Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:49 PM Apr 2014

Median incomes are not growing as fast as they should be. This is true. And it is a serious problem. [View all]

Now in my opinion, rather than just complain, we might want to discuss the kinds of policies that might be able to address this. For example:

--Raising the minimum wage
--Increasing taxes on top earners
--Expanding the earned income tax credit, a program which helps lower income workers
--Extensive investment in infrastructure, which will put people to work and increase aggregate demand

What do these things have in common? They are all part of Obama's current agenda. Right now, Obama is going around advocating for an increase in the minimum wage, and the rest of those items (and many more) are in his proposed budget.

Here's the problem. This stuff isn't going to make it through congress. Why? Because of the GOP.

The allegation has been made that DUers supporting Obama think about the "team" while those opposed to him are thinking about "policy." But this is not reality. In fact, if all those OPs talking about how disappointing Obama is, and about how he's really looking out for Wall Street and 1%ers -- if, in addition to complaining, those threads included policy proposals, I would wager that a lot of the "wish list" would already be included in the Obama budget.

Of course, Obama isn't perfect, and he's not as liberal as many people here would like him to be, myself included. So, yes, I'm sure there are policies that people would like to see advocated that aren't. But this brings us to the second key point.

The limiting factor right now isn't Obama's willingness to propose things, it's congress's willingness to approve them. There's really no getting around this. As disappointed as some may be in Obama, the current state of affairs is not the result of the Obama administration's bad policymaking, it is the result of the GOP congress opposing pretty much everything that would have a chance of improving things.

This isn't just conjecture. We saw what happened when Obama had a favorable congress. We got the most significant piece of social legislation since LBJ, we staved of a second great depression, we passed some of the most significant financial regulations in decades, for starters. Yes, Obamacare, the stimulus, and Dodd-Frank all could have been better, but we have to remember that even in their current form, they all just squeaked through congress.

So, yes, hold Democrats' feet to the fire when they do bad things. But let's not lose sight of reality.

60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In the face of these wage declines, why is the primary concern what people think of Obama? cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #1
The OP is about both policy and political reality. DanTex Apr 2014 #2
MUST PROTECT OBAMA Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #3
That explains much Fumesucker Apr 2014 #5
S'rly Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #8
it's ODS Skittles Apr 2014 #47
MUST PROTECT FACTS. ProSense Apr 2014 #6
What "wage declines"? ProSense Apr 2014 #4
You are intentionally using figures unadjusted for inflation??? cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #14
"Adjusted for inflation, they were up 1.2% MoM and 2.4% YoY." ProSense Apr 2014 #18
Why do you say that when ProSense provided a chart with both real and nominal figures? stevenleser Apr 2014 #21
Prosense is referring to a trend in the last month/year, which is small in comparison to what is DireStrike Apr 2014 #53
Nonsense. The trend has been upward for the last three years. The chart shows that. n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #56
Yes, if you squint really hard you can see a very minor increase in real wages DireStrike Apr 2014 #58
I think the problem that many have.... NCTraveler Apr 2014 #7
Disagree, and ProSense Apr 2014 #9
I get that you disagree. NCTraveler Apr 2014 #10
Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #11
"...I expected dismissal, and your comment flies in the face of the reality." NCTraveler Apr 2014 #13
I most ProSense Apr 2014 #17
Prosense, you have not come close to making the case that this is fundamental and structural change. NCTraveler Apr 2014 #22
Pure nonsense ProSense Apr 2014 #26
How is it fundamental and structural change to the economy? NCTraveler Apr 2014 #27
What the hell? ProSense Apr 2014 #28
Nonsense. NCTraveler Apr 2014 #30
You really ProSense Apr 2014 #33
You're Just Being Obstinate ProfessorGAC Apr 2014 #40
A couple of things. NCTraveler Apr 2014 #45
It's not ProSense Apr 2014 #49
Where Do I Stand? ProfessorGAC Apr 2014 #60
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamental and structural change". DanTex Apr 2014 #36
"it seems more like vague generalities rather than specific policy objections" NCTraveler Apr 2014 #38
I agree with a lot of what you say. DanTex Apr 2014 #50
The baseline needs to be the crash of 2008. CJCRANE Apr 2014 #12
Raising the minimum wage won't have any effect on the median income, will it? Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2014 #15
Not really. Increasing the minimum wage improves the safety net, but doesn't help most of us. reformist2 Apr 2014 #19
see my post right below cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #24
Good point. But I don't think 50% of workers are making $10 or less. Maybe 25-30% of workers. reformist2 Apr 2014 #25
Yes, the pressure from the artificial floor should decrease somewhat as you go up, but cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #31
Surely it would shift the median line to the right? CJCRANE Apr 2014 #20
I don't believe so. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2014 #32
I'm not a statistician but that doesn't make sense to me. CJCRANE Apr 2014 #34
The median is the income of the middle person. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2014 #35
I think it's the middle value, not the middle person. CJCRANE Apr 2014 #37
The middle value is the value of the middle person. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2014 #41
If you have 300 million people then the middle person is #150 million. CJCRANE Apr 2014 #43
And the median income is that person's income. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2014 #46
OK, as per my edit above I think you are right on that point CJCRANE Apr 2014 #48
It will affect more than 50% of wages, surely. Arguably 100%. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #23
As cthulu pointed out, it would likely have indirect impact on wages beyond just DanTex Apr 2014 #57
Proud to be the first to rec this. Obama has fought HARD for the minimum wage Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #16
Even with median income going up, everything you listed should happen. randome Apr 2014 #29
And here I thought this was going to be a thread about issues Marrah_G Apr 2014 #39
Short Fuse? ProfessorGAC Apr 2014 #42
Not just this one Marrah_G Apr 2014 #44
they're getting worse, aren't they? Skittles Apr 2014 #51
Yes Marrah_G Apr 2014 #52
It's unfortunate that you are going to ignore me instead of engaging. DanTex Apr 2014 #55
she, as am I, is simply fed up with it Skittles Apr 2014 #59
k&r n/t RainDog Apr 2014 #54
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Median incomes are not gr...