Report Shows Trump Areas Losing Jobs and Dem Areas Adding Jobs

[Indus]

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/0...as-losing-jobs-and-dem-areas-adding-jobs.html

A shocking new report from the Associated Press (AP) shows that areas in the United States that voted for President Donald Trump are losing jobs and areas that voted for Hillary Clinton are adding jobs.

New job growth statistics show that overall the country will add about 2.6 million jobs during 2018. But most of these new jobs will be added in Democratic strongholds rather than in the Republican areas that overwhelmingly voted for Trump and put him in the White House.

So far during Trump’s presidency nearly 60 percent of the job gains have been in counties that backed Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, according to the AP’s analysis of monthly government jobs data.

This report proves a shocking truth that Trump will not want publicized. The engines of job growth are in blue states, in urban areas, and where there is tremendous racial diversity along with a large number of immigrants.

Not only that, but the AP analysis reveals that many Trump counties are LOSING jobs. They found that 35.4 percent of Trump counties have LOST jobs over the past year. Just 19.2 percent of “blue” Clinton counties have lost jobs.

This new jobs data makes clear that the U.S. economy is doing great in some areas and horribly in other areas. This means that the economic landscape is as fractured as the political landscape.

More wealth is created in cities which are hubs of financial and corporate activity. And prosperity is going less and less over time to the smaller towns and cities in more rural areas of the country.

These rural areas and small towns voted for Donald Trump because they believed his wild claims about bringing back lost jobs. Many people there now realize this won’t happen, and this could have a major impact on the 2018 midterm elections.


Trump loves to brag about job creation for middle class and blue-collar workers, which he tells people is a great accomplishment of his presidency. And he is also always pointing to the national economy, apparently hoping that voters will reward him and other Republicans by keeping them in control of Congress after the elections.

But for Trump’s core supporters, cultural issues such as gun rights, immigration and loyalty to the president have become dominant, not economic issues.

One county Republican chairman said his party members are energized because of their fierce opposition to gun control.

“Our number one motivating factor is the Second Amendment,” he said.

So even though the national economy should be an advantage for Republicans in the midterms, the economy is not the most important issue for voters this year.

When the Pew Research Center asked likely voters in June to identify the country’s top issue, more chose immigration, race, political gridlock or Trump himself instead of the economy.

What all this means is that the “red” areas where Trump’s support is strongest will continue to be in economic decline, likely adding to those voters’ anxiety and resentment against diverse urban areas that are doing much better financially.

The more the country is divided economically, the more the country will remain divided politically. And since rural areas tend to keep less educated people while college educated voters move to urban areas, this political and economic divide could be like a tinderbox ready to burst into flames at the slightest provocation.




I have 1 word to describe what I'm feeling.. pwned!

 

[dank69]

Fake news.

 

[Indus]

Fake news.

Totally because it doesn't support MAGA!

 

[dank69]

Totally because it doesn't support MAGA!

It's just that easy these days.

 

[senseamp]

Can't wait to automate some Trump country jobs away.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump supporters want what the Job Creators obviously won't give them.They're also too proud & too stubborn to accept a lot of things that would help them, things only govt will provide.

I mean, this is it. This is what happens when we let the financial elite have their way with us. And small town America keeps voting Republican they'll keep taking a beating.so that stupendously rich & greedy people can hoard the bounty of this Country.

 

[senseamp]

"Job Creators" are laughing at those MAGA hat wearing monkeys. All the way to the bank.

 

[Younigue]

I saw this earlier and I was amused.

 

[greatnoob]

Great. This is what those morons get for being uneducated and voting on nothing but baseless populist rhetoric instead of say, actual policies. “This is why Trump won,” yes, because conservatards are too fucking stupid to know when they’re being lied to. Anyways, I hope Trump keeps ‘winning’ because it’ll be a win for blue states at the expense of the shithole red ones. Evidently your average (R)etard is happy swimming in shit

 

[Jaskalas]

A shocking new report from the Associated Press (AP) shows that areas in the United States that voted for President Donald Trump are losing jobs and areas that voted for Hillary Clinton are adding jobs.

It's not shocking at all. It is literally what defines voting for either Democrat or Republican.

If you have no hope for the future, you vote Republican. I know, I've been there. The only thing that shook me to the core was grasping the economics and sustainability of Basic Income. Of knowing that we can have a viable future if only we pushed for it. Absent that hope... I'd still be in a fairly dark place with them.

I still know people, personally, who think government is to blame for their despair. I fear they are mostly beyond education, but If they were coddled into a better life, then Republican's messages of hatred and pessimism would lose their appeal. I imagine this topic defines the origin(s) of the current populist wave. Study it, learn from it, and counter it.

 

[whm1974]

As far as heavy manual labor goes, it is increasing being done with Automation and Machines, So what happens to those job holders as their their jobs increasing disappear?

 

[ivwshane]

It's not shocking at all. It is literally what defines voting for either Democrat or Republican.

If you have no hope for the future, you vote Republican. I know, I've been there. The only thing that shook me to the core was grasping the economics and sustainability of Basic Income. Of knowing that we can have a viable future if only we pushed for it. Absent that hope... I'd still be in a fairly dark place with them.

I still know people, personally, who think government is to blame for their despair. I fear they are mostly beyond education, but If they were coddled into a better life, then Republican's messages of hatred and pessimism would lose their appeal. I imagine this topic defines the origin(s) of the current populist wave. Study it, learn from it, and counter it.

Were you ever a tea bagger? Or were you a traditional conservative? Or were you simply a Republican first and whatever policy they supported you supported?

What are you now? Are you a Bernie type or are you a single issue voter and will vote for whoever hints at supporting the basic income idea?

Since there are actually multiple places that are trying out some sort of basic income, once we start getting results, if they happen to show it doesn't work (whatever that means to you), what then for you?

 

[Jaskalas]

As far as heavy manual labor goes, it is increasing being done with Automation and Machines, So what happens to those job holders as their their jobs increasing disappear?

Labor has been losing its value for 40+ years already. That will not stop. Capitalism has evolved beyond labor, it'll just take time for that realization to sink in. The way out of this crisis is to simply not care if people are employed. Develop an economic model that is still driven by productivity, and finds a way to maintain liquidity (wages) for the consumers (employees). You achieve that with Basic Income.

There are other concepts of how to do it, and I somewhat doubt my exact one will be noticed, but for a mere 25% tax that nest egg when people turn 18 is large enough to single handedly end rents and mortgages. Couples could simply pay cash for homes and still have enough left over for transportation and education. Not to mention having a passive income to follow them around when they want to move or take time off. They can do what they want, they'd have the time and the money to pursue it. The issues behind Income Inequality would vanish, entirely, within a generation.

You can have your cake, and eat it too, and the concept is largely job agnostic and is paid for. No debt or deficit from it. The math is not difficult, it's just most people don't even know where to start. Hell, most people don't understand economics. They think jobs are required for it, but that's just the way we've achieved it so far. Thanks to modern technology we have options. We need to explore those options sooner rather than later.

 

[whm1974]

Labor has been losing its value for 40+ years already. That will not stop. Capitalism has evolved beyond labor, it'll just take time for that realization to sink in. The way out of this crisis is to simply not care if people are employed. Develop an economic model that is still driven by productivity, and finds a way to maintain liquidity (wages) for the consumers (employees). You achieve that with Basic Income.

There are other concepts of how to do it, and I somewhat doubt my exact one will be noticed, but for a mere 25% tax that nest egg when people turn 18 is large enough to single handedly end rents and mortgages. Couples could simply pay cash for homes and still have enough left over for transportation and education. Not to mention having a passive income to follow them around when they want to move or take time off. They can do what they want, they'd have the time and the money to pursue it. The issues behind Income Inequality would vanish, entirely, within a generation.

You can have your cake, and eat it too, and the concept is largely job agnostic and is paid for. No debt or deficit from it. The math is not difficult, it's just most people don't even know where to start. Hell, most people don't understand economics. They think jobs are required for it, but that's just the way we've achieved it so far. Thanks to modern technology we have options. We need to explore those options sooner rather than later.

Now I'm wondering if what we would call jobs will be mostly in maintaining the system, environment repair, health care, education, and such?

 

[Jhhnn]

As far as heavy manual labor goes, it is increasing being done with Automation and Machines, So what happens to those job holders as their their jobs increasing disappear?

Please. Computerization has been replacing human effort at every level. Banking. Transportation. Manufacturing. Distributing. You name it. We also have better engineering & better materials. Genetically engineered crops Plumbing. Roofing. Autos. Again, you name it. We're on the cusp of progress that can make everybody's lives better but we can't figure out how to maintain liquidity for ordinary people other than working for whatever the job creators offer us, if anything.

 

[Vic]

Urbanization and economic activity act like gravity.

 

[whm1974]

Please. Computerization has been replacing human effort at every level. Banking. Transportation. Manufacturing. Distributing. You name it. We also have better engineering & better materials. Genetically engineered crops Plumbing. Roofing. Autos. Again, you name it. We're on the cusp of progress that can make everybody's lives better but we can't figure out how to maintain liquidity for ordinary people other than working for whatever the job creators offer us, if anything.

Yeah but I think for long term well being and metal health, people will need something constructive to do with their time. Or will it by discovered that you can indeed die of boredom...

 

[Indus]

Yeah but I think for long term well being and metal health, people will need something constructive to do with their time. Or will it by discovered that you can indeed die of boredom...

Well just sitting with the air conditioner running leads to dehydration, itching, and eventually pneumonia.

 

[whm1974]

Please. Computerization has been replacing human effort at every level. Banking. Transportation. Manufacturing. Distributing. You name it. We also have better engineering & better materials. Genetically engineered crops Plumbing. Roofing. Autos. Again, you name it. We're on the cusp of progress that can make everybody's lives better but we can't figure out how to maintain liquidity for ordinary people other than working for whatever the job creators offer us, if anything.

So how do we spread out productivity gains where everyone's basic needs can be meet?

 

[Jaskalas]

Were you ever a tea bagger? Or were you a traditional conservative? Or were you simply a Republican first and whatever policy they supported you supported?

First, you may recall reading and replying to my Mea Culpa.

Anyways, I was raised Republican, but dissented under Bush. As I described the Tea Party, that dissent is what they meant to me. They were my hope for a Libertarian revival, for Republicans to make good on their lip service to us. Bush was the Neocon centrist who waged wars, grew government, and grew deficits. Trifecta of evil government. Being Republican but opposing his creed seemed vogue... at least at the time.

Their economic policy seemed to make sense. From a dogma point of view.

What are you now? Are you a Bernie type or are you a single issue voter and will vote for whoever hints at supporting the basic income idea?

When I declared my affiliation following the 2016 election, I wasn't near as certain with myself then as I am now. Having time to process has helped provide clarity. Frankly, when you see someone as non confrontational as Bernie Sanders he appeals without inflaming. Anyone open to listening might actually do so. That is the benefit of campaigning on policy rather than partisan identity. Bernie and Gabbard demonstrated that there were Democrats I could identify with early on.

On a more technical level, it poisoned the Republican ID to view them as friendly and agreeable. This, in turn, confuses the Ego.

Back on point, Bernie might be the closest match on policy I am aware of. See, if one skips the center they avoid the more bureaucratic and convoluted schemes set up to help (and control) people. Skipping the ACA and going straight to Medicare would have been expensive, but also appeals to my Libertarian sense. It favors straight forward solutions, as they appear to grant people more Liberty. Such as Basic Income VS the slew of existing programs with their strings attached.

I would say my number one priority is economics. That is something Republicans are sunk on. I was never big on social conservatism, I was never religious. There are areas where we'd clash, but I'm not exactly sure where or how all of them pan out. I don't think it matters, I'd vote Democrat simply because I know they are more likely to do what is right by us. Not to mention the disaster that is Trump, where I'd vote for damn near anything to end his reign.

Since there are actually multiple places that are trying out some sort of basic income, once we start getting results, if they happen to show it doesn't work (whatever that means to you), what then for you?

First of all, have you been reading what I write on Capitalism and of Basic Income? The fundamentals of Capitalism, efficiency, has been devaluing labor our entire lives. That will not, cannot, be stopped. It will only grow worse through advances in automation. The challenge before us is to re-engineer economic liquidity so that it doesn't leave our consumers behind. That is the giant gaping hole in Capitalism that we need to plug.

I gravitated towards Basic Income as it's the only thing on the table. Republicans don't present anything as they're busy playing with their bootstraps in fantasy land. I worked out the math of UBI myself, and discovered it costs less than our $4 trillion budget. Contrary to Republican objections it IS actually affordable. Then I pieced together what an 18 year nest egg could do for people and holy !@#$... paying cash for a home? For the average working Joe, that would singlehandedly pay for its own tax if you consider what people pay monthly to keep a roof over their heads.

The transformative power is absolutely staggering. If fully implemented.

The existing trials? They vary in both scope and promise. I don't put a lot of stock into them because I have not heard of one that attempts to reach its full potential. Look, I'm not saying I'm stuck on a delusion here. I know it's a long shot to implement. I know my implementation could be least likely to even happen. Who would even hear of it? How would it become the majority plan? I also know there are other ways to provide liquidity to our consumers - though I've yet to see much of an argument on that.

What I do know is this. With Democrats at least we could have that intellectual debate and come to terms with what might be the best solution(s) for saving Capitalism as it evolves into something unsustainable. We call the issue Income Inequality and many people are waking up to seeing it as the critical issue, even if they haven't necessarily seen the big picture or connected all the dots yet. At least we're willing to work with the evidence before us and come up with solutions.

For my part, bold words I know, but I have no intention of returning from reason to madness.

 

[Indus]

So how do we spread out productivity gains where everyone's basic needs can be meet?

Do you know more than 2% of our population is homeless? That includes those that have been taken in by a friend/ relative during dark times.

 

[whm1974]

Do you know more than 2% of our population is homeless? That includes those that have been taken in by a friend/ relative during dark times.

Well that would be a good place to start along with measures to ensure folks don't end up becoming homeless in the first place.

 

[Indus]

First, you may recall reading and replying to my Mea Culpa.

Anyways, I was raised Republican, but dissented under Bush. As I described the Tea Party, that dissent is what they meant to me. They were my hope for a Libertarian revival, for Republicans to make good on their lip service to us. Bush was the Neocon centrist who waged wars, grew government, and grew deficits. Trifecta of evil government. Being Republican but opposing his creed seemed vogue... at least at the time.

Their economic policy seemed to make sense. From a dogma point of view.



When I declared my affiliation following the 2016 election, I wasn't near as certain with myself then as I am now. Having time to process has helped provide clarity. Frankly, when you see someone as non confrontational as Bernie Sanders he appeals without inflaming. Anyone open to listening might actually do so. That is the benefit of campaigning on policy rather than partisan identity. Bernie and Gabbard demonstrated that there were Democrats I could identify with early on.

On a more technical level, it poisoned the Republican ID to view them as friendly and agreeable. This, in turn, confuses the Ego.

Back on point, Bernie might be the closest match on policy I am aware of. See, if one skips the center they avoid the more bureaucratic and convoluted schemes set up to help (and control) people. Skipping the ACA and going straight to Medicare would have been expensive, but also appeals to my Libertarian sense. It favors straight forward solutions, as they appear to grant people more Liberty. Such as Basic Income VS the slew of existing programs with their strings attached.

I would say my number one priority is economics. That is something Republicans are sunk on. I was never big on social conservatism, I was never religious. There are areas where we'd clash, but I'm not exactly sure where or how all of them pan out. I don't think it matters, I'd vote Democrat simply because I know they are more likely to do what is right by us. Not to mention the disaster that is Trump, where I'd vote for damn near anything to end his reign.



First of all, have you been reading what I write on Capitalism and of Basic Income? The fundamentals of Capitalism, efficiency, has been devaluing labor our entire lives. That will not, cannot, be stopped. It will only grow worse through advances in automation. The challenge before us is to re-engineer economic liquidity so that it doesn't leave our consumers behind. That is the giant gaping hole in Capitalism that we need to plug.

I gravitated towards Basic Income as it's the only thing on the table. Republicans don't present anything as they're busy playing with their bootstraps in fantasy land. I worked out the math of UBI myself, and discovered it costs less than our $4 trillion budget. Contrary to Republican objections it IS actually affordable. Then I pieced together what an 18 year nest egg could do for people and holy !@#$... paying cash for a home? For the average working Joe, that would singlehandedly pay for its own tax if you consider what people pay monthly to keep a roof over their heads.

The transformative power is absolutely staggering. If fully implemented.

The existing trials? They vary in both scope and promise. I don't put a lot of stock into them because I have not heard of one that attempts to reach its full potential. Look, I'm not saying I'm stuck on a delusion here. I know it's a long shot to implement. I know my implementation could be least likely to even happen. Who would even hear of it? How would it become the majority plan? I also know there are other ways to provide liquidity to our consumers - though I've yet to see much of an argument on that.

What I do know is this. With Democrats at least we could have that intellectual debate and come to terms with what might be the best solution(s) for saving Capitalism as it evolves into something unsustainable. We call the issue Income Inequality and many people are waking up to seeing it as the critical issue, even if they haven't necessarily seen the big picture or connected all the dots yet. At least we're willing to work with the evidence before us and come up with solutions.

For my part, bold words I know, but I have no intention of returning from reason to madness.

Gotta give credit where its due.. you can think for yourself.. and quite intellectually. Quite a contrast from the conservatives who are now taken over by:

And yes even I was a conservative/ republican whatever and hated Clinton. I even voted for W. the first time and it was 2003 and the iraq invasion lie that opened my eyes. I didn't vote in 2004.. was too disgusted.

So yeah I know it takes a while and now I'm more convinced than ever I was on the wrong side of believing low taxes and trickle down worked best for me.. it worked best for those at the top. I found that out the hard way in the 2007-08 crash and had to live overseas for 6 years to not be homeless since I couldn't find a job in America.

Bernie and Alexandria are like a breath of fresh air that we so desperately need.

 

[whm1974]

So yeah I know it takes a while and now I'm more convinced than ever I was on the wrong side of believing low taxes and trickle down worked best for me.. it worked best for those at the top. I found that out the hard way in the 2007-08 crash and had to live overseas for 6 years to not be homeless since I couldn't find a job in America.

Bernie and Alexandria are like a breath of fresh air that we so desperately need.

That is pretty bad when you can't get job in a large 1st world nation such as the US.

 

[ivwshane]

First, you may recall reading and replying to my Mea Culpa.

Anyways, I was raised Republican, but dissented under Bush. As I described the Tea Party, that dissent is what they meant to me. They were my hope for a Libertarian revival, for Republicans to make good on their lip service to us. Bush was the Neocon centrist who waged wars, grew government, and grew deficits. Trifecta of evil government. Being Republican but opposing his creed seemed vogue... at least at the time.

Their economic policy seemed to make sense. From a dogma point of view.



When I declared my affiliation following the 2016 election, I wasn't near as certain with myself then as I am now. Having time to process has helped provide clarity. Frankly, when you see someone as non confrontational as Bernie Sanders he appeals without inflaming. Anyone open to listening might actually do so. That is the benefit of campaigning on policy rather than partisan identity. Bernie and Gabbard demonstrated that there were Democrats I could identify with early on.

On a more technical level, it poisoned the Republican ID to view them as friendly and agreeable. This, in turn, confuses the Ego.

Back on point, Bernie might be the closest match on policy I am aware of. See, if one skips the center they avoid the more bureaucratic and convoluted schemes set up to help (and control) people. Skipping the ACA and going straight to Medicare would have been expensive, but also appeals to my Libertarian sense. It favors straight forward solutions, as they appear to grant people more Liberty. Such as Basic Income VS the slew of existing programs with their strings attached.

I would say my number one priority is economics. That is something Republicans are sunk on. I was never big on social conservatism, I was never religious. There are areas where we'd clash, but I'm not exactly sure where or how all of them pan out. I don't think it matters, I'd vote Democrat simply because I know they are more likely to do what is right by us. Not to mention the disaster that is Trump, where I'd vote for damn near anything to end his reign.



First of all, have you been reading what I write on Capitalism and of Basic Income? The fundamentals of Capitalism, efficiency, has been devaluing labor our entire lives. That will not, cannot, be stopped. It will only grow worse through advances in automation. The challenge before us is to re-engineer economic liquidity so that it doesn't leave our consumers behind. That is the giant gaping hole in Capitalism that we need to plug.

I gravitated towards Basic Income as it's the only thing on the table. Republicans don't present anything as they're busy playing with their bootstraps in fantasy land. I worked out the math of UBI myself, and discovered it costs less than our $4 trillion budget. Contrary to Republican objections it IS actually affordable. Then I pieced together what an 18 year nest egg could do for people and holy !@#$... paying cash for a home? For the average working Joe, that would singlehandedly pay for its own tax if you consider what people pay monthly to keep a roof over their heads.

The transformative power is absolutely staggering. If fully implemented.

The existing trials? They vary in both scope and promise. I don't put a lot of stock into them because I have not heard of one that attempts to reach its full potential. Look, I'm not saying I'm stuck on a delusion here. I know it's a long shot to implement. I know my implementation could be least likely to even happen. Who would even hear of it? How would it become the majority plan? I also know there are other ways to provide liquidity to our consumers - though I've yet to see much of an argument on that.

What I do know is this. With Democrats at least we could have that intellectual debate and come to terms with what might be the best solution(s) for saving Capitalism as it evolves into something unsustainable. We call the issue Income Inequality and many people are waking up to seeing it as the critical issue, even if they haven't necessarily seen the big picture or connected all the dots yet. At least we're willing to work with the evidence before us and come up with solutions.

For my part, bold words I know, but I have no intention of returning from reason to madness.

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad you recognize that your goal isn't the only answer and an answer that you are stuck on. To me that means you aren't simply trading one ideology for another which is good because it allows you to pick the best solution based on data and not feels.