Five, Ten years from now the GOP will be a different party

ClimateSanity

New member
That's a Donald Trump quote from a town hall.com article by John Hawkins.

The GOP has long been known as the party of the rich. That mantle appears to have been taken over by the Democrats. The rich give them the most money. The top 20% of income earners has gained the most from the policies of the last eight years and also from the free trade policies of Clinton and the second bush. It has also gained from the pro illegal immigration stances of the establishment in both parties since 2000.

The working class has been truly abandoned and if the GOP wishes to survive, it should pick up where the Democrats have pushed then off their radar. Middle aged white people in the rust belt would not be dying off from heroin abuse and other maladies if the middle class mattered like it used to. Here is a link to that article and the first five paragraphs after that.

"Five, 10 years from now (the GOP will be a) different party. You’re going to have a worker’s party. A party of people that haven’t had a real wage increase in 18 years, that are angry. What I want to do, I think cutting Social Security is a big mistake for the Republican Party. And I know it’s a big part of the budget. Cutting it the wrong way is a big mistake, and even cutting it [at all].” – Donald Trump

After saying that, Donald Trump caught quite a bit of flak from people on the Right. Some complained that the predecessor of the Nazi Party was called the German Workers' Party. Others pointed out that most “workers’ parties” tend to be liberal.

Despite the fact that I’m one of the last people you’d expect to defend Donald Trump, I have to say those complaints seem a bit shallow. He wasn’t suggesting that we rename the GOP the “Workers’ Party.” Additionally, why in the world would we simply concede that Democrats are the “Workers’ Party” because socialists like to falsely claim that mantle?

Do Republicans really want to continue to live up to the “party of the rich” stereotype that Democrats have hung around their necks like an albatross? Ironically, the rich actually tend to vote Democrat, but because liberals trash the rich while Republicans in Congress (as opposed to conservatives in flyover country) make catering to the rich their #1 priority, the label has stuck.

Some people may think that’s unfair because some of the policies the GOP pushes, like cutting tax rates for the rich and slashing the corporate tax rate, will stimulate the economy and help everyone. However, the immigration policies pushed by GOP leaders in Congress help the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class. Then there were the bank bailouts which allowed well-connected firms to be “capitalist on the way up and socialist on the way down.” If you picked out the top three priorities of the GOP leadership, they would probably be increasing the number of H-1B visas because filthy rich tech companies want them, keeping the flow of illegal aliens going because filthy rich Agbiz companies want them and reducing the corporate income taxes.
 

ClimateSanity

New member
Slow and unequal wage growth in recent decades stems from a growing wedge between overall productivity—the improvements in the amount of goods and services produced per hour worked—and the pay (wages and benefits) received by a typical worker.

The figure shows that in the three decades following World War II, hourly compensation of the vast majority of workers rose 91 percent, roughly in line with productivity growth of 97 percent. But for most of the past generation (except for a brief period in the late 1990s), pay for the vast majority lagged further and further behind overall productivity. From 1973 to 2013, hourly compensation of a typical (production/nonsupervisory) worker rose just 9 percent while productivity increased 74 percent. This breakdown of pay growth has been especially evident in the last decade, affecting both college- and non-college-educated workers as well as blue- and white-collar workers. This means that workers have been producing far more than they receive in their paychecks and benefit packages from their employers.

From the article Wage stagnation in nine charts by the economic policy institute.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
From 1973 to 2013, hourly compensation of a typical (production/nonsupervisory) worker rose just 9 percent while productivity increased 74 percent.

I question the claim of 74% increase in productivity. In my career, it has gone down because the quality of the worker has gone down. The field is being filled with idiots that don't have the necessary aptitude to do the job. What else I noticed is a drop in wages in the last 7-8 years.

I am a sample of 1, in one career field.
 
Top