Why Biden/Harris will win

[SocialCircle 570]

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Manipulated and biased?  Bro, it's from the Pew Research Center.  Not really a bastion of biased information.  It saddens me that you have a hand in the education of some young people if you think Pew Research offers biased or manipulated information.

Your interpretation of the data is biased and manipulated. You are envious of highly successful people who work hard and put it on the line and become successful. 

[savorytiger 182]

7 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Your interpretation of the data is biased and manipulated. You are envious of highly successful people who work hard and put it on the line and become successful. 

940% growth vs. 12% growth seems pretty convincing. How should the data be interpreted? How was it manipulated?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, savorytiger said:

940% growth vs. 12% growth seems pretty convincing. How should the data be interpreted? How was it manipulated?

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

27 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Your interpretation of the data is biased and manipulated. You are envious of highly successful people who work hard and put it on the line and become successful. 

No, I'm not envious at all.  You keep projecting though.  The idea actually benefits me.  I'm a young, successful person in management on an executive track at a company that is valued at over $1B.  I literally only answer to our ownership and our VP.  But cold hard data from a respected institution like Pew is hard to ignore.

You have yet to argue the success/failure of the policy with data.  When presented with data, you've gone to an ad hominem attack instead of addressing the research.  Says a lot.

[savorytiger 182]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

 

Just trying the Axios interview approach. Ask simple, straight-forward followup questions. Invest little time because it hasn't been worth it.

[SocialCircle 570]

7 hours ago, savorytiger said:

940% growth vs. 12% growth seems pretty convincing. How should the data be interpreted? How was it manipulated?

Both boats are rising. What is the education level of the 12%ers vs the others? The market dictates the owner of the Chic-Fil-A who made the decisions that earned them that level of success and then took the risk does much better financially than the person who was hired by him to wait on customers. And Mr. Truit who made this all possible for both deserves and has earned even more than those two people. This is the way it works and there is nothing at all wrong with it. This creates opportunities for many with Mr. Truitt being the most financially successful because it was his idea and his hard work that made this possible in the first place. The good news is the person taking orders can work hard and make good decisions and learn the business and if driven enough can become like the person who hired them or even come up with a great idea that works and become a Mr. Truitt. 

[SocialCircle 570]

8 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

No, I'm not envious at all.  You keep projecting though.  The idea actually benefits me.  I'm a young, successful person in management on an executive track at a company that is valued at over $1B.  I literally only answer to our ownership and our VP.  But cold hard data from a respected institution like Pew is hard to ignore.

You have yet to argue the success/failure of the policy with data.  When presented with data, you've gone to an ad hominem attack instead of addressing the research.  Says a lot.

What says a lot is you think you made a good analogy. That speaks volumes. And I did address it. 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

9 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

Your interpretation of the data is biased and manipulated. You are envious of highly successful people who work hard and put it on the line and become successful. 

You don't get to just say it's "biased and manipulated" and then accuse someone of being envious of successful people.  Something isn't true just because you declare it and it doesn't become more true by repeating it.

If you think the data he presented (from a firm with a rock-solid reputation of being non-partisan and holding to rigorous standards) is biased and manipulated, it's on you to show how.  If you can't do that and ad hominem potshots are the best you can do, this probably isn't the forum for you.

[SocialCircle 570]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

You don't get to just say it's "biased and manipulated" and then accuse someone of being envious of successful people.  Something isn't true just because you declare it and it doesn't become more true by repeating it.

If you think the data he presented (from a firm with a rock-solid reputation of being non-partisan and holding to rigorous standards) is biased and manipulated, it's on you to show how.  If you can't do that and ad hominem potshots are the best you can do, this probably isn't the forum for you.

I said his interpretation of it is biased and explained why. Quit whining. 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Just now, SocialCircle said:

I said his interpretation of it is biased and explained why. Quit whining. 

Then it is still on your to explain how.  Where are his errors?  What data do you have to back up that take?

And I'm not whining.  But you better dial it back if you want to stay here.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

35 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

I said his interpretation of it is biased and explained why. Quit whining. 

You have given no explanation of why it is biased based on the actual data.  All you've done is make assumptions about me and used that as a defense.

This is the serious forum dude.  If you don't like the data, show something that refutes it from a reputable source.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Then it is still on your to explain how.  Where are his errors?  What data do you have to back up that take?

And I'm not whining.  But you better dial it back if you want to stay here.

Just to be clear - it's fine if you believe the data or his take on the data are somehow biased or being misinterpreted.  But on this forum, we expect you to be able to articulate an argument, not just state one then take shots at the person.  But also, telling mods and admins to "quit whining" when they remind you of the rules here isn't going to work well for you.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Lol. The Breitbart and "A doctor I went to Podunk Prep with says" guy has a problem with somebody else's sourcing. 

[SocialCircle 570]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You don't get to just say it's "biased and manipulated" and then accuse someone of being envious of successful people.  Something isn't true just because you declare it and it doesn't become more true by repeating it.

If you think the data he presented (from a firm with a rock-solid reputation of being non-partisan and holding to rigorous standards) is biased and manipulated, it's on you to show how.  If you can't do that and ad hominem potshots are the best you can do, this probably isn't the forum for you.

I did address why. It works since All boats are rising. Just because someone doesn’t like the results doesn’t necessarily make it bad. I have explained in the Chik-Fil-A example why I don’t think the results are bad. Furthermore, how many of those that started waiting on customers became management or even an owner of a restaurant? There is great incentive in seeing what is possible if you choose not to settle and instead work hard and get a good education and make good decisions. 

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

You have given no explanation of why it is biased based on the actual data.  All you've done is make assumptions about me and used that as a defense.

This is the serious forum dude.  If you don't like the data, show something that refutes it from a reputable source.

I’m fine with the data. I complete disagree with your interpretation of the data and I’ve explained why. 

[SocialCircle 570]

11 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

No, I'm not envious at all.  You keep projecting though.  The idea actually benefits me.  I'm a young, successful person in management on an executive track at a company that is valued at over $1B.  I literally only answer to our ownership and our VP.  But cold hard data from a respected institution like Pew is hard to ignore.

You have yet to argue the success/failure of the policy with data.  When presented with data, you've gone to an ad hominem attack instead of addressing the research.  Says a lot.

This is what happened under Reagan and I call this working: 

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Now the government grew, but at about half the rate that it grew under Carter.  The reason for the growth was mostly on the national defense side.  The part happened so that we could win The Cold War and win it we did.  We won the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall primarily because of President Reagan. This could not have occurred without the spending on defense. So in my opinion it was worth it.  

I call this free market or supply side economics as I think trickle down or voodoo economics is a biased political term for something you happen not to like. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

47 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

I did address why. It works since All boats are rising. Just because someone doesn’t like the results doesn’t necessarily make it bad. I have explained in the Chik-Fil-A example why I don’t think the results are bad. Furthermore, how many of those that started waiting on customers became management or even an owner of a restaurant? There is great incentive in seeing what is possible if you choose not to settle and instead work hard and get a good education and make good decisions. 

This literally has nothing to do with the policy and the major growth gap between executive pay and the every day worker, as shown in the Pew Research.  No one, and I mean no one, is arguing that all workers should earn the same thing.  But at the same time, executive pay should not have grown by 900%+ over the last 40 years while employee pay has only grown 12% (numbers adjusted for inflation).  That means wealth isn't actually trickling down as promised by the policy.  Instead those at the top are just keeping more.  That bonus you get are the crumbs.  I get bonuses too.  Based on just what I bring in to the company alone in raw dollars and profit, it's paltry.  

27 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

This is what happened under Reagan and I call this working: 

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Now the government grew, but at about half the rate that it grew under Carter.  The reason for the growth was mostly on the national defense side.  The part happened so that we could win The Cold War and win it we did.  We won the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall primarily because of President Reagan. This could not have occurred without the spending on defense. So in my opinion it was worth it.  

While those are indeed good things, the government as you said grew substantially.  It also grew under H.W. Bush and W. Bush.  The latter even created an entirely new cabinet level department (Homeland Security).  Not only did government grow under all three, but the deficit ballooned under all three as well. 

Clinton inherited a major deficit.  He left office with a budget surplus, only for W Bush to explode the deficit to over $1 trillion.  Obama cut that deficit in half, but Trump has already pushed it back to over $1 trillion again.

It's also worth noting that the two Presidents with the best return rate in the history of the stock market are Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/07/23/historical-stock-market-returns-under-every-us-president/

So sorry if I think the dominant Republican economic policy and claims of fiscal responsibility are frauds.  There's too much data to ignore.

27 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

I call this free market or supply side economics as I think trickle down or voodoo economics is a biased political term for something you happen not to like. 

Again, you're projecting as to what you think I like or don't like.  It's not about whether I like it or not.  I've been very successful so far and will continue to be so.  But this is about empirical evidence showing me that the ideas you're arguing for are failed experiments.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

4 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

Both boats are rising. What is the education level of the 12%ers vs the others? The market dictates the owner of the Chic-Fil-A who made the decisions that earned them that level of success and then took the risk does much better financially than the person who was hired by him to wait on customers.

The market doesn't dictate that.  Decisions by the business owners or shareholders decide that.  They could allow a bigger share of the pie to flow down to the workers that make the company's success possible but they don't.  They just use the fact that they hold almost all the cards in this power dynamic between owner and worker to hold labor costs down to the minimum they can get away with.  

And no, both boats are not rising.  A 12% growth in wages since 1978 barely keeps up with inflation over that time period.  And in some respects, they've actually lost purchasing power since then.  One boat is not only rising, it's been upgraded from a nice ski boat to a yacht the size of a small country.  The other boat is barely staying above water and springs leaks from time to time.

No one is arguing here that the owner of the business or the one who 'took the risk' should be making the same as the kid working the cash register or on the assembly line.  That's a straw man.  We're saying that the idea that the wealth truly "trickles down" is inaccurate.  It mostly stays at the top.

 

Quote

And Mr. Truit who made this all possible for both deserves and has earned even more than those two people. This is the way it works and there is nothing at all wrong with it. This creates opportunities for many with Mr. Truitt being the most financially successful because it was his idea and his hard work that made this possible in the first place. The good news is the person taking orders can work hard and make good decisions and learn the business and if driven enough can become like the person who hired them or even come up with a great idea that works and become a Mr. Truitt. 

Again, no one is suggesting that the owner/CEO/founder of a large and successful company doesn't deserve to make more money.  What we're saying is, workers also deserve to reap the spoils of success.  Mr. Cathy can't run the company, and manage distribution, and manage each individual restaurant, and work the registers and cook the food.  All of the folks at the local level doing their jobs well make it possible for the company to be as big and successful as it is.  They and people like them at companies across the economy should be rewarded for that with more than anemic wage growth that barely keeps up with the cost of living over the last 40 years. 

[SocialCircle 570]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The market doesn't dictate that.  Decisions by the business owners or shareholders decide that.  They could allow a bigger share of the pie to flow down to the workers that make the company's success possible but they don't.  They just use the fact that they hold almost all the cards in this power dynamic between owner and worker to hold labor costs down to the minimum they can get away with.  

And no, both boats are not rising.  A 12% growth in wages since 1978 barely keeps up with inflation over that time period.  And in some respects, they've actually lost purchasing power since then.  One boat is not only rising, it's been upgraded from a nice ski boat to a yacht the size of a small country.  The other boat is barely staying above water and springs leaks from time to time.

No one is arguing here that the owner of the business or the one who 'took the risk' should be making the same as the kid working the cash register or on the assembly line.  That's a straw man.  We're saying that the idea that the wealth truly "trickles down" is inaccurate.  It mostly stays at the top.

 

Again, no one is suggesting that the owner/CEO/founder of a large and successful company doesn't deserve to make more money.  What we're saying is, workers also deserve to reap the spoils of success.  Mr. Cathy can't run the company, and manage distribution, and manage each individual restaurant, and work the registers and cook the food.  All of the folks at the local level doing their jobs well make it possible for the company to be as big and successful as it is.  They and people like them at companies across the economy should be rewarded for that with more than anemic wage growth that barely keeps up with the cost of living over the last 40 years. 

But the market does dictate it as people can go somewhere and work if they believe they aren’t being treated fairly. Also, the info I posted that occurred during Reagan’s tenure does show the middle class did very well under supply side or free market economics. 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

14 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

But the market does dictate it as people can go somewhere and work if they believe they aren’t being treated fairly.

It's kinda hard to do that when the vast majority of the companies who control the jobs in the market are all doing the same thing.

And it will continue until you get a shift in the mentality from business owners away from the idea that labor costs should be squeezed as tightly as possible the same way you might try to shrink your raw materials cost, or increase productivity to bring down unit costs to produce an item.  You can't/shouldn't treat labor like you do the cost of copy paper for the office.  Labor is people - human beings with dignity and worth who make your business successful, not inanimate objects to be used in the never-ending goal of maximizing profits and enriching only a select few.

 

Quote

Also, the info I posted that occurred during Reagan’s tenure does show the middle class did very well under supply side or free market economics. 

Just assuming all your numbers are accurate, that's a very small window to gauge from.  Seeing the result of the massive reset Reagan created for how tax rates and such were to be set over the last 40 years is more telling.  And the Reagan years don't take into account how other costs that erode purchasing power have skyrocketed since then such as health care costs and college tuition.

[SocialCircle 570]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's kinda hard to do that when the vast majority of the companies who control the jobs in the market are all doing the same thing.

And it will continue until you get a shift in the mentality from business owners away from the idea that labor costs should be squeezed as tightly as possible the same way you might try to shrink your raw materials cost, or increase productivity to bring down unit costs to produce an item.  You can't/shouldn't treat labor like you do the cost of copy paper for the office.  Labor is people - human beings with dignity and worth who make your business successful, not inanimate objects to be used in the never-ending goal of maximizing profits and enriching only a select few.

 

Just assuming all your numbers are accurate, that's a very small window to gauge from.  Seeing the result of the massive reset Reagan created for how tax rates and such were to be set over the last 40 years is more telling.  And the Reagan years don't take into account how other costs that erode purchasing power have skyrocketed since then such as health care costs and college tuition.

I think supply side economics can best be judged by the 1980s. Reagan’s record as it relates to the economy during his time in office speaks for itself. 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

3 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

I think supply side economics can best be judged by the 1980s. Reagan’s record as it relates to the economy during his time in office speaks for itself. 

No economic policy, and certainly not one that made such monumental and long lasting changes to the structure of the American economy, can be appropriately judged solely by one 8 year period of time.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

I think supply side economics can best be judged by the 1980s. Reagan’s record as it relates to the economy during his time in office speaks for itself. 

Why cherry pick that one period instead of looking at the policy as a whole, which has been the predominant philosophy of Republican fiscal policy since 1980?  The world has changed a lot since Reagan left office, but the policy has left workers behind.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Why cherry pick that one period instead of looking at the policy as a whole, which has been the predominant philosophy of Republican fiscal policy since 1980?  The world has changed a lot since Reagan left office, but the policy has left workers behind.

That's the other aspect of this that he's leaving out.  Even if I go all in and concede that supply side economics as implemented by Reagan was a smashing success during the 80s, does that mean that the approach will work forever in perpetuity no matter how much the world and the economic possibilities and realities change over time?  Are there not economic approaches that worked well 60, 100, 200, 300 years ago that would never work the same way now?  Of course.  Not without some serious tweaks at least to account for the differences in how the world economy operates now.

[SocialCircle 570]

31 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's the other aspect of this that he's leaving out.  Even if I go all in and concede that supply side economics as implemented by Reagan was a smashing success during the 80s, does that mean that the approach will work forever in perpetuity no matter how much the world and the economic possibilities and realities change over time?  Are there not economic approaches that worked well 60, 100, 200, 300 years ago that would never work the same way now?  Of course.  Not without some serious tweaks at least to account for the differences in how the world economy operates now.

We actually agree on this. For example,  if taxes are already “low” then cutting taxes doesn’t have the same impact. One of my points is Reagan did what was needed at the time and it absolutely worked. I also don’t agree that Reagan’s economic policy has consistently been implemented for the entirety of the last 40 years.