Donald Trump

[wolfie]

If it weren't for the fact that two of them are dead, I'd be expecting Alan Funt, Ed McMahon, and Ashton Kucher to show up at the end of a Trump rally.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not sure I've seen examples of politicians actively trying to stop people from becoming wealthy. It's not like they're putting law enforcement people outside of residences to make sure that people don't potentially do things that could cause them to make additional money.

They don't need to. That's what legislation is for~

[Jetfire]

I'm not sure I've seen examples of politicians actively trying to stop people from becoming wealthy. It's not like they're putting law enforcement people outside of residences to make sure that people don't potentially do things that could cause them to make additional money.

No need. They just pass legislation that raises taxes on the middle income earners while adding more tax breaks for the high income stages.

[mjr]

No need. They just pass legislation that raises taxes on the middle income earners while adding more tax breaks for the high income stages.

Part of this is why I recommend people read the book "The Millionaire Next Door".

A lot of millionaires in the U.S. are "first generation". I think there's a likely misconception out there about who "wealthy" are. Sure, there are the ones who proverbially use the $100 bills to light cigars, and who have yachts, and such, but there are also millionaires who buy watches that don't cost any more than $200, drive around in cars from Toyota or Honda (as an example), and didn't spend thousands of dollars on a suit. And you'd be surprised at how many millionaires don't have mid six-figure jobs. They actually make less than that.

[s_stabeler]

while possibly true, mjr, it's actually largely irrelevant. The point is that many people- rather that voting for the candidate that has their interests at heart- vote for candidates that have almost the exact opposite interests at heart- so, many people voting for a candidate that more-or-less wants to ensure that you must more-or-less have becoming a millionaire gifted to you.

Also, while it's true that many millionaires are self-made- not least because people who inherit wealth tend to piss it away- the fact is that Republican policies almost seem designed to make it harder for people to be able to become a self-made millionaire. (for a start, since most new businesses fail, if you reduce/eliminate the safety nets for unemployed people, it makes starting a business more risky- how many people would love to start a business, but if it fails, would end up out on the street? How many people, because businesses are allowed to screw you over any way they like, can't save up the start-up capital necessary for a business?

[mjr]

while possibly true, mjr, it's actually largely irrelevant. The point is that many people- rather that voting for the candidate that has their interests at heart- vote for candidates that have almost the exact opposite interests at heart-

Well, we don't actually know each person's "best interests". As an example, my core "best interests" may be different than yours. And we can assume someone is voting against their best interests -- but that's according to us. It may not be the case.

Part of the problem with becoming a "self made" millionaire is that there's a certain recklessness that people, in general, have when it comes to money. There's a difference, I'm sure you'll agree, between "recklessness" and "risk" when it comes to money.

I've heard it said before, "the best way to get rich quick is to get rich slow". And many of the people that you're talking about who start businesses, often do so "on the side". Sometimes it's for extra money, sometimes they start it with the belief that one day they'll be large enough to quit their job and run their business full time.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I heard an interesting point on NPR the other day. And that was that Trump actually represents a bit of a shift that may have little to do with him specifically.

That is, the Republican party has been traditionally an open-commerce, free-market, individual rights based party (odd as it may seem, some of their perspectives while being regressive along racial lines actually fit quite well into that framework.) The Dems on the other hand have tended to be more a mix of European Socialism combined with free market open commerce. In practice you've always had both parties compromise on rights in favor of national security though. Basically both parties have their sacred cows in terms of individual rights.

What you're seeing from Trump's supporters is the first time that an Authoritarian, closed-commerce European style nationalist as an option. And on the left, again you're seeing Sanders representing, again, a more closed-commerce, Social justice-styled option when it comes to economics. It falls more along the lines of European politics than American.

I think it's partially happened because we are seeing a bit of a racial schism in the US. While both poor/middle class groups of all races probably should be piling into one boat, one side is couching it as largely as "racial justice" while the other is terrified of losing what little they have (and to whom Trump looks like safety). And that's the thing statistics are telling us, at the lower end one side is better off but it's definitely in the "degrees of suck" category. So rather than the Democrats having taken all those voters a long time ago and applying more common sense regulation, the economically disenfranchised are essentially split and sniping at each other.

In some ways, maybe it's a good thing that this whole process goes on and maybe we get a new "better" option ultimately. BUT, to be blunt most people I know don't understand economics, nor global trade, nor the long term effects of closed border policies with enough nuance to not drive the country over the cliff. So unfortunately, I'm actually quite terrified. Closed never works. It doesn't keep jobs from leaving, especially in a world where everything is as open it is.

[HYHYBT]

(and to whom Trump looks like safety)

It doesn't work as an analogy, but something about those words reminds me of the people who wouldn't get into Titanic's lifeboats because the big, warm, well-lit ship felt safer.

[protege]

But to blindly vote for someone because of a label that they chose makes about as much sense as voting for someone because you like their shoes.

The only time I pull the "R" lever, is when I vote in local elections. I do it...mostly because I'm fed up with the donkeys downtown. They've been in power far too long. Some of them are now seeing their second and third generations get elected to office.

[s_stabeler]

Well, we don't actually know each person's "best interests". As an example, my core "best interests" may be different than yours. And we can assume someone is voting against their best interests -- but that's according to us. It may not be the case.

Part of the problem with becoming a "self made" millionaire is that there's a certain recklessness that people, in general, have when it comes to money. There's a difference, I'm sure you'll agree, between "recklessness" and "risk" when it comes to money.

I've heard it said before, "the best way to get rich quick is to get rich slow". And many of the people that you're talking about who start businesses, often do so "on the side". Sometimes it's for extra money, sometimes they start it with the belief that one day they'll be large enough to quit their job and run their business full time.

While true, current Republican policies (cutting various government benefits, not raising the MW) mean that poorer people don't have the time to run a business on the side- they already need to work 2-3 full time jobs just to be able to pay the bills and buy food. Which means that, to get enough sleep, they ALREADY need to come home, eat dinner, then go straight to bed. They have no TIME to run a business on the side as well.

In short, to be ABLE to run a business on the side, you ALREADY need to be able to afford to have only 1 full-time job- or a full-time job and a part-time job- so you need to be earning more than the Minimum Wage- abut twice as much, for that matter- so you can support yourself without the extra income from extra jobs

Therefore, it is perplexing when people who Republican policies put at a disadvantage continue to vote Republican. I fully agree that people should vote on the issues- so why does it seem that many people don't vote according to how the issues affect them personally- in other words, for the candidate that would champion policies that would help them to achieve their dream- rather than the candidate that supports people who have already achieved your dream against those who want to get there.

It's like my usual response to being accused of being anti-success: you can be as successful as you like. However, that success should not come at the expense of the people who work for you to help you achieve that. I would (potentially) be fine with a CEO being paid $1Trillion per year- provided their pay is not at the expense of paying workers a living wage. (it's also why I generally advocate for most taxes to fall on the wealthy- yes, they have to pay more- percentage-wise and dollar-wise- than, say, a cashier at Wal-Mart. However, a 5% tax rise for the wealthy might mean they have to fly first class to their vacations this year- or skip a vacation or two- while for someone earning MW, that 5% tax rise might mean it's impossible to put food on the table. Not quite the same thing.

[mjr]

While true, current Republican policies (cutting various government benefits, not raising the MW) mean that poorer people don't have the time to run a business on the side- they already need to work 2-3 full time jobs just to be able to pay the bills and buy food. Which means that, to get enough sleep, they ALREADY need to come home, eat dinner, then go straight to bed. They have no TIME to run a business on the side as well.<snip>

Reasonable statements. I just don't know that "government benefits" (i.e. safety nets) and $15/hour is gonna really "help" that much. Yes, $15/hour is nearly double the current MW, but you know as well as I do that a $15/hr MW means that a lot of people's hours will be cut.

Additionally, and aside from that, the individuals may rank something higher on their list than money. Their "religious freedom" may be more important to them. They may feel like certain rights are being attacked, or whatever. I don't know.

And there are a lot of poor and low-income people on both sides of the aisle who DON'T vote -- at all. For whatever reason. They're capable of it, but I don't think either one of them is actually registered to vote. They're basically some of the ones who think it doesn't matter. There are also many middle-class and wealthy who don't vote. They have their reasons as well.

[s_stabeler]

1) historically, there haven't actually been many instances of hours being cut after MW raises- and many of those can be traced more to sour grapes than any business necessity. (by not many, incidentally, I mean proportionately- far more businesses simply absorb the wage hike, especially when productivity usually rises as well.(so, for example, someone working in McDonalds might currently make 20 Big Macs per hour. With a wage rise, they might- through a combination of morale increases, having less to worry about at home, and figuring the higher wage deserves more effort- make 40 per hour- absorbing the effect of the increased wages.)
2)while their hours might be cut, that usually brings it back to the same amount at worst- and inflation is usually barely affected. the entire idea is that they don't need to work as many hours to live. (so, for example, with a rise to $15, they might be able to dump the second job- resulting in someone who would have lost hours no longer losing them.)

essentially, since inflation usually stays the same, the cut in hours results in earning the same amount in less time- so they can either get another job to actually be able to do more than just keep food on the table, or enjoy actually being able to get enough sleep for a change.

or, to be blunt: the issue is needing to work 2 full-time jobs to survive on MW. People having a second job because they want to be able to afford luxuries? fine. Food being a luxury that requires a 2nd job? not fine.

[Greenday]

you know as well as I do that a $15/hr MW means that a lot of people's hours will be cut.

Not really. It just means the public will have more money, spend more (because let's face it, you don't get to or stay being poor by being great with money), and companies will create more revenue. So I doubt it'll really hurt their bottom line to increase employee wages when they'll just make it back in profits.

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, $15/hour is nearly double the current MW, but you know as well as I do that a $15/hr MW means that a lot of people's hours will be cut.

We already had this discussion and no, we don't "know" that. Most companies simply absorb wage increases. Both historically and when asked about any hypothetical future increases in MW. Cutting hours is basically the last option on the business world's lists of ways they would address an increase. Top of the list? Working to increase efficiency and productivity.

Most companies would pass some or all of it on to prices rather than cut hours. And as was demonstrated a number of times in previous threads, the largest industry employers of MW could pass the entire cost of a MW hike onto the customers with no real appreciable change in said prices.

Meanwhile, everyone would have more money to spend and thus buy more things. People with more money to spend are good for the economy. I will never understand these arguments that assume more money going to employees means that money just vanishes into the ether. There's a reason Bush just tried to straight up *give* everyone some money as an economic stimulus.

Low wage workers do not remove money from the economy. People in the highest tax brackets do because they move it off shore or invest it into things like capital gains. Which they have fought tooth and nail to keep the taxes on ridiculous low. Thus essentially removing money from circulation in the economy.

Do you know what makes low wage workers remove money from the economy? Not having enough money. When lower to middle class people don't have enough money they save. The economy doesn't benefit when everyone is holding onto their money. You want people to have money so that they spend money.

Crazy, I know.

[HYHYBT]

Right. A business that is using more hours than it needs to get things done is going to cut its hours regardless of the pay rate. A business that *isn't* using more hours than it needs to doesn't have hours to cut.