Thanks for the response.

Your interaction here is the best part, but I understand obligations and priorities.

I agree that anybody who can make a million bucks in four years is rich.
That cutoff is of course about minimizing political costs, not reality.

On the other end, making more than twice as much as the official poverty level can only be considered poor on a relative basis to those doing much better.
Our (the US) self image would certainly suffer if the median income is considered poor.
Having half of our working population in poverty would be an embarrassing reality to admit.

I suppose a new category between poor and middle class could be invented, but until then, people are either one or the other.

A

and

so you might want to temper your instinctively adversarial responses to me

Why on earth could I POSSIBLY be "adversarial" towards you?? :D

Yeah, I have been remiss in reading and answering comments for a few weeks now. Hey, it's been a tough few weeks...

Interesting point on minimum wage and what is considered "poor" -- I've usually focused on what is considered "rich" personally.

Case in point, Dems want to protect the income of all making approximately $120K to $250K from any tax increases. They consider this "middle class" while I consider it to be "upper middle class" at the very least. Look at the donut hole in most Dem's plans to adjust the Social Security tax ceiling, for proof.

To me, someone making $150K or $200K a year qualifies as someone who can afford a small tax increase. Especially if it benefits those at the lowest end of the scale, but maybe that's just me.

In any case, I'm busy writing today's column, but I'll check out the previous comment thread later, promise.

-CW

These words are widely and well understood.
I have a vivid imagination, but corporate speak was not my invention.

And, since you are quite fond of Trump's anti-establishment approach, on these issues at least we should be allies... so you might want to temper your instinctively adversarial responses to me (which are normally justified).
I know, I know.
I'm such a dreamer.

A

The MSM has a long LONG way to go before they even come CLOSE to any kind of credibility when it comes to reporting negative things about Trump....

Having said the afore... I understand what you are saying about the MSM vis a vis their reporting and I do acknowledge that you are correct...

My point is, is that it's as useless, reporting wise, as their reporting BEFORE the election that Trump was gonna lose and HRC was gonna win....

Ahhhh code-words, dog whistles and magic decoder rings....

Really GREAT arguments that are awesome because they require absolutely NO FACTS to support.... :D

Popular vote, Schmopular vote...

Has absolutely NO meaning because candidates didn't campaign for the popular vote, they campaigned for states..

To put it in the proper context, it's like saying that the Cubs really didn't win the World Series.. It was REALLY a tie because, even though the Cubs won the best of 7, as per the rules, the combined score from all the games was 27-27, therefore the Cubs didn't really win... It is tie..

Something else to consider is that there are outstanding votes that traditionally lean GOP (ex. 2 million Military Absentee ballots) but are not being counted because even if they are 100% one or the other they will not alter the outcome.

So, winning the popular vote and $34.99 will get you a latte at SeaTac.... :D

"If he is then you MAY be right...

Since there is no evidence he is, you are probably wrong..."

You posted this
"“We are encouraged that President-elect Trump and the new Congress will pursue policies that will improve U.S. competitiveness and make it possible to keep production of this vehicle here in the U.S.."
-Ford Statement"

"US competitiveness" is their code for sticking it to workers, consumers or the environment.

But, you are right.
Until the change is made, there is no "evidence".

A

Michale -

the vast majority of the MSM are still reporting that Trump is losing the election..

But that's being deceptive, isn't it, Michale. MSM are actually - and correctly - reporting that Trump is not winning the popular vote, not that he is losing the election. The American electoral system allows a president to be elected by a minority and that is what happened this year.

Incidentally, why is there no transparency and accountability in the US election system? It's being reported here that US voting and vote tallying units are not checked before or after an election. There's no way government would ever be allowed to get away with such dodgy practices here!

No, Michale, that's what Ford has always said.

Fortune magazine:

Ford has repeatedly said it has no plans to close any U.S. plants and likely could not do so under the terms of the current United Auto Workers contract that expires in 2019.

Then there's Ford's Twitter stream: https://twitter.com/Ford/with_replies
Scroll down to 27 September 2016

There is no impact on US jobs. Ford’s American workers will build 2 new vehicles at the US plant where small cars are made today.

Michale -

The information I gave you was correct in every particular. It said, if you read it, that at no time did Ford ever intend moving the Kentucky plant yet Trump is taking credit for Ford not moving their Kentucky plant. Well d'uh!

I'm sure there's hundreds of thousands of businesses that have no intention of ever moving to Mexico - is Trump going to take credit for every one of them?

:^/

If Trump is weakening fuel economy standards or other regulations in order to convince Ford to increase US jobs, then Americans as a whole will be paying... for more gas, pollution, possibly lower wages.

If he is then you MAY be right...

Since there is no evidence he is, you are probably wrong...

That should be $58k per year not %58k.

A

If Trump is weakening fuel economy standards or other regulations in order to convince Ford to increase US jobs, then Americans as a whole will be paying... for more gas, pollution, possibly lower wages.

It's the corporate America "heads we win, tails you lose" scenario.

If that's the plan, then Trump would NOT deserve praise.

A

Not sure if you could keep up with some of the discussion the last few days, but I wanted to ask you to consider another column on the issue of wages and income.

I posted this tidbit and people seem to be in denial about it-
The US Census Bureau reported a median personal income of $30,240 for all workers over age 15 with income based on the Current Population Survey for 2015.

The median personal income works out to be about $15 per hour.
Median means half of Americans make more, half of Americans make less.

The median household income is about %58k per year... but that generally includes two or more earners income combined... still around $15 per hour.

Some here seem to believe that $30k per year per individual doesn't qualify as middle class. I disagree.
The reality is that many in the middle class aren't being paid fairly, but people making $30k don't qualify as poor.

Anyway, the problem seems to be that some are delusional or ignorant about how little money half of Americans actually make... or they run in upper middle class circles and view everybody who makes less than them as poor, or something. Getting a straight answer has been difficult. Maybe they will explain it differently finally.

So, will you consider a column that goes into some of these details?

Your previous column on the $15 minimum wage would be well served by a follow up that spreads this knowledge beyond the comment section here. You seem to think the Fight For $15 is a good idea, so a better explanation of the need in our true reality would be nice.

Thanks
A

The Trump administration is off to a good start...

Ford claimed there would be no lost jobs... this is true.

And, of course, Ford would never lie!! :D

If Trump actually did convince Ford to keep all the production in the US, in other words increasing the number of US jobs, then Trump deserves praise bigly.

Agreed....

I hope you are right.
It would be good news for US workers and our economy.

Again... Agreed...

Ford never was going to move the factory to Mexico.

They were going to move small car production to Mexico, and build other cars in the US factory.

Ford claimed there would be no lost jobs... this is true.
However, the NEW jobs that would have been created by keeping all of the production in the US is the issue.

If Trump actually did convince Ford to keep all the production in the US, in other words increasing the number of US jobs, then Trump deserves praise bigly.

I hope you are right.
It would be good news for US workers and our economy.

A

It's hard to find reliable media reports because the vast majority of the MSM are still reporting that Trump is losing the election.. :^/

That's what Ford says NOW, now that Trump has been elected..

But Ford was singing a different tune back when they expected a President Hillary Clinton...

I can find the links if you wish....

Your article was from 3 days ago...

According to TODAY's news, Ford is keeping it's plants in the US...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-18/trump-says-ford-called-to-say-keeping-lincoln-plant-in-kentucky

Reuters:

Ford Motor Co is moving ahead with plans to shift production of small cars to Mexico from Michigan, while "two very important products" will be built in its U.S. factories, Chief Executive Officer Mark Fields told Reuters on Tuesday.

President-elect Donald Trump has criticized Ford for the decision to shift production of Focus small cars to Mexico in 2018, and said he would consider levying tariffs on Mexican-made Fords.

"We’re going forward with our plan to move production of the Ford Focus to Mexico, and importantly that’s to make room for two very important products we’ll be putting back into Michigan plants," Fields said in an interview on the sidelines of the Los Angeles Auto Show. "There will be no job impact whatsoever with this move."

Ford Chairman Bill Ford Jr. said last month he met with Trump. Ford has countered Trump's criticism, saying the company, founded by his great-grandfather, makes more cars and trucks in the United States than any other automaker.

Fields said with U.S. gasoline prices so low, "it's very difficult for us to be able to make money on a vehicle produced in the U.S." in the small car segment. If Ford decided to build the Focus small car line in the United States, and had to raise the price, "we wouldn't sell the vehicle."

The group that represents Ford and other major automakers in the U.S. has asked the Trump transition team to review and consider easing the Obama administration's fuel economy standards, which call for automakers to more than double the fuel efficiency of their fleets to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Fuel economy and trade "are two separate issues," Fields said.

Ford also is moving ahead with plans to use factory capacity in other markets to fill gaps in its U.S. lineup. Company executives used the auto show to promote a small sport utility vehicle called the EcoSport that the company plans to ship from India.

"We already have the plants and investment in other parts of the world.

From Fortune magazine:

In September, Ford confirmed that all of the company’s small-car production will leave U.S. plants and head to lower-cost Mexico by 2019, but no plants would be closed as a result.

Ford has repeatedly said no U.S. jobs will be lost because of the move – and it will produce two new vehicles at a Detroit area plant that built the small cars.

In October, Bill Ford said he had met with Trump to talk about his extensive attacks on the automaker’s investments in Mexico.

Ford said Trump’s criticism was “infuriating” and “frustrating” because of the company’s extensive investments and employment in the United States.

Ford had no intention of ever moving their Kentucky plant to Mexico; they have a contract with United Auto Workers Union that guarantees they will stay in Kentucky. That contract will not expire until 2019.

In his tweets, Trump knowingly misrepresented Ford's position in order to falsely boost his image.

As far as the auto industry in the US is concerned:

"The auto industry is scared," says Paul Eisenstein, publisher of The Detroit Bureau, on online newspaper that covers the industry. "[It] is very seriously scared about the possibility of seeing barriers and trade wars like before the Great Depression."

Under the new republic regime, they have good reason to be scared.

President-elect Donald Trump says on Twitter that Ford Motor Co. won't move Lincoln production from Kentucky to Mexico.

Trump has been feuding with Ford over plans to move small-car production from suburban Detroit to Mexico. CEO Mark Fields says the presidential election didn't change the company's plan.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-trump-aide-says-hes-131915850.html

A Trump administration is already making good on campaign promises...

I don't know if I agree that THAT is the intent...

But I do agree it's the likely result....

One too many shots from the rubber bands...

"He's loopy!! One too many shots from the snake!!"
-Genie, ALADDIN

:D

And look at the total disaster that turned out to be. It is also a conflict of interest.

Both Ellison and Dean are deeply flawed candidates. Backing either of them is tantamount to sabotaging the DNC, presumably in order to destroy it. One wonders why Harry Reid would want to do that but not why Sanders would.

But also always chose the path of least resistance...

BECAUSE she had a full time job??? We'll never know...

But the possibility needs to be addressed...

Personally, if the DNC is that important, especially in the here and now, it would seem to me that a full-time DNC leader is what is required...

Yes, if Democrats want to piss off Trump and the tens of millions of Trump supporters, they should put Ellison in charge at the DNC...

If Democrats actually want to be RELEVANT in the Trump Administration, they won't choose Ellison...

Dean represents the past.. A good past in someways, but the past nonetheless...

If this is all that the Democratic Party has, it IS in deep kaa-kaa...

Don't tell me that the Democratic Party only had *ONE* Barack Obama???

"But he has already won support from not just Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren but also Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. This shows he can get support of the party's pragmatists as well as staunch progressives."

Pragmatists?
Sugar coating is for cereal.
The word implies a positive, when, like Hillary, it actually means supporting policies that are extremely negative and contrary to the wishes of the majority... and by majority, I mean the majority of the country, not just the Democratic party.
Everything from single payer healthcare to breaking up the big banks... all of Bernie's policies polled over 50%.

Dean- "it has increased the number of manufacturing jobs, in particular agricultural jobs"?
I'm sorry?
Did he misspeak or does he truly think they are the same?

As a lobbyists, Dean is no longer qualified.
Period.
He turned to the dark side.

You called Dean pragmatic too?
Somebody needs to sit you down for a long talk.

A