Thursday, January 12, 2017

Is there a war on White people in the US?

Or more specifically, on White working-class men? Or is it just a war on all White men who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton?

Or are all White people in the U.S. being subjected to reverse racism?

From the Federalist: How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism: "White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more. This is a remarkably bad idea."

My note: I'm neither proud nor ashamed of my own "Whiteness". I look in the mirror every day and I just see a familiar face (that happens to be White) and just recognize a person that I've known all my life. My great-grand-father immigrated to the U.S. from Germany and became a farmer; but I don't celebrate by Whiteness or relate in any way to German culture or my Western European heritage. I just think of myself as an American, which has always had a White majority for its population. If I were born Black in the Congo, I might feel the same way. And if I had moved to Rome, I might do as the Romans do. But over the the years I've noticed a lot of anti-White sentiment being spewed by elements within the Democratic Party (who once opposed freeing slaves just prior to my great-grand-father's immigration.)

Looking back at the migration patterns out of Africa throughout the past 60,000 years of human history (if you believe the Earth is older than 8,000 years); and most recently over the past 500 years when the people of Europe migrated to North America, it doesn't appear to be racist to want White people to exist, or to even have a country with borders that is dominated by a White population. Whites are a minority — and could even be an endangered species if you listen to the rhetoric we have today.

The Clinton machine (DNC, media, etc) used "projection" to accuse Trump's supporters of racism and other divisive tactics that they themselves were guilty of to divide people. If if were White Christian Crusaders were raising havoc in the Middle-East today (killing, raping, looting, etc.),  the Democrats would accuse Trump of banning all Christians instead of banning all Muslims. Hillary Clinton, while at a LBGTQ fundraiser, accused half of Trump's supporters of being an "irredeemable basket of deplorables". The Clinton camp accused Senator Bernie Sanders and his supporters of being misogynist and sexist. And the Clinton machine accuses Trump and his supporters of being racist against Latinos for wanting to enforce immigration laws and building a wall (but couldn't have made that claim if all illegal immigrants came from Canada).  The "alt-left" (which is the Democratic party today) uses race and many other social issues to divide people (#BlavckLivesMatter vs #BlueLivesMatter vs #AllLivesMatter). But as Americans of all races, we are more divided by economics — the rich vs the poor, the "haves" vs the "have nots". To say otherwise is a distraction and an old ploy that is always used to divide and conqueror the people.

Over the past 40 years, stocks on the Dow Jones are up almost 1,900% (astronomical gains!) — but amazingly the "median wage" (meaning 50% earn more, 50% earn less) in the U.S. is FLAT when accounting for inflation. That's why you feel like a hamster in a cage on a little wheel, furiously spinning away but getting nowhere, sometimes taking a 2nd job to get a little ahead — and why we've seen a dramatic rise in dual-income households. (Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote about this: The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke).

Stock prices on the Dow Jones for the past 40 years.
Stocks prices for past 40 years

The "nominal" median wage for a worker in the U.S. went from $11,479 a year in 1979 to $29,930 a year in 2015. But by using an inflation calculator from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it looks even worse. The median wage should be $38,161 a year in 2016 just to break even --- not $29,930 (* If $29,930 is multiplied by 2 = $59,860 a year --- which is very close to what Sentier Research reported as the current median household income of $58,221 a year.)

Falling behind in buying power

The 2016 Presidential Election

Old White Men

If a White man didn't want to continue with Obama's "legacy" (and instead voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton) and had voted for someone they thought would secure their borders and save their jobs, that does NOT automatically make them a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a misogynist, an Islamophobe, a xenophobe, a homophobe, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-women, a White supremacist, a White nationalist, a Nazi or a fascist. If anything, that accusation (in and of itself) sounds a lot like "anti-White" racism. It's not "racist" to want to keep jobs in America or to stop giving them to "guestworkers" from foreign countries who are willing to work for less than the prevailing domestic wage. FYI: Even White people need to eat and put a roof over their family's heads.

Pat Buchanan (May 1, 2008)

"According to the Pew Research Center, the Hispanic population of the United States will triple to 127 million by 2050, as Mexico's population grows to 130 million. An erasure of the U.S. border, or merger of the two countries, or the linguistic, cultural and social annexation of the American Southwest by Mexico appears fated. Yet, last October, in another Pew poll of 45,000 people in 47 countries, a majority in 46 expressed fear of a loss of their traditional culture. Sixty-two percent of Americans told Pew we should do more to protect our way of life. Three-fourths of Americans wanted more restrictions on immigration. Yet all three presidential candidates [Obama, Clinton, McCain] voted amnesty for the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens."

The "working-class" in America is the majority of all workers (61% of all US wage earners make less than $40,000 a year and is comprised of all races); but the working-class is always defined by the media and politicians as the "White" working-class. That's because the majority of the population in the U.S. (77% as of 2015) is still White. Although Whites are still a majority in the U.S. (and Europe, Russia, Canada, South Africa and Australia), it's still a small minority when compared to the rest of the world's population.

In the U.S., men (of all races) were the most displaced when manufacturing jobs were offshored to low-wage countries after Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and gave PNTR to China. Just since 1997 when Clinton was in office, more than 5 million jobs were lost and more than 67,000 factories have closed. While on the campaign trail, Trump often mentioned 70,000 closed factories. While it's true many jobs were lost to automation, many were also lost to child labor, robots and computers in places such as China, Mexico, India, Cambodia, Vietnam (etc.) — countries that have a very tiny population of people of Western European descent (Caucasians as defined in the U.S.)

The continent of Africa could be the next "emerging market" (for cheap labor) if they had adequate infrastructure, less political upheaval (ISIS, etc) and less wars. But would it be "racist" or "Apartheid" to have a country in Africa exclusively populated by black people? It's almost as though some people resent the idea of a country with a White majority population; and that the idea (or the ultimate goal) is to make the population of the U.S. as "diverse" and "all-inclusive" as quickly as possible, until eventually Whites are no longer the majority. Why is this? Do other White-dominate countries have a social movement to make them non-White majorities as well? After all, White are already a minority in the world. Why is there so much anti-Whiteness (including by some Whites) in the U.S.? Very odd, wishing for your own race to be exterminated or watered-down into some type of global "sameness" where everyone in the world in one color, speaking one language, with one culture and no borders.

 The U.S. Labor Force

(Chart below) Of those who are currently NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE, but want a job, there are 5.9 million Americans who are unemployed, but no longer counted as "unemployed" (about the same number of jobs lost after NAFTA and PNTR for China). Currently there are another 7.4 million officially counted as unemployed, not including a total of 95 million not in the labor force (which also includes those on Social Security, those in medical and mental facilities, those who are incarcerated, those who choose not to work, etc).

Not in labor force, but want a job

"Nationalism" is always used by the mainstream media to define many White voters as "White nationalists" (to indicate racism), rather than just plain old-fashion "patriotism" — and is used to criticized people who opposed trade deals that offshore their jobs, calling them "anti-trade" and "protectionists" — as though opposing trade deals that deprive them of their livelihoods makes them bad people. Both Senator Bernie Sanders (a democratic socialist) and Donald Trump (a hybrid-Republican and real estate investor that Hillary Clinton always called a reality TV star) have railed against bad trade deals, saying they preferred "fair trade" and not just "free trade". Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA and was on the record (45 times) supporting the TPP trade agreement and calling it "the gold standard" — a trade deal (just like the pending TTIP and TiSA trade agreements) that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump vehemently opposed. (Currently 1/3 of all U.S. jobs are still prone to offshoring/outsourcing.)

But the Democrats and their "mainstream media" are accusing "Whites" of racism for opposing Hillary Clinton — even though millions of White Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 (and had given up on his "hope and change" message) and instead had supported Trump in 2016. When Bernie Sanders ran against Clinton in the Democratic primary, Sanders was accused of sexism and of being a Socialist. Democrats, the DNC, the Democratic super-delegates and their "mainstream media" had all stubbornly colluded to get Clinton elected — even when all polls had showed Sanders beating Trump — and by wider margins that Hillary Clinton.

But since Clinton lost to Trump, rather than blame themselves for their own stubborn cult-like loyalty to Clinton, they're blaming everyone and everything else EXCEPT themselves for losing the election to Trump (and racism is often mentioned.) Anyone who watched CNN and MSNBC could clearly see the media bias against Sanders and the favoritism that Clinton received. They all saw the narrative the DNC, the Democrats and the medial was pushing to unfairly represent Sanders. And the people who read and watched the mainstream media regularly saw the same bias and favoritism when Clinton ran against Trump — the "Pied Piper candidate" (as exposed by Wikileaks) that the DNC conspired to help get elected, thinking Clinton had a better chance of beating Trump than most other GOP candidates. (At first, the mainstream media play Trump as a fool for the ratings he generated, giving him much free exposure — but then became more and more negative when the possibly grew that he could win the GOP primary; and then grew even more negative while he ran against Clinton in the general election. Everyone who watched and read the mainstream news could clearly see all the media bias*.

* Like the bog who cried "wolf" too often, I worry that if the mainstream ever does have something very significant to report regarding the Trump administration, many people will disregard it as more bias because of their past reporting and bias. Now CNN has gone completely off the rail with fake news. They (the media), just like the Democrats, learned NOTHING from Clinton's loss to Trump.

During the Democratic primary, many Independents and Sanders's supporters began watching more Fox News to get better and more accurate coverage of the race, because CNN and MSNBC was so overtly biased, always having Clinton surrogates (posing as "contributors", such as bankers and lobbyists and people like Howard Dean and Barney Frank) on the air to constantly bash Sanders. We learned more about the DNC protests from alternative news sources and Fox News than we saw on CNN and MSNBC — who had been constantly putting the numbers of super-delegates in our faces in BIG BOLD NUMBERS to discourage Sanders's supporters from turning out to vote ("influencing the election"). The mainstream media did the same thing to Trump with their electoral maps, always telling us that he had "no path forward" to winning the general election, and that it was impossible. Media bias may have actually won the election for Trump, who he constantly called out for their dishonesty (which ironically, Bernie Sanders had also complained about.)

After Trump had won the presidency, Van Jones on CNN used the term "White lash" as one reason given why many people voted for Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton (even though she is White and was supported by the KKK in 2008 when she ran against Obama). "Angry White men" (sometimes proceeded by the word "old") was (and still is) always used to define Trump's supporters, even though millions of women (of all colors) also voted for Trump.... more so than for Clinton. Every day it seems we're always hearing about "White men" by the pundits and politicians on CNN and MSNBC as the main reason why Clinton lost. The country is 13% Black but their pundits are 50% Black --- a total mismatch of the actual demographics and race representation of the country.

We also hear a lot about "diversity" and "inclusiveness" — even though (IMHO) we see a greater proportion of minorities (mostly Blacks) in the movies, in sports and in the music business (and also on the cable news shows like CNN and MSNBC) — more so than there are as a percentage of the actual demographics in America. Whites (to the chagrin of many on the "alt-left" and in the mainstream media) still make up a 77% majority of the population in the U.S. — but it appears as though a White-dominated country (as opposed to a Latino, Asian, Middle-Eastern or African dominated country) is somehow "immoral" or "Apartheid" to some people. Is there a war on White people in the U.S. — in a country that founded by White Western Europeans?

NOTE: I supported Bernie Sanders, but most African-Americans voted for Clinton. Was there a "black lash" against Bernie? Did a lot of racist "old angry black men" vote for Hillary Clinton? Look at this latest chart from the Economic Policy Institute that I just received in a newsletter the other day ...

It's quite possible that the "White working-class" got sick and tired of hearing about the racist references to Whites, and told the Democrats, Obama, the DNC, the super-delegate and the mainstream media to all go fu*k themselves — because they weren't racist, but were angry for being accused of being racist (hence, the "White lash"). If they all wanted to know why most of these "angry White men" might have voted for Trump, rather than blaming "racism", they might just want to look at these 5 recent charts from the St. Louis Federal Reserve.

(Chart below) Under George W. Bush — shown as a lagging indicator from Bill Clinton's trade deals and Bush's tax cuts — stocks soared and peaked at an all-time record high before the banks had crashed our economy with fraudulent derivatives bundled with sub-prime mortgages. (Bill Clinton also helped deregulate the banks by signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act just before leaving officer in 1999). Since 2013, stock prices (and 401ks) have completely recovered, and the stock indexes for all major stocks have all since hit new all-time record highs (including NASDAQ). But the median weekly pay has barely budged --- not in the past 40 years.

Stocks soared under Bush and Obama

(Chart below) Median weekly wages for the pat 40 years.

40 years of flat wages

(Chart below) Ever since Bill Clinton gave PNTR to China, the labor force has gradually declined.

Labor force peaked in 2000 after China got PNTR from Clinton

(Chart below) In 1979 the number of manufacturing jobs and the number of American workers in labor unions had peaked. The slight uptick in recent years are jobs that pay HALF of what they used to when inflation is accounted for. During the auto bailout, in a deal made with the United Auto Workers Union, new workers are paid HALF of what they were previously.

Manufacturing and unions peaked in 1979

(Chart below) Just since 1997 when Clinton was in office, more than 5 million jobs were lost and more than 67,000 factories have closed. January 1994 was when NAFTA went into effect; October 2000 is when China got PNTR. Whites voted for Trump because he said he wants to re-negotiate all our bad trade deals so the "working-class" (blue-collar workers of ALL races) have more and better paying jobs. Obama (who Hillary Clinton was running for as his 3rd term) had pushed very hard for the TPP trade deal.

All employees: Manufacturing since 1979

The Democrats can't just depend on liberals in the major cities of California and New York (and minorities) to support them. They have to be the party of the "working-class" of ALL races — and get completely away from all "identity politics" and race-baiting and anti-Whiteness. Clinton's loss was not because of racism or "White privilege". Is there "Yellow privilege" in China or "Brown privilege" in Mexico or "Black privilege" in Africa? America is STILL primarily a White nation; but it's nothing to be ashamed of. America is also a diverse nation — and it still allows people from all over the world to legally migrate here. To reject "open borders" is nothing to be ashamed of. But the Democrats and the mainstream media wanted to shame White workers, so many voted for Trump. If they ended the war on White people, instead of accusing them of being a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a misogynist, an Islamophobe, a xenophobe, a homophobe, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-women, a White supremacist, a White nationalist, a Nazi or a fascist --- then maybe in 2020 they might vote for a Democrat again --- that is, if someone like Bernie Sanders was running. (* Personally, as much as I supported Bernie Sanders, he really turned me off with all his personal attacks against Trump: "No Bernie! Extreme vetting is not being anti-Muslim! It's being anti-ISIS!")

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Make America Great Again (with Fair Trade)

It's not a lack of a skills, it's a lack of jobs. Eventually robots will do it all; but in the mean time, let's stop offshoring our best jobs to foreign countries, or giving jobs (that Americans want to do) to foreign workers.

Made in the USA — Putting America First.

Made in USA

Multinational corporations supersede sovereign borders; U.S. international trade agreements not only supersedes the sovereignty of America, but supersedes American workers for the sole benefit of multinational corporations.

Pending trade deals such as TPP, TiSA and TTIP would only exacerbate the problem for American citizens. This is called "globalism". Trump wants to put America first. The alt-left calls this "nationalism" — but precedes this description with the word "White" to invoke racism to shame Americans into believing that "fair trade" is "protectionism" and racist, because they put themselves and their families first before they do other people of the world.

And the same is true for immigration and migration policies, which both political parties in the U.S. have used both for votes (Democrats) and cheap labor (Democrats and Republicans) as can be seen with the use of guestworker visas (such as H-1B) and the offshoring of jobs to low wage countries — many that use child labor*.

* And of course, whenever possible, the "job creators" will use computers, robots, automation and artificial intelligence to replace living human beings...because they don't get sick, are never late for work and never need a vacation.

In the U.S. (ever since the Powell Memo and when "free trade agreements" first went into effect), stock prices and CEO pay have skyrocketed, while wages for typical American workers have remained stagnate, forcing the trend in dual-household incomes just to pay for basic essentials. And that's why eventually, with more and more Americans being left out of the labor force, we will need a basic income -- BEFORE human labor becomes obsolete.

And no, it's not because of a lack of skills -- it's because of a lack of jobs. Everyone could have a Ph.D. and we'd have a lot of smart people working at McDonalds and Wal-Mart -- and kids in Vietnam will still be making shoes for Nike.

The multinational corporations largest institutional investors (banks, hedge funds and private equity firms) have no patriotic duty to the livelihoods and happiness of their native citizens. Their only goal is CASH -- to enrich themselves. A 2016 Oxfam Davos report shows that 62 people own the same amount of wealth as half the world. That is insane!!!

Stock prices and CEO pay has soared over the past 40 years. But after inflation, real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant. U.S. multinational corporations invest overseas for cheap labor. Their record after-tax profits are spent on a record high number of stock buybacks (to increase the value of executive stock-option grants) and in mergers and acquisitions -- almost approaching monopoly-like economic power. What's left goes into the pockets of company executives, not workers.

In western "democracies" the "people" began fighting back, but the "powers that be" have been trying to rig elections to keep the status quo. So far the world has seen #Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Obama (a pro-banking, open-borders globalist) went to England to tell voters that if they left the EU they would be in the back of the line for trade deals with the US. (Its a good thing for the UK that Trump was elected.)

Will this trend of offshoring good-paying manufacturing jobs to low wage countries continue with Trump as President? We hope not, because that was a big reason why many people voted for him.

* Clink on the image below to enlarge to see how U.S. trade deals have tracked the stock market. Stocks up over 1,800% over the past 40 years, but wages are not.

Free Trade vs. Fair Trade

  • Israel-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1985 was America's very first FTA
  • North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada (NAFTA) came into force on January 1, 1994
  • U.S. PNTR with China - Oct 10, 2000 China joins WTO in 2001
  • Jordan–U.S. Free Trade Agreement - Oct 24, 2000
  • Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) signed May 18, 2004 and came into effect on Jan 1, 2005
  • Chile-U.S. Free Trade Agreement signed on June 6, 2003 and in force on Jan 1, 2004
  • Singapore-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was signed on Sept 3, 2003 and in force on Jan 1, 2004
  • Bahrain-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (USBFTA) signed on Jan 11, 2006 and in force on Aug 1, 2006
  • Morocco-U.S. Free Trade Agreement came into effect on January 1, 2006
  • Oman-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (OFTA) signed on Sept 26, 2006 and in force on Jan 1, 2009
  • Peru-U.S. Free Trade Promotion Agreement was implemented on February 1, 2009.
  • The Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (was CAFTA, in 2004 the agreement was renamed CAFTA-DR)
  • The Panama–U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement was signed in 2007 and in effect since Oct 2012
  • Colombia-U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA) was passed on Oct 12, 2011 and in force since May 15, 2012
  • Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) first signed on June 30, 2007, renegotiated and signed in Dec 2010, and in force since March 2012

Pending Trade Deals

  • TPP (Asia) first began in 2005, but beginning in 2008, additional countries joined. Described as "NAFTA on steroids"
  • TTIP (Europe) proposed in 2006 by German Chancellor Angela Merkel
  • TiSA (Europe) first crafted in Feb 2012

The Triple Trade Treaty Threat: TPP, TTIP and TiSA

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is a trade agreement among twelve of the Pacific Rim countries—notably not including China. The finalized proposal was signed on 4 February 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand, concluding seven years of negotiations. It is currently awaiting ratification to enter into force. The TPP contains measures to lower both non-tariff and tariff barriers to trade, and establish an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism.

The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a proposed trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. The "globalists" with the American government considers the TTIP a companion agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The agreement is under ongoing negotiations and were originally planned to be finalized by the end of 2014 (but will not be finished until 2019 or 2020, according to economist Hosuk Lee-Makiyama.

The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) is a proposed international trade treaty between 23 Parties, including the European Union and the United States. The participating countries started crafting the proposed agreement in February 2012 and presented initial offers at the end of 2013. Criticism about the secrecy of the agreement arose after WikiLeaks released a classified draft in June 2014 of the proposal's financial services annex, dated the previous April. Another release took place in June 2015 and in May 2016.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Trump's Evolution on the Federal Minimum Wage

Last summer during the Democratic convention (when Hillary Clinton "won" the nomination), in his speech Senator Bernie Sanders said Donald Trump believes that States have the right to lower the minimum wage. But Trump never really advocated for States to LOWER the minimum wage, but only that they should decide if it should go higher than it currently stands. According to Trump's last statement on the subject, he actually thought the U.S. should have "at least" a $10 federal minimum wage.

Trump Minimum Wage

Obama and the Democrats had a majority of seats in both the House and the Senate for two years in 2009 and 2010 — but no Democrat (while they had complete control of the government) had ever proposed raising the federal minimum wage (George W. Bush was the last President to raise the federal minimum wage).

The federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour might barely be a "living wage" in the State of Mississippi (which has the lowest cost-of-living of all 50 States) — but $7.25 an hour would definitely be a "poverty wage" in cities such as Honolulu, San Francisco and New York City. (No, it's no longer just teenagers working summer jobs anymore; it's grown adults with children working more than one job who are earning these type of wages now.)

In the State of Hawaii (the most expensive State to live) the state minimum wage went to $7.75 per hour beginning January 1, 2015; $8.50 per hour beginning January 1, 2016; $9.25 per hour beginning January 1, 2017; and. $10.10 per hour beginning January 1, 2018.

In the State of New York, for large businesses (those with at least 11 employees) in New York City, the minimum wage would rise to $11 at the end of 2016, then another $2 each year after, reaching $15 on 12/31/2018.

  • For workers in New York City employed by small businesses (those with 10 employees or fewer), the minimum wage would rise to $10.50 by the end of 2016, then another $1.50 each year after, reaching $15 on 12/31/2019.
  • For workers in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties, the minimum wage would increase to $10 at the end of 2016, then $1 each year after, reaching $15 on 12/31/2021.
  • For workers in the rest of the state, the minimum wage would increase to $9.70 at the end of 2016, then another .70 each year after until reaching $12.50 on 12/31/2020 – after which will continue to increase to $15 on an indexed schedule.

The State of California (the nation's largest state by population) bumped up its minimum to $10 an hour in 2016. A number of California cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, have started phasing in minimum wage increases to $15 per hour.

The State of Mississippi does not have a state minimum wage, so the Federal Minimum Wage is applicable to all businesses by default. Federal Minimum Wage: $7.25/hour (Tipped Wage earners: $2.13/hour)

* FYI: The price of a combo meal in a fast food restaurant (such as a Big Mac meal or similar) is $9 in Honolulu, $8 in San Francisco and New York City, and $7 Mississippi.

Three years ago in 2013, Obama and most of the Democrats (excluding 6 members in the House) belatedly supported a federal minimum wage of $10.10/hour (after they had already lost the Senate and House, and knowing the GOP would never propose such a wage hike). In 2014, Obama signed an executive order to raise the minimum wage to $10.10/hour for all workers on federal construction and service contracts.

During the election campaign Senator Bernie Sanders demanded a federal minimum wage of $15/hour (indexed to inflation for cost-of-living increases). Hillary Clinton said she "favored" a federal minimum wage of $12/hour.

Trump on Federal Minimum Wage: How Trump has evolved in his answers...

  • In an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" (August 20, 2015) Trump said, "Having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country."
  • During the Republican debate in Milwaukee (November 10, 2015) Trump said wages are "too high" and, when asked whether he would raise the minimum wage, said, "I would not do it."
  • Trump told NBC's "MEET THE PRESS" host Chuck Todd (May 8, 2016) "I would say let the states decide."
  • On ABC’s "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos (May 8, 2016) "I am looking at it and I haven't decided in terms of numbers. But I think people have to get more." When Stephanopoulos asked whether that’s a change, Trump answered, "Well, sure it's a change. I'm allowed to change. You need flexibility."
  • Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders at the Democratic convention (July 25, 2016) - "He [Trump] believes that states should actually have the right to lower the minimum wage below $7 and a quarter."
  • Politifact rated Bernie Sanders claim as "Mostly True" — but it's not — and might only be half true. Trump was only saying that if States [or cities] want to raise the minimum wage higher than the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, then he believes the States should decide (because they compete with one another — and because the cost-of-living varies so much from one State to another).
  • Not long afterwards at a press conference (July 27, 2016) Trump responded to a question about raising the federal minimum wage higher, and said it should go higher — and that Bernie Sanders was a "liar" — and that he DID NOT want to see the federal minimum wage go lower. Trump also said he'd like to raise the federal minimum wage to "at least" $10 an hour.

* IMHO: I would like to think that after touring the country during his campaign rallies, Trump has realized just how bad off the American worker has been, and has become more sympathetic to their plight. On a couple occasions during his rallies, he has said that the campaign has changed him.

I propose $11.00 an hour as the new federal minimum wage (which is a compromise between the current federal minimum wage, the Democrat's earlier proposals, what Clinton said she "favors", and what Sanders had the #Fightfor15 movement had demanded) — and then it should be indexed to inflation to once and for all end any future debates about raising the federal minimum wage, and then just let the cities and States decide if they want to raise it higher based on their own local economies (such as Hawaii vs. Mississippi).

Video embedded below: In Trump's own words, and what he's said about the federal minimum wage.

Regarding Donald Trump's rallies, both before (his campaign rallies) and after the general election (his Thank You rallies)

(July 12, 2015) Trump draws 5,000 to his FIRST rally in Phoenix, Arizona.

(August 21, 2015) 30,000 turn out for Trump's Mobile Alabama rally

(November 13, 2016) Donald Trump clearly worked harder than Hillary the past three and a half months with 132 rallies to Clinton’s 63 and it paid off with the election win. Also, he entertained nearly 1 million supporters at his rallies to Clinton’s 110,000.

(December 17, 2016) President-Elect Donald J. Trump's LAST rally on his "Thank You Tour 2016" at the Ladd–Peebles Stadium. Jake Seales (Joe Seales brother) plays "American Dreamer" at the end.)

(December 17, 2016) Trump wraps up the last of his rowdy 'Thank You' rallies in Alabama

(December 17, 2016) Size Does Matter: Since Election 100% More Participation at Trump Rallies than at Hillary’s

Trump's USA Thank You 2016 Tour: President-elect Donald Trump toured the country to say thank you to all those who helped get him elected. These are all of the USA Thank You events that occurred with links to the full events...

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2016 – CINCINNATI, OH at the US Bank Arena - 6 pm ET -
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 06, 2016 – FAYETTEVILLE, NC at the Crown Coliseum – 7:00pm ET –
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 08, 2016 – DES MOINES, IA at the Iowa Events Center – 7pm CT
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 09, 2016 – BATON ROUGE, LA at the Dow Chemical Hangar – 10am CT -
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 09, 2016 – GRAND RAPIDS, MI at the Deltaplex Arena – 7pm ET -
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2016 – WEST ALLIS, WI at the Wisconsin State Fair Exposition Center – 7pm CT -
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2016 – HERSHEY, PA at the Giant Arena – 7pm ET -
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2016 – ORLANDO, FL t the Orlando Amphitheater – 7pm ET -
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2016 – MOBILE, AL at the Ladd–Peebles Stadium – 3p CT -
* RSBN links to all of Trump's events and rallies during his campaign prior to the election -

Friday, December 16, 2016

Baby Boomers not to Blame for lack of Jobs

Baby Boomers are not to blame for the dramatic rise in the number of people "not in the labor force". Retirees and those on disability are making for a smaller and smaller share (on a monthly basis) as to the number of people "dropping out" of the labor force.

Boomers aren't to blame for lack of jobs.

A little over half (56.8%) of those in the U.S. who are not employed and "not in the labor force" receive some form of Social Security. To date (12/16/2016) 54 million working-age American adults are receiving Social Security benefits (retired, disabled, widowed, etc.) out of a total of 95 million working-age American adults who are not in the labor force.

Only 18% of the additional people who the Bureau of Labor Statistics added to the category of "not in the labor force" since last month had retired on Social Security (as the number of those receiving disability DECREASED); the other 82% of those who were added to the category of "not in the labor force" are just without jobs, but are not counted in the 7.4 million who are "unemployed". From November 2016 to December 2016 (over the past month alone) the U.S. had an additional 366,275 people NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE that did NOT retire or go on disability.

41,174,259 Nov.
41,082,060 Oct.
92,199 MORE people retired

8,833,909 Oct.
8,821,435 Nov.
12,474 LESS people on disability

A difference of 79,725 who are now on Social Security since last month and are no longer in the labor force -- from a total of 446,000 additional people who are now "not in the labor force" from Nov to Dec. Over time, more and more people "not in the labor force" have been exceeding the number going on Social Security because there has not been enough job creation to keep up with those graduating from school (not comparing to population growth or the employment-to-population ratio because of foreign-born workers: Foreign-Born New Hires Outpace Native-Born)

At Business Insider Akin Oyedele wrote: "Fewer people are active in the labor force partly because baby boomers are retiring in droves." This has been a common, but inaccurate assessment for years — but yet it's still parroted all the time in the business pages ... but for the most part, it’s simply not true. 18% of those that are no longer in the labor force are not "droves".

When Akin Oyedele used the word “partly”, it was only partly true, but wasn’t the BIGGEST part, so why even mention it? Was it to make the old argument to cut “entitlements” because so many people are on the “government dole”? It seems so.

FYI for last month: 446,000 additional people were "not in the labor force" from Nov to Dec – while only 79,725 additional people were added to the Social Security rolls (for retirees, not the disabled) from Nov to Dec. Is this the “droves” of people that Oyedele was referring to?

The pundits and many economists are blaming the rise in those "not in the labor force" (and the drop in the labor force participate rate and the employment-to-population ratio, which has been in decline since April 2000) as those retiring or going on disability — and that this is primarily the Baby Boomers. But this is simply not true. Just as an example, for over the past one month alone:

446,000 additional people are no longer in the labor force, but only 79,725 were added to the Social Security rolls during that same time. The labor department reports 178,000 jobs were created and 387,000 LESS people are counted as "unemployed" — meaning, they are still considered part of the labor force, but don't have jobs (and why the unemployment rate always drops) —while 446,000 additional people are no longer in the labor force. [See the links below and do the math.]

Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics: 178,000 jobs were created in Nov. 2016
"The number of unemployed persons declined by 387,000 to 7.4 million."

Bureau of Labor Statistics data for those unemployed:

Per the Department of Labor: Of 7.4 million unemployed, 2 million are currently receiving unemployment benefits.

At Business Insider they wrote: "Fewer people are active in the labor force partly because baby boomers are retiring in droves." (Not true!)

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Not in Labor Force

----95,055,000 Not in labor force Oct. 2016
- -94,609,000 Not in labor force Nov. 2016
=- 446,000 Number who dropped out of labor force since the month before.

Social Security database:

---49,995,694 Retired and disabled on Social Security Nov. 2016
-49,915,969 Retired and disabled on Social Security Dec. 2016
= -79,725 Added to Social Security rolls in past month ---> out 446,000 who dropped out last month! --> A balance of 366,275

* As an added note: According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) over the past 8 years alone, the U.S. has had over 3 million young people every year who are graduating from high school — and it doesn’t matter that most go on to attend college, because a vast majority of them (at some point in the future) either drop out or graduate and attempt to enter the labor market. That equates to 250,000 jobs created every month just to break even with those who are currently in school — not including those who come to the U.S. on work visas or drop out of high school to look for work (EXCLUDING those who die, are hospitalized, move abroad or are incarcerated.)

Bottom line: It isn’t Baby Boomers that are primarily driving the increase in the number of people “not in the labor force” --- it’s a lack of jobs, and most likely due to offshoring (for bad trade deals like NAFTA and PNTR for China), and robots, AI and automation — and guestworker visas (like H-1B) ... and why eventually, most people will need a Basic Income.

There were once arguments that older people were working longer to recoup losses from their homes and 401ks during the Great Recession, and that younger people were complaining that these older people weren’t retiring fast enough to make room for them in the labor market. The “participation rate” for workers over 55 actually INCREASED as those in their PRIME years (25 to 54) declined immediately after the recession. [Chart below]


BELOW: Just from the past month alone, the pink shaded area are Social Security retirees, and the blue shaded area are mostly those who could work but don't have jobs. BLS: Not in the labor force, want a job now --- 5.8 million working-age Americans.

Most people didn't retire or go on disability, they were left jobless.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

How can Trump raise wages?

Only unions and laws can raise wages, because employers won't — not unless they're forced to.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Trump and Carrier Air Conditioners

UPDATE -- DEC 1ST: #Trump LIVE streamed at #Carrier plant in #Indianapolis

The air conditioner company Carrier has been in discussions with the incoming Trump administration

Thursday, November 24, 2016

CNN's anti-Trump and anti-American Propaganda

President Obama and other Clinton supporters — including their media/propaganda organizations (CNN, owned by Time Warner; and MSNBC, owned by Comcast) are trying to blame "fake news" websites for spreading false and misleading information about Queen Hillary Clinton — and that's why Donald Trump won the election.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Will the Democrats take the Blue Pill or the Red Pill?

"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill...

Sunday, November 20, 2016

False Claims of Racism Drives Fear and Loathing

The Democrats and their media have been relentless in demonizing Donald Trump (almost 24/7) — both BEFORE the general election after he became the GOP nominee, and ever since be became President-Elect Trump. And they have been ferociously attacking his choices for cabinet positions as well. They have all been in an extremely obsessive and very divisive frenzy. And they have been inciting violence, protests and riots. So much for their hypocritical demands of a "peaceful transfer of power" when they had once thought Hillary Clinton had the election in bag. Now, just like a huge cult, they can't accept the reality.

False Claims of Racism Drives Loathing and Fear