Trump will bring about a new era of prosperity

Herzlos

I'm also not aware of any other President being so widely defied by the military (transgender ban), or individual states/cities (the shelter cities, those insisting they'll stick to the Paris agreement even if we leave), or even the courts (the Muslim ban).

Nor anyone so divisive. Or so innefective - he's done pretty much nothing so far beyond making a fool of himself and playing golf.

Even his "America first" claims are largely just companies agreeing to do what they'd already started doing.

If there is any prosperity during Trumps tenure, I think it'll be in spite of rather than because of Trump.

I still don't think he'll finish this term, let alone serve a 2nd term. 4 years is a long time to not produce the change you were brought in for.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

I still don't think he'll finish this term, let alone serve a 2nd term. 4 years is a long time to not produce the change you were brought in for.

Democracy isn't a dictatorship. Where one can simply do as one wishes. US politics is dominated by money and external influences. Corbyn would suffer exactly the same issues with much of his manifesto if he were to be elected. Given the disparity of incomes in the US. Prosperity is somewhat difficult to gauge.

economic

The western world is actually under a form of socialism. with things such as state pension, benefits, immigration of low skilled workers, equal opportunity policies, and many more the western world population is hooked on the idea that government will take care of them.

if we do not get adequate growth, it is future generations that will have a rude awakening when the government removes the punch bowl away. in fact we are already seeing a deteriation in the quality of life - it took only 1 person in a couple to support a family 50 years ago. now it takes 2.

we so desparately need innovation and technological advancement. and no facebook, twitter, uber etc is NOT enough technological advancement.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

if we do not get adequate growth, it is future generations that will have a rude awakening when the government removes the punch bowl away. in fact we are already seeing a deteriation in the quality of life - it took only 1 person in a couple to support a family 50 years ago. now it takes 2.

we so desparately need innovation and technological advancement. and no facebook, twitter, uber etc is NOT enough technological advancement.

In 1971 census (46 years ago) the participation rate was 53% for women and it is 67% now.
So I am not sure there has been a huge shift in women working, it's mostly a myth that 50 years ago women stayed at home. There has just been a small shift. Also I suspect university has played a part the largest portion of unemployed people are the youth and now that so many girls go to university they avoid the 16-22 ages when people are most likely to be unemployed.


I think people just have a rose tinted view of the past and like to moan and complain.
I was talking to a 30 year old woman yesterday who started complaining about consumerism and the throw away culture (while texting away on her iPhone). When I suggested both were largely made up lefty nonsense she switched to complaining about how hard life is for the majority and they don't have enough money. When I suggested that was nonsense and also contradicted the previous consumerism ideas she switched to how hard people have to work now vs the past and used her own parents as an example of a husband and wife working a combined 120 hours. When I pointed out that was fully down to her millionaire parents choice to continue to work she switched to how unhappy people now are vs the past. Again I said most people have good decent lives with high played jobs in the UK. We agreed to disagree. But to me it shows clearly that it is in many peoples nature to complain moan and be unhappy or at least be lead onto that mindset by others.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

we so desparately need innovation and technological advancement. and no facebook, twitter, uber etc is NOT enough technological advancement.

We have sufficient technology and productivity today to lead happy healthy lives.

Its not about wealth this general negative mood among many people is something else.

Maybe there is some truth to relative wealth being important. If you are dirt poor but everyone else in the shanty town is even poorer you may be happy. If you are wealthy but all your Facebook friends lives look so much better in their posed filtered selective photos then maybe you will be sad.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

In 1971 census (46 years ago) the participation rate was 53% for women and it is 67% now.
So I am not sure there has been a huge shift in women working, it's mostly a myth that 50 years ago women stayed at home. There has just been a small shift. Also I suspect university has played a part the largest portion of unemployed people are the youth and now that so many girls go to university they avoid the 16-22 ages when people are most likely to be unemployed.


I think people just have a rose tinted view of the past and like to moan and complain.
I was talking to a 30 year old woman yesterday who started complaining about consumerism and the throw away culture (while texting away on her iPhone). When I suggested both were largely made up lefty nonsense she switched to complaining about how hard life is for the majority and they don't have enough money. When I suggested that was nonsense and also contradicted the previous consumerism ideas she switched to how hard people have to work now vs the past and used her own parents as an example of a husband and wife working a combined 120 hours. When I pointed out that was fully down to her millionaire parents choice to continue to work she switched to how unhappy people now are vs the past. Again I said most people have good decent lives with high played jobs in the UK. We agreed to disagree. But to me it shows clearly that it is in many peoples nature to complain moan and be unhappy or at least be lead onto that mindset by others.

that maybe true but to support a family it was a lot easier 50 years ago then it is now. it took only one income, now it usually takes two. that does not mean women 50 years didnt bother working, they clearly did given your stats - and all the more better for them as they accumulated wealth more rapidly hence the baby boomer generation.

i do think raising a family now if you are in your 30s/40s is tougher. theres hardly been real wage increases whilst costs such as property has gone through the roof.

that said i maybe looking at the average here - which includes the large influx of immigrants. if you were to remove these people, then you could argue that its not nearly as bad. in which case you are totally right.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

We have sufficient technology and productivity today to lead happy healthy lives.

Its not about wealth this general negative mood among many people is something else.

Maybe there is some truth to relative wealth being important. If you are dirt poor but everyone else in the shanty town is even poorer you may be happy. If you are wealthy but all your Facebook friends lives look so much better in their posed filtered selective photos then maybe you will be sad.

its a reason why i dont have a fb account anymore. ultimately its a waste of time.

i do think we have focused far more on computing technology advancement and not on general technology in fields such as healthcare/biotech, engineering, energy, space.

why are engineering jobs low paying compared to in finance and tech companies?

partly i think its becasue of relaxed regulations in computing and harsh ones in the other fields i mentioned. why are we still looking for a cure for cancer/AIDS/diabetes?

StevieJ

Conrad wrote: »

I am certain he will be re-elected as prosperity blossoms.


Seriously try watching the new media and get away from idiot MSM which is utterly one sided. You might have an epiphany.

Remind you of anyone?

In his youth, while not being the most intelligent, nor the most diligent of princes, he was described as having an undeniable charm. He was generous, handsome and resolute, although somewhat quick to anger. He was also vain, proud, and changeable, traits that made him easy prey for lickspittles and flatterers. As he grew older, Aerys became increasingly jealous, suspicious and cruel, prone to furious outbursts.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

that maybe true but to support a family it was a lot easier 50 years ago then it is now.

How can that be true?
I know lots of people say it but how can it be true?

it took only one income, now it usually takes two.

This is not true, lots of people say it and think it but it is not true
1900 labor participation rate was 69% while in 2000 it was 71% this is for men and women combined. Data from the ONS. In recent years the participation rate has gone higher than 71% to record highs but this has been primary due to retired people opting to continue working. They are up about 5% points over the decade from something like 9% to 14% (reading off a graph)

So it looks like its always taken average aprox 1.4 workers per household now and a hundred years ago

The small 2% increase in participation rate over 100 years is almost trivial but might be part explained by things less less disease and accidents meaning more of the 16-65 group can actually be in work. Also more physically easy jobs as agriculture and manual manufacturing declines to be replaced by desk work would mean fewer worn out people in later life.

that does not mean women 50 years didnt bother working, they clearly did given your stats - and all the more better for them as they accumulated wealth more rapidly hence the baby boomer generation.

I am not sure that is the case at all

i do think raising a family now if you are in your 30s/40s is tougher. theres hardly been real wage increases whilst costs such as property has gone through the roof.

I think that is the view of the those who dont have kids. Having kids in the uk is not costly, the state provides if you cant and if you can well you can.

I am richer than my parents were at my age, they were richer than their parents were at their age. People just do not see it do not make a fair comparison. of course we are a country of 65 million people there will be plenty of exceptions the problem is those who dont do well speak up and those who are doing well are too embarrassed to speak up. Or many just simply are blind to the truth like the 30 year old I posted about earlier

that said i maybe looking at the average here - which includes the large influx of immigrants. if you were to remove these people, then you could argue that its not nearly as bad. in which case you are totally right.

even looking at just the locals life is good and its better than it has ever been on economic terms and material goods terms. Much much better. Of course that might not make us happy but it sure beats being 3rd word poor or 1950s uk poor.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

its a reason why i dont have a fb account anymore. ultimately its a waste of time.

i do think we have focused far more on computing technology advancement and not on general technology in fields such as healthcare/biotech, engineering, energy, space.

why are engineering jobs low paying compared to in finance and tech companies?

partly i think its becasue of relaxed regulations in computing and harsh ones in the other fields i mentioned. why are we still looking for a cure for cancer/AIDS/diabetes?

It is no surprise, software is much lower capital. Almost anyone can buy a $200 computer and write code and potentially develop a lucrative website or app.

I would not touch manufacturing (even smaller items) unless I had £10 million to sink into it. And even then I would see the changes of success as quite low. I suspect

why are engineering jobs low paying compared to in finance and tech companies?

That is easy, you can pay your oxford mechanical engineer £30,000 and he has no option but to work at your power station or car manufacturing plant. What is he going to do go spend £500 million in starting up his own power station or car manufacturing plant. Also there are too many engineers and not enough true engineering work.

You have to pay your tech guy lots (or the hope of lots in the future using equity) or he can go become a potential competitor by buying a $200 laptop