Will Trump be Re-elected?

[moda0306]

But that's the majority of what these "Trade Deals" have really been. They're not about trading coconuts for corn (well not completely). They're about securing foreign corporate & investor property rights insulated from public response in the communities they exist. To the degree you support this but abhor human migration across artificial borders, you're pretty much a folding chair to global capital, and shouldn't wonder why you seem to have less than your parents, or why your kids will have less than you. By "you" I mean people in general...

I'm not sure if it's just me, but trying to decipher your posts through all the metaphors and side-speak to get the context is drudgery. Anyway, I completely disagree with the bolded part. Not sure why you draw the connection/conclusion that you did, but regardless, I have way more wealth than my parents did (as do my siblings) and I fully expect that my kids will have more than me at the same age. This country offers exceptional opportunities for all of its residents who are willing to work hard and not make stupid life choices. The problem is that most people are not willing to do the work and can't avoid making poor choices. That's on them. People are their own worst enemies.

And you would save yourself a whole bunch of stress if you just accept the fact that corporate interests and the elites are not going away no matter who you vote for, so just be at peace with what you can not change, and try and use the system (legally) to your best benefit while simulaneously giving back to society what is important to you.

It may not seem like it, but I'm at peace with the systems I can't control. These systems cause me personally little/no stress. In-fact, my analysis of these systems helps me come to the (perhaps incorrect but useful) conclusion that most people are balls of social proof and insecurity that have no idea what they're talking about, and I don't have to worry about their inconsistent ramblings about politics or life decisions (or investing... sort of what brought me here almost a decade ago).

And I didn't mean that EVERYONE is worse off than their parents. I just see many that are (or think they are) are completely misdiagnosing the problem. Good for you for helping produce two consecutive generations of improvement over the lot of the prior. I mean that... it probably takes focus and discipline. My point is that it takes far-more focus and discipline than it ever used to, and that this isn't an accident.

As to whether "this country" delivers exceptional opportunities to "all" of its residents, I'd probably have a bone to pick with you around the edges of that statement, but if it's so awesome, I see no reason to b!tch and moan about libruls all the live-long-day as so many here do (talk about not accepting something you can't control). If it has flaws or serious structural issues, let's examine them honestly (and structurally, not b!tching about individual failures).

We'd probably disagree on the individualist vs structural nature of the problems some Americans face. I think when you cut away a lot of the bullsh!t, it comes down to the fact that a high-school education and modest (not amazing) work ethic with few connections was far, far more likely to leave you financially secure in 1970 than it is today. And it's mostly the fault of class-unconscious masses that abandoned unions and embraced (if tacitly) trade deals that were designed to supplant their bargaining power as workers. Then when they aren't as wealthy as they thought they should have been they want to blame brown people and taxes. The first part about wages is something I'd consider a pretty undeniable fact. Whether it's important or not is probably a value proposition and we may or may not disagree. What caused/causes it is a matter of an unprovable cause/effect relationship that probably has some basis in fact, but we'll only be able to lend evidence towards it and never really know for sure.

I hope that last paragraph helps break down my thoughts more clearly. Less drudgery and all that.

[moda0306]

And you would save yourself a whole bunch of stress if you just accept the fact that corporate interests and the elites are not going away no matter who you vote for, so just be at peace with what you can not change, and try and use the system (legally) to your best benefit while simulaneously giving back to society what is important to you.

Words of wisdom.

Moda, just to satisfy my curiosity: are there any world leaders whom you think did a good job overall? Separately, any U.S. Presidents?

If we are defining a "good job" as (for example) "advancing the interests of the whole of your population," then yeah probably, but they usually did so while also being war-criminals and having some massive flaws. The easiest ones to name would probably have to be American as I'm simply more familiar. I think Teddy Roosevelt is one. Probably the single best, though I'd sing a different tune if he'd have been president during WWI, as he was pretty disgustingly pro-war/Imperialism.

If you ignore the Indian population, it's hard to argue that the (genocidal criminals) James K. Polk and Andrew Jackson were both similar in their willingness to execute (pardon the pun) an expansive vision of America that was extremely beneficial to the settler colonial class they represented.

There are many nationalist leaders that, through their actions, proved to be somewhat useful to the interests of their selected population. I can't speak with much certainty, but a lot of left-leaning economic nationalists in the face of gangster Imperialism seemed pretty impressive, like Mohammad Mossadegh and Jacobo Arbenz, though I'm certain they had pockets of corruption and resorted to means I don't find particularly palatable.

The architects of the state of Israel for example (Ben Gurion (spelling?), Begin, forgetting a few) had an unbreakable vision and it's hard to say that they didn't do a "good job" of executing it for those they cared about, though their means were pretty manipulative and disgusting IMO. Which sort of highlights the "zero-sum" nature of some "good jobs" out there.

Overall though I take the Dan Carlin approach to this, where to become "great" you probably have to do terrible things at various times. And I tend to be too anarcho-curious to want to waste too much energy fawning praise upon folks who committed terrible acts to help their group. I simply don't desire someone to kill to do a "good job" for me. I actually find that to be a pretty immature instinct. However to the degree that some "leader" is a steward of my/our interests in some way, I'd want him to use non-violent negotiating power in good faith to that interest.

But I'm still learning/growing on these "men of history" types. They're fascinating, to say the least, so I try to look at it all with a certain moral numbness. Once you find yourself so fascinated you're rooting for Genghis Khan by accident, you tend to want to separate "greatness" from other positive traits.

[moda0306]

I can't speak for others here, but I have no problem with Conservatives or Liberals, my qualm is with Leftists which are the ever growing wing of the Democratic Party. And you sure can do something about that: vote the nutjobs out.

I have always been a centrist. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But the conservatives are no longer fiscally conservative and the social fabric here has moved so far left, there is nowhere to hide. I tend to lean a little more to the right these days only because they seem to be a bit less crazy.

I hope you don't take offense, but I think you have an incorrect view of yourself. Sure we've moved left on some issues, but right now taxes on businesses, corporations and capital gains are INSANELY low historically for the last century, and unions are INSANELY weak, as are median real wages. We've been able to export "capital interest farms" to "COMMUNIST" countries like China for plutocrats to harvest at minimal tax/tariff rates. Ideas like Universal Healthcare were pushed (and popular) as early as the mid-1940's, yet I hear you decry any involvement by the government in healthcare.

What issue would you consider yourself most liberal on? And would you flesh that out a bit?

You seem to have "a problem" with anything that isn't at least "center-right." I mean there was NOBODY here (on the PP forum) defending Hillary Clinton (a center-left corporatist dem), but I have a sneaking suspicion if I'd pushed a pro-Hillary stance you would have had some lively debate directed at me... am I incorrect in that assumption? Were you as supportive of Hillary as say a Marco Rubio candidacy? Who was your ideal candidate on the Republican primary stage?

[dualstow]

...

Moda, just to satisfy my curiosity: are there any world leaders whom you think did a good job overall? Separately, any U.S. Presidents?

If we are defining a "good job" as (for example) ...
<snip>

Thank you very much.

[Ad Orientem]

Moda, just to satisfy my curiosity: are there any world leaders whom you think did a good job overall? Separately, any U.S. Presidents?

[moda0306]

Moda, just to satisfy my curiosity: are there any world leaders whom you think did a good job overall? Separately, any U.S. Presidents?

Ad,

Who's that guy on top?

[Xan]

Looks like Tsar Alexander II.

[moda0306]

I can't speak for others here, but I have no problem with Conservatives or Liberals, my qualm is with Leftists which are the ever growing wing of the Democratic Party. And you sure can do something about that: vote the nutjobs out.

I have always been a centrist. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But the conservatives are no longer fiscally conservative and the social fabric here has moved so far left, there is nowhere to hide. I tend to lean a little more to the right these days only because they seem to be a bit less crazy.

I hope you don't take offense, but I think you have an incorrect view of yourself. Sure we've moved left on some issues, but right now taxes on businesses, corporations and capital gains are INSANELY low historically for the last century, and unions are INSANELY weak, as are median real wages. We've been able to export "capital interest farms" to "COMMUNIST" countries like China for plutocrats to harvest at minimal tax/tariff rates. Ideas like Universal Healthcare were pushed (and popular) as early as the mid-1940's, yet I hear you decry any involvement by the government in healthcare.

What issue would you consider yourself most liberal on? And would you flesh that out a bit?

You seem to have "a problem" with anything that isn't at least "center-right." I mean there was NOBODY here (on the PP forum) defending Hillary Clinton (a center-left corporatist dem), but I have a sneaking suspicion if I'd pushed a pro-Hillary stance you would have had some lively debate directed at me... am I incorrect in that assumption? Were you as supportive of Hillary as say a Marco Rubio candidacy? Who was your ideal candidate on the Republican primary stage?

Hahaha, no offense taken. The women in my life always tell me I'm wrong about everything so why shouldn't you ?

Taxes on business: Compared to what? We had one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world until recently, plus stockholders get taxed on the dividends and capital gains, too.

Unions: Don't get me started. Since I am not a socialist, I don't see why unionized workers, particularly ones that work for the taxpayers, should have better benefits than everyone else and wages that are out of line with their training and education. We can debate this forever, but you will never change my view on this.

The government has proven time and again that anything it gets involved with ends up being an inefficient, expensive clusterf*ck. What makes you think health care would be any different? They've already done irreparable damage without even having full control.

I am not as right wing as you think, but since you are pretty far to the left, I probably seem that way to you. I am pro-choice, pro-separation of church and state, and pro-LGBTQ right up until the pronoun nonsense and feminization of men / masculinization of women insanity.

pug,

If you have that sort of ill-will towards unions, you're very economically conservative, as that would be a conservative opinion to take in 1879, much less 2019.

[Ad Orientem]

Looks like Tsar Alexander II.

Yep. With a stroke of the imperial pen he did what it took our democracy four years of bloody fratricidal war to accomplish.

[Kriegsspiel]

"Support" can be a misleading term. It's not "moral support." It's not selling weapons or allowing the sale of weapons. It's literal military support...

"The Americans are providing targeting intelligence and refueling Saudi warplanes involved in bombing rebel positions."

I saw that. I would be willing to bet money that the US military guys in the targeting cell are not sitting there telling the Saudis "See this, that's a wedding ceremony with a bunch of happy people. We want you guys to go bomb that. When you're done, there is a large force of children playing soccer over here..." But whatever you think, when you're dropping bombs from aircraft, and when the enemy is in populated areas, there will be collateral. But as I've said before, I don't like the idea of drone strikes based on intelligence sources, I suspect they're the cause of a lot of civilian casualties. I think there should be a person on the ground calling it in.

https://merip.org/2018/02/trumps-drone-surge/
In one respect, President Trump has no doubt kept his word. Trump promised during the campaign to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS and it appears to be one of the few promises he has kept. Trump inherited from Obama an escalating war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but both conventional bombing and drone strikes have significantly increased under Trump as a result of his new ISIS battle plan, whose strategy Defense Secretary James Mattis defines as “annihilation tactics.” According to Newsweek, the United States under Trump has dropped a record number of bombs on the Middle East, roughly 10 percent more than under his predecessors. Trump also loosened rules of engagement that protect civilians and, unsurprisingly, civilian casualties from the US-led war against ISIS will, at this pace, double under Trump.

Seems pretty successful, I think the last ISIS stronghold recently surrendered. Was it worth it? I dunno.

I checked out the reference for the claim that Trump loosened the ROE that protect civilians. It may be the case (it was Daily Beast implying they were quoting Trump directly) that he requested “changes to any United States rules of engagement and other United States policy restrictions that exceed the requirements of international law regarding the use of force against ISIS.”

This was probably because ISIS was digging in around and travelling with civilian human-shields so that we would kill civilians when dropping ordinance. This has become a common tactic over the last several decades (and is one of the reasons, along with increased use of aerial bombing, that 4GW will involve more civilian deaths than one would expect given our level of "technological sophistication"). This is what COL Murray was referring to later in the article, and the whole thing makes this point. Even if their guys all get killed, they can win a psyop battle by emphasizing how many civilians were killed too.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ram ... hadow-wars

Did you also notice that your assertion that Saudi's were simply using American-manufactured bombs was incorrect?

No. But I wasn't asserting that, I was referring to the Horton article where HE was asserting that because a US bomb was dropped on a school bus, the US was guilty of war crimes. At least that's what I remember it saying, I can't find it on his site anymore.

As far as the jurisdictional and legalese aspects of war-crime prosecution, I've got to dig into my sources for that. I've heard folks like Chomsky, Greenwald, Horton and a few others go into the actual various layers of legal precedent and procedural machinations of war crime prosecution, but they're not at my fingertips and it's been a while. It's also a bit difficult to suss out actual accusations of war crimes vs digging into the legal machinations of how they would/could/should be prosecuted.

You keep saying various Presidents are or have been committing war crimes by virtue of their policies instead of by doing specific things. So by extension, the military is committing war crimes when it does normal military things to execute the policies. There are some things everyone would agree are heinous: My Lai, Mahmudiya, Serbian soldiers killing civilians with sledgehammers. But if a soldier manning a howitzer kills civilians when he fires on coordinates he gets on a radio, or a pilot providing close air support, it's not a war crime, that's what happens in modern warfare. But it's hard to figure out what aspect from them you think are war crimes. For instance, I went through the NPR article about AFRICOM and clicked through a couple links from it and I still can't tell what you are referring to from them. Might be an Overton Window issue.

[Kriegsspiel]

This was probably because ISIS was digging in around and travelling with civilian human-shields so that we would kill civilians when dropping ordinance. This has become a common tactic over the last several decades (and is one of the reasons, along with increased use of aerial bombing, that 4GW will involve more civilian deaths than one would expect given our level of "technological sophistication"). This is what COL Murray was referring to later in the article, and the whole thing makes this point. Even if their guys all get killed, they can win a psyop battle by emphasizing how many civilians were killed too.

Kriegs, you seem to be pretty well informed on this stuff, so can you clarify: Is that more common in general or only with Islamists? If the latter, do you think Israel is getting a bad rap for the way they are trying to deal with this?

Well, I'm no expert. But speculating, it's going to be more common, one of the downsides of urbanization and weapons' technological advancement.

If you park your unit out in the open somewhere, they're all going to be dead or wounded in short order (1). If you put them in a city (combined with psyop and propaganda), your enemy either won't bomb you because they don't want to destroy their own citizens/economy (it's like you're calling their bluff on how tenacious/legit they are), or they do, and take the psyop hit. Russia executed a pretty much flawless operation when they inserted their Little Green Men into Crimea. Do you remember when that happened? The news stories that were coming out were all over the place, nobody knew what the fuck was going on. The US in Afghanistan and Iraq sets up combat outposts (COPs) in villages and even in buildings on a block with civilian buildings, because that's where the people are. But the hope isn't that enemy fire will miss and hit civilians, because we can't claim that as a PR victory, whereas an ISIS squad who are firing from a building with kids in it could. So what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter if you have "good" or "bad" intentions, you're going to be around citizens more the way wars are fought now.

Israelis don't have the inclination to self-flagellate themselves if they kill civilians, because they all get that they're in a existential fight. The Palestinians have been engaged with the Israelis for generations, so they know what the deal is. But they still keep at it knowing they're gonna get smoked (2). So when they try to get the Israelis to kill civilians, they're targeting the US and Europeans, not the Israeli populace. That's only at a bird's eye view, since I'm sure there have been times when the Israelis deserve to get some flack. Anyways, that's what I think.

1. https://zik.ua/en/news/2014/07/11/19_uk ... nky_505245
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/worl ... bassy.html

[Kbg]

ROE is something you impose on yourself to control “the application” of weapons. International law governing warfare is surprisingly lenient and very few reporters report on it accurately.

At a very simple level, the target needs to have a military purpose and the collateral damage should be “proportional” to the military advantage gained. A “protected” target loses it protected status when being used for a military purpose. The classic WW2 example was every time a unit got close to or rolled into a town with a church steeple it was the first thing to get taken out by a tank round due to their use as observation or sniper posts. In our current conflict, family or hostages getting killed riding with a “target” convoy does not equal a war crime. Actually, in the case of hostages, the war crime is on the terrorist as international law prohibits hostage taking and if there is a military target with them then it comes down to “proportionality.”

Obviously, what is proportional is a matter that can be debated.

In the current conflict, military and civilian lawyers are pretty much everywhere in the approval process.

[jhogue]

POCAHONTAS STRIKES BACK!!!

In a move that her ancestors at Little Big Horn would have appreciated, Senator (and Presidential candidate) Elizabeth Warren called for the impeachment of President Donald Trump on the floor of the United States Senate yesterday.

The Donald has already claimed that he would "love to run against her."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 456355002/

With 21 candidates for the Democratic nomination already declared (and more lurking in the wings!) isn't this the most entertaining Presidential campaign in our lifetimes?

[Ad Orientem]

“Groucho Marx wrote:
A stock trader asked him, "Groucho, where do you put all your money?" Groucho was said to have replied, "In Treasury bonds", and the trader said, "You can't make much money on those." Groucho said, "You can if you have enough of them!"

That's a great tag line. Groucho actually got wiped out in the crash of '29 after speculating heavily in the market including buying on margin. It took him a long time to recover financially and like so many people who lived through the depression, he was ever after the most conservative investor with a near neurotic phobia of debt.

[jacksonM]

Possibly the biggest threat to Trump's re-election shaping up on the horizon?

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/i-dar ... rformance/

[Ad Orientem]

Possibly the biggest threat to Trump's re-election shaping up on the horizon?

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/i-dar ... rformance/

Some of that list is just noise. The ordinary ups and downs of business. Brick and mortal retail is in trouble, has been since before the not so great depression we just experienced, and that is not going to change. But some of it should be cause for concern. The level of debt at every level of society is staggering and when that reaches a tipping point, the broader economy will suffer. Unemployment statistics are a bit like the inflation figures. They should be taken only with a very large grain of salt. That said, for the moment the economy is doing well. Conceding special case exceptions, for the most part if you want a job you can get one. It may not be your dream job. But I can't go anywhere w/o seeing "Help Wanted" signs. But yeah. We are going into year nine or ten depending on how you date the economic recovery, of the longest economic expansion that the US has accurate records for.

How long can this go on?

[jacksonM]

Possibly the biggest threat to Trump's re-election shaping up on the horizon?

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/i-dar ... rformance/

Some of that list is just noise. The ordinary ups and downs of business. Brick and mortal retail is in trouble, has been since before the not so great depression we just experienced, and that is not going to change. But some of it should be cause for concern. The level of debt at every level of society is staggering and when that reaches a tipping point, the broader economy will suffer. Unemployment statistics are a bit like the inflation figures. They should be taken only with a very large grain of salt. That said, for the moment the economy is doing well. Conceding special case exceptions, for the most part if you want a job you can get one. It may not be your dream job. But I can't go anywhere w/o seeing "Help Wanted" signs. But yeah. We are going into year nine or ten depending on how you date the economic recovery, of the longest economic expansion that the US has accurate records for.

How long can this go on?

The underlined part is what I find baffling about the claim that "nearly 102 million Americans do not have a job right now". Who are these Americans and why don't they have jobs? And how can this claim and the claim that unemployment is at an all time low both be true?

Since very little is being done on the front of Trump's signature campaign promise, i.e. stopping illegal immigration, I don't see much hope of him being re-elected if the economy turns south.

[jacksonM]

Some of that list is just noise. The ordinary ups and downs of business. Brick and mortal retail is in trouble, has been since before the not so great depression we just experienced, and that is not going to change. But some of it should be cause for concern. The level of debt at every level of society is staggering and when that reaches a tipping point, the broader economy will suffer. Unemployment statistics are a bit like the inflation figures. They should be taken only with a very large grain of salt. That said, for the moment the economy is doing well. Conceding special case exceptions, for the most part if you want a job you can get one. It may not be your dream job. But I can't go anywhere w/o seeing "Help Wanted" signs. But yeah. We are going into year nine or ten depending on how you date the economic recovery, of the longest economic expansion that the US has accurate records for.

How long can this go on?

The underlined part is what I find baffling about the claim that "nearly 102 million Americans do not have a job right now". Who are these Americans and why don't they have jobs? And how can this claim and the claim that unemployment is at an all time low both be true?

It's the AOC "unwilling to work" crowd. I was in New Orleans recently and as we walked around the French Quarter there were panhandlers everywhere, often literally in front of stores/restaurants with help wanted signs in the window.

That's probably some of them but the 102 million figure might also include people like me. I got laid off from my job almost 3 years ago and never returned to work. I was 67 years old at the time and decided to retire.

If that's the case it's a misleading statistic.

[Xan]

Sure it includes you. It's "people who don't have a job". It includes children, retirees, housewives, you name it.

As long as unemployment (the number of people who want to work but aren't) is low, I think the more people who don't have a job, the better. Doesn't that mean we're prosperous?

[WiseOne]

Actually, unemployment is at its lowest in 49 years:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-cr ... 2019-05-03

When you add up the number of people living in the US not eligible or desiring to work, 102 million sounds about right. I'm perfectly fine with my 7 year old niece and 84 year old mother not having jobs.

There's nothing on that list that says anything useful about the economy, except possibly for the one about manufacturing output being down, if it's true. It's all just noise taken out of context. I guess no one really wants to admit that the new tax law may actually have done some good (except to the housing market, which is going through a probably painful adjustment period).

[moda0306]

Sure it includes you. It's "people who don't have a job". It includes children, retirees, housewives, you name it.

As long as unemployment (the number of people who want to work but aren't) is low, I think the more people who don't have a job, the better. Doesn't that mean we're prosperous?

This is one way to read the data... which is an interesting flip from the usual read, which is that a reduced workforce participation rate is a sign of a sluggish economy offering bad jobs. And people just quit looking out of despair.

Either way, I'm more about looking at real median wages. This is the foundation that keeps Americans able to save and withstand periods of high unemployment without it destroying their lives. I'd also like to look at the average American's balance sheet, but it's hard to glean out of all the different measures that try to include/dis-include various items.

But I absolutely agree with you that we should have a more flexible view of what consists of a "good economy." I think it would be splendid if as wages grew we worked fewer hours and sacrificed growth for personal freedom and family time. Of course, you would need median wages to rise for that to happen, and for all that our economic growth has given us, real wage gains have been sh!t.

[Kriegsspiel]

Sure it includes you. It's "people who don't have a job". It includes children, retirees, housewives, you name it.

As long as unemployment (the number of people who want to work but aren't) is low, I think the more people who don't have a job, the better. Doesn't that mean we're prosperous?

This is one way to read the data... which is an interesting flip from the usual read, which is that a reduced workforce participation rate is a sign of a sluggish economy offering bad jobs. And people just quit looking out of despair.

I think you could look at it both ways and get a good grasp of the situation. A lot of the jobs that aren't being filled are the "bad" ones (low paying and physically taxing). I don't think companies are having a hard time hiring people to sit behind a desk, but I could be wrong. So that said, I suspect physical impairments are limiting the jobs some people apply for, and a lot of people can't pass drug tests.

I mean, hasn't the prime working age male employment situation been getting some press recently? How many children and non-working wives are there, really? Marriage is down, fertility is down.

Then again, the fast food places around me seem to be staffed mostly by teenagers outside of school hours. I think it's a good sign that adults aren't taking up those jobs and the teenagers can do them.

Either way, I'm more about looking at real median wages. This is the foundation that keeps Americans able to save and withstand periods of high unemployment without it destroying their lives. I'd also like to look at the average American's balance sheet, but it's hard to glean out of all the different measures that try to include/dis-include various items.

But I absolutely agree with you that we should have a more flexible view of what consists of a "good economy." I think it would be splendid if as wages grew we worked fewer hours and sacrificed growth for personal freedom and family time. Of course, you would need median wages to rise for that to happen, and for all that our economic growth has given us, real wage gains have been sh!t.

Something (somewhat related) that gets me is how many people refuse to leave high COL locations when they aren't earning the high incomes that would justify it. Like, if you are working in one of those bad jobs, especially because you've reached your Peter Principle ceiling, you will vastly improve your life by going and doing it in a low COL location. I'm thinking people like warehouse workers, retail workers, fast food, those kinds of things. You could live a fairly middle class lifestyle working at a fast food joint for 30 hours a week in a large portion of the country.

[moda0306]

Sure it includes you. It's "people who don't have a job". It includes children, retirees, housewives, you name it.

As long as unemployment (the number of people who want to work but aren't) is low, I think the more people who don't have a job, the better. Doesn't that mean we're prosperous?

This is one way to read the data... which is an interesting flip from the usual read, which is that a reduced workforce participation rate is a sign of a sluggish economy offering bad jobs. And people just quit looking out of despair.

I think you could look at it both ways and get a good grasp of the situation. A lot of the jobs that aren't being filled are the "bad" ones (low paying and physically taxing). I don't think companies are having a hard time hiring people to sit behind a desk, but I could be wrong. So that said, I suspect physical impairments are limiting the jobs some people apply for, and a lot of people can't pass drug tests.

I mean, hasn't the prime working age male employment situation been getting some press recently? How many children and non-working wives are there, really? Marriage is down, fertility is down.

Then again, the fast food places around me seem to be staffed mostly by teenagers outside of school hours. I think it's a good sign that adults aren't taking up those jobs and the teenagers can do them.

Either way, I'm more about looking at real median wages. This is the foundation that keeps Americans able to save and withstand periods of high unemployment without it destroying their lives. I'd also like to look at the average American's balance sheet, but it's hard to glean out of all the different measures that try to include/dis-include various items.

But I absolutely agree with you that we should have a more flexible view of what consists of a "good economy." I think it would be splendid if as wages grew we worked fewer hours and sacrificed growth for personal freedom and family time. Of course, you would need median wages to rise for that to happen, and for all that our economic growth has given us, real wage gains have been sh!t.

Something (somewhat related) that gets me is how many people refuse to leave high COL locations when they aren't earning the high incomes that would justify it. Like, if you are working in one of those bad jobs, especially because you've reached your Peter Principle ceiling, you will vastly improve your life by going and doing it in a low COL location. I'm thinking people like warehouse workers, retail workers, fast food, those kinds of things. You could live a fairly middle class lifestyle working at a fast food joint for 30 hours a week in a large portion of the country.

Can you help me with the math on that? 30 x $12 x 50 weeks per year = $18,000. I think I could figure out how to live relatively happily on $18k per year, but I could never live "a middle class lifestyle" I don think, especially if that includes having kids.

[Kriegsspiel]

Yes, $18,000. Obviously it depends on your definition of middle class, but you can afford a decent apartment, a car, good food, clothes/furnishings/other durables, and some entertainment on that, which is the way I see lower middle class status. Maybe not with kids, but middle class single is doable on entry-level jobs.

EDIT

These are the numbers I'm thinking of

• $650-750 rent can get a decent apartment in a city in the midwest, or a house in a less fashionable area
• $220 for groceries, give or take depending on how much you eat, is plenty
• $130 for transportation should cover whatever combination of transit/ridesharing, gas, insurance, maintenance
• $40 is guestimating a premium for health insurance? Not really sure here.

That's $1,040 to cover the basics. $460 left over. If I was just starting out and didn't have a car or any furniture, I would be saving up until I could afford a good used car for $5,000 or so, or about a year of taking the bus. I'd probably also cut out processed and unhealthy food from my grocery shopping and put it towards buying some furniture (small apartments don't need much). Once you get that stuff taken care of, you can split the surplus up between savings and luxuries however you want. You probably have been promoted by this time too, so you'd be earning more.

[Ad Orientem]

In the United States an annual income of $18k is on the low end of working class. That doesn't mean you can't make do on that. A lot depends on where your priorities in life are. My time in the Navy taught me how little I really needed and still remained fairly happy. There is definitely more to life than material things. But I don't know anyone who would call that a middle class income in a developed country.