Alan Zweibel

No, you're in a willful ignorance cycle. Biden inherited from Trump a workforce at a much lower level of employment with lots more lower wage workers jobless. But for the people who were still working, their wages went up.

If you can't or won't understand the compostional effect on wages I really can't help you. A disproportionate number of low wage workers lost their jobs. That meant the average wage rose. That's what's called a compositional effect. As the paragraph I cited from the Fed explains, that elevated average wages by about 8%. But it doesn't mean that workers' wages really went up.

Funny, just before you insisted on using the Fed and now you go to factcheck. Here's the graph from the fed showing changes in real wages. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Funny. Before you insisted on using the Fed numbers and now you go to factcheck. This is from the Fed: The August 2020 FRBSF Economic Letter—aptly titled "The Illusion of Wage Growth"—by Erin E. Crust, Mary C. Daly, and Bart Hobijn shows that restricting the sample to people employed in the second quarters of 2019 and 2020 reduced growth in median usual weekly earnings over that period by nearly 8 percentage points from the published rate of 10.4 percent. The Atlanta Fed's Wage Growth Tracker, which uses the same type of restriction, and the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which controls for employment share changes among industries and occupationshttps://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/Images/gallery/icons/off-site.svg?w=13 , were not subject to the illusion of wage growth shown by the blue line in chart 1. https://www.atlantafed.org/blogs/macroblog/2021/11/10/compositional-distortions-to-measure-of-wage-growth-during-pandemic?utm_source=chatgpt.com

What brainwashing nonsense are you referring to? I could understand your indignation if it was addressed at the stupid cartoon that was offered as some kind of evidence. But apparently that's the kind of thing you have no problem with. You don't see why a social worker might be useful in domestic situations that police aren't trained to handle?

First of that spike in the beginning of 2020 fell sharply while Trump was still President. But more importantly you clearly don't understand why that spike occurred. Let AI explain it to you: US wages rose sharply at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020 due to a compositional effect: low-wage workers were disproportionately laid off, which mechanically increased the average wage. Many businesses, particularly in low-wage sectors like hospitality, had to shut down during the initial COVID-19 lockdowns. As a result, the workforce became skewed toward higher-paid workers, driving up the average wage, though this did not reflect a better bargaining position for workers or general pay raises So as more lower paid workers returned to work, average wages declined. And one of the most remarkable features of the Biden Presidency was that the lowest paid workers saw the biggest gain in wages: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/americans-wages-are-higher-than-they-have-ever-been-and-employment-is-near-its-all-time-high/

FROM AI Key details of the proposed legislation: Mandatory staffing: A bill has been introduced that would require the NYC Department of Health to staff each precinct with a licensed social worker. Focus on mental health calls: The main goal is to provide better support during mental health crises, where current police responses are sometimes seen as insufficient. Potential roles: Social workers could respond to calls alongside officers or primarily intervene with individuals who have been brought to the precinct. Broader vision: The initiative is part of a broader effort to use social workers to address the social service-related calls that make up a significant portion of police work.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/americans-wages-are-higher-than-they-have-ever-been-and-employment-is-near-its-all-time-high/

Here's what you wrote: "Yeah right, not making a lick of sense as usual. Possibly due to a Trump obsession. Obsessive…give that a ponder" You claim that I wasn't making a lick of sense but you offered no analysis why. Just an empty claim. You could have asked why do I think that "unpopular" was more suitable than "popular". That would be the rational way to engage. And then I would have explained to you why I believe that is the case. Which I will do now. For one thing, the recent elections seemed to be a pretty harsh rebuke. Trump's sudden lowering of certain food tariffs seems to be a tacit acknowledgement of that. For another, even the pollsters who ordinarily put Trump in positive or only slightly negative territory now have him down considerably. Rasmussen, which is probably the most well know of these pollsters, currently has him down by 10%. Real Clear Politics has him down by an average of 12.4%. When you make unflattering comments about someone's personality or mental condition, or offer dubious diagnoses, that is not addressing the issues. And that is pretty much all you do when it comes to me instead of offering any evidence or even reasoning about the issues in question and the points I have raised. This forum is supposed to be about the issues, which is why personal comments about the members meet with the moderators disapproval. You may not believe this but some members actually get reproached and have their comments removed by the moderators because they transgress against that disapproval. I am puzzled as to why you consider the introduction of corroborating evidence to bolster arguments or to counter the arguments of others strikes you as somehow inauthentic. It strikes me that simply to offer opinions without basing them in fact might be suitable for games of fantasy like Dungeons and Dragons. (Although I have to confess that I have never played Dungeons or Dragons or anything similar so I may be getting that wrong). But since the issues discussed here are tied to the actual world, it seems to me that not using data and such to support one's arguments would be an intellectual dereliction of duty. But given your apparent opposition to the use of verifiable facts, perhaps you might want to consider engaging in creating actual fiction in some other forum somewhere else instead of merely rejecting reality in this one. Have a nice evening.

The use of "would be" in your comment precludes it from being a fact. Simple or otherwise. Facts are about actualities, not hypotheticals.

More of the same. Just empty insults including a lame attempt at making it personal. In other words, you've got nothing.

It's kind of funny that Trump is complaining that the BBC report cost him money. Kind of confessing that he's benefiting financially thanks to the office he currently occupies. A few examples to be found below. Trump Organization Is Said to Be in Talks on a Saudi Government Real Estate Deal The Trump Organization is in talks that could bring a Trump-branded property to one of Saudi Arabia’s largest government-owned real estate developments, according to the chief executive of the Saudi company leading the development. The negotiations are the latest example of Mr. Trump blending governance and family business, particularly in Persian Gulf countries. Since returning to office, the president’s family and businesses have announced new ventures abroad involving billions of dollars, made hundreds of millions from cryptocurrency, and sold tickets to a private dinner hosted by Mr. Trump. https://archive.ph/i0jvd#selection-707.0-726.0

Or most unpopular. "Meaning of unpopular in English unpopular adjective not liked by many people: Night flights from the airport are unpopular. The president is becoming increasingly unpopular." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unpopular

He is very easily played.

You could have done the honorable thing and admitted you got it wrong. You could have said nothing. But instead you, as an anonymous poster, assert that you know not just better than I do, but than experts do,too. But you offered nothing in the way of evidence to counter the evidence I've offered. You've got nothing, except, I surmise, a very frail and bruised ego.

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a permanent injunction blocking Donald Trump’s attempt to federalize and deploy the National Guard into Portland, Oregon. Immergut, a Trump nominee, concluded that the administration had no legal authority to intervene, since civilian law enforcement could handily manage the anti–Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests on its own. Her ruling largely turned on credibility: Oregon said its own police had the situation under control; the Justice Department claimed the city was in the grip of a violent emergency. Immergut found Oregon far more believable, dismissing many of the government’s assertions as exaggerations or worse. https://archive.ph/pW70P#selection-1055.0-1059.614

For much of my life that directive had felt superfluous. China’s economy boomed, and we were proud of our country. That pride is harder for many of us to summon today. Behind the orderliness of everyday life, a quiet desperation simmers. On social media and in private conversations, there is a common refrain: worry over joblessness, wage cuts and making ends meet. https://archive.ph/ieYjC#selection-531.0-531.54 This is the kind of situation where the society seems basically stable and subdued until suddenly it isn't because the leadership is deeply out of touch with the citizenry.

Deflecting much?

America First? Some Trump Supporters Worry That’s No Longer the Case. President Trump has been dining with Wall Street bigwigs. He has embarked on an opulent revamp of the White House at a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills. He has expressed support for granting visas to skilled foreigners to take jobs in the United States. He approved a $20 billion bailout for Argentina, helping a foreign government and wealthy investors at a moment when the U.S. government was shut down. https://archive.ph/Bjisp

For large companises, company provided health plans also force healthy people into subsidizing individual coverage for others. And you offer no evidence that anything is better than the ACA. Just an empty assertion.

"Absolutely correct, empirically not." What does "absolutely correct, empirically not" even mean? If something is "absolutely correct" that leaves no room for it to be "empirically not" "As to your above comment, no person is obligated to prove themselves, though you have proven yourself to be lacking credibility." You missed the point. You made claims about your personal experience. There is no way of verifying whether your claim is true or false. So, no, you're not obligated to provide proof of your experience. By the same token, no one is obligated to take your word for it. But there are ways to provide evidence that doesn't depend on personal claims. You seem to have no use for them. And you claim that I have proven proven myself to lack credibiility. But you offer no evidence. No reasoned analysis of what I have written. Just another cheap shot from you. "Why is that whenever someone has a disagreement with a leftist they take it personally? Something is fundamentally wrong with the Marxist ideology." You misunderstand what about personal. You made a claim about me personally supported only by your phrase " People are predictable and easy to read, your number is too easy." It's also true that biases are easy to succumb to. Why should I believe that your take on me or anyone isn't a product of biases?. Of course, if you are unwilling or unable to provide corroboratable evidence, then I guess you have to resort to such cheap shots from you. As for Marxist ideoloogy? This shows how empty are your arguments. Where have I ever argued for the state or workers to control the means of production? What stances have I taken that a political scientist or historian would understand to be Marxist. Another cheap shot from you. Finally, more personal comments from you as in "try not to take it so hard" Another cheap and empty shot. You claim that ," in case you have forgotten, you were proven that you have trouble deciphering raw data empirically comprehending and conceptualizing all linear data." Where is this the case? I will note that since you rarely if ever provide data, your grasp of it remains an open question.

Really? Essential Health Benefits: All Marketplace plans must cover a set of 10 categories, including: Outpatient care Emergency services Hospitalization Maternity and newborn care Mental health and substance use disorder services Prescription drugs Rehabilitative and habilitative services Laboratory services Preventive and wellness services, as well as chronic disease management Pediatric services, including oral and vision care Pre-existing conditions: Plans cannot deny coverage or charge you more based on a pre-existing health condition. Preventive care: Many preventive services, such as certain screenings and vaccinations, are covered with no out-of-pocket costs. Childhood dental coverage: All plans must include dental coverage for children

Define ANTIFA. Let's see if what you think ANTIFA is agrees with what various agencies have said it is.

Have you noticed that Trump has met with most of his success after he won the 2024 election. His record before that in such cases was dismal. In other words, he's taking advantage of the potential power of the Presidency to extort settlements. This is the kind of thing that used to happen only in banana republics and the like. But for you, this is a cause for celebration.

Actually, if you're talking about a mass denial of reality, how about the majority of Republicans who believe the 2000 elections were stolen? And then there was QAnon before that. Or how about the deranged obsession with Barack Obama's place of birth?