
    265
    Groaned 4,263 Times in 3,874 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The working class is getting screwed, and many are voting for those screwing them.

    Just look at the tax structure. The inheritance system. The ownership of American wealth.
    4,487


    Posters dumb enough to believe Trump won: (So we can ignore them due to their stupidity):

    STONE
    PostModernProphet
    Earl
    "Truth Detector"
    Celticguy
    Dachasund
    Into the Night
    Life is Golden
    Stretch
    AssHatZombie
    gfm7175
    Legion

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Jarod For This Post:

    PoliTalker (05-25-2022)

  15. #87 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,356
    Thanks
    22,946
    Thanked 18,153 Times in 12,487 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,807 Times in 5,072 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Jarod,

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    The working class is getting screwed, and many are voting for those screwing them.

    Just look at the tax structure. The inheritance system. The ownership of American wealth.
    Private equity is claiming an increasing share of business ownership. When private equity moves in, the working class generally gets royally screwed. Tougher working conditions, fewer workers, more responsibilities, more scrutiny, fewer benefits.

    It's a way for big money to escape government oversight and regulation.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  16. #88 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,356
    Thanks
    22,946
    Thanked 18,153 Times in 12,487 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,807 Times in 5,072 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Every kind of way that people create businesses and successfully profit while creating jobs is being bought up and gutted to the bare essentials. The result is a worse deal for workers and consumers. Jobs that either pay less or are more demanding, products that are lower quality and quantity per package, less serviceable, are more prone to planned obsolescence, and more expensively priced.

    America is in the process of extracting raw materials from the ground, turning them into products which are used for a relatively short duration, often single use disposable, and then the ultimate destination is the land fill. Gaseous pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere in the process, and micro plastics are released into the environment. Micro plastics have been found at the bottom of the seas and at the very bottom of the entire world food chain where they are consumed by the most basic forms of life and then travel up the food chain to be found in the top predators and every form of life that humans eat.

    We wonder why health care costs so much, well it's no big secret. It is because we get so sick. And we wonder why.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  17. #89 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    56,877
    Thanks
    4,396
    Thanked 8,617 Times in 6,797 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 413 Times in 391 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Every kind of way that people create businesses and successfully profit while creating jobs is being bought up and gutted to the bare essentials. The result is a worse deal for workers and consumers. Jobs that either pay less or are more demanding, products that are lower quality and quantity per package, less serviceable, are more prone to planned obsolescence, and more expensively priced.

    America is in the process of extracting raw materials from the ground, turning them into products which are used for a relatively short duration, often single use disposable, and then the ultimate destination is the land fill. Gaseous pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere in the process, and micro plastics are released into the environment. Micro plastics have been found at the bottom of the seas and at the very bottom of the entire world food chain where they are consumed by the most basic forms of life and then travel up the food chain to be found in the top predators and every form of life that humans eat.

    We wonder why health care costs so much, well it's no big secret. It is because we get so sick. And we wonder why.
    yes.

    the powers that be want to kill most people.
    internet of bodies

    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --Asshatzombie

    internationalist fascism: the belief that the interests of multinational corporations should be the sole focus of all national trade policies.

    Yaldabaoth (ignorance via the ego) is created when reason follows the outward senses.

  18. #90 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    56,877
    Thanks
    4,396
    Thanked 8,617 Times in 6,797 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 413 Times in 391 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    Yes, empires die by a thousand cuts..... but if you look at the actual data, things just didn't play out in a way that implicates NAFTA. Like over the 20 years before NAFTA, we were hemorrhaging badly. In 1993, the last year before NAFTA, the poverty rate was 15.1%, which was the highest in a decade, and four full points higher than a generation before! Life was going to crap. And it wasn't just rising poverty. Unemployment rates had been elevated for almost two decades. We didn't have sub-5% unemployment in even a single month between the start of 1974 and when NAFTA was implemented. Not even once in all that time.

    That's the context to remember. Things were AWFUL before NAFTA. After NAFTA, poverty rates dropped like a rock, and within a few years unemployment rates went under 4% (and went under it again and again in the following years -- in 2000, 2007, 2018, and now.

    I know people are desperate to blame our problems on NAFTA, but the FACT is that things were getting worse before NAFTA and have gotten better since NAFTA. Those facts are stubborn things.



    Again, there's a huge desire to blame NAFTA for such things, but the stats don't support that. At the end of 1993, right before NAFTA was implemented, the home ownership rate was 64.6%. That was DOWN from a pre-NAFTA high of 65.8% in 1980 -- the dream of home ownership was moving out of the reach of more and more Americans. In fact, as of just before NAFTA, the home ownership rate just before NAFTA was lower even than in the late 1960s. But then things changed. After NAFTA, the home ownership rate in the US soared for over a decade:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

    That's simply not the pattern we'd expect to see if somehow NAFTA were causing homes to be unaffordable. In fact, it's literally the OPPOSITE of the pattern we'd expect to see.



    I have no idea what you're saying here. The economy does, in fact, go in out and of recessions. It went into recession Feb 2020, Dec 2007, March 2001, July 1990, July 1981, July 1980, November 1973, December 1969, April 1960, August 1957, and July 1953. I know it's kind of inconvenient for bothsiderists that we had Republican presidents 10 out of 11 times we fell into recession, but history doesn't care about our feelings. What happened happened and the question is simply whether we will allow the facts to influence our understanding, or whether we will insist on our gut feelings and reject the facts.
    your analysis is dumb.

    its too high level, with too many factors.
    internet of bodies

    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --Asshatzombie

    internationalist fascism: the belief that the interests of multinational corporations should be the sole focus of all national trade policies.

    Yaldabaoth (ignorance via the ego) is created when reason follows the outward senses.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-13-2019, 10:01 AM
  2. What the Working Class Is Still Trying to Tell Us
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-12-2018, 02:55 PM
  3. Letís take a look at the GOPís plans for the working class
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2017, 05:00 PM
  4. Fuck working class whites
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-02-2017, 10:06 PM
  5. I'm through coddling the white working class
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-28-2016, 02:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •