Most Americans Say Wealth Hasn’t Improved During Trump Years

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Of course, opinions aren’t facts. Most Americans have been better off each year since 2008. But there’s also a greater collection of wealth happening and so the gains aren’t exactly as obvious as they were a generation ago. When an autoplant opens in your town it employs thousands of people who are all earning $80K-$100K/year doing both skilled and unskilled jobs. It’s a huge boon to the community because the added tax dollars means more social infrastructure and the spin offs help employ so many people. When Google opens up in your hometown they employ a few hundred people who are all earning between $100K-$200K/year. The hundred people might spend their money locally but it doesn’t quite have as big of an impact as 10,000 employees spending. The taxes earned on the smaller real estate are much smaller and the lower number of employees don’t help with property taxes either. A lot of the old fashioned benefits of having a major business in your town don’t exist with newer tech companies. So even though the bottom are on average earning more than they did. They’re not quite seeing the same ‘spin off effects’ that would have existed in the past. Municipal taxes need reform.

garlicroastedpotato

For Americans like myself who don’t invest in stocks, I couldn’t care less when I see all caps tweets about the stock market.

rsc07c22

Healthcare, student debt housing. No inflation there s/

krewes

Only people who invest in the market are doing better. That said, the increase in the stock market is mostly driven by lower corporate taxes allowing companies to buy more of their own stocks back.

VerySuperGenius

I think you’re a fool to believe that a president’s term should correlate to wealth of the average person, and these sort of discussions only gain traction because of ignorant readers who just blab an opinion onto their fingers. There are so many components of a president’s term and of the legislation passed during that term that, by saying a president’s policies should correlate to the wealth of individual people in a nation, you are the worst type of economic thinker, because you just generalize and look for an easy answer. Even big things a president controls like tariffs, spending and economic policy have affects that run well past four years into the future. Claim to me that Obama is responsible for the 2008 crash and a bad economy. That’s simpleton talk and should be saved for the weird parts of Facebook. It’s like claiming you are a scientific thinker and then spouting “the deer population has gone down. I wonder if global warming is responsible for this.” It very well may be your hypothesis is true: but your initial and end claims are so simple you may as well never open your mouth. It adds nothing, and it only gains attention because of the key words, when you could have analyzed things so much deeper and got such a better concept of the reality. This is true of economics. There is a great many things we could have discussed that lead to a great discussion about what policies have been duds and haven’t helped economic prosperity, but instead, it’s just a crap shoot for people with big opinions and small thoughts, and no one is better off.

OtherGandalf