The Trump Who Stole Christmas. Trump tanks Stimulus Talks, No COVID-19 Relief= Millions Lose Access to Food, Shelter and Medicine

[tstorm823]

Further the grey "average" lines are not indicative of anything (notice how Obama's somehow starts in mid-2009, half a year into his first term) but are only put in place to make it seem as if Trump has had a much better increase at a quick glance.

The start being shifted is acknowledged as "Obama (post recession)" because if they start it at the beginning of his term, the trend would be negative. That shift was to make Obama look better.

Edit: which is not to suggest "better" is more or less accurate to reality. Only to say they didn't cut out half a year of Obama to make Trump look better, because adding in that half year would make Obama look worse.

 

[Agema]

Here's median wages under Trump, as opposed to average wages.

Two more useful perspectives, in red and green.

Red reflects the recovery phase after the crash and several years of economic disruption. Green reflects the longer term trend, cancelling out the Great Recession, although more useful with the graph below.




The point being that the median growth under Trump is not in fact very interesting or exceptional. It is a continuation of the rapid growth under the late Obama administration, just what we'd expect from growth returning to long-term trends after the Great Recession, and does not really exceed the return to long term growth. Nor was it likely to do even had covid-19 not struck, as in 2019 there were wide expectations of slowdown and even recession in 2020-2021.

 

[Houseman]

"Under Trump, wages have risen" isn't the main point here, you all know that, right? It was only an off-hand comment I made.

The main point was "the gap between wages and housing costs is the problem, not the lack of stimulus money".

 

[stroopwafel]

Sort of. But with astronomical mortgages comes astronomically valuable property assets. For every $500,000 dollars to buy a house comes $500,000 worth of house. If someone needs, they can sell their house and their debt goes with it. The big danger, of course, is a decrease in housing value and negative equity.

Interest rates do matter here: due to the above, what matters is not the absolute price and consequent debt but the ability to afford monthly payments. If mortgage repayments take up 20% of salaries in 1985 and 20% in 2020, houses are just as affordable as they were. That the house value:salary ratio may have grown is neither here nor there. I find this idea that houses don't reflect actual value odd, as this seems quite like Marxist economics. Conventionally, the value of anything is what people will pay you for it, pretty much nothing more and nothing less. Gold, tractors or bananas no more have "actual value" than houses: all the gold in the world isn't worth anything if no-one wants it. The rationale of low interest rates and easy credit is simply flexibility and growth. You want to invest in something you can get the money now rather than have to save up (by which time the opportunity may well have disappeared) or sell something of value. If you're going through a tight spot and need to borrow, you can get through rather than go under. So yes, we have an economy fuelled by debt. But where that debt is backed by assets, it's often not remotely so bad as it looks.

Where I suspect there's an issue is as people invest in property, those assets become important - as per the above of the danger of a decrease in property value. The obvious interest of the government is to ensure property prices do not decline, because homeowners as an extremely large and powerful voter demographic, will absolutely hate it as they see themselves getting poorer. Consequently, I think the government has been perfectly happy with contrained development of new housing stock to keep house prices buoyant.

I beg to differ. Housing prices are only so high because low to negative interest rates drive up mortgages by making it more easy to loan and then housing market reacts by even further increasing prices because banks allow these high rates to continue(for obvious reasons). Buying a one room apartment for 300k has nothing to do with 'property value' but everything with excess debt the banks put into old bricks at inflated prices as long as the party lasts. Savings have become effectively worthless with a premium put on heavy loans with low and deductible or even negative interest rates. You could say a 'debt economy' like Japan is a good thing but I disagree. They pretty much can't deviate their policies from their financial benefactors leading to a lot of socioeconomic stagnation and contributing to their demographic decline.

Which is the second point of inflated property value; it pretty much only serves the interest of established home owners that see the prices go up. Meanwhile young people are either unable to afford a ludicrous mortgage and pay more and more of their salary to housing costs because rent increases as well. These are also largely the nett contributors to the state budget that now have to eg delay starting a familly because of these inflated prices. In an aging society you will have older people with deductible interest rates on their ballooned property value and also being the majority receivers of both the healthcare budget and social security. Meanwhile younger people also suffer the most under the coronavirus restrictions even if they themselves are at relative low risk.

You are right insofar prices are the result of demand & supply but the high housing prices are the result of banks driving up the mortgage rates and this is the result of the central banks suppressing the interest rates so states can go into long-term deficit. They are pretty much passing the bill to the next generation. Without interference from the state(or more specifically the central banks) no one would have access to these kind of absurd mortgages in the first place so this would inevatibly suppress the value of property to more realistic levels. The state is the one who puts a premium on debt. People are losing their jobs and the economy is in a recession but housing prices keep on rising. This is not sustainable with an aging population case in point Japan.

 

[lil devils x]

Housing prices are high due to local homeowners controlling city councils blocking new development because they want to increase the price of their homes when they go to sell thus causing the lack of affordable housing and increased homelessness in the first place. They force housing prices up because they refuse to let developers build affordable housing in the first place. This is a constant tug o war game. Developers are even forced to build out of city limits and then the city will refuse to allow them to hook up to city water and sanitation. This is the primary bickering going on in local city councils here. I regretfully have had to sit through entirely too much of that during my short time trying to get the local hospital built. They restrict multi family housing and require all new housing to be built to be like $500,000 minimum.. Anytime anyone tries to do anything else, they get put through hell and usually wind up giving up and going elsewhere.

 

[stroopwafel]

Housing prices are high due to local homeowners controlling city councils blocking new development because they want to increase the price of their homes when they go to sell thus causing the lack of affordable housing and increased homelessness in the first place. They force housing prices up because they refuse to let developers build affordable housing in the first place. This is a constant tug o war game. Developers are even forced to build out of city limits and then the city will refuse to allow them to hook up to city water and sanitation. This is the primary bickering going on in local city councils here. I regretfully have had to sit through entirely too much of that during my short time trying to get the local hospital built.

Yeah, but again it's an example of (local) government interfering with the market. The state only benefits established(ie majority voter) interests. Everywhere the government interferes things go to shit. Whether on the macro or micro level.

 

[lil devils x]

Yeah, but again it's an example of (local) government interfering with the market. The state only benefits established(ie majority voter) interests. Everywhere the government interferes things go to shit. Whether on the macro or micro level.

The local governments control the markets here. I am not aware of any local government in the US that doesn't. This is the republican government here doing this the worst btw. They just care about increasing their investments on their properties and could care less if they are the ones driving homelessness. To make it worse, these are ALSO the worst offender giving the homeless bus tickets to California and blocking any help for them locally so they will force them to leave or die...

 

[stroopwafel]

The local governments control the markets here. I am not aware of any local government in the US that doesn't. This is the republican government here doing this the worst btw. They just care about increasing their investments on their properties and could care less if they are the ones driving homelessness.

I agree with you there. That's crony capitalism not free market.

 

[lil devils x]

I agree with you there. That's crony capitalism not free market.

It takes regulation to resolve, however, good luck getting that passed, as homeowners, republican's and democrat alike would have convulsions at the thought. Progressives here are the only ones really trying to solve this problem long term. At best the democrats put a band aid on it, but are rightly afraid they would lose their districts to republicans if they tried. Politicians who do actually try to resolve the issue do not last long as the homeowners unite against them quick.

 

[stroopwafel]

It takes regulation to resolve, however, good luck getting that passed, as homeowners, republican's and democrat alike would have convulsions at the thought. Progressives here are the only ones really trying to solve this problem long term. At best the democrats put a band aid on it, but are rightly afraid they would lose their districts to republicans if they tried. Politicians who do actually try to resolve the issue do not last long as the homeowners unite against them quick.

Yeah, but I always find it peculiar how people complain incessantly about a few billionaires while this legion of parasites get a pass.

 

[Shadyside]

Can someone tell me about why the Dems are obssessed with having everything in one big bill, instead of passing something that was unanimously supported like the stimulus check. They can pass something and then work on other negotiations.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[tstorm823]

Can someone tell me about why the Dems are obssessed with having everything in one big bill, instead of passing something that was unanimously supported like the stimulus check. They can pass something and then work on other negotiations.

Because their strategy is to blame Republicans for obstructing things. They don't just package things together, they bundle bipartisan bills to poison pills so they can campaign on Mitch McConnell obstructing them.

 

[lil devils x]

Can someone tell me about why the Dems are obssessed with having everything in one big bill, instead of passing something that was unanimously supported like the stimulus check. They can pass something and then work on other negotiations.

From my understanding the $1200 stimulus checks are still on the table, however, Pelosi is 100% right that no corporate welfare without help for the poor and unemployed attached to it. If we allow the GOP to get their corporate welfare, they will NEVER pass the unemployment and relief for the poor at all as they have no incentive to. They need the pressure of the wealthy airlines, corporations and business owners to be able to force the GOP to pass help to the poor at all, otherwise no help for the poor will be coming at all.

Second stimulus check updates: Nancy Pelosi says she’s ‘at the table’ even after Trump scrapped COVID-19 relief talks

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she’s “at the table” ready to negotiate a coronavirus aid package after President Donald Trump abruptly halted talks and left the economy …

www.chicagotribune.com

 

[lil devils x]

Because their strategy is to blame Republicans for obstructing things. They don't just package things together, they bundle bipartisan bills to poison pills so they can campaign on Mitch McConnell obstructing them.

No, it is because the ONLY way we can get help for the unemployed and poor is to shackle it to welfare for the wealthy and have the GOP's wealthy constituents pressure them to do so.

 

[tstorm823]

No, it is because the ONLY way we can get help for the unemployed and poor is to shackle it to welfare for the wealthy and have the GOP's wealthy constituents pressure them to do so.

You do understand that the big sticking point is a trillion dollars to bail out the state governments? Nobody is disputing help for the poor and unemployed.

 

[lil devils x]

You do understand that the big sticking point is a trillion dollars to bail out the state governments? Nobody is disputing help for the poor and unemployed.

Did you forget about the whole $600 a week for the unemployed that the GOP has said " over my dead body?" they would do that again?

'Over our dead bodies': Lindsey Graham vows Congress won't extend additional $600 coronavirus-related unemployment benefits, as US death toll crosses the 60,000 mark

The South Carolina senator said he believed the additional unemployment funds would incentivize people not to work.

www.businessinsider.com

Selective memory here. What about the comprehensive plan to help stop the spread of the virus as well?

"Democrats have made it clear they will not do a piecemeal approach until the Trump administration signs off on a broader, comprehensive plan they are proposing for virus testing, tracing and other actions to stop its spread. "

Second stimulus check updates: Nancy Pelosi says she’s ‘at the table’ even after Trump scrapped COVID-19 relief talks

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she’s “at the table” ready to negotiate a coronavirus aid package after President Donald Trump abruptly halted talks and left the economy …

www.chicagotribune.com

Don't give me the BS about " nobody's disputing help for the poor" look at EVERY. SINGLE. GOP Proposal thus far. The GOP numbers for the unemployed ARE the problem. How much of that GOP proposal is for the wealthy vs the unemployed? Oh yea.. How about we just give them the same amount then if it isn't a problem. The wealthy and corporations only get as much as they give the unemployed right now? How does that work huh? giving me that BS. Go actually read the bills here.

 

[tstorm823]

Did you forget about the whole $600 a week for the unemployed that the GOP has said " over my dead body?" they would do that again?

A GOP senator said that, because they would do $300 a week in the "skinniest" version of the bill. "Oh, but that amount that isn't enough for my brother to not be homeless, even though that still means the bottom 37% of wage earners are taking home more in unemployment than they did working." Well, perhaps that's why the bill the democrats are rejecting has $60 billion in rental and mortgage assistance.

I do read the bills.

 

[lil devils x]

A GOP senator said that, because they would do $300 a week in the "skinniest" version of the bill. "Oh, but that amount that isn't enough for my brother to not be homeless, even though that still means the bottom 37% of wage earners are taking home more in unemployment than they did working." Well, perhaps that's why the bill the democrats are rejecting has $60 billion in rental and mortgage assistance.

I do read the bills.

" more than they did working the job that pays them unemployment" not including their side jobs, they lost as well because people couldn't make ends meet with ONE job:

Women More Likely to Have Multiple Jobs

More than 8% of workers have multiple jobs and the majority of them hold two jobs for the entire year. Women are more likely than men to have multiple jobs.

www.census.gov

That is almost half the number of people receiving unemployment..

 

[tstorm823]

" more than they did working the job that pays them unemployment" not including their side jobs, they lost as well because people couldn't make ends meet with ONE job:

Women More Likely to Have Multiple Jobs

More than 8% of workers have multiple jobs and the majority of them hold two jobs for the entire year. Women are more likely than men to have multiple jobs.

www.census.gov

That is almost half the number of people receiving unemployment..

Those aren't perfectly overlapping demographics. It's silly to assume that even a disproportionate amount of people with multiple jobs are on unemployment now.