​America's incredible shrinking middle class

[debbietoo]

The eroding middle class poses a serious challenge to the nation's economic growth, given that households with mid-range incomes fuel spending on everything from cars to housing. Yet during the past 15 years, more of those middle-income families have slipped out of the sweet spot of the American economy, thanks to a confluence of negative trends such as declining or stagnant wages and a growing income gap. While mid-income families are suffering, in many states the top 1 percent of income earners have captured all of the income gains (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/16-us-states-where-the-middle-class-is-shrinking/) since the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009.

Source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-incredible-shrinking-middle-class/

With Trump's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, we would see more of the wealth going to the top 1 percent.

[FindersKeepers]

Obama's economic policies haven't panned out?

Who would'a thunk it?

[valley ranch]

When the jobs and monies are slowly taken from people by a government with intention for another group, the people loosing the jobs and monies will shrink as the group that benefits will prosper.

The wealth that is taken from the American is not going up the latter but down and across to people entering the country to the greatest extent.

[DGUtley]

You blame Republicans for this Debbie?

[Jets]

The eroding middle class poses a serious challenge to the nation's economic growth, given that households with mid-range incomes fuel spending on everything from cars to housing. Yet during the past 15 years, more of those middle-income families have slipped out of the sweet spot of the American economy, thanks to a confluence of negative trends such as declining or stagnant wages and a growing income gap. While mid-income families are suffering, in many states the top 1 percent of income earners have captured all of the income gains (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/16-us-states-where-the-middle-class-is-shrinking/) since the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009.

Source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-incredible-shrinking-middle-class/

With Trump's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, we would see more of the wealth going to the top 1 percent.

Good topic.

Where do you suggest we start to improve this situation?

[valley ranch]

Stop fleecing the American people to squander in foreign lands and in this country on foreign peoples.

[The Xl]

All thanks to establishment democrats and republicans.

[nathanbforrest45]

Who is John Galt

[pjohns]

[D]uring the past 15 years, more of those middle-income families have slipped out of the sweet spot of the American economy, thanks to a confluence of negative trends such as declining or stagnant wages and a growing income gap.

(1) Many of those who are no longer middle class could have moved upwards--not necessarily downwards.

(2) In any case, I would imagine that the author is concerned merely about the lower-middle class (i.e. blue-collar workers)--not about the middle-middle class (which populates suburbia); and certainly not about the upper-middle class (e.g. physicians, dentists, attorneys, etc.)

And the lower-middle class is, understandably, "shrinking," due to automation, which has abolished many of their jobs...

[Peter1469]

(1) Many of those who are no longer middle class could have moved upwards--not necessarily downwards.

(2) In any case, I would imagine that the author is concerned merely about the lower-middle class (i.e. blue-collar workers)--not about the middle-middle class (which populates suburbia); and certainly not about the upper-middle class (e.g. physicians, dentists, attorneys, etc.)

And the lower-middle class is, understandably, "shrinking," due to automation, which has abolished many of their jobs...

On balanced more moved up than down. I posted articles twice with charts and graphs. Yet people still post crap like this thread.

[Newpublius]

On balanced more moved up than down. I posted articles twice with charts and graphs. Yet people still post crap like this thread.

You can also see it in things like per capita cars, the size of the average home etc. You can even go back in time and see the prices of certain things like say, a washer and dryer, and how, at an averae wage today, a family spends far fewer hours putting these items in their homes.

[debbietoo]

The middle class, if defined as households making between $35,000 and $100,000 a year, shrank in the final decades of the 20th century. For a welcome reason, though: More Americans moved up into what might be considered the upper middle class or the affluent. Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen.

Here, we walk through the trends in some detail. There is no universal definition of middle class, of course. Some definitions are based on occupation or wealth; others take regional cost of living into account. We have chosen a simple one starting at about 50 percent above the poverty level for a family of four ($35,000) and topping out at six figures of annual income ($100,000), adjusting for inflation over time. We realize many households making more than $100,000 consider themselves middle class, but they nonetheless are making considerably more than most households — even in (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf) New York or San Francisco.

Ten-Year Trend

The 10-year income trends highlight the great 21st-century wage slowdown. Never before — since the Census Bureau’s data on household income began, in 1967 — has there been a decline in the share of households that qualify as high income. An article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/business/economy/middle-class-shrinks-further-as-more-fall-out-instead-of-climbing-up.html) in Monday’s Times examines this trend in further detail.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html?_r=0

Proves my point yet again, wages have been stagnant since the mid 1970's. Main reason for the shrinking middle class.

[Peter1469]

It did shrink. Some dropped down. More rose up.

All of this was posted before your time. It is all archived.

[Mac-7]

The middle class, if defined as households making between $35,000 and $100,000 a year, shrank in the final decades of the 20th century. For a welcome reason, though: More Americans moved up into what might be considered the upper middle class or the affluent. Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen.

Here, we walk through the trends in some detail. There is no universal definition of middle class, of course. Some definitions are based on occupation or wealth; others take regional cost of living into account. We have chosen a simple one starting at about 50 percent above the poverty level for a family of four ($35,000) and topping out at six figures of annual income ($100,000), adjusting for inflation over time. We realize many households making more than $100,000 consider themselves middle class, but they nonetheless are making considerably more than most households — even in (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf) New York or San Francisco.

Ten-Year Trend

The 10-year income trends highlight the great 21st-century wage slowdown. Never before — since the Census Bureau’s data on household income began, in 1967 — has there been a decline in the share of households that qualify as high income. An article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/business/economy/middle-class-shrinks-further-as-more-fall-out-instead-of-climbing-up.html) in Monday’s Times examines this trend in further detail.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html?_r=0

Proves my point yet again, wages have been stagnant since the mid 1970's. Main reason for the shrinking middle class.



i have noticed that you seldom discuss topics as one human being to another but rather surf the net looking for other peoples words (liberals of course) that you agree with

then you post them here as your argument.

in that respect you and cigar have a lot in common.

but on the off chance that you are capable of forming your own thoughts and words let me point out that wages are falling due to free trade with low wage countries like mexico and china

and because we have allowed too many workers from foreign countries to move here and compete with Americans for the jobs that remained after factories move outside the US

that is not only a bipartisan mistake by democrat and republican politicians but in fact a tri-partisan screw up that includes the free trader libertarians

[zelmo1234]

Unfortunately there are many people like the OP that are not capable of thinking anymore.

They are fed information by leaders, and don't have mental ability to seek the truth.

We have been indoctrinating our Children for decades now, and it is catching up, Now politicians on both side spout lies and half truths and a large percentage of the population takes if for the gospel truth.

We are a nation of mental midgets.

[gamewell45]

The eroding middle class poses a serious challenge to the nation's economic growth, given that households with mid-range incomes fuel spending on everything from cars to housing. Yet during the past 15 years, more of those middle-income families have slipped out of the sweet spot of the American economy, thanks to a confluence of negative trends such as declining or stagnant wages and a growing income gap. While mid-income families are suffering, in many states the top 1 percent of income earners have captured all of the income gains (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/16-us-states-where-the-middle-class-is-shrinking/) since the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009.

Source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-incredible-shrinking-middle-class/

With Trump's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, we would see more of the wealth going to the top 1 percent.

Very true; the big boys always look after their own interests and everything else is secondary in their world. Trump, of course, is a member of this club. I've had to deal with executives as part of my job at one time and i know first hand what their goal is and it's certainly not the welfare of those who work for a living.

[Peter1469]

Democrats tend to want the government to care for them from cradle to grave. This is similar. Someone think for me- it is too hard.

[Chris]

(1) Many of those who are no longer middle class could have moved upwards--not necessarily downwards.

(2) In any case, I would imagine that the author is concerned merely about the lower-middle class (i.e. blue-collar workers)--not about the middle-middle class (which populates suburbia); and certainly not about the upper-middle class (e.g. physicians, dentists, attorneys, etc.)

And the lower-middle class is, understandably, "shrinking," due to automation, which has abolished many of their jobs...


...The latest piece of evidence comes from economist Stephen Rose of the Urban Institute, who finds in new research that the upper middle class in the U.S. is larger and richer than it’s ever been. He finds the upper middle class has expanded from about 12% of the population in 1979 to a new record of nearly 30% as of 2014.

https://s9.postimg.org/spwmcwn33/Untitled.png



@ Not Just the 1%: The Upper Middle Class Is Larger and Richer Than Ever (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/21/not-just-the-1-the-upper-middle-class-is-larger-and-richer-than-ever/)

[Peter1469]

@ Not Just the 1%: The Upper Middle Class Is Larger and Richer Than Ever (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/21/not-just-the-1-the-upper-middle-class-is-larger-and-richer-than-ever/)


That was one such chart posted prior to this thread.

If the hard left keeps making the same mistakes over and over are they doing it simply to keep us busy correcting them?

[debbietoo]

Unfortunately there are many people like the OP that are not capable of thinking anymore.

They are fed information by leaders, and don't have mental ability to seek the truth.

We have been indoctrinating our Children for decades now, and it is catching up, Now politicians on both side spout lies and half truths and a large percentage of the population takes if for the gospel truth.

We are a nation of mental midgets.

Just because I cut and paste portions of articles I have read on the internet and like to share on here, doesn't mean I lack intelligence. I am merely trying to emphasize the fact that wages need to be raised. I believe it's one of the major reasons for inequality in America today, and the "shrinking middle class". I saw a documentary by an economist awhile back by Professor Richard D. Wolff. Here is a link to an article by him. I tend to agree with his views. Too many of us are falling into poverty and it's clearly apparent all around us today in America.

Wage growth in the world slowed to an average of 2 percent in 2013. That was less than in 2012 and far less than the pre-crisis rate of 3 percent. Starker still were the differences between wage growth in the "developed world" (chiefly Western Europe, North America and Japan) and wage growth in the major "emerging growth" countries, chiefly China.

Source:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27877-the-wages-of-global-capitalism

Oh, by the way, I am going to keep the "cutting and pasting", so you better get used to it! This is my truth, and I intend to speak it.:grin:

[Mac-7]

Just because I cut and paste portions of articles I have read on the internet and like to share on here, doesn't mean I lack intelligence. I am merely trying to emphasize the fact that wages need to be raised. I believe it's one of the major reasons for inequality in America today, and the "shrinking middle class". I saw a documentary by an economist awhile back by Professor Richard D. Wolff. Here is a link to an article by him. I tend to agree with his views. Too many of us are falling into poverty and it's clearly apparent all around us today in America.

Wage growth in the world slowed to an average of 2 percent in 2013. That was less than in 2012 and far less than the pre-crisis rate of 3 percent. Starker still were the differences between wage growth in the "developed world" (chiefly Western Europe, North America and Japan) and wage growth in the major "emerging growth" countries, chiefly China.

Source:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27877-the-wages-of-global-capitalism

Oh, by the way, I am going to keep the "cutting and pasting", so you better get used to it! This is my truth, and I intend to speak it.:grin:

Oh rats

I have to read the cut and paste to find out about rage growth in china vs the US

and to find out what Debbie thinks about it

[Mac-7]

Oh rats

I have to read the cut and paste to find out about rage growth in china vs the US

and to find out what Debbie thinks about it

Make that WAGE growth instead of rage growth

Although there is rage growth going on in America too thanks to our stupid professional politicians

[kcvet]

their leaving the country by the millions. fertile grounds elsewhere. no more out of control liberal spending and high taxes, high living costs. bye bye third world sewer hole hello paradise

[zelmo1234]

Just because I cut and paste portions of articles I have read on the internet and like to share on here, doesn't mean I lack intelligence. I am merely trying to emphasize the fact that wages need to be raised. I believe it's one of the major reasons for inequality in America today, and the "shrinking middle class". I saw a documentary by an economist awhile back by Professor Richard D. Wolff. Here is a link to an article by him. I tend to agree with his views. Too many of us are falling into poverty and it's clearly apparent all around us today in America.

Wage growth in the world slowed to an average of 2 percent in 2013. That was less than in 2012 and far less than the pre-crisis rate of 3 percent. Starker still were the differences between wage growth in the "developed world" (chiefly Western Europe, North America and Japan) and wage growth in the major "emerging growth" countries, chiefly China.

Source:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27877-the-wages-of-global-capitalism

Oh, by the way, I am going to keep the "cutting and pasting", so you better get used to it! This is my truth, and I intend to speak it.:grin:

Debbie, I don't think that you really support it as much as you feel good talking about it

Here is why

#1 you are all for higher taxation on the upper income and corporations, that money paid in taxes prevents higher wages.

#2 You have listed several times your support for open borders and amnesty of those that have come and continue to come to the USA illegally. This Drives down Wages.

#3 you support much of the legislation including the ACA, which causes and continues to cause higher unemployment.

These are just 3 things that prevent the growth of the economy and investment in jobs. And that keeps wages down.

[gamewell45]

Debbie, I don't think that you really support it as much as you feel good talking about it

Here is why

#1 you are all for higher taxation on the upper income and corporations, that money paid in taxes prevents higher wages.

#2 You have listed several times your support for open borders and amnesty of those that have come and continue to come to the USA illegally. This Drives down Wages.

#3 you support much of the legislation including the ACA, which causes and continues to cause higher unemployment.

These are just 3 things that prevent the growth of the economy and investment in jobs. And that keeps wages down.

Zel, I disagree with you and here's why:

#1. I worked for a corporation for over 36 years and while taxes went up, they paid them, every year we received a pay increase; the company did not go out of business; in fact their revenues increased every single year;

#2. To place blame on solely on open borders and amnesty is not completely true; the fact of the matter is that wages go down because unscrupulous business owners hire undocumented aliens instead of insisting on using US Citizens or using documented aliens. If they followed the rules and common sense, a lot of the issues we have today wouldn't be a huge issue;

#3. The ACA like it or not has saved lives; I know personally of one person who had a very serious illness which would have led to death if left untreated; they couldn't get insurance due to a pre-existing condition. ACA among other things forced insurance companies to provide insurance to anyone who wanted to buy it with reasonable prices, thus literally saving this person's life. Does it need fine tuning? Of course to to blatantly insist it is solely responsible for higher unemployment is patently false.

Just sayin'.

[Mac-7]

Zel, I disagree with you and here's why:

#1. I worked for a corporation for over 36 years and while taxes went up, they paid them, every year we received a pay increase; the company did not go out of business; in fact their revenues increased every single year;

#2. To place blame on solely on open borders and amnesty is not completely true; the fact of the matter is that wages go down because unscrupulous business owners hire undocumented aliens instead of insisting on using US Citizens or using documented aliens.

If they followed the rules and common sense, a lot of the issues we have today wouldn't be a huge issue;

#3. The ACA like it or not has saved lives; I know personally of one person who had a very serious illness which would have led to death if left untreated; they couldn't get insurance due to a pre-existing condition. ACA among other things forced insurance companies to provide insurance to anyone who wanted to buy it with reasonable prices, thus literally saving this person's life. Does it need fine tuning? Of course to to blatantly insist it is solely responsible for higher unemployment is patently false.

Just sayin'.

The responsibility for guarding the border belongs to the federal government not private employers

all it takes are a few employers within a market willing to hire illegals to force everyone to hire illegals or go out of business.

[Peter1469]

If you want wages to increase, enact policies to grow the economy rather than restrain it.

[gamewell45]

The responsibility for guarding the border belongs to the federal government not private employers

all it takes are a few employers within a market willing to hire illegals to force everyone to hire illegals or go out of business.

Or turn them into immigration officials.

[debbietoo]

Debbie, I don't think that you really support it as much as you feel good talking about it

Here is why

#1 you are all for higher taxation on the upper income and corporations, that money paid in taxes prevents higher wages.

#2 You have listed several times your support for open borders and amnesty of those that have come and continue to come to the USA illegally. This Drives down Wages.

#3 you support much of the legislation including the ACA, which causes and continues to cause higher unemployment.

These are just 3 things that prevent the growth of the economy and investment in jobs. And that keeps wages down.

I've done a lot of research on both sides of the fence, believe it or not. I actually used to consider myself a republican at one point in time, until I actually lived the life of a single mother, during the 1980's. I am now retired, and my daughter is grown, with a career as a nurse and two young twins.

I decided to become a democrat when Bush became President. I saw how republican policies effected the American economy for the worse, especially when it came to the middle class and the working poor. I saw how it effected my own life personally and how it effect others like mine.

Here's how Trump's plan would effect jobs and the economy according to CNN and Moody's Analytics. I know you folks don't like the fact that I "cut and paste", but I consider it more time efficient so I hope you don't mind if I continue to utilize my skills in this area.:grin:

Electing Donald Trump president would be terrible for the economy, according to a new report (https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf) from Moody's Analytics.

The super rich would get richer and everyone else would be worse off, Moody's concludes.

Just how bad would it get? The downturn under a President Trump would last longer than the Great Recession. About 3.5 million Americans would lose their jobs, unemployment would jump back to 7%, home prices would fall, and the stock market would plummet, Moody's predicts.

"The economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump's economic proposals are adopted," writes Moody's. "It will be a difficult four years for the typical American family."

While Moody's Analytics is an independent research group, the chief economist and lead author of the report on Trump is Mark Zandi, who donated $2,700 to Hillary Clinton's campaign last year, according to OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=mark+zandi&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11). In the past, Zandi was an economic advisor to John McCain, but he then came out strongly in favor of President Obama's stimulus package to boost the economy.

Source:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/news/economy/donald-trump-economy-jobs/

In my opinion, the pure logic of democratic policy outsmarts that of republican policy every time!

[Boris The Animal]

So Debbie the Commie thinks that high confiscatory taxation is the answer?

[Captain Obvious]

The eroding middle class poses a serious challenge to the nation's economic growth, given that households with mid-range incomes fuel spending on everything from cars to housing. Yet during the past 15 years, more of those middle-income families have slipped out of the sweet spot of the American economy, thanks to a confluence of negative trends such as declining or stagnant wages and a growing income gap. While mid-income families are suffering, in many states the top 1 percent of income earners have captured all of the income gains (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/16-us-states-where-the-middle-class-is-shrinking/) since the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009.

Source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-incredible-shrinking-middle-class/

With Trump's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, we would see more of the wealth going to the top 1 percent.

Teh O'bama administration has done nothing but rape the middle class.

Hillary and the establishment will no doubt continue that policy.

The middle class lives to serve the poor and wealthy.

[Captain Obvious]

Who do you think is paying for the ACA, the expanded Medicaid programs?

The wealthy? Nope

The poor? Nope

Do the math.

[Captain Obvious]

The wealthy fund the establishment's campaign coffers.

The poor vote them in.

The middle class gets fucked, every time and to be honest, there are too many idiots in the middle class that allow this to happen.

[FindersKeepers]

Electing Donald Trump president would be terrible for the economy, according to a new report (https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf) from Moody's Analytics.

Forbes' experts disagree.


While some of his other policy proposals are far outside what most Americans could support, his pro-growth, job creating tax policies are an encouraging move in the right direction. They create a clear and important distinction between his vision for a stronger and more the vigorous country than that of of Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton. According to Mr. Trump, “The one common feature of every Hillary Clinton idea is that it punishes you for working and doing business in the United States. Every policy she has tilts the playing field towards other countries at our expense.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/08/12/trump-pro-growth-plan-simplifies-tax-code-steers-economy-to-greater-opportunity-for-all/#288c1a8fcf6a

Hillary has become the darling of globalization, and the intent to bring third world nations up to a more moderate standard of living, and bring first world nations down to a comparable level. That means you, me and every American here is in line to be punished, via taxes and reduced job opportunities with a Hillary presidency.

[Mac-7]

If you want wages to increase, enact policies to grow the economy rather than restrain it.

The US economy should grow faster.

im all for that

but it can never grow as fast as mexican and central American women can make babies that eventually come here as young chilren or adults expecting America to take care of them

[debbietoo]

Business Economists Say Hillary Clinton Is Best for the Economy


A majority of business economists in a new survey said Hillary Clinton is the best choice to oversee the U.S. economy as president.

Her Republican rival, Donald Trump, didn’t even come in second.

The National Association for Business Economics (https://www.nabe.com/) surveyed its members ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. Roughly 55% said Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, would do the best job of managing the economy.

About 14% picked Mr. Trump—slightly less than the 15% who selected Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson and the 15% who said they didn’t know or had no opinion. ( The figures didn’t add up to exactly 100% due to rounding.)

The survey of 414 NABE members, released Monday, was conducted July 20 to Aug. 2.
Mr. Trump’s hostility to trade deals (http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-lays-out-protectionist-views-in-trade-speech-1467145538) like the North American Free Trade Agreement and his calls to deport illegal immigrants (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-saying-illegal-immigrants-have-to-go-targets-obama-orders-1439738967) may be costing him support among economists. In the NABE survey, 65% said U.S. trade policy should be more open and free versus 9% who said it should be more protectionist. Only 8% said the U.S. should deport all unauthorized immigrants while 64% backed a program to legalize undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S.

The NABE survey also found that 62% of business economists said uncertainty about the election is holding back economic growth at least somewhat, versus 35% who didn’t see election-related uncertainty as a headwind for the economy. That’s in line with the 57% of business and academic economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal this month who said the economy has suffered due to election-related uncertainty (http://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-see-election-induced-uncertainty-harming-u-s-economy-1470924003).

Source:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/22/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-or-gary-johnson-u-s-business-economists-have-a-strong-preference/

[DGUtley]

Debbie, please tell me how NAFTA has helped the middle class. I understand you're "all in" for anything Anti-Trump, but your buddies (liberals) have been railing against NAFTA since your overlord Clinton signed it. Again, how has NAFTA helped the MC?

[Mac-7]

Debbie, please tell me how NAFTA has helped the middle class. I understand you're "all in" for anything Anti-Trump, but your buddies (liberals) have been railing against NAFTA since your overlord Clinton signed it. Again, how has NAFTA helped the MC?
V
you are going to force debbie to surf the net searching for thoughts and words she can use to answer your question.

this could take hours if she responds at all

[zelmo1234]

Business Economists Say Hillary Clinton Is Best for the Economy


A majority of business economists in a new survey said Hillary Clinton is the best choice to oversee the U.S. economy as president.

Her Republican rival, Donald Trump, didn’t even come in second.

The National Association for Business Economics (https://www.nabe.com/) surveyed its members ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. Roughly 55% said Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, would do the best job of managing the economy.

About 14% picked Mr. Trump—slightly less than the 15% who selected Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson and the 15% who said they didn’t know or had no opinion. ( The figures didn’t add up to exactly 100% due to rounding.)

The survey of 414 NABE members, released Monday, was conducted July 20 to Aug. 2.
Mr. Trump’s hostility to trade deals (http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-lays-out-protectionist-views-in-trade-speech-1467145538) like the North American Free Trade Agreement and his calls to deport illegal immigrants (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-saying-illegal-immigrants-have-to-go-targets-obama-orders-1439738967) may be costing him support among economists. In the NABE survey, 65% said U.S. trade policy should be more open and free versus 9% who said it should be more protectionist. Only 8% said the U.S. should deport all unauthorized immigrants while 64% backed a program to legalize undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S.

The NABE survey also found that 62% of business economists said uncertainty about the election is holding back economic growth at least somewhat, versus 35% who didn’t see election-related uncertainty as a headwind for the economy. That’s in line with the 57% of business and academic economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal this month who said the economy has suffered due to election-related uncertainty (http://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-see-election-induced-uncertainty-harming-u-s-economy-1470924003).

Source:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/22/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-or-gary-johnson-u-s-business-economists-have-a-strong-preference/


Debbie, if Hillary's plan for the USA is so good?

Why is it not working now? You see her plan is more of the same thing that we are doing today.

Hillary told everyone that she was going to put Bill in charge of the economy.

Bill Clinton was a supply sider, His Tax cuts, that took effect in 1996 were larger than Reagans and they were almost exclusively to the rich. If that worked so well, why have we abandon that thought now?

I don't see how any reputable economist could say with a straight face, that more of the same will work.

[debbietoo]

Bill Clinton has admitted several times that NAFTA was a mistake. Hillary is against TPA and has outlined that on her website. Her and Trump are actually in agreement about TPA. Hillary wants to keep jobs here for Americans and wants to raise minimum wage. Another reason for rising inequality in America today is the fall of labor unions. Most other developed countries have working labor unions. Labor unions actually built up the middle class in America. This article proves it in one chart. See this link. Let's bring our labor unions back and let's make it in America now!

This week the Census Bureau reported the latest depressing decline (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf) in middle-class incomes during the so-called economic recovery. But it may have missed an important factor in this story.

A report on Wednesday from the left-leaning think tank Center For American Progress notes that as middle-class incomes have steadily fallen, so have union membership rates (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2013/09/17/74363/latest-census-data-underscore-how-important-unions-are-for-the-middle-class/). The middle 60 percent of households earned 53.2 percent of national income in 1968. That number has fallen to just 45.7 percent. During that same period, nationwide union membership fell from 28.3 percent to a record-low 11.3 percent of all workers.

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/union-membership-middle-class-income_n_3948543.html

[Jets]

Bill Clinton has admitted several times that NAFTA was a mistake. Hillary is against TPA and has outlined that on her website. Her and Trump are actually in agreement about TPA. Hillary wants to keep jobs here for Americans and wants to raise minimum wage. Another reason for rising inequality in America today is the fall of labor unions. Most other developed countries have working labor unions. Labor unions actually built up the middle class in America. This article proves it in one chart. See this link. Let's bring our labor unions back and let's make it in America now!

This week the Census Bureau reported the latest depressing decline (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf) in middle-class incomes during the so-called economic recovery. But it may have missed an important factor in this story.

A report on Wednesday from the left-leaning think tank Center For American Progress notes that as middle-class incomes have steadily fallen, so have union membership rates (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2013/09/17/74363/latest-census-data-underscore-how-important-unions-are-for-the-middle-class/). The middle 60 percent of households earned 53.2 percent of national income in 1968. That number has fallen to just 45.7 percent. During that same period, nationwide union membership fell from 28.3 percent to a record-low 11.3 percent of all workers.

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/union-membership-middle-class-income_n_3948543.html


Debbie,

This is from your link:

That said, younger generations may have a good reason to be less than eager to join a union. Studies have discovered that during the economic recovery, non-union workers fared considerably better than union workers in fields like manufacturing and private construction. Also, during the 1982 and 1991 recessions, states with fewer union members were found to recover more quickly than states with a strong union presence.

Agree or disagree?

[Boris The Animal]

Debbie's a Communist. So obviously she supports 100% unionization.

[Captain Obvious]

Debbie's a Communist. So obviously she supports 100% unionization.

Boris is a moron. So obviously everything he says can be laughed at then immediately dismissed.

[Boris The Animal]

Boris is a moron. So obviously everything he says can be laughed at then immediately dismissed.OK Captain Oblivious