The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

During his political rise, Stephen K. Bannon was a man with no fixed address

The issue of Bannon’s legal residency has been simmering since last summer, shortly after he became chief executive of Trump’s campaign. The Guardian reported in an Aug. 26 story that he was registered to vote at a then-vacant house and speculated that Bannon may have signed an oath that he was a Florida resident to take advantage of the state’s lack of state income taxes.

#Resist

[joan1984]

  Democrats imposing the 30 Hour workweek as Full Time Employment, for purposes of paid health care by an employer, is what destroyed or nearly so, the 40 hour week for many as a standard, and requires people to hold multiple part time jobs, just to get to where they were prior to Dear Leader Obama, and the Democrats who shoved this down the collective throats of Americans in 2010.

  That is what I refer to, Katiebee. You are unaffected, of course, and don't care about those who are affected. Runaway regulation for the sake of control by the Federal Government, bleeds the coffers of investors, and the employers who pay people for their labor. That is what Obama and Dems disturbed in 2010, and since then, and part of the reason for the SLOW and ineffective recovery from the recession that peaked with Obama's election in November 2008.

[Athos_131]

19 times Trump called jobs numbers ‘fake’ before they made him look good

#Resist

[Katiebee]

incorrect, Joan. You have cause and effect reversed. The reason 30 hours law was put into place was because employers were limiting work hours of hourly workers to avoid providing benefits.

They still do it. It's because they adhere to the Gordon Gekko school of business, greed is good.

Because they are willing to screw over their workers is not the fault of of the government, it is the employers choice.

[watcher1]

It takes a couple of years after things are passed or enacted before the progress shows up in the economic news, as it relates to the government. I believe our economy is growing, but not at the rate it needs to support a growing work force. But it is heading in the right direction. And not because of our current president.

[Northwest]

It takes a couple of years after things are passed or enacted before the progress shows up in the economic news, as it relates to the government. I believe our economy is growing, but not at the rate it needs to support a growing work force. But it is heading in the right direction. And not because of our current president.

Well put  (and accurate).

[Katiebee]

The work force will be contracting from here on out, especially if immigration is restricted or curtailed.

[phtlc]

The work force will be contracting from here on out, especially if immigration is restricted or curtailed.

Is that an entirely bad thing? The economy is contracting with fewer and fewer jobs (up here in Canada at least) to the point that our own government has announced that moving foreword the average Canadian should get used to job churn, meaning intermittent terms of contract employment punctuated by periods of unemployment as the new norm. It seems logical that if the number of people already exceeds the number of jobs and the number of jobs will continue to decrease then perhaps a contracting workforce would be a good thing. Why make things harder for an already struggling populace?

[_priapism]

The economy is contracting with fewer and fewer jobs (up here in Canada at least) to the point that our own government has announced that moving foreword the average Canadian should get used to job churn, meaning intermittent terms of contract employment punctuated by periods of unemployment as the new norm.

That has been my experience since the collapse in 2008.  Once a certain age and experience level is reached, it seems that everyone becomes a "consultant" of some sort, relying on friends and industry contacts for the occasional pay day.

[phtlc]

The economy is contracting with fewer and fewer jobs (up here in Canada at least) to the point that our own government has announced that moving foreword the average Canadian should get used to job churn, meaning intermittent terms of contract employment punctuated by periods of unemployment as the new norm.

That has been my experience since the collapse in 2008.  Once a certain age and experience level is reached, it seems that everyone becomes a "consultant" of some sort, relying on friends and industry contacts for the occasional pay day.

They weren't referring to people of a certain age though. What they meant was that from the day you are old enough to work until the day you die, you will face intermittent employment.

[Northwest]

Probably the strongest reason to allow for robust immigration is to work against the problem of an aging population, which all mature Western democracies are facing. If we don't do this, a growing base of aging Americans will need to be supported by a shrinking segment of working age people. You can see that this will cause enormous social stress as it gets worse and worse (and it will -- demographics is destiny).

I read a book by a geopolitical thinker (I think it was called "The Next Fifty Years") where the author argued that today's anti-immigrant fervor will be replaced within twenty years by an aggressive competition between industrialized countries FOR immigrants. We're all going to be dealing with the reality of too many retirees and too few workers.

It's something to think about before we get too used to pissing on our Southern neighbors for sport, or just because we can, because we are more linked to and dependent on them than we would like to admit.

The simple (and terribly frightening) truth is that our employment problems have little to do with immigration, and a lot to do with technological advancement; robotics to put it in a word. And things are going to get a whole lot worse very quickly. There was a study released by Oxford a few weeks back where they predicted that HALF OF ALL JOBS would become obsolete and disappear over the next twenty years. Much worse, is that nobody has come up with any solution which will prevent social rupture.

I think we will most likely return to socialism, or a mix of socialism and market based economy, because you don't need to get anywhere near half of people being unable to eat before the social fabric rips completely.

Edit: I'm pretty sure this is the book I was referring to -- I was wrong about the title:

https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century-ebook/dp/B001NLL946/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1/156-7845967-3982330

[phtlc]

Probably the strongest reason to allow for robust immigration is to work against the problem of an aging population, which all mature Western democracies are facing. If we don't do this, a growing base of aging Americans will need to be supported by a shrinking segment of working age people. You can see that this will cause enormous social stress as it gets worse and worse (and it will -- demographics is destiny).
 

There is no evidence to suggest we need massive population growth for economic growth. As automation and technological advances continue to increase exponentially a great many traditional jobs will continue to become obsolete.  Hence future generations will not have work. If there is no work, and we decide to bring in mass numbers of people in who will not have job prospects, how will these people support this aging population? If we don't see growth in jobs we don't need more people.
 Part of the reason our middle class has thrived is because we tended not to have explosive population growth. Too many of the stakeholders in the IRB and related industries wish to change that.

I read a book by a geopolitical thinker (I think it was called "The Next Fifty Years") where the author argued that today's anti-immigrant fervor will be replaced within twenty years by an aggressive competition between industrialized countries FOR immigrants. We're all going to be dealing with the reality of too many retirees and too few workers.
 

I think the book you refer to is "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman. He had some interesting (and questionable) theories, but don't forget he also wrote in the same book about the creation of "death stars" (presumably ones that can't be defeated by a photon torpedo through an exhaust port.

It's something to think about before we get to used to pissing on our Southern neighbors for sport, or just because we can, because we are more linked to and dependent on them than we would like to admit.
 

First, my southern neighbors are the US, and other than the fact that your beer sucks I don't piss on you. If by "our southern neighbors" you mean Mexico, I have been quite clear on my desire to see greater economic cooperation between Canada the US and Mexico. You do however fall prey to the classic tactic of accusing anyone who critiques immigration policy as "pissing on" immigrants.


I would be curious to hear more about your assertion that we are dependent on them. If by that you mean that they do jobs we will allegedly not do, I disagree. With the exception of maybe certain agricultural jobs,  most people here will work. As a matter of fact we have had numerous scandals up here in Canada where companies applying for temporary foreign worker (TFW) permits (they can be paid 15% less than minimum wage)under the guise that they couldn't find Canadians who would do the job, were found to have turned away Canadian applicants with experience.

The simple (and terribly frightening) truth is that our employment problems have little to do with immigration, and a lot to do with technological advancement; robotics to put it in a word. And things are going to get a whole lot worse very quickly. There was a study released by Oxford a few weeks back where they predicted that HALF OF ALL JOBS would become obsolete and disappear over the next twenty years. Much worse, is that nobody has come up with any solution which will prevent social rupture.
 

Employment issues are about supply and demand. Automation reduces the demand for labour. Immigration increase the supply of labour. Both are factors.


I haven't seen the oxford study you refer to so I can't comment but I don't doubt it's findings. Again up here our current crowned child prince Justin Trudeau has told Canadians we have to get used to job churn which means we have more people than jobs and that this imbalance is going to get worse rather than better due to decreasing job opportunities. Despite this, Justin junior also told Canadians (about a week later) that he planned to massively increase Canada's immigration policy with the intention of tripling our population.

Read up on Jeorge Borjas from Harvard, himself an immigrant; he has pointed out that immigration in excess of what is truly needed only results in a transfer of wealth from the middle and lower class to the wealthy.

[Northwest]

phtlc's comments are in boxes; mine are not.

There is no evidence to suggest we need massive population growth for economic growth

.

I never suggested we did; what I spoke of was the ratio of young workers to older workers. I don't see how I could possibly have expressed myself on this point more clearly.

I don't know how your social programs are structured in Canada, but in the US both Social Security and Medicare depend on those currently working to pay the current costs of funding retiree benefits. So the ratio of employed to retired is critical to the operation of the system.

As automation and technological advances continue to increase exponentially a great many traditional jobs will continue to become obsolete.  Hence future generations will not have work. If there is no work, and we decide to bring in mass numbers of people in who will not have job prospects, how will these people support this aging population? If we don't see growth in jobs we don't need more people.

This is true; automation is a disruptive force to virtually every aspect of our economy. This may or may not supersede the importance of increasing the ratio of younger to older workers. It's simply not possible to know how automation is going to be addressed.

Quite simply, if half the jobs are lost, then not only do half of the incomes go away, but the tax base collapses as well. Social Security and Medicare would implode, and government would be unable to function. Automation is a wild card. Basically, automation has the capacity to over turn every economic principal upon which the world is based.

Part of the reason our middle class has thrived is because we tended not to have explosive population growth. Too many of the stakeholders in the IRB and related industries wish to change that.

Nonsense; show me the evidence that "the middle class thrived" because population growth was restrained. This is just made up economic theory.

The period after WWII saw US population growth explode (The Baby Boom, of which I am a part) and it was correlated with a period of economic growth in the US which was the greatest ever seen by any country and any time in mankind's history. The evidence on the table proves you wrong.

And what the hell is the IRB? Google thinks it's the "Institutional Review Board". Myself, I have no idea.

I think the book you refer to is "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman. He had some interesting (and questionable) theories, but don't forget he also wrote in the same book about the creation of "death stars" (presumably ones that can't be defeated by a photon torpedo through an exhaust port.

I updated my post to include the book title. But I have absolutely no memory of anything related to death stars. The parts of the book which dealt with demographic changes, however, were the best founded in my opinion.

First, my southern neighbors ar the US, and other than the fact that your beer sucks I don't piss on you.

I wasn't speaking to or about you.

You do however fall prey to the classic tactic of accusing anyone who critiques immigration policy as "pissing on" immigrants.

Building a wall and telling a neighboring country that they are going to pay for it IS a form of pissing on your neighbor. As is referring to people from that country as thugs, criminals, rapists and "some, I suppose are decent people."

Trump is inciting and manipulating racist and nativistic sentiment for political gain. It's a shitty thing to do to your neighbors, and I doubt that they'll quickly forget the various insults. I know I wouldn't.  The 'pissing' also includes the scapegoating of immigrants for problems created by others which I address below.

I would be curious to hear more about your assertion that we are dependent on them. If by that you mean that they do jobs we will allegedly not do, I disagree. With the exception of maybe certain agricultural jobs,  most people here will work. As a matter of fact we have had numerous scandals up here in Canada where companies applying for temporary foreign worker (TFW) permits (they can be paid 15% less than minimum wage)under the guise that they couldn't find Canadians who would do the job, were found to have turned away Canadian applicants with experience.


Employment issues are about supply and demand. Automation reduces the demand for labour. Immigration increase the supply of labour. Both are factors.


I haven't seen the oxford study you refer to so I can't comment but I don't doubt it's findings. Again up here our current crowned child prince Justin Trudeau has told Canadians we have to get used to job churn which means we have more people than jobs and that this imbalance is going to get worse rather than better due to decreasing job opportunities. Despite this, Justin junior also told Canadians (about a week later) that he planned to massively increase Canada's immigration policy with the intention of tripling our population.

I don't know enough about Canada to have any comment on this.

Read up on Jeorge Borjas from Harvard, himself an immigrant; he has pointed out that immigration in excess of what is truly needed only results in a transfer of wealth from the middle and lower class to the wealthy.

I have no argument with this. The key phrase, of course, if "in excess of what is truly needed". In my county immigration has been used as a red herring issue to provide cover for a number of other factors which have been substantially more detrimental to the middle class; outsourcing of jobs, and declining government employment among them (and by government employment, I mean all of the things which government funds, like roads and bridges, education, science and research, etc.).

The relentless move to reduce taxes on the wealthy, and shift from a progressive to a flat or
even regressive tax system has shifted staggering amounts of wealth into the hands of a limited number of people. And money in the pockets of the wealthy behaves completely differently than money which is paid in wages, and which continues to circulate and spawn further economic activity. Not only are we not priming the pump, we have continued to look for more and more creative ways to drain the pump and make sure it doesn't work. Mexicans, however, make a nice scapegoat, as if people who mow lawns or perform child care for eight dollars an hour are having any realistic impact of John and Betty Doe -- who need to make in excess of fifty thousand a year to pay off student loans, purchase health care, fund retirement, save for children's college expenses and pay for the increasing tax burden which the wealthy have managed to avoid.

[phtlc]

Part of the reason our middle class has thrived is because we tended not to have explosive population growth. Too many of the stakeholders in the IRB and related industries wish to change that.

Nonsense; show me the evidence that "the middle class thrived" because population growth was restrained. This is just made up economic theory.

Start with this


http://www.science20.com/science_20/how_bubonic_plague_made_europe_great-29378



From a Canadian perspective,  let's start with heuristical (yes I'm aware, correlation vs causation), and notice that the countries that developed a healthy middle class tended to also be ones who didn't breed like rabbits.

You have to look at the immigration policy as a national human resources department (which is how it should always be looked at). Immigration should be there when projected growth sees a shortfall of workers that would inhibit that growth.
For example, I hear people say "This country was built on immigration", I point out that yes it was at a time that immigration was needed to facilitate the massive growth opportunities here.

For example, some of the earlier immigrants to canada were beaver pelt traders. Then somebody said "Hey we have lots of trees here, we should make an industry of cutting them down but.....all the existing labour are busy chasing beaver, so we'll need immigrants"


Then they noticed that there were tonnes of natural resources (coal, iron....etc). Unfortunately all the existing labour force were chasing beaver or obsessing over their wood.....so they needed immigrants.


After awhile we were a resource economy, shipping raw materials to europe and then buying finished products from them when somebody said "Hey, why don't we have a manufacturing base here...unfortunately our existing labour force are too busy chasing beaver ....etc, so we'll need immigrants"


Eventually, until the next economic revolution happens, most countries (much like most firms) move past hyper growth and reach stability and then potentially economic decline. Wanting mass immigration when jobs are in decline is like a VHS manufacturing company seeing sales decline due to the popularity of DVD and saying "let's hire more VHS assemblers".

And what the hell is the IRB? Google thinks it's the "Institutional Review Board".
 

The Immigration and Refugee Board

Myself, I have no idea.
 

I arrived at that conclusion some time ago

[Lois]

The economy is contracting with fewer and fewer jobs (up here in Canada at least) to the point that our own government has announced that moving foreword the average Canadian should get used to job churn, meaning intermittent terms of contract employment punctuated by periods of unemployment as the new norm.

That has been my experience since the collapse in 2008.  Once a certain age and experience level is reached, it seems that everyone becomes a "consultant" of some sort, relying on friends and industry contacts for the occasional pay day.

So true!

And many other good points made in this thread.  Robotics is making labor obsolete.  So were do we go from here?  Capitalism cannot work markets enabled by labor and consumption.

[Northwest]

phtlc said: "From a Canadian perspective,  let's start with heuristical (yes I'm aware, correlation vs causation), and notice that the countries that developed a healthy middle class tended to also be ones who didn't breed like rabbits."

LOL...

It would be a mistake to suggest I got a good laugh out of this; I got several good laughs out of this.

First, let me say that you obviously have surrendered on, and effectively retract the point that "the middle class thrived because population growth was restrained", It was a moronic statement, and you would have better of to just let it pass than to try to address it.

I did want to ask, however, a bit more about this refusal to "breed like rabbits." Obviously, you're speaking of your homeland here, as one of the better examples of non-rabbitness. My questions are these: Were you successful in this endeavor because you had sex less? Did you have sex a plenty, but simply failed to frequently conceive (weak sperm or something similar)?
Or...you actually have roughly the same number babies as people elsewhere do, but they failed to live into maturity? To what do you attribute your ability to be "ones who didn't breed like rabbits" (I mean, other than not being an immigrant, of course)?

As I've already said, America's population explosion of the baby boom correlated with the greatest economic expansion in history (didn't you also experience the same two things concurrently)? Your argument has no legs...wait...that's not it...you don't even have an argument.

[phtlc]

phtlc said: "From a Canadian perspective,  let's start with heuristical (yes I'm aware, correlation vs causation), and notice that the countries that developed a healthy middle class tended to also be ones who didn't breed like rabbits."

LOL...
It would be a mistake to suggest I got a good laugh out of this; I got several good laughs out of this.

Probably because you either didn't bother reading my post or the content of it went right over your head there sport.

First, let me say that you obviously have surrendered on, and effectively retract the point that "the middle class thrived because population growth was restrained", It was a moronic statement, and you would have better of to just let it pass than to try to address it.
 

OK, now I know you didn't read my post or the associated link. Granted the article in the link used some big words so it might have been confusing for you.

Or...you actually have roughly the same number babies as people elsewhere do, but they failed to live into maturity? To what do you attribute your ability to be "ones who didn't breed like rabbits" (I mean, other than not being an immigrant, of course)?
 

Your post is incoherent but can I assume your trying to accuse me of being anti immigrant again?

Your argument has no legs...wait...that's not it...you don't even have an argument.

No, it just went right over your head there sport.

[Northwest]

Wait...there's another possibility I didn't see at first (re: the breeding problems); did you wife actually prefer the dark skinned guy down the block? That would explain a lot.

If you made an argument there, and I failed to find it, then that will be obvious to everyone else who reads this thread because it'll jump right out at them. So you're probably just fine.

I mean...if you actually had anything intelligent to say on this subject.

I'm done with this.

[phtlc]

Wait...there's another possibility I didn't see at first (re: the breeding problems); did you wife actually prefer the dark skinned guy down the block? That would explain a lot.
 

If you made an argument there, and I failed to find it, then that will be obvious to everyone else who reads this thread because it'll jump right out at them. So you're probably just fine.
 

Yes, you failed. Have you taken a poll to determine how many others find my alleged intent obvious?

I mean...if you actually had anything intelligent to say on this subject.
 

This from a guy who said " You are dropping a continuous stream of outraged right wing, Fox News type nativistic, pro-Trump, anti-immigrant, and bordering on white supremacist stories. And you're clearly trying to pick a fight. "

By all means, show me this continuous stream of posts that are;

1: outraged right wing
2: pro trump
3: anti immigrant
4: white supremist


Take your time there sport


Show me where I tried to pick a fight. You tried picking one, then played the victim card accusing me and GG of picking on you, and then you accused me of playing the victim card (after you played it yourself) and then accuse me of trying to pick a fight?

I'm done with this.

Probably for the best. I'm tired of listening to you whine.

[Northwest]

Dinner time. Maybe later.