I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

(04-05-2019 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 12:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 10:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  OO... how did you enjoy your returns under the Obama presidency? Did you vote for him for his second term based on those returns?

Why do you assume that Lad is not one of your vaunted "paycheck signers"? Is it a pure percentage play given that the majority of people are employees rather than employers or is it something specific to Lad?

Nope. I could not stand his apology tour. I didn't like the way he let Putin push him around. I didn't like the way he abandoned the Crimea. I didn't like the way he abandoned Israel. I did not agree with his health care plan. I didn't like being called a bitter clinger. And BTW, he is a great example of a casher. When did he start a business, run a business, finance a business? His business experience was less than that of a kid with a lemonade stand. To this day, he gets checks from speaking engagements and book publishers, and cashes them.

I vaunt paycheck signers? What exactly does that mean?

Obviously, not all paycheck signers or cashers are the same. But so many cashers are anti-business, anti-boss, and anti-wealth. I blame it on a lack of understanding. They have never walked a mile in the boss's shoes. When did AOC ever have any skin in the game? Maybe that is why it is so easy for her to make the proposals she does. Easy to decide what to do with OPM when you never had to put any of your own in.

I would rather have leaders who have some idea of what it takes for the millions of business owners in this country to open a business and to stay in business, rather than somebody who thinks making a profit and growing a business is inherently evil. Maybe that is one reason I liked Schultz. He's been there. Harris, Biden, O'Rourke, et al, not so much.

Yeah, if the stock market falls 25% between now and election day, I won't be happy, but a lot of Democrats will be. Why is misery, loss, and unemployment on their wish list? Oh, yeah, gotta win the WH.

I think there's significant value in being a paycheck signer and a chaser, per your descriptions.

Speaking anecdotally, it was incredibly beneficial for me to have been a busser at a restaurant in high school and see what it was like to bust my ass physically to make a wage. It was dirty, gross, and rather tough work, but rewarding.

Prior to my current job, my next best experience was managing Willy's Pub where I had to hire, fire, manage payroll, etc. It provided good perspective on how difficult it was to play that roll, even when it was just for students trying to earn some beer money.

I think being in each role provides different perspectives about what life is like as a worker or an owner/manager.

BTW, the S&P 500 increased by over almost 30% from the peak prior to the financial collapse by the time Obama left, so if you're happy with Trump's gains, you should have been happy with those returns.

Hmm. What has been the increase in the Dow from Election Day to now?

edit: 26,422.39/18,332.74 = 1.442358861, over only 28.5 months. 44%+. FYI

But yes, I was happy, somewhat, with Obama's returns. I felt they could have and should have been better, had he followed more sound economic principles. Cash for clunkers? shovel-ready jobs?

But my point was not Trump vs. Obama. It was that it is good to have leaders who understand business So far, Schultz is the only lefty who qualifies. maybe if they had managed a pub or bussed tables, the others would not be so inept.

BTW, my job equivalent to your bussing tables was working in a sawmill at minimum wage. I assume your restaurant was at least air conditioned, and nobody lost a hand. My job equivalent to your pub work (and apparently your current job) was managing a department within a firm. I hired and fired, and scheduled, but I did not have to finance the company and I had no fiscal responsibility.

What is this, a pissing match of who had the hardest, menial labor job?

My current job sends me on a regular basis to industrial sites where I'm often directly overseeing drilling, working with complex mechanical systems, or collecting media samples. It's a job where I'm can be working in FRC's in 90+ degree, Louisiana heat, inside an air conditioned trailer, or in 20 degree weather on the Hudson River in 20 mph wind. So my current job is much more dangerous than my bussing job, and I do regularly work in areas and around equipment where people lose limbs or worse. Can we end this stupid pissing match you started?

My point about bussing was that being a pay check casher is also important with respect to politics. It's good for everyone to have an experience where they do physical labor to earn money. It's teaches people a lot about how to work on a team, persevere through crappy situations, and just how difficult unglamerous jobs are, and why the interests of those paycheck cashers should be considered. That's why I love the show Dirty Jobs - it does a great job highlighting the crappy jobs people do to make society work.

You thought this was a pissing match? I guess pissing match is in the eye of the beholder. From my viewpoint, it was more of an FYI, so that you knew I had similar backgrounds. You always seem to take anything I say as a challenge.

very well. You have outpissed me. Go enjoy your victory brunch.

But IMO, people do those jobs on Dirty Jobs to make a living, not to make society work.

(04-05-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

I completely agree. Issues arise when someone has never either been around those who run a business (like say, their parents were small business owners) or someone has only ever experienced a large corporate firm, were basically gifted their position through nepotism, or haven't had to do tasks of a routine employee in so long that they're out of touch.

I do think that Dems are often guilty of not considering the owner/capital perspective sufficiently, while Reps are often guilty of not considering the labor perspective sufficiently.

(04-05-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

I completely agree. Issues arise when someone has never either been around those who run a business (like say, their parents were small business owners) or someone has only ever experienced a large corporate firm, were basically gifted their position through nepotism, or haven't had to do tasks of a routine employee in so long that they're out of touch.

FDR and JFK -- the acknowledged saints of the Democratic Party -- fit exactly that description. Obama and Bill Clinton as well -- neither of them ever had a real working job before going into politics.

(04-05-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

I completely agree. Issues arise when someone has never either been around those who run a business (like say, their parents were small business owners) or someone has only ever experienced a large corporate firm, were basically gifted their position through nepotism, or haven't had to do tasks of a routine employee in so long that they're out of touch.
I do think that Dems are often guilty of not considering the owner/capital perspective sufficiently, while Reps are often guilty of not considering the labor perspective sufficiently.

Historically, I think that may be the case. But I see a couple of subtle--or perhaps not-so-subtle--shifts taking place.

With things like Obamacare and moving on toward the GND, democrats have readily embraced programs that benefit the non-working welfare class at the expense of the working middle class. I don't think republicans have totally picked up on this, although Trump certainly got a lot of blue-collar votes, many of them I believe disgusted with the way that Obamacare was supposed to help them but made them worse off. Historically, the democrats were the party that attempted to unite the "little man"--both poor and middle class--against the "rich." But now I see a significant divide between the interests of the working middle class and the non-working welfare class. If republicans were smart enough to take advantage, there could be a tectonic shift in voting patterns. But I don't see more than a few republicans taking what I would call the Jack Kemp approach.

A second change I see is more uber-rich going democrat. As someone said, "Millionaires vote republican, billionaires vote democrat." Some of them are self-made, but I see it more in second and third generation hand-me-down rich. They never had to face the struggles of building anything, they had it handed to them, and I suspect that a lot of the have caved to all the guilt that has been placed on them. They see the poor as needy, but are fine to let government take care of it with other people's money instead of their having to do it with their own money. They don't comprehend that a new tax or regulation can drive them out of business, because the established businesses they inherited are not in that kind of risk position. If anything, they see new taxes and regulations as barriers to entry for those who might take their business away by building a better mousetrap.

I'm not sure where it is headed. Peter Zeihan makes the point that 2016 shook up all the traditional party alliances. Could we see a realignment where entrepreneurs and the working middle class tended republican, and the uber-rich and the non-working welfare class tended democrat? I see some of that now. If I were strategizing for the republicans, I would push it. But I have no idea what they will do.

(04-05-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

The corollary is with fewer funds for paychecks, there are by definition fewer paycheck cashers.

Chicago school economics in one sentence.

(04-05-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think that Dems are often guilty of not considering the owner/capital perspective sufficiently,

+500

Quote:while Reps are often guilty of not considering the labor perspective sufficiently.

Not on board with this entirely. Reps typically take the tack of 'pay a position what the value proposition is *for the position*'.

Dems typically view this as 'pay a living wage'.

They are radically different perspectives. And you would be correct in saying that Reps *are* guilty of not considering the labor perspective of Democrats. (and the jury would be out on whether there is a 'guilt' associated with this.

The entire difference can be boiled down as, crudely:

Reps consider the value proposition of the labor to be the controlling factor of what that labor is paid/worth --- across all levels of labor-worth.

Dems consider the value proposition of the labor to be what government deems to be the value proposition. At the lower levels the value proposition is deemed to be the minimum wage as a de facto standard, regardless of the commercial markets for that labor. At higher levels, they believe is a societal bad for such a disparity, and tend to use the power of social message to berate that delta, and to use the power of government through taxation policy to actively decrease that delta.

(04-05-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

I completely agree. Issues arise when someone has never either been around those who run a business (like say, their parents were small business owners) or someone has only ever experienced a large corporate firm, were basically gifted their position through nepotism, or haven't had to do tasks of a routine employee in so long that they're out of touch.

I do think that Dems are often guilty of not considering the owner/capital perspective sufficiently, while Reps are often guilty of not considering the labor perspective sufficiently.

And many people are guilty of not considering an important facet of the "labor" perspective: that most American "laborers" don't see themselves as a lumpen or permanent class, but rather as individuals -- and in particular as individuals who hope and intend that they, or their kids, or their grandkids will be paycheck signers of some kind. This trait -- a cause of envy among other countries, and of historic frustration among wannabe Marxists -- is an enduring strength of the American republic, and thus a great boon to mankind.

jobs report

average hourly wages

(04-05-2019 01:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  jobs report

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-stat...es]average hourly wages[/url]

The most important part of that article is that wage gains have eased.

Wages are still relatively stagnant, while cost of living (especially housing prices) continue to surge. We need to see a strong increase in wage growth soon.

(04-05-2019 12:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

I completely agree. Issues arise when someone has never either been around those who run a business (like say, their parents were small business owners) or someone has only ever experienced a large corporate firm, were basically gifted their position through nepotism, or haven't had to do tasks of a routine employee in so long that they're out of touch.

FDR and JFK -- the acknowledged saints of the Democratic Party -- fit exactly that description. Obama and Bill Clinton as well -- neither of them ever had a real working job before going into politics.

It would be great if all politicians had a real working job prior to serving their country. Seems pretty rare at the highest levels. I certainly wouldn't put Donald Trump in that category. GWB? Maybe? Hard to make that call with Daddy pulling the strings for him. GB41? Probably the most recent president that had a "real working job"?

(04-05-2019 12:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

I completely agree. Issues arise when someone has never either been around those who run a business (like say, their parents were small business owners) or someone has only ever experienced a large corporate firm, were basically gifted their position through nepotism, or haven't had to do tasks of a routine employee in so long that they're out of touch.

FDR and JFK -- the acknowledged saints of the Democratic Party -- fit exactly that description. Obama and Bill Clinton as well -- neither of them ever had a real working job before going into politics.

It would be great if all politicians had a real working job prior to serving their country. Seems pretty rare at the highest levels. I certainly wouldn't put Donald Trump in that category. GWB? Maybe? Hard to make that call with Daddy pulling the strings for him. GB41? Probably the most recent president that had a "real working job"?

(04-05-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The corollary is with fewer funds for paychecks, there are by definition fewer paycheck cashers.

And Democrats think the tax the rich, anti-business approach helps the working class.

(04-05-2019 01:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 12:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

I completely agree. Issues arise when someone has never either been around those who run a business (like say, their parents were small business owners) or someone has only ever experienced a large corporate firm, were basically gifted their position through nepotism, or haven't had to do tasks of a routine employee in so long that they're out of touch.

FDR and JFK -- the acknowledged saints of the Democratic Party -- fit exactly that description. Obama and Bill Clinton as well -- neither of them ever had a real working job before going into politics.

It would be great if all politicians had a real working job prior to serving their country. Seems pretty rare at the highest levels. I certainly wouldn't put Donald Trump in that category. GWB? Maybe? Hard to make that call with Daddy pulling the strings for him. GB41? Probably the most recent president that had a "real working job"?

Well, Trump took a small inheritance and worked it into a giant fortune. He had a job and performed it well. You don't get a 13,000% increase by luck.

I have been watching "The Bush Years" (CNN). W started and ran his own oil business. I think the last Democrat with significant work experience must have been Truman. The way things are going, he may be the last one ever.

From wiki: In 1977, Bush established Arbusto Energy, a small oil exploration company, although it did not begin operations until the following year.[53][54] He later changed the name to Bush Exploration. In 1984, his company merged with the larger Spectrum 7, and Bush became chairman.[55] The company was hurt by decreased oil prices, and it folded into HKN, Inc.,[55][56] with Bush becoming a member of HKN's board of directors.[55] Questions of possible insider trading involving HKN arose, but a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation concluded that the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.[55][57]

In April 1989, Bush arranged for a group of investors to purchase a controlling interest in the Texas Rangers baseball franchise for $89 million and invested $500,000 himself to start. He then served as managing general partner for five years.[58] He actively led the team's projects and regularly attended its games, often choosing to sit in the open stands with fans.[59] Bush's sale of his shares in the Rangers in 1998 brought him over $15 million from his initial $800,000 investment.[60]

(04-05-2019 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 12:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the point is that paycheck writers and paycheck cashers have different viewpoints, and neither should be ignored. One thing for sure, without paycheck writers there are no paycheck cashers.

I completely agree. Issues arise when someone has never either been around those who run a business (like say, their parents were small business owners) or someone has only ever experienced a large corporate firm, were basically gifted their position through nepotism, or haven't had to do tasks of a routine employee in so long that they're out of touch.

FDR and JFK -- the acknowledged saints of the Democratic Party -- fit exactly that description. Obama and Bill Clinton as well -- neither of them ever had a real working job before going into politics.

It would be great if all politicians had a real working job prior to serving their country. Seems pretty rare at the highest levels. I certainly wouldn't put Donald Trump in that category. GWB? Maybe? Hard to make that call with Daddy pulling the strings for him. GB41? Probably the most recent president that had a "real working job"?

Well, Trump took a small inheritance and worked it into a giant fortune. He had a job and performed it well. You don't get a 13,000% increase by luck.

There are those that would take issues with your numbers. And your reference to "small inheritance". He seemingly has made every effort to downplay/cover-up just how much he inherited however most believe it was yugely more than the $1M that he likes to tout as part of his "self-made-man" story.

(04-05-2019 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 12:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I completely agree. Issues arise when someone has never either been around those who run a business (like say, their parents were small business owners) or someone has only ever experienced a large corporate firm, were basically gifted their position through nepotism, or haven't had to do tasks of a routine employee in so long that they're out of touch.

FDR and JFK -- the acknowledged saints of the Democratic Party -- fit exactly that description. Obama and Bill Clinton as well -- neither of them ever had a real working job before going into politics.

It would be great if all politicians had a real working job prior to serving their country. Seems pretty rare at the highest levels. I certainly wouldn't put Donald Trump in that category. GWB? Maybe? Hard to make that call with Daddy pulling the strings for him. GB41? Probably the most recent president that had a "real working job"?

Well, Trump took a small inheritance and worked it into a giant fortune. He had a job and performed it well. You don't get a 13,000% increase by luck.

There are those that would take issues with your numbers. And your reference to "small inheritance". He seemingly has made every effort to downplay/cover-up just how much he inherited however most believe it was yugely more than the $1M that he likes to tout as part of his "self-made-man" story.

Some will go to any length to deny him any credit for building his fortune. They act as though any old doofus who inherits a million will become a multi-billionaire just by sitting back and sipping wine. More of them end up broke than super-rich.

If you start with X and end with Y, I think you should get credit for Y-X.

Now if he actually started with 10M and is only worth 5B, what percentage of increase is that?

He has done much better with what he had to work with than any Kennedy since Joe, Sr., any Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. He is not the nicest person, but it is a hell of a lot easier to blow a million (or 10 million) than it is build it into 13 Billion (or 5 billion).

Wall Street

Wall Street has been wrong before, most recently in 2016.

(04-05-2019 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 12:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  FDR and JFK -- the acknowledged saints of the Democratic Party -- fit exactly that description. Obama and Bill Clinton as well -- neither of them ever had a real working job before going into politics.

It would be great if all politicians had a real working job prior to serving their country. Seems pretty rare at the highest levels. I certainly wouldn't put Donald Trump in that category. GWB? Maybe? Hard to make that call with Daddy pulling the strings for him. GB41? Probably the most recent president that had a "real working job"?

Well, Trump took a small inheritance and worked it into a giant fortune. He had a job and performed it well. You don't get a 13,000% increase by luck.

There are those that would take issues with your numbers. And your reference to "small inheritance". He seemingly has made every effort to downplay/cover-up just how much he inherited however most believe it was yugely more than the $1M that he likes to tout as part of his "self-made-man" story.

Some will go to any length to deny him any credit for building his fortune. They act as though any old doofus who inherits a million will become a multi-billionaire just by sitting back and sipping wine. More of them end up broke than super-rich.

If you start with X and end with Y, I think you should get credit for Y-X.

Now if he actually started with 10M and is only worth 5B, what percentage of increase is that?

He has done much better with what he had to work with than any Kennedy since Joe, Sr., any Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. He is not the nicest person, but it is a hell of a lot easier to blow a million (or 10 million) than it is build it into 13 Billion (or 5 billion).

What if he turned $400M into $600M in 50 years? Still deserving of much credit? I'm not saying those are the numbers. I'm not saying that those aren't the numbers. Nobody really knows what the numbers are. IMO, we probably shouldn't take Trump's word for it.

Jimmy Carter built his peanut-farming business up from the verge of bankruptcy. Before that he was a naval officer. More recent than Truman, but several presidents ago.

(04-05-2019 03:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It would be great if all politicians had a real working job prior to serving their country. Seems pretty rare at the highest levels. I certainly wouldn't put Donald Trump in that category. GWB? Maybe? Hard to make that call with Daddy pulling the strings for him. GB41? Probably the most recent president that had a "real working job"?

Well, Trump took a small inheritance and worked it into a giant fortune. He had a job and performed it well. You don't get a 13,000% increase by luck.

There are those that would take issues with your numbers. And your reference to "small inheritance". He seemingly has made every effort to downplay/cover-up just how much he inherited however most believe it was yugely more than the $1M that he likes to tout as part of his "self-made-man" story.

Some will go to any length to deny him any credit for building his fortune. They act as though any old doofus who inherits a million will become a multi-billionaire just by sitting back and sipping wine. More of them end up broke than super-rich.

If you start with X and end with Y, I think you should get credit for Y-X.

Now if he actually started with 10M and is only worth 5B, what percentage of increase is that?

He has done much better with what he had to work with than any Kennedy since Joe, Sr., any Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. He is not the nicest person, but it is a hell of a lot easier to blow a million (or 10 million) than it is build it into 13 Billion (or 5 billion).

What if he turned $400M into $600M in 50 years? Still deserving of much credit? I'm not saying those are the numbers. I'm not saying that those aren't the numbers. Nobody really knows what the numbers are. IMO, we probably shouldn't take Trump's word for it.

Taking the worst possible starting point I have found (60 million in loans from his father, potentially never repaid), and the Forbes estimate in 2017 of 3.1 billion ----

I would say he has done fairly well in increasing that net worth.

Considering he was probably only worth about a net $5 million in 1982, again, he has done far better than an 'avg' rate of return.

So kudos to him for what he has done in that respect. Not 'jaw dropping' inspiring, but pretty healthy nonetheless.