Trump on the minimum wage: Keep it at $7.25. No raise it. No eliminate it.
When Trump was running against GOP opponents, he favored keeping the minimum wage where it is. Then last Wednesday he seemed to come out in favor of raising it:
The billionaire businessman said he was studying the minimum wage issue and did not know if the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour should be raised to the $15 per hour “living wage” advocated by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernard Sanders.
Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, has said that the federal minimum wage should be raised to as much as $12 per hour. . . .
Mr. Trump also predicted that he would win over supporters currently backing Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent and self-described democratic socialist who has led a insurgent movement of young voters dissatisfied with the political system.
“I’m going to get a lot of his supporters,” said Mr. Trump.
Then today he came out for eliminating the Federal minimum wage, the exact same position as the New York Times held back in 1987.
Trump Casino: You place you bets votes, and you take your chances.
HT: Scott Freelander
Tags:
8. May 2016 at 16:34
Of course this is your blog and you can do whatever the hell you want, but the stuff where you stay closer to your area of expertise is far superior.
Venting here and keeping your more interesting economic content at EconLog is a solution- maybe you’re already doing that and I haven’t noticed.
Cheers!
8. May 2016 at 16:34
This is Trump’s standard communications style. I don’t expect Trump to speak like a policy wonk, I don’t know why this is surprising or offensive to Sumner.
I would vote for no minimum wage, but we don’t get to vote on issues in isolation.
In an A/B vote between Trump and Hillary, I would bet Hillary would enact more ridiculous left wing policy on issues like this. Trump might do something stupid, he might not, but he probably won’t be as hard core leftist as Hillary.
8. May 2016 at 17:45
“Trump Casino: You place you bets votes, and you take your chances.”
-Yup. But I don’t see where Trump suggested raising the minimum wage. I support eliminating the Federal minimum wage and I like Trump’s latest position on this.
8. May 2016 at 17:51
Trump now has a 66% favorable rating among Republicans and leaners. That’s pretty solid for a presumptive nominee at this stage of the game. Let’s see him attack Crooked Hillary and TRiUMPh!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx
8. May 2016 at 17:51
*62%
8. May 2016 at 17:53
All politicians do that. Reagan was to abolish the Department of Education and do something about the deficit. Nixon was to deliver peace with honor. Roosevelt was concerned with Hoover’s overspending. Bill Clinton… ah, Bill Clinton. This is just how the game is played.
8. May 2016 at 17:54
Harding,
Newsflash: Trump supports raising the minimum wage. This is not a new position for him. He just went back to an old one. As soon as the nomination is over, if not before, he will run on at least a $15/hour minimum wage.
8. May 2016 at 17:55
Scott
-[citation needed].
8. May 2016 at 17:56
Harding,
You need to wise up. There’s no path for a conservative to win the White House, unless it was someone like Kasich, who’s largely considered a RINO anyway. Trump will run left, because he is a leftist, first of all, and second of all, because he knows it’s his best chance to win.
Hillary is making a big mistake by courting Republicans.
8. May 2016 at 18:06
How is restricting immigration leftist? It’s the most conservative position one can take. In what way is Trump a leftist (other than on sexual deviant privileges)?
Was Romney a conservative? He certainly exacerbated the partisan divide relative to Bush.
Kasich is a RINO. He wants Turkey in the E.U. Trump supports Brexit.
8. May 2016 at 18:12
Brian, You said:
“Venting here and keeping your more interesting economic content at EconLog is a solution- maybe you’re already doing that and I haven’t noticed.”
Yes, that’s been my plan in recent years.
Massimo, You said:
“This is Trump’s standard communications style.”
I agree, nothing Trump says can be trusted. It’s his standard style on all topics. What Trump actually believes? Who knows?
Harding, You said:
“I like Trump’s latest position on this.”
Does that mean you won’t like his position next week? How about his position after the election? I don’t see why you even care what Trump thinks on May 8, 2016. He’s not President right now. Care to explain why his current view matters to you?
Thiago, You said:
“All politicians do that.”
Nope, Trump’s the only one who held all three positions on the minimum wage, in a single campaign. If all politicians did that we’d never know what any of them believed on any issue—no point in even having elections.
I do love the way Trumpistas insisted that Trump was not an ordinary politician, rather he was a man of convictions, who could stop the wave of immigration. And now they defend him as being an ordinary politician who can’t be trusted on anything. Actually ordinary politicians can be trusted on some things. Hillary really will try to raise the minimum wage, you can count on it. It’s Trump who cannot be trusted on anything. The disgruntled voters who never vote because you can’t trust politicians, ended up supporting the one guy who’s even less trustworthy than real politicians. The guy who’s more like a caricature of politicians
8. May 2016 at 18:25
“Care to explain why his current view matters to you?”
-Same reason for why prediction markets matter to you: they’re not good at predicting, but they distill the collective wisdom and are far better predictors of future views than random chance.
“Nope, Trump’s the only one who held all three positions on the minimum wage, in a single campaign.”
-You haven’t shown he ever wanted to raise the minimum wage.
“ended up supporting the one guy who’s even less trustworthy than real politicians.”
-Because he’s the only guy who can defend himself. And that’s because he lacks any feeling of guilt or shame, which, unfortunately(?), results in his extreme inconsistency.
8. May 2016 at 18:54
Reagan would have said anything about the deficit to be in position to mine Nicaragua’s harbors and aid the Contras. Nixon would have said anything about honor to be able to bomb Cambodia. Trump will say everything about minor issues to be able to get elected, bring American jobs back and make China and Mexico pay. As the old book title warned, you can trust a Communist to be a Communist. We surely can trust Trump to be Trump. What more should we ask from him? “In your heart, you know he’s right.”
8. May 2016 at 18:57
The worst thing he said in the primary was that wages are too high-that’s one Hillary and the Dems should use often.
8. May 2016 at 19:00
“Actually ordinary politicians can be trusted on some things. Hillary really will try to raise the minimum wage, you can count on it. It’s Trump who cannot be trusted on anything.”
For conservatives, raising the minimum wage is the worst outcome on the issue. So Hillary being consistently terrible is worse than Trump being unreliable and maybe good, maybe bad.
“Nope, Trump’s the only one who held all three positions on the minimum wage, in a single campaign.”
This is blatant exaggeration on your part. Trump hinted at raising the minimum wage, but in the links you give, he definitely hasn’t clearly endorsed raising the minimum wage. Unless there are other links elsewhere…
8. May 2016 at 20:20
Brad DeLong: Must-read: Evan Soltas: “Is Pro-Business Reform Pro-Growth?”
http://equitablegrowth.org/must-read-evan-soltas
8. May 2016 at 22:13
Travis, can’t say I’m surprised. Can you spell G-E-O-R-G-I-A?
9. May 2016 at 02:16
“You place you votes, and you take your chances.”
That’s actually the “good” thing about Trump. With Hillary you know exactly what you gonna get…
I also think he never said he wants to raise the minimum wage. Don’t invent stuff he never said. I think you got enough ammunition with the things he actually said. No need to invent stuff.
9. May 2016 at 03:32
All politicians are liars; apparently Sumner’s just now learning this.
9. May 2016 at 08:05
Trump also said a haircut on bonds yet today he said the US does not have to default because we print money. All politicians are liars, Ray, but only Trump learns on the fly. You want a guy who is learning on the fly to be your president?
9. May 2016 at 08:11
Massimo said: “Trump hinted at raising the minimum wage, but in the links you give, he definitely hasn’t clearly endorsed raising the minimum wage. Unless there are other links elsewhere…”
If you hint at something are you just learning the subject? Trump is learning. He started out knowing only what people read and hear on the main stream media. Then he got a few advisors and has flip flopped continually as if he doesn’t know what he wants.
These are complex issues. For example, in Portland, raising the minimum wage has not cost jobs, but elsewhere they might. But Trump has literally taken three positions on the issue. It is so complex that Trump is like a candle in the wind. Maybe he would be that way with Russia, or China and would offend whomever he wanted and then he wouldn’t.
He would tell us who really did 9/11 but then he supports settlements in Israel. These two positions are not possible to hold at the same time.
He is an raging idiot.
9. May 2016 at 08:15
Trump is pragmatic and brass-tacks. On issues that don’t matter a whole lot (minimum wage), he’s flexible and will go with “best” argument and will take as much as he’s able to negotiate. On issues that threaten the US as a coherent entity, such as The Wall and who and how many are allowed in under *legal* immigration, Trump has a framework he’s wed to, basically Ann Coulter’s latest book. Even if he’s only using this to win the election (the idea that we should reserve the welfare state and labor market for citizens is insanely popular), his fate is tied to The Wall and to fewer H1Bs. I trust him to do what he can on this. Who knows what he’ll do w/ trade, doesn’t matter. We know he’ll Build the Wall &c., that’s his issue, that’s what people want.
9. May 2016 at 08:44
“You want a guy who is learning on the fly to be your president?”
You mean as opposed to all non-incumbents who are experts on being president?
9. May 2016 at 09:25
I find it so funny that mega anti-Semite Gary is constantly and since the very beginning on ssumner’s side when it comes down to hating Trump. He is the best contrary indicator you can get.
9. May 2016 at 09:28
@Thiago Ribeiro
Very good point. I never understood this argument either. It makes not much sense.
9. May 2016 at 09:49
Gary’s not an anti-Semite; he’s an anti-Zionist.
9. May 2016 at 10:16
“You mean as opposed to all non-incumbents who are experts on being president?”
-Hillary, being the wife of an ex-president, knows a thing or two about being POTUS.
9. May 2016 at 10:16
Meh. He will end up supporting a 12 or $15 min wage in the general election in any case. It’s a broadly popular, if inane, policy. It will happen no matter who wins I expect. Don Boudreaux is fighting a battle he’s destined to lose.
9. May 2016 at 10:21
America is a world power in decline. Obama and Hillary totally lack a vision to prevent this decline. They don’t even address this issue. I think this is one important (if not the most important) reason why Trump is so strong. He should focus on his main campaign slogan: Make America Great Again. All the other stuff is just not that important. Focus on the main issue. It doesn’t really matter if he loses. The important thing is that someone stood up for this opinion at this point in history. If the American people don’t want him that’s fine. Every nation may choose its own butcher.
@E. Harding
He’s clearly an anti-Semite. The strongest I know. And I know a few. By the way: Anti-Zionism is a really ridiculous and dishonest term. That’s like saying: “I’m not anti-American at all, I just hate the Americans with European roots that live in the US. I’m pro *native* Americans.” – Haha very funny.
But that’s not Gary. He is at least an honest open anti-Semite who likes to talk about the “Jewish control” of the American media, banks etc. At least he is honest and open about that. You might even give him credit for that. Usually 99% of the so-called “anti-Zionists” are just cowards that hide their hate towards Jews behind Israel. But not Gary. I hope that’s the last thing I’ll write about Gary ever.
9. May 2016 at 10:21
Off-topic
The real (cpi-ajusted) average hourly wage of production and nonsupervisory employees has grown tremendously in the past two years. It’s back to Carter-era levels.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=4qzA
We may very well be living through the best job market for workers in the US in a very long time.
9. May 2016 at 10:27
Tim Duy: “June Fades Away”
http://economistsview.typepad.com/timduy/2016/05/june-fades-away.html
9. May 2016 at 10:28
UNRELATED
Scott, carrying over from my question last week
“roll-over” means decelerate. Question is why you think the nominal growth in the economy will decelerate once we get to full employment (I dont in fact know if this is your claim, or whether you think just real growth will decelerate).
If you do indeed believe nominal growth will decelerate, is that because you think the increase in average hourly earnings will not be enough to make up for the slowdown in growth in hours (people x hours per person)?
thx.
9. May 2016 at 10:32
LK, when you look inside those numbers you see that the wage gains are going entirely to highly skilled workers.
Workers in the middle have stagnant wages and those at the bottom are losing ground in real terms.
If you have 10 workers and the highly paid worker gets a bump, then ‘average’ wages have increased.
9. May 2016 at 10:35
Two things:
(1) We should take for granted that this is Trump’s communication style. He doesn’t care about communicating facts or policy; he only communicates emotions. He uses a style that plays to the idiosyncrasies of the media. Most voters are low information enough that they only hear one of his many flippy floppy positions, and it’s more often the one they can find agreement with.
(2) Understanding Trump on policy won’t come from his stated positions. I know it’s easy to hate his style (I hate it, especially when he incessantly lied about Ted Cruz), but it’s seriously powerful and smart. So, understanding Trump on policy may come instead by evaluating his base and the ideals of those with influence therein (like Limbaugh). For example, even though Trump recently said that taxes on the rich will have to go up, I’m not sure I think he thinks that since his base hates taxes. He’s just trying to attract Bernie supporters.
Scott, I too am frustrated by Trump’s style, but I think it may be possible to read between the lines. I’ve been on both extremes with him, one where I think he’s a dyed-in-the-wool fascist, to one where a Trump presidency probably would have a higher bar of performance — where he would simply have to deliver on making the economy better lest he get turned on by his base. His presidency could be a disaster or it could be a deregulatory dream come true.
9. May 2016 at 10:52
It’s touching that Scott thinks Trump ought to be consistent here. That will be important to about .5% of the electorate.
Marketing trial balloons: he’ll keep throwing these out there, see which ones work, and run with those.
9. May 2016 at 11:20
Charlie Jamieson,
You’re claim is empirically false. These are production and non-supervisory workers and this data comes from payrolls, not tax forms. there are no bonuses, capital income, etc… reported in this data. Further, you can go look up the growth by industry and sector at the BLS and also by educational attainment, etc…
9. May 2016 at 11:21
your* (autocorrect)
9. May 2016 at 11:27
Tyler, lots of data out there that tracks income by quintile groups that show there the gains are going.
9. May 2016 at 11:28
Non Christian List said: “I find it so funny that mega anti-Semite Gary”
Hard to be antiSemite when your natural father was Jewish. Harding is correct. Thanks Harding. Clinton is a Zionist globalist just like Trump. After all, it takes a village. Look that one up.
But Trump is more like Ihor Kolomoyski, the guy who wants the Jewish folks in Europe to fuse with the Nazis to hate all Muslims. And he is a billionaire too. They aren’t going along with him as of now.
Here is the deal with the Dems, when it comes to the US they are tolerant people, willing to oppose bigotry. But they turn a blind eye to Israel’s apartheid. That has to one day stop if they want to return to the party of John F Kennedy, who was for gun rights, by the way.
9. May 2016 at 11:47
“Hillary, being the wife of an ex-president, knows a thing or two about being POTUS.”
Well, she used to hang with a president, but so did Monica Lewinski and Socks, the Cat (RIP).
9. May 2016 at 12:00
On the original topic of federal minimum wage policy:
Washington Post wrote a whole article disputing posts exactly like this one. Trump didn’t really change positions on federal minimum wage. He said he’d consider a change and that Americans should make more money, but he didn’t make any formal policy change. This post is just ridiculous.
Here is the more sane WP article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/09/sorry-suckers-trump-didnt-actually-shift-on-taxing-rich-and-minimum-wage/
9. May 2016 at 13:00
Charlie Jamieson
“hen you look inside those numbers you see that the wage gains are going entirely to highly skilled workers.”
“lots of data out there that tracks income by quintile groups that show there the gains are going.”
I would certainly appreciate if you could link to a breakdown by quintile of hourly wages for “production and non-supervisory workers” (i.e. wages, not income) to back up your claims.
9. May 2016 at 13:08
Charlie Jamieson
BTW, you can look up “Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over”. It also shows very strong improvement in the past two years and that the current level is an all-time high.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=4dM2
9. May 2016 at 13:10
Serious question for anyone:
Why does the 1994 Hillary cattle futures trading scandal not haunt her? I never see it mentioned and whenever I mention to Dem friends they seem shrug it off.
Is the world so full of non-bayesians that people think her results may actually have been beginners luck?
If you are going to say “well, It was such a long time ago.” I agree, but it is really, really, really bad. Her husband was a State Attorney General!
To me this is a breach of public trust so egregious that she should be at the very least……shunned-for-life and yet it is never even mentioned.
Hastert is going away for things done in the 80’s.
For those too young to remember:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
9. May 2016 at 13:22
Massimo, You said:
“Trump hinted at raising the minimum wage, but in the links you give, he definitely hasn’t clearly endorsed raising the minimum wage.”
I agree, which is why I never claimed that he clearly endorsed raising the minimum wage.
Travis, I’ve always thought pro-market reforms were much more important than pro-business reforms. Consider the two Koreas—what explains the difference in GDP? Or Taiwan/China, or East and West Germany.
Justin, You said:
“his fate is tied to The Wall and to fewer H1Bs. I trust him to do what he can on this. ”
I’m constantly amazed at how willing Trump fans are to believe they know what he will do. It so happens that Trump has come out in favor of H1Bs.
You lose!!
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-h1b-visas-gop-debate-immigration-2016-3
I really get great enjoyment out of watching you Trumpistas gradually realize that you’ve been played for the fool.
Mark, You said:
“Don Boudreaux is fighting a battle he’s destined to lose.”
I agree, unfortunately. The conservatives in the UK and Germany recently caved on the issue, and I’ve been predicting the GOP will as well.
Tyler, Given that the Fed targets inflation, lower RGDP growth leads to lower NGDP growth. I’ve predicted 1.2% real and 1.8% inflation as the new normal for several years now. At first the experts thought I was wrong, but they are starting to come around.
Steve, Limbaugh used to be a conservative, but he’s obviously given up on that ideology. Otherwise he’d be trashing Trump. So pointing to Limbaugh doesn’t help me to understand Trump, given that I have no idea what Limbaugh believes.
Gene, No one has gone after Trump yet. We’ll see how he does after he’s come under attack for flip flopping. Maybe you are right, but I’m not yet convinced that he will win.
Thiago, I’d prefer Monica to Trump. Maybe even the cat.
Massimo, That WaPo article is hilarious. Even Trump admits he’s changed his views (right in the article) but they still won’t admit it. The House is controlled by the GOP. There is no way they will force Trump to accept higher taxes in negotiation. If he predicts higher taxes it’s because he wants them.
And what about the Wall? Will he negotiate that with Mexico? Does he predict it will be built? How about the tariffs? This is also just nonsense.
9. May 2016 at 13:44
Scott,
About Limbaugh, I get that narrative. I used to believe it; now I’m not sure. I’ve a theory that because Limbaugh and Trump are personal friends, Limbaugh knows more about Trump’s ideals and how his rhetoric doesn’t reflect. Just spitballing.
9. May 2016 at 14:07
Christian List
“By the way: Anti-Zionism is a really ridiculous and dishonest term. That’s like saying: “I’m not anti-American at all, I just hate the Americans with European roots that live in the US. I’m pro *native* Americans.” – Haha very funny.”
You are such a curiosity. A Trump supporter who thinks Mexicans should be barred from entering a land their ancestors lived in less than 200 years ago before it was taken from them also apparently thinks some people who lived in another land 2,000 years ago are justified in expelling the people who have lived their for the past 2,000 years.
Zionism, to be sure, is absurd on it’s face. As absurd as manifest destiny. Of course, no use crying over spilled milk. At least half the countries in the world sit on the land it has today because its forebears (most far less than 2,00 years ago, mind you) killed the people who lived on it preciously and took it. Israel and the US are no different. Not much better nor much worse, if more recent. What annoys me is this: if you want more land, say you want more land. If you want to take over your neighbor’s back yard and are determined to do it, well I can’t stop you; but don’t try to sell me some bullshit about how your neighbors yard is really yours by right because an ancestor 600 generations ago might have owned it before some other party long since gone took it from him.
9. May 2016 at 14:08
*previously, not preciously
9. May 2016 at 14:39
@Mark
I might answer this in like 12-18 hours. It’s not difficult to provide like 3-4 main points to support my position but it’s late and I need some sleep.
9. May 2016 at 15:33
The part that matters for monetary policy (nominal compensation, or aggregate wages, whatever you want to call it) is currently growing at 4.7% per year, my question is why and when will that decelerate?
Why will the data in this chart move below the current linear trend:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CEU0800000017
from what I understand of your musical chairs model, it will go down because we will stop hiring people once all those who want to work are employed and the Fed will hike rates to prevent wages from accelerating at that point. Therefore a simple summing up exercise means nominal compensation must decelerate. Is that correct?
(I dont care about corporate profits, net exports, depreciation, owners equivalent rent, net interest payments, ad valorem taxes, etc…please answer only in terms of total hours worked and compensation per hour—of course you might say that if nominal wages grow too fast relative to nominal corporate profits, hiring will decline and therefore compensation will fall, or something like that)
9. May 2016 at 15:35
sorry,
should be this graph (the other was just service sector)
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES0500000017
9. May 2016 at 15:59
Nard Dog, Hastert should not be going to prison for withdrawing money from his bank account. Perhaps he should be going to prison for something that happened long ago, but he wasn’t convicted of things that happened 30 years ago. Hillary may well be as corrupt as you assume, I have no idea. But given that it happened long ago, and she was never prosecuted, it’s a non-issue.
And in this particular year, when Trump is the other candidate, she could be an axe murderer and no one would care. It’s all about what you think of Trump.
Tyler, I suspect employment growth will slow sharply. Wages may keep rising at 2.5%, but employment growth will fall to 0.5%, and hence NGDP will rise at 3%.
9. May 2016 at 16:21
Got it thanks. not sure why you think that, if Fed doesnt cut off wage spiral.
FWIW, I personally think that employment part of the economy is so sticky that in the absence of a recession, wages will increase almost exactly 1:1 with the decline in hours. (sort of a tautology argument, but much is). This is because I believe 4.5 nominal growth in incomes is not enough to generate strong inflation–i.e. only politics would force Fed to hike aggressively even with much stronger wage growth then today.v. possible, but also not necessary.
Sure, if inflation is very weakly correlated to average hourly earnings, then it is fine to say wages will rise at their current pace (2.5%) and core PCE will slowly drift back to 2%. This is equivalent to saying that productivity will be in the future what it is now and who knows? Im skeptical of this for various reasons, but lets leave that aside.
It is interesting to note that running a simple regression from 2000 to now (the era of slow growth), AHE growth of 4.25% is required to get core PCE of 2%. By chance, if you add 4.25% to .5% employment growth, you get 4.75% compensation growth (exactly the current level but with different composition).
addendum, we have never had a recovery top out with so little nominal wage acceleration as this recovery, hard to think this time would be different with so little constraint on the Fed from the inflation side of their mandate.
9. May 2016 at 17:19
You are such a curiosity. A Trump supporter who thinks Mexicans should be barred from entering a land their ancestors lived in less than 200 years ago before it was taken from them
The population of what is now the southwestern United States was predominantly aboriginal. No more than 2% of Mexico’s population speaks Indian dialects. The population of peninsulares, criollos, mestizos, and mission Indians in Texas ca. 1835 was about 3,000. That in California was about 12,000 in 1848. There were about 50,000 in what is today New Mexico. So, a total of 65,000. The population of Baltimore in 1850 was 170,000.
9. May 2016 at 17:22
Zionism, to be sure, is absurd on it’s face.
A Trump supporter who thinks Mexicans should be barred from entering a land their ancestors lived in less than 200 years ago before it was taken from them
I think that Scott FitzGerald once said, “The test of a 1st rate intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one’s head at the same time and still be able to function”. The quote appears in The Crack-Up.
9. May 2016 at 17:51
Scott,
Thanks for responding, you are right, my inclusion of Hastert obfuscated my argument. And FWIW I strongly oppose the structuring laws as well.
9. May 2016 at 19:44
“A Trump supporter who thinks Mexicans should be barred from entering a land their ancestors lived in less than 200 years ago before it was taken from them…”
Who thinks that? Not Trump! He’s said he is all for legal immigration… he just wants to stop illegal immigration.
And why do you think the people entering the country today had ancestors in, say, Colorado or Utah 200 years ago? It’s pretty unlikely that some Nahuatl had Ute ancestors. Or maybe to you all those people look alike?
9. May 2016 at 21:29
Scott,
I was in a waiting room. Trump speech on TV; first I had heard more than fifteen seconds (don’t own a TV, just read the newspaper, skip the stories on politics usually). Guy is taking a high-stakes strategy, he fairly cogently declared, “Stupid media. I hate those guys”
Conclusion: likelihood that the media helps organize his thoughts into distilled coherence is small.
The recent nonsense about taxes on the rich seems an example. I did read a transcript of him talking about higher taxes on the rich, but it pretty clearly was him saying that in negotiating tax code changes, the rich will likely pay more than his original proposal. Story definitely did not get reported that way.
Guy is doomed, or not. We live idiocracy anyways, so maybe no one cares if the media frames him for not making sense.
10. May 2016 at 04:16
Ray,
Congratulations on your girlfriends appointment to congress.
10. May 2016 at 17:20
Tyler, It’s possible that wage growth will rise to 3%, or even more. But in that case we’ll probably have stagflation.
Jon, Trump’s problem is not the media. It’s that he puts out crazy ideas like defaulting on the debt. I actually saw the youtube of him saying that, I didn’t just imagine it.
10. May 2016 at 18:14
Guy is doomed, or not. We live idiocracy anyways, so maybe no one cares if the media frames him for not making sense.
No, we live in an era wherein the elites are drawn from age cohorts which are of lower quality than the previous generations. The adults left the room around about 1960, when my grandparents contemporaries retired. The adolescents who held down jobs and could drive a car according to the traffic laws left the room around about 1992. And, of course, the public who evaluates them is increasingly composed of people without much sense who bollix major life choices and are distracted by trivia. And, of course, our professional-managerial class is devoid of patriotism and contemptuous of the working class for all the wrong reasons.
Why do things stink? It has nothing to do with IQ. It’s character, or rather the lack of it.
10. May 2016 at 18:16
Who thinks that? Not Trump! He’s said he is all for legal immigration… he just wants to stop illegal immigration.
Mike the knucklehead was complaining about there being any border controls at all (except when they keep out Jews).