The US Recovery

[Double Edge]

That is exactly what is happening. Some of the rules they displayed to kill are critical to safety and health today. Yeah, we used ot have lead in our paint and gasoline....how'd that work out for us?

Our rivers and streams were open sewers. Regulations cleaned them up.

Then you have precedents on your side and can defend.

Weird thing about pollution in the US ? what's illegal or fined in one state is either legal or isn't fined in another. Companies hop around for this reason.

If it becomes federal then the companies move abroad and people are out of work.

I couldn't disagree more. Sanders is not the voice of the Democratic Party.

Exactly my point. How much does Trump represent the Republican party ?

If there is to be a reaction from the democrat side its likely to be a similar populist character some where from their spectrum.

To me this looks like like the centre is weakening and the candidates have to come from off centre to stand a chance of being elected

Doesn't have to be sanders just someone with his style. The result will be as disruptive and jarring.

Some say this is good, its a quest for new ground, even though it looks anything but. A new politics.

Sanders gets air time because some of the media likes to listen to him rail. I do not listen or watch that media.

Same media will tell you what disgusting thing Trump, said, did or will do. Either way both are in fashion and getting their word out

The old school parties are the furniture now, the building. Some body else leads them

I could be wrong. Trump could just be a flash in the pan. But what if he isn't and instead turns out to be a transitional character

Then we can expect more of the same, all traitors to their class

[astralis]

I could be wrong. Trump could just be a flash in the pan. But what if he isn't and instead turns out to be a transitional character

Trump is at 35% approval at the end of his first year, this should be an indicator as to how popular this style of governance is.

[Double Edge]

Trump is at 35% approval at the end of his first year, this should be an indicator as to how popular this style of governance is.

That's what you'd think but see what the aussie amb to the US says

A Fox News poll conducted by both Democratic and Republican research companies at the end of August found 91 per cent of all voters were satisfied with the way they had voted in the Presidential election and only 4 per cent now wished they had voted differently.

For Trump voters, the numbers were even higher. 96 per cent backed their decision last year and only 2 per cent wished to change it.[ii]

In my view, for various reasons, if the Presidential election were held again today Donald Trump would win.

The dow has gained 30% since he was elected. All he needs to do is keep the economy going till the next election and he's got a second term.

Donald Trump, newly elected as President, came to office beholden to absolutely no one outside the sixty two million people that voted for him.

No President before has been elected with so few political debts – not to donors or surrogates, political kingmakers or their party.

This policy and political freedom stands in stark contrast with almost all of Mr Trump’s presidential predecessors.

In elections past, hard fought electoral victories usually had a strong ideological foundation rooted in the culture of their respective political parties and power bases. Everyone that supported a successful candidate expected favourable treatment. And, usually, they got it.

Donald Trump changed all that. The day he was elected he started changing America.

Based on our experience with Trump-the-candidate, the forty-fifth President of the United States was always expected to act very differently to his predecessors, conducting his presidency largely outside the usual conventions.

The political debts part is intruiging

[astralis]

DE,

That's what you'd think but see what the aussie amb to the US says

that's just the partisan atmosphere in the US. IE, he might be a bastard but he's our bastard.

your point is asking if Trump is merely the beginning of a trend, which is a different proposition. there's no indication that this is true, on either side. Roy Moore would be Senator now if that was truly the case.

All he needs to do is keep the economy going till the next election and he's got a second term.

this is usually a truism, yet extremely risky given several factors.

as a reminder, this is a President that lost by 2.9 million votes and won because of 75,000 votes in strategic states. that's a very shaky base of support that he would need to expand. it CAN be done-- see, Dubya-- but that is difficult. and he's significantly less popular than Dubya was...despite the economy.

also, as another reminder, the US is currently enjoying the second-longest period of growth in US economic history. all indicators are that 2018 should be another year of growth as well...but that says nothing for 2019 or 2020.

if a President is at 35% popularity in the middle of such economic growth, I leave it to you to posit his chances if there is anything even close to a normal minor downturn.

[Double Edge]

your point is asking if Trump is merely the beginning of a trend, which is a different proposition. there's no indication that this is true, on either side. Roy Moore would be Senator now if that was truly the case.

its speculating for now, only a year in.

Maybe the question to ask is why did Roy Moore come this close

this is usually a truism, yet extremely risky given several factors.

as a reminder, this is a President that lost by 2.9 million votes and won because of 75,000 votes in strategic states. that's a very shaky base of support that he would need to expand.

exactly. across strategic states.

The dems keep telling themselves they had the popular vote of 3 million. Well, where was that 3 million located ? In california.

What good is that. Did they really need 3 million to get from 54 to 55 ec votes.

Had that three million been spread out the dems would be in office now.

it CAN be done-- see, Dubya-- but that is difficult. and he's significantly less popular than Dubya was...despite the economy.

When i recollect at the way the media reported about Dubya, it seems similar but the two are a world apart. I was surprised he got a second term given the way the media bashed him and of course launching the Iraq war which was no where near concluding in the run-up to 2004. Economy was doing well and if that's the case why change.

also, as another reminder, the US is currently enjoying the second-longest period of growth in US economic history. all indicators are that 2018 should be another year of growth as well...but that says nothing for 2019 or 2020.

if a President is at 35% popularity in the middle of such economic growth, I leave it to you to posit his chances if there is anything even close to a normal minor downturn.

When i mention growth, people tell me to ignore the first year and start counting from the second as that is when new policy if there is any starts to take effect

Given he's a business man, i think he's going to keep his eye on the ball for economy,

How abut the midterms just a year away. Can the dems take the house. By how much do the repubs lose if at all. This will be the first of many tests for Trump

[DOR]

What makes all of them by definition good then ? are they all sacred cows beyond question, forever valid regardless of time

Remember this?

rapid reduction in federal government regulation. This has got to be good for the economy

(apparently that's too short of an answer, so here's some excess verbiage to fill in the needs of our software.)

[Double Edge]

Also said

There is a direct link between deregulation and business confidence.

What's wrong with that

[DOR]

The dems keep telling themselves they had the popular vote of 3 million. Well, where was that 3 million located ? In california.

What good is that. Did they really need 3 million to get from 54 to 55 ec votes.

Had that three million been spread out the dems would be in office now.

There were actually an extra 4.3 million votes for Clinton in California. And, an extra 1.9 million in New York. And better than 500,000 extra votes in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington state. All of which doesn’t mean a thing.

In Arizona, which went for The Trumpet by 91,234 votes, 159,597 ballots were cast for someone other than the two main candidates.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Margin _ _ 3rd candidate votes
Colorado _ _ _ _ _ 136,386 _ _ _ _ _ 238,866
Florida _ _ _ _ _ _ 112,911 _ _ _ _ _ 297,178
Maine _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22,142 _ _ _ _ _ _78,564
Michigan _ _ _ _ _ _10,704 _ _ _ _ _ 250,902
Minnesota _ _ _ _ _ 44,756 _ _ _ _ _ 254,128
Nevada _ _ _ _ _ _ 27,202 _ _ _ _ _ _ 74,067
New Hampshire _ _ _ 2,736 _ _ _ _ _ _ 49,980
New Mexico _ _ _ _ 65,567 _ _ _ _ _ _ 93,418
North Carolina _ _ 173,315 _ _ _ _ _ _ 189,617
Pennsylvania _ _ _ 44,292 _ _ _ _ _ _ 218,228
Utah _ _ _ _ _ _ _204,537 _ _ _ _ _ _ 305,432
Virginia _ _ _ _ _ 212,030 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 231,836
Wisconsin _ _ _ _ 22,748 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 188,330

All of which goes to show … what?
There was a failure of campaign management.
There is no reason to think that a different candidate, party name, policy positions or platform would have led to a different result.

What is not represented here is the voter turnout, either the sickening apathy or the appallingly unAmerican voter surpression that has become rampant under the GOPers.


Oh, and just for the record Bernie Sanders is not the future of the Democratic Party. He's not even the past. He's an independent, or a Socialists if you like, who injected himself into the Democratic Party because there was no way to get much attention from the outside.
Ralph Nader and Ross Perot come to mind.

[Double Edge]

All of which goes to show … what?
There was a failure of campaign management.

Exactly

There is no reason to think that a different candidate, party name, policy positions or platform would have led to a different result.

What is not represented here is the voter turnout, either the sickening apathy or the appallingly unAmerican voter surpression that has become rampant under the GOPers.

I think the coming of Trump should fix apathy

Oh, and just for the record Bernie Sanders is not the future of the Democratic Party. He's not even the past. He's an independent, or a Socialists if you like, who injected himself into the Democratic Party because there was no way to get much attention from the outside.
Ralph Nader and Ross Perot come to mind.

To be named , populist (ie big govt) candidate that runs under the democrat flag. Doesn't need to be a card carrying member. Needs to win the knockouts and they are in

yes but Perot showed how not to split the vote. So they have to run with the majors. The major BRANDS, that's what they've become

[astralis]

DE,

Maybe the question to ask is why did Roy Moore come this close

Alabama is probably the second-most red state in the nation after Mississippi.

if Luther Strange was there instead of Roy Moore, he would have won by double digits.

The dems keep telling themselves they had the popular vote of 3 million. Well, where was that 3 million located ? In california.

What good is that. Did they really need 3 million to get from 54 to 55 ec votes.

Had that three million been spread out the dems would be in office now.

the point of me mentioning the popular vote is to demonstrate how thin a reed DJT's electoral victory rested upon. flipping 70,000 votes or mobilizing an extra 70,000 democrats across those states in 2020 will be an easier proposition than DJT replicating his 2016 feat.

Given he's a business man, i think he's going to keep his eye on the ball for economy,

it's not clear that this "eye" does much of anything. there's limited action any President can take on the economy; the Fed does most of the immediate lifting, while it takes fiscal action/Congress to achieve the effects that can shift a $18T economy. this is clear through both a historical and an international comparison.

How abut the midterms just a year away. Can the dems take the house.

i know i have a partisan bias so i try to adjust accordingly. self-delusion does no one any good.

having said that, my median guess is GOP loses 30-40 seats. if i'm being very optimistic and still within historical trends, 50-60 seats.

VA legislative elections have been a good historical bellweather. as context, the median dem guess was a gain of 6-8 seats, and optimistically 10-12. they ended up winning 16 (with possibility of 17th).

[zraver]

There were actually an extra 4.3 million votes for Clinton in California. And, an extra 1.9 million in New York. And better than 500,000 extra votes in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington state. All of which doesn’t mean a thing.

In Arizona, which went for The Trumpet by 91,234 votes, 159,597 ballots were cast for someone other than the two main candidates.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Margin _ _ 3rd candidate votes
Colorado _ _ _ _ _ 136,386 _ _ _ _ _ 238,866
Florida _ _ _ _ _ _ 112,911 _ _ _ _ _ 297,178
Maine _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22,142 _ _ _ _ _ _78,564
Michigan _ _ _ _ _ _10,704 _ _ _ _ _ 250,902
Minnesota _ _ _ _ _ 44,756 _ _ _ _ _ 254,128
Nevada _ _ _ _ _ _ 27,202 _ _ _ _ _ _ 74,067
New Hampshire _ _ _ 2,736 _ _ _ _ _ _ 49,980
New Mexico _ _ _ _ 65,567 _ _ _ _ _ _ 93,418
North Carolina _ _ 173,315 _ _ _ _ _ _ 189,617
Pennsylvania _ _ _ 44,292 _ _ _ _ _ _ 218,228
Utah _ _ _ _ _ _ _204,537 _ _ _ _ _ _ 305,432
Virginia _ _ _ _ _ 212,030 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 231,836
Wisconsin _ _ _ _ 22,748 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 188,330

All of which goes to show … what?
There was a failure of campaign management.
There is no reason to think that a different candidate, party name, policy positions or platform would have led to a different result.

What is not represented here is the voter turnout, either the sickening apathy or the appallingly unAmerican voter surpression that has become rampant under the GOPers.


Oh, and just for the record Bernie Sanders is not the future of the Democratic Party. He's not even the past. He's an independent, or a Socialists if you like, who injected himself into the Democratic Party because there was no way to get much attention from the outside.
Ralph Nader and Ross Perot come to mind.

Libertarian Garry Johnson out performed Green Party Jill Stein. As an example in Arizona the LP got 2-2.5% of the vote and the GP got 1-1.9%. If you break it down by state and award conservative/civil liberty leaning alternative parties to the GOP and left wing/socialist parties to the Dems, the electoral defeat of HRC becomes even worse. Trump likely would have picked up another vote in Maine, all of Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Nevada. Third Party candidates pulled more from Trump than Clinton. Clinton's voters stayed home.

[Double Edge]

Alabama is probably the second-most red state in the nation after Mississippi.

if Luther Strange was there instead of Roy Moore, he would have won by double digits.

Am not convinced this style of populism we see in the US is solely a monopoly of the right. Can see it carrying over to other countries. Also don't think its anything new. Just feels like that after the style we've grown accustomed to after so many years

If the middle and lower classes are hurting, losing jobs or not improving their lot that makes the left stronger not the right. Right now the fringes are making the most noise because they're hurting the most and they have the numbers

know i have a partisan bias so i try to adjust accordingly. self-delusion does no one any good.

having said that, my median guess is GOP loses 30-40 seats. if i'm being very optimistic and still within historical trends, 50-60 seats.

VA legislative elections have been a good historical bellweather. as context, the median dem guess was a gain of 6-8 seats, and optimistically 10-12. they ended up winning 16 (with possibility of 17th).

If more people get out and vote, if they feel compelled to and Trump is really good at getting people fired up on both sides then it could go either way

[DOR]

Anyone remember inflation?

US Consumer Price Index (Urban)

2005 _ _ +3.36%
2006 _ _ +3.23%
2007 _ _ +2.87%
2008 _ _ +3.83%
2009 _ _ —0.31%
2010 _ _ +1.64%
2011 _ _ +3.14%
2012 _ _ +2.08%
2013 _ _ +1.47%
2014 _ _ +1.61%
2015 _ _ +0.12%
2016 _ _ +1.27%
2017 _ _ +2.14%

[JRT]

This drive-by post may be of interest to some here, a couple of recent items from Brookings lurking in my inbox

The new economics of jobs is bad news for working-class
Americans—and maybe for Trump

Robert Shapiro
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Brookings - FIXGOV

Many political observers still seem flummoxed by the fact that millions of working-class Americans voted for Donald Trump after supporting Barack Obama not once but twice. One important reason may lie in certain largescale changes in America’s job market over the last decade. The growing role of a college degree in landing a job is well documented. Now, new household employment data reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that Americans with college degrees can account for all of the net new jobs created over the last decade. In stark contrast, the number of Americans with high school degrees or less who are employed, in this ninth year of economic expansion, has fallen by 2,995,000.

We use the household employment survey here instead of the business establishment survey, because it tracks the education of everyone who gains or loses a job, month by month. In the latest survey covering December 2017, the number of college graduates with jobs jumped by 305,000—while the numbers of employed Americans with no high school degree fell by 132,000. High school graduates with jobs dropped by 38,000, and employees with some college but no degree declined by 45,000. That’s a window into what’s happened across the U.S. economy throughout this business cycle—and the fact that Republican control of the government hasn’t helped working-class Americans with jobs could create problems for them in 2018 and 2020.

The last decade from January 2008 to December 2017 covers every facet of the current business cycle, except its very end. The first five years from January 2008 to January 2013 included the recession and financial crisis followed by a modest recovery, and the second five years from January 2013 to December 2017 have seen a reasonably steady expansion. In a normal cycle from recession to recovery, economists expect to see substantial job losses followed by offsetting job gains. In the aggregate, that is just what happened in the first five years of this cycle: millions of jobs were lost from January 2008 to December 2010; but by January 2013, the number of employed Americans had recovered to nearly the same level as in January 2008.

But the composition of that workforce—who lost their jobs compared to who landed new jobs—changed in decisive ways. From January 2008 to January 2013, millions of people without college degrees lost jobs and never regained them, while all of the job gains went to the one-third of the labor force (as of January 2008) with at least a B.A. degree. (See the Table below.) So, while total employment in January 2013 was just 341,000 less than in January 2008, the number of Americans without a high school diploma who were employed fell by more than 1.6 million. The number of high school graduates with jobs fell by more than 2.8 million, and the number of working people with some college training but no BA degree fell by 227,000. Over those same five years, the number of college-educated Americans with jobs increased more than 4.3 million.

In the following five years of economic expansion, employment rose rapidly. From January 2013 to December 2017, the BLS household data show that the number of Americans with jobs increased by 10,997,000, for net job growth of 10,656,000 (10,997,000–341,000). Every educational group saw net job gains—but the distribution of those gains very badly short-changed Americans without college degrees.

Consider, to start, the country’s high school graduates. In January 2013, they comprised 27.3 percent of the labor force—but their job gains of 720,000 from that time to last month account for only 6.8 percent of all employment growth. Similarly, Americans who attended college but didn’t earn a B.A. degree accounted for 27.9 percent of the U.S. labor force in January 2013, and they claimed only 15.3 percent of the subsequent job gains. Strikingly, people without high school diplomas found jobs in this period at a rate that more nearly reflected their share of the labor market: They comprised 8.2 percent of the workforce in January 2013 and claimed 7.0 percent of net new jobs created from that time to the present. The only big winners were college graduates. They accounted for 36.5 percent of the U.S. labor force in January 2013; yet, they claimed 71.0 percent of the net new jobs created since then. To sum up these figures: of the 10,656,000 net new jobs created from January 2013 to the December 2017, 7,564,000 went to college graduates.

As these data above show, the skewed distribution of job opportunities has affected the composition of the labor force. As job opportunities have increased for collegeeducated Americans, their share of the U.S. labor force climbed from 33.6 percent in January 2008 to 36.5 percent in 2013 to 39.9 percent in December 2017. Similarly, as job opportunities narrowed for non-college educated people, more became discouraged and bailed out of the labor force. Over the last decade, the share of the U.S. labor force comprised of people without high school diplomas fell from 9.3 percent to 7.3 percent, the share with no more than a high school degree fell from 28.9 percent to 25.7 percent, and the share with some college training but no B.A. fell from 28.2 percent to 27.1 percent.

These trends have serious social consequences as well. Too often, the downward spiral has not ended with joblessness. Researchers have found that nearly half of working-age men who have left the labor force use pain killers on a daily basis. Moreover, new research shows that on a county-by-county basis, each percentage-point increase in unemployment is now accompanied by a 7.0 percent increase in hospitalizations for opioid overdoses and a 3.6 percent increase in opioid-related deaths.

Americans without college degrees, who continue to comprise 60 percent of the labor force, are now effectively penalized in every phase of the business cycle. From the first month of the last recession in January 2008 to December 2017, well into year nine of this expansion, the number of employed Americans with high school diplomas contracted by 2,095,000, and the number of people working without a high school diploma fell by 900,000. Further, the share of all job gains claimed by Americans with some college but no B.A. degree was just over half their share of the labor force. Through it all, the number of college-educated Americans with jobs jumped by 11,909,000. That’s 1,253,000 more than the total 10,656,000 net new jobs created across the economy, suggesting that college grads are also now claiming new jobs that used to go to people without a B.A. degree.

If the disappointment of millions of working-age Americans without college degrees helped drive Trump’s 2016 victory, the Republicans’ political prospects may be even worse than voter surveys suggest. The booming stock market and great top-line employment numbers have not touched these labor market dynamics. Nor will the GOP’s vaunted tax changes make a difference: The success of those changes rests on their spurring a capital investment boom, but the technologies that dominate capital investment today are typically used and operated by college-educated workers. And when the current business cycle finally ends next year or the year after, workers without college degrees will dominate the jobs losses.

By 2020 and perhaps this coming November, Trump and his GOP colleagues could well face a political revolt from the same voters who took a chance on them in 2016.

The looming student loan default crisis is worse than we thought

Editor's Note: "BA" is used to refer to all undergraduate bachelor's degrees.

Executive summary

This report analyzes new data on student debt and repayment, released by the U.S. Department of Education in October 2017. Previously available data have been limited to borrowers only,follow students for a relatively short period (3-5 years) after entering repayment, and had only limited information on student characteristics and experiences. The new data allow for the most comprehensive assessment to date of student debt and default from the moment students first enter college, to when they are repaying loans up to 20 years later, for two cohorts of first-time entrants (in 1995-96 and 2003-04). This report provides a broader perspective on student debt and default that considers all college entrants rather than just borrowers, provides substantially longer follow-up, and enables a more detailed analysis of trends over time and heterogeneity across subgroups than previously possible.

Key findings from new analysis of these data include:

◦Trends for the 1996 entry cohort show that cumulative default rates continue to rise between 12 and 20 years after initial entry. Applying these trends to the 2004 entry cohort suggests that nearly 40 percent may default on their student loans by 2023.

◦The new data show the importance of examining outcomes for all entrants, not just borrowers, since borrowing rates differ substantially across groups and over time. For example, for-profit borrowers default at twice the rate of public two-year borrowers (52 versus 26 percent after 12 years), but because for-profit students are more likely to borrow, the rate of default among all for-profit entrants is nearly four times that of public two-year entrants (47 percent versus 13 percent).

◦The new data underscore that default rates depend more on student and institutional factors than on average levels of debt. For example, only 4 percent of white graduates who never attended a for-profit defaulted within 12 years of entry, compared to 67 percent of black dropouts who ever attended a for-profit. And while average debt per student has risen over time, defaults are highest among those who borrow relatively small amounts.

◦Debt and default among black college students is at crisis levels, and even a bachelor’s degree is no guarantee of security: black BA graduates default at five times the rate of white BA graduates (21 versus 4 percent), and are more likely to default than white dropouts.

◦Trends over time are most alarming among for-profit colleges; out of 100 students who ever attended a for-profit, 23 defaulted within 12 years of starting college in the 1996 cohort compared to 43 in the 2004 cohort (compared to an increase from just 8 to 11 students among entrants who never attended a for-profit).

The results suggest that diffuse concern with rising levels of average debt is misplaced. Rather, the results provide support for robust efforts to regulate the for-profit sector, to improve degree attainment and promote income-contingent loan repayment options for all students, and to more fully address the particular challenges faced by college students of color.

Background and Data

{{{ snipped here }}}

The full article can be read at this link.

[DOR]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has monthly data on employment among various education groups going back to 1992. Graphing out the percent share of total employment among three groups – no High School diploma, High School but No College and Minimum BA degree – shows three incredible straight lines.

Which makes me wonder why this Brookings study was even conducted.