dagblog - Comments for "1 County = +20 Obama &#039;12 and +20 Trump &#039;16" http://dagblog.com/link/1-county-20-obama-12-and-20-trump-16-23874 Comments for "1 County = +20 Obama '12 and +20 Trump '16" en I will continue to breathe as http://dagblog.com/comment/245110#comment-245110 <a id="comment-245110"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/245103#comment-245103">The rational response would</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I will continue to breathe as long as possible.</p> <p>I wonder if a resurgence of collective bargaining would change the market in the way it has in the past.<br /> Marx was wrong about a lot of things. His observation that unions tend toward becoming partners of "Capital" is not without merit. When you want a better deal in the bigger deal, you become a cheerleader for the deal.</p> <p>That isn't to say collective bargaining is dead. Especially in places where the potential workers of an enterprise can look at each other and agree to apply some leverage. But the labor market inside the U.S. is very fluid. All the concern about whether we are screwing ourselves in foreign trade deals is something to reckon with. But those kinds of shifts of market viability happen within the U.S. too.<br /><br /> Maybe Ohio and Utah will form a trading partnership.</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 12 Nov 2017 00:12:47 +0000 moat comment 245110 at http://dagblog.com The rational response would http://dagblog.com/comment/245103#comment-245103 <a id="comment-245103"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/245099#comment-245099">I do agree the Appalachians</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The rational response would be for the republicans to ease their hostility to  unions (perhaps in exchange for some change in   their direct political involvement ) and let them  return to their once- useful  role as an effective counterveiling power to Capital.  Cf Political Science 101. </p> <p> Don't hold your breath.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Nov 2017 14:00:21 +0000 Flavius comment 245103 at http://dagblog.com Your last paragraph helps http://dagblog.com/comment/245102#comment-245102 <a id="comment-245102"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/245099#comment-245099">I do agree the Appalachians</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Your last paragraph helps make a big picture thing that has happened clear to me, something about how times have changed.</p> <p>Union provided health care back in the good old days was just the basics. Like Medicaid today, one pair of cheap glasses for the kids per year. If your wife got breast cancer, no fancy Mayo clinic specialists with the new treatments, she got radical breast removal and she got nuked with radiation at the local hospital and she still died a few years later.Nowadays everyone expects the best available for everyone. So in effect, they don't realize it, but people have traded that nest egg for what used to be called rich people's doctors. Leave out that it can be done way more efficiently than we in the U.S. do it, but still everyone in the first world has come to expect the best in high tech medical care. That was a tradeoff, a choice to have medical care a much larger part of the economy and a much larger part of pay.  Right now here in the U.S. it's a part of wages. If you switch to universal, the ever rising expense of giving the best to everyone is still there as higher taxes. Especially if you want "freedom" about behavior, you don't want to impose wellness nanny state rules that for-profit insurance tries to do.</p> <p>In the end, high tech health care for everyone is a transfer of jobs to that industry from jobs in other industries as well. As are expectations not to be warehoused in a nursing home but to have a home health aide in old age. Once again, that was something that only rich people could have in the good old days.</p> <p>Another thing. It should not be forgotten that Trump promised to fix this real easy. Everybody will get good health care without the problems of Obamacare, we'll show you, I'm the big shot CEO you saw on Apprentice, I know how to get the right people to fix these things. By mentioning some specifics like insurance should be transferrable between states, he made it sound like maybe he really did know something about it. You can't really blame people who don't have the time or smarts to understand the system for falling for that. (I recall Perot basically promised the same thing.)  If he had admitted  "health care, it's complicated" back during the campaign, instead of promising an illusion, it would have been a big fail., hurt him badly in votes. But he didn't, he, and most of the GOP Congress, lied, and now people will know that. It might take some time for it to really kick in, but eventually they will see it.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Nov 2017 13:57:56 +0000 artappraiser comment 245102 at http://dagblog.com I do agree the Appalachians http://dagblog.com/comment/245099#comment-245099 <a id="comment-245099"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/245088#comment-245088">Absolutely fascinating piece.</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I do agree the Appalachians version of Hillary that got blasted for focusing too much on whites in 2008 (for being racist) largely gone missing this election, probably even before the misstrewn coal comment killed her reputation there.</p> <p>Did anyone have a real message on wages? Does anyone have one now?</p> <p>The issue with the union-sponsored healthcare and rising deductibles is an example of how we'll end up with universal health care in the end. All the providers are gaming these policies in one way or another, such as how they dismantled retirement benefits a generation ago. That's another issue that's disappeared - my parents could count on working for one company for decades and banking a nestegg.</p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Nov 2017 06:13:00 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 245099 at http://dagblog.com "The financial crisis of 2007 http://dagblog.com/comment/245096#comment-245096 <a id="comment-245096"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/245094#comment-245094">           2007        2008  </a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>"The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis and the 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to have been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the <strong>1930s</strong>." Wikipedia</p> <p class="rtecenter">The 1930s, note unemployment rose for 4 years, and did not drop below pre-FDR level of Hoover until 2 years after the US went to war:</p> <p class="rtecenter">​<img alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W_cVcCKfeMY/UdRIClfKthI/AAAAAAAAAI4/Wdb-795jCXo/s488/US+Unemployment+BLS.bmp" /></p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Nov 2017 05:28:27 +0000 NCD comment 245096 at http://dagblog.com Obama first 3 years were the http://dagblog.com/comment/245095#comment-245095 <a id="comment-245095"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/245094#comment-245094">           2007        2008  </a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Obama first 3 years were the worst since WW2. </p> <p>2009       9.3%</p> <p>2010      9.6</p> <p>2011       8.9</p> <p>The nearest comparison would be Reagan's</p> <p>1982      9.7</p> <p>83         9.6</p> <p> 84        7.5   </p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Nov 2017 05:01:28 +0000 Flavius comment 245095 at http://dagblog.com            2007        2008  http://dagblog.com/comment/245094#comment-245094 <a id="comment-245094"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/245093#comment-245093">Bureau of Labor Management</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>           2007        2008      2009</p> <p>Jan       4.6%        5.0        7.8</p> <p>July       4.6          5.6         9.5</p> <p>Oct        4.7         6.5        10.0</p> <p>W's 2007 was at about the level economists describe as non inflationary unemployment rate,</p> <p>Obama's Jan 2009 was a level touched now and then in normal years. But October's 10%</p> <p>was a killer.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:49:45 +0000 Flavius comment 245094 at http://dagblog.com Bureau of Labor Management http://dagblog.com/comment/245093#comment-245093 <a id="comment-245093"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/245091#comment-245091">My usual comment</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Bureau of Labor Management reports different higher unemployment under Bush and a decrease in unemployment after 8 years of Obama</p> <p><a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/11/7/9684780/unemployment-rate-obama">https://www.vox.com/2015/11/7/9684780/unemployment-rate-obama</a></p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:24:14 +0000 rmrd0000 comment 245093 at http://dagblog.com My usual comment http://dagblog.com/comment/245091#comment-245091 <a id="comment-245091"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/245083#comment-245083">People rationalize their</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>My usual comment</p> <p>Unemployment %</p> <p>Bush's last 4  years       Obama's first 4</p> <p>4.7%                             9.8</p> <p>4.6                                9.1</p> <p>5.0                                8.3</p> <p>5.2                                8.0</p> <p>Roughly 4% more were unemployed during Obama's first term. Roughly,1%=s 1.5 million.</p> <p>So 6 million people learned to associate the democrats with their being out of work. Say half of them</p> <p>were already Republicans. How do  you guess the other 3 million voted when Hillary ran?</p> <p>Whoever the Democratic candidate, whatever her assets, ,were she  a combination of Joan of Arc and Eleanor Roosevelt many of them weren't going to vote for a Democrat. At best they'd have stayed home.</p> <p>Not <u>because</u> they were sexist or racist although no doubt some were. But because they hated the  people in charge when they lost their job.</p> <p>Some of them no doubt still do and  will go on doing that for a long time.</p> <p><u>We</u>  smarties know that W bequeathed Obama an economy in a free fall . And some of us -me for instance- know he miraculously did what FDR failed to do-completely turn around an economy heading for the depths .</p> <p>So Hillary was campaigning with unemployment back down to the level under George W.</p> <p>If you think the Democrats are dying now give a thought to how moribund they would  have been if the unemployment was still at 9.8% when Obama handed the key to  the nuclear war heads over to the orange hair  liar..  </p> <p>Instead we had this week's  mini recovery  and  we  ain't  dead yet.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:08:20 +0000 Flavius comment 245091 at http://dagblog.com Absolutely fascinating piece. http://dagblog.com/comment/245088#comment-245088 <a id="comment-245088"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/1-county-20-obama-12-and-20-trump-16-23874">1 County = +20 Obama &#039;12 and +20 Trump &#039;16</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Absolutely fascinating piece. I am skeptical how much can be applied to the whole country as advice for "the Democratic party" but it's still absolutely fascinating.</p> <p>One thing is clear it continues to be "Jesse Ventura country" there as to: proud of iconoclasm. I'm originally from Wisconsin, not Minnesota, the two states are similar, so I <em>sort of</em> get it, but there's some differences, too.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Nov 2017 02:40:59 +0000 artappraiser comment 245088 at http://dagblog.com