Trump's Assaults on American Proletarianism

I’m getting $600 more per month with the tax cuts as a middle class American. Damn you, Trump! Damn you to hell!
It's hard to argue that we live in a robber baron society when the "proletarians" are benefiting from a sweeping tax cut. You can argue whether or not the tax cuts were beneficial overall to the economy, but that's a completely different animal.
 
It's hard to argue that we live in a robber baron society when the "proletarians" are benefiting from a sweeping tax cut. You can argue whether or not the tax cuts were beneficial overall to the economy, but that's a completely different animal.

Proletarians aren't benefiting from a tax cut, though. And it wasn't very sweeping. The vast majority of the cuts go to a very small number of people. And obviously no middle class American is getting an extra $600 a month. You'd have to be making like 10 times the median income to see that kind of benefit. Someone making over half a million a year is not middle class by any reasonable definition.
 
TS sounds poor and should just go back to Russia.
 
I'll never understand how the public was convinced that Hillary was some wall street sellout, when the republican party is far more likely to be shareholders and corporate interests.

Republican tax policy is and always has been far more favorable to anyone who makes money in the markets.

If we were to see a dollar for dollar comparison I'd say 80-90% of corporate or wall st contributions go to the republican candidates.
I remember several posters on this board claiming that Hillary was in the pocket of wall street and especially Goldman Sachs because she gave some paid speeches at GS in 2010.

Those same posters have been very quiet in regards to trump deregulating WS and hiring more GS alumni than any administration ever.
 
Caesar was really good for Rome, Trump is good for America.

The left took America into a state of Pax Romana.
 
Has Trump's war on illegals created increased wages in these sectors? Did I miss this?

tumblr_inline_mkdtcrTOTU1qz4rgp.jpg

In theory, less supply of workers will mean more demand for workers which is alway favorable for workers. Whether or not employers have found way to circumvent is another topic, and does not mean I am wrong. Plus these changes take time to happen.

Let me ask you, how has Trump's immigration policy bad for workers as it is in OP's list?
 
In theory, less supply of workers will mean more demand for workers which is alway favorable for workers. Whether or not employers have found way to circumvent is another topic, and does not mean I am wrong. Plus these changes take time to happen.

There's no theory that supports the claim that reducing labor supply will increase demand. It would certainly decrease demand, in fact (and empirical approaches will confirm this).
 
In theory, less supply of workers will mean more demand for workers which is alway favorable for workers. Whether or not employers have found way to circumvent is another topic, and does not mean I am wrong. Plus these changes take time to happen.

Let me ask you, how has Trump's immigration policy bad for workers as it is in OP's list?
What you're describing is known as the lump of labor fallacy. Read the article below if you're interested. It doesn't go into as much detail as I think it should, but at least it's succinct. Krugman has written a couple of articles on this where he really breaks it down into a "econ for dummies" style, if you're interested into something more fleshed out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
 
There's no theory that supports the claim that reducing labor supply will increase demand. It would certainly decrease demand, in fact (and empirical approaches will confirm this).

What you're describing is known as the lump of labor fallacy. Read the article below if you're interested. It doesn't go into as much detail as I think it should, but at least it's succinct. Krugman has written a couple of articles on this where he really breaks it down into a "econ for dummies" style, if you're interested into something more fleshed out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

I probably have not worded myself properly. I do not mean to say decreasing the pool of workers will mean even more overall workers will be demanded, but rather there is now less competition for the leftover workers to go up against. That in and of itself can never be a bad thing for the leftover workers.

Even if the number of jobs is not fixed, can go up, goes down; less competition for the jobs is still never a bad thing. I do not believe Trump or any of his policies rules out increasing legal immigration if the situation calls for it. It may have read that way, but I was just being blunt before.
 
I probably have not worded myself properly. I do not mean to say decreasing the pool of workers will mean even more overall workers will be demanded, but rather there is now less competition for the leftover workers to go up against. That in and of itself can never be a bad thing for the leftover workers.

Even if the number of jobs is not fixed, can go up, goes down; less competition for the jobs is still never a bad thing. I do not believe Trump or any of his policies rules out increasing legal immigration if the situation calls for it. It may have read that way, but I was just being blunt before.
The article I posted refers specifically to the false notion that there is a fixed demand for workers. There isn't. If Thanos snapped his fingers and half of all baristas died, the wage of surviving baristas wouldn't double. That's not how labor markets work.

Again I highly encourage you to read the link. Your logic doesn't apply when we employ general equilibrium analysis.

lump-labour-fallacy.png
 
I wish I made $12k a month, damn. Motherfuckers acting like only corporations benefited.
They and the 1% really did. I’m sure I’m a lot older than you. Hard work and determination will get you somewhere.
 
Back
Top