[Snorlax94]

I always find the name-calling on this board odd when some call others “elites.”

1) this is, you know, a fan board for supporters of fancy-pants, wine-and-cheese eating, sailboat-racing Stanford University athletics.
2)It’s kind of ironic when in one post someone is talking about the thousand people who report to him, then turn around name-calling people “elites.” Having hundreds of reports generally is not considered a salt of the earth, lunchpail, blue-collar, paycheck-to-paycheck, common man type of gig.

[Snorlax94]

I always find the name-calling on this board odd when some call others “elites.”

1) this is, you know, a fan board for supporters of fancy-pants, wine-and-cheese eating, sailboat-racing Stanford University athletics.
2)It’s kind of ironic when in one post someone is talking about the thousand people who report to him, then turn around name-calling people “elites.” Having hundreds of reports generally is not considered a salt of the earth, lunchpail, blue-collar, paycheck-to-paycheck, common man type of gig.

[OutsiderFan]

Amtrak is cutting 20% of its workforce in October to kick off its new fiscal year.

I know The Hartford is looking at “cost optimization” now as well. It’s expense ratio is too high. One way the company is doing this is with, you guessed, AI!  

Who needs insurance adjusters (humans who get paid) when the customer can just download an app, take pictures, and have an AI program assess what the payout should be?

One person’s cost cutting is another’s livelihood. Lots of cost cutting gonna happen over the remainder of this year.

[OutsiderFan]

Amtrak is cutting 20% of its workforce in October to kick off its new fiscal year.

I know The Hartford is looking at “cost optimization” now as well. It’s expense ratio is too high. One way the company is doing this is with, you guessed, AI!  

Who needs insurance adjusters (humans who get paid) when the customer can just download an app, take pictures, and have an AI program assess what the payout should be?

One person’s cost cutting is another’s livelihood. Lots of cost cutting gonna happen over the remainder of this year.

[Mick]

I always find the name-calling on this board odd when some call others “elites.”

1) this is, you know, a fan board for supporters of fancy-pants, wine-and-cheese eating, sailboat-racing Stanford University athletics.
2)It’s kind of ironic when in one post someone is talking about the thousand people who report to him, then turn around name-calling people “elites.” Having hundreds of reports generally is not considered a salt of the earth, lunchpail, blue-collar, paycheck-to-paycheck, common man type of gig.

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.

And when I use the term Elite, I refer to people who either founded, proposed, or otherwise foisted the decision to crater the economy on poor bastards like me, and the 40 million who didn't have a choice because they weren't Elite enough, ditto the 80 million who depended on the employment of the 40 million now out of a job.  

I know I just have a dumb Jesuit education, so I looked up "Elite."
e·lite   /əˈlēt,āˈlēt/    noun

1. 1.  a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
   

Much as I like the Inigo Montoya reference -- and I really do -- I think I'm using the word correctly...

[Mick]

I always find the name-calling on this board odd when some call others “elites.”

1) this is, you know, a fan board for supporters of fancy-pants, wine-and-cheese eating, sailboat-racing Stanford University athletics.
2)It’s kind of ironic when in one post someone is talking about the thousand people who report to him, then turn around name-calling people “elites.” Having hundreds of reports generally is not considered a salt of the earth, lunchpail, blue-collar, paycheck-to-paycheck, common man type of gig.

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.

And when I use the term Elite, I refer to people who either founded, proposed, or otherwise foisted the decision to crater the economy on poor bastards like me, and the 40 million who didn't have a choice because they weren't Elite enough, ditto the 80 million who depended on the employment of the 40 million now out of a job.  

I know I just have a dumb Jesuit education, so I looked up "Elite."
e·lite   /əˈlēt,āˈlēt/    noun

1. 1.  a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
   

Much as I like the Inigo Montoya reference -- and I really do -- I think I'm using the word correctly...

[JustAnotherFan]

I always find the name-calling on this board odd when some call others “elites.”

1) this is, you know, a fan board for supporters of fancy-pants, wine-and-cheese eating, sailboat-racing Stanford University athletics.
2)It’s kind of ironic when in one post someone is talking about the thousand people who report to him, then turn around name-calling people “elites.” Having hundreds of reports generally is not considered a salt of the earth, lunchpail, blue-collar, paycheck-to-paycheck, common man type of gig.

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.

And when I use the term Elite, I refer to people who either founded, proposed, or otherwise foisted the decision to crater the economy on poor bastards like me, and the 40 million who didn't have a choice because they weren't Elite enough, ditto the 80 million who depended on the employment of the 40 million now out of a job.  

I know I just have a dumb Jesuit education, so I looked up "Elite."
e·lite   /əˈlēt,āˈlēt/    noun

1. 1.  a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
   

Much as I like the Inigo Montoya reference -- and I really do -- I think I'm using the word correctly...

May I ask how on earth you live paycheck to paycheck? Did you overextend yourself buying up houses to post on AirBnB?

[JustAnotherFan]

I always find the name-calling on this board odd when some call others “elites.”

1) this is, you know, a fan board for supporters of fancy-pants, wine-and-cheese eating, sailboat-racing Stanford University athletics.
2)It’s kind of ironic when in one post someone is talking about the thousand people who report to him, then turn around name-calling people “elites.” Having hundreds of reports generally is not considered a salt of the earth, lunchpail, blue-collar, paycheck-to-paycheck, common man type of gig.

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.

And when I use the term Elite, I refer to people who either founded, proposed, or otherwise foisted the decision to crater the economy on poor bastards like me, and the 40 million who didn't have a choice because they weren't Elite enough, ditto the 80 million who depended on the employment of the 40 million now out of a job.  

I know I just have a dumb Jesuit education, so I looked up "Elite."
e·lite   /əˈlēt,āˈlēt/    noun

1. 1.  a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
   

Much as I like the Inigo Montoya reference -- and I really do -- I think I'm using the word correctly...

May I ask how on earth you live paycheck to paycheck? Did you overextend yourself buying up houses to post on AirBnB?

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1265660999828410369[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1265660999828410369[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

At one point in time there was a genre of story out in various couples making what most people would describe as a comfortable income talking about how they had trouble making ends meet.  See, for example these two (and there are many in the genre):

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/budget-b...-save.html
https://www.fastcompany.com/90338071/we-...o-paycheck

These stories inevitably provoke a backlash, but of course how secure one feels with a given income is entirely subjective.  I don't think it's appropriate to question someone else's perception of their economic situation regardless of how much they make.

BC

[BostonCard]

At one point in time there was a genre of story out in various couples making what most people would describe as a comfortable income talking about how they had trouble making ends meet.  See, for example these two (and there are many in the genre):

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/budget-b...-save.html
https://www.fastcompany.com/90338071/we-...o-paycheck

These stories inevitably provoke a backlash, but of course how secure one feels with a given income is entirely subjective.  I don't think it's appropriate to question someone else's perception of their economic situation regardless of how much they make.

BC

[Mick]

May I ask how on earth you live paycheck to paycheck? Did you overextend yourself buying up houses to post on AirBnB?

Fairly certain I never discussed my paycheck or compensation on this (or any other) public forum, so you are likely inferring an overly high comp package.  Let's just say it's not Elite. And the number of houses I own has fluctuated between 0 and 1 my entire adult life.  So no, I don't have rental housing, vacation housing, mother-in-law quarters or (at this moment) even a garage.

[Mick]

May I ask how on earth you live paycheck to paycheck? Did you overextend yourself buying up houses to post on AirBnB?

Fairly certain I never discussed my paycheck or compensation on this (or any other) public forum, so you are likely inferring an overly high comp package.  Let's just say it's not Elite. And the number of houses I own has fluctuated between 0 and 1 my entire adult life.  So no, I don't have rental housing, vacation housing, mother-in-law quarters or (at this moment) even a garage.

[Snorlax94]

The thing about the term "elite," is that in recent years it's been used as a disparaging term in the culture wars -- it's used to create an "us" vs "them" mentality, and its intent is to paint some "elite other" as an uncaring, out-of-touch, pompous, wealthy group of "others" who do not care for the common man.

So I just don't think it makes sense to use that term here on the Cardboard. Like I said, it's just weird for one Cardboarder calling another Cardboarder an "elite." Most of the people here live in Northern California -- with its high levels of college completion and the extremely high cost of living. Only about one-third of Americans complete college. So, far a Cardboarder to call other Cardboarders "elites" is like someone in Spider-Man cosplay calling someone wearing a Starfleet uniform a nerd at a sci-fi convention.

Second, I don't find the term "elites" helpful. It's used to sow divisions, it's used to imply other people are callous, out-of-touch and so well-to-do that they are cruel and oblivious in their mistreatment of the less fortunate, and with those connotations, used to sow divisions and de-humanize others. It's also, I feel, been used to delegitimize science and journalism and create a "gaslighting" environment.

Listen Mick, I like anybody who likes Princess Bride and if we were in the stands cheering like mad I think we'd get along great while still thinking the other was totally wrong about political views, which, heck, is every family reunion in the country. You gotta trust me that I -- and I think pretty much everyone here -- is not trying to tank the economy just to hurt Trump. No one here wants you or anyone else's business ruined. Everyone here cares about the suffering and hardships of other Cardboarders and of people in general.

I don't know for sure what the right course is. I don't know what's going to happen in Santa Clara or Georgia. But I genuinely believe that the best course to save lives *and* to get the economy growing is to use Shelter-In-Places to really get things under control first, and to work like mad to get measures in place like testing, contact tracing, masks and PPE, best practices, sanitization, and everything. I genuinely believe people truly need to be very safe, and I think it's both a miscalculation (and wrong) to try to convince other people it's safe if I honestly don't believe that it is for me and my family. You know, maybe the Georgia experiment will be a success, and its success would provide evidence that other states should move faster. On the other hand, what if the Bay Area is right, and by July the economy is roaring and it will provide an example for how other places can get their economies moving in a similar fashion. 

But I can assure you I don't advocate this path because I want to hurt one political party or because I don't care or am oblivious to human economic suffering. And plenty of us have been pretty po'ed at our local (Democratic) officials who have moved slowly on their end of getting this going with testing, contact tracing, and more. But I really believe it is the best, most effective and most responsible course. It's also one that other countries have followed successfully around the world.

[Snorlax94]

The thing about the term "elite," is that in recent years it's been used as a disparaging term in the culture wars -- it's used to create an "us" vs "them" mentality, and its intent is to paint some "elite other" as an uncaring, out-of-touch, pompous, wealthy group of "others" who do not care for the common man.

So I just don't think it makes sense to use that term here on the Cardboard. Like I said, it's just weird for one Cardboarder calling another Cardboarder an "elite." Most of the people here live in Northern California -- with its high levels of college completion and the extremely high cost of living. Only about one-third of Americans complete college. So, far a Cardboarder to call other Cardboarders "elites" is like someone in Spider-Man cosplay calling someone wearing a Starfleet uniform a nerd at a sci-fi convention.

Second, I don't find the term "elites" helpful. It's used to sow divisions, it's used to imply other people are callous, out-of-touch and so well-to-do that they are cruel and oblivious in their mistreatment of the less fortunate, and with those connotations, used to sow divisions and de-humanize others. It's also, I feel, been used to delegitimize science and journalism and create a "gaslighting" environment.

Listen Mick, I like anybody who likes Princess Bride and if we were in the stands cheering like mad I think we'd get along great while still thinking the other was totally wrong about political views, which, heck, is every family reunion in the country. You gotta trust me that I -- and I think pretty much everyone here -- is not trying to tank the economy just to hurt Trump. No one here wants you or anyone else's business ruined. Everyone here cares about the suffering and hardships of other Cardboarders and of people in general.

I don't know for sure what the right course is. I don't know what's going to happen in Santa Clara or Georgia. But I genuinely believe that the best course to save lives *and* to get the economy growing is to use Shelter-In-Places to really get things under control first, and to work like mad to get measures in place like testing, contact tracing, masks and PPE, best practices, sanitization, and everything. I genuinely believe people truly need to be very safe, and I think it's both a miscalculation (and wrong) to try to convince other people it's safe if I honestly don't believe that it is for me and my family. You know, maybe the Georgia experiment will be a success, and its success would provide evidence that other states should move faster. On the other hand, what if the Bay Area is right, and by July the economy is roaring and it will provide an example for how other places can get their economies moving in a similar fashion. 

But I can assure you I don't advocate this path because I want to hurt one political party or because I don't care or am oblivious to human economic suffering. And plenty of us have been pretty po'ed at our local (Democratic) officials who have moved slowly on their end of getting this going with testing, contact tracing, and more. But I really believe it is the best, most effective and most responsible course. It's also one that other countries have followed successfully around the world.

[oregontim]

The thing about the term "elite," is that in recent years it's been used as a disparaging term in the culture wars -- it's used to create an "us" vs "them" mentality, and its intent is to paint some "elite other" as an uncaring, out-of-touch, pompous, wealthy group of "others" who do not care for the common man.



So I just don't think it makes sense to use that term here on the Cardboard. Like I said, it's just weird for one Cardboarder calling another Cardboarder an "elite." Most of the people here live in Northern California -- with its high levels of college completion and the extremely high cost of living. Only about one-third of Americans complete college. So, far a Cardboarder to call other Cardboarders "elites" is like someone in Spider-Man cosplay calling someone wearing a Starfleet uniform a nerd at a sci-fi convention.



Second, I don't find the term "elites" helpful. It's used to sow divisions, it's used to imply other people are callous, out-of-touch and so well-to-do that they are cruel and oblivious in their mistreatment of the less fortunate, and with those connotations, used to sow divisions and de-humanize others. It's also, I feel, been used to delegitimize science and journalism and create a "gaslighting" environment.

 +1

I hate the codes and dog whistles in politics. It's been growing for decades and it's getting geometrically worse. Emotional triggers. Bad for all.

[oregontim]

The thing about the term "elite," is that in recent years it's been used as a disparaging term in the culture wars -- it's used to create an "us" vs "them" mentality, and its intent is to paint some "elite other" as an uncaring, out-of-touch, pompous, wealthy group of "others" who do not care for the common man.



So I just don't think it makes sense to use that term here on the Cardboard. Like I said, it's just weird for one Cardboarder calling another Cardboarder an "elite." Most of the people here live in Northern California -- with its high levels of college completion and the extremely high cost of living. Only about one-third of Americans complete college. So, far a Cardboarder to call other Cardboarders "elites" is like someone in Spider-Man cosplay calling someone wearing a Starfleet uniform a nerd at a sci-fi convention.



Second, I don't find the term "elites" helpful. It's used to sow divisions, it's used to imply other people are callous, out-of-touch and so well-to-do that they are cruel and oblivious in their mistreatment of the less fortunate, and with those connotations, used to sow divisions and de-humanize others. It's also, I feel, been used to delegitimize science and journalism and create a "gaslighting" environment.

 +1

I hate the codes and dog whistles in politics. It's been growing for decades and it's getting geometrically worse. Emotional triggers. Bad for all.

[stupac2]

Back to the original topic, here's a contrary take: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...c-recovery

I think Krugman was by and large accurate about the problems with recovery in the last recession, so I'm inclined to think he's more likely than average to be right this time around. Here's the part about the recovery:

My take is that the Covid slump is more like 1979-82 than 2007-09: it wasn’t caused by imbalances that will take years to correct. So that would suggest fast recovery once the virus is contained. But some big caveats.

One is that we don’t know how long the pandemic will last. Right now, we’re probably opening too soon, which will actually extend the period of economic weakness.

Another is that even if we didn’t have big imbalances before, the slump may be creating them now. Think of business closures, which will require time to reverse.

And I also wonder how much long-term change we’ll experience as a result of the virus. If we have a permanent shift to more telecommuting and less in-person retail, then we’ll have to shift workers to new sectors, which will take time. That was an argument lots of people made, wrongly, in 2009, but it could be true now.

All that said, right now I don’t see the case for a multiyear depression. People expecting this slump to look like the last one seem to me to be fighting the last war.

[stupac2]

Back to the original topic, here's a contrary take: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...c-recovery

I think Krugman was by and large accurate about the problems with recovery in the last recession, so I'm inclined to think he's more likely than average to be right this time around. Here's the part about the recovery:

My take is that the Covid slump is more like 1979-82 than 2007-09: it wasn’t caused by imbalances that will take years to correct. So that would suggest fast recovery once the virus is contained. But some big caveats.

One is that we don’t know how long the pandemic will last. Right now, we’re probably opening too soon, which will actually extend the period of economic weakness.

Another is that even if we didn’t have big imbalances before, the slump may be creating them now. Think of business closures, which will require time to reverse.

And I also wonder how much long-term change we’ll experience as a result of the virus. If we have a permanent shift to more telecommuting and less in-person retail, then we’ll have to shift workers to new sectors, which will take time. That was an argument lots of people made, wrongly, in 2009, but it could be true now.

All that said, right now I don’t see the case for a multiyear depression. People expecting this slump to look like the last one seem to me to be fighting the last war.

[Mick]

Back to the original topic, here's a contrary take: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...c-recovery

I think Krugman was by and large accurate about the problems with recovery in the last recession, so I'm inclined to think he's more likely than average to be right this time around. Here's the part about the recovery:

My take is that the Covid slump is more like 1979-82 than 2007-09: it wasn’t caused by imbalances that will take years to correct. So that would suggest fast recovery once the virus is contained. But some big caveats.

One is that we don’t know how long the pandemic will last. Right now, we’re probably opening too soon, which will actually extend the period of economic weakness.

Another is that even if we didn’t have big imbalances before, the slump may be creating them now. Think of business closures, which will require time to reverse.

And I also wonder how much long-term change we’ll experience as a result of the virus. If we have a permanent shift to more telecommuting and less in-person retail, then we’ll have to shift workers to new sectors, which will take time. That was an argument lots of people made, wrongly, in 2009, but it could be true now.

All that said, right now I don’t see the case for a multiyear depression. People expecting this slump to look like the last one seem to me to be fighting the last war.

All due respect to Krugman, our self-inflicted economic woes are much deeper and broader than people originally thought.  The Fed's Beige Book indicates an economy worsening to an unexpected degree:
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/49980...t-covid-19

The good news is that the cratered economy will sink Trump's re-election hopes.  Tech billionaires are conspiring against Trump to boost Joe. They're even stronger in COVID-19 times.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/27/212...ic-schmidt

Trump allies are nervous:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/27...ign-283602

Trump's former political advisors know he's down in key swing states:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/26...sie-283089

And the polls show Trump slipping. As I'd predicted months ago. When Trump took office, he had a 4% positive approval rating. A month ago, it was 5% negative. Yesterday, the disparity between positive and negative views of Trump was -11.2%:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tru...l-ratings/

[Mick]

Back to the original topic, here's a contrary take: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...c-recovery

I think Krugman was by and large accurate about the problems with recovery in the last recession, so I'm inclined to think he's more likely than average to be right this time around. Here's the part about the recovery:

My take is that the Covid slump is more like 1979-82 than 2007-09: it wasn’t caused by imbalances that will take years to correct. So that would suggest fast recovery once the virus is contained. But some big caveats.

One is that we don’t know how long the pandemic will last. Right now, we’re probably opening too soon, which will actually extend the period of economic weakness.

Another is that even if we didn’t have big imbalances before, the slump may be creating them now. Think of business closures, which will require time to reverse.

And I also wonder how much long-term change we’ll experience as a result of the virus. If we have a permanent shift to more telecommuting and less in-person retail, then we’ll have to shift workers to new sectors, which will take time. That was an argument lots of people made, wrongly, in 2009, but it could be true now.

All that said, right now I don’t see the case for a multiyear depression. People expecting this slump to look like the last one seem to me to be fighting the last war.

All due respect to Krugman, our self-inflicted economic woes are much deeper and broader than people originally thought.  The Fed's Beige Book indicates an economy worsening to an unexpected degree:
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/49980...t-covid-19

The good news is that the cratered economy will sink Trump's re-election hopes.  Tech billionaires are conspiring against Trump to boost Joe. They're even stronger in COVID-19 times.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/27/212...ic-schmidt

Trump allies are nervous:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/27...ign-283602

Trump's former political advisors know he's down in key swing states:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/26...sie-283089

And the polls show Trump slipping. As I'd predicted months ago. When Trump took office, he had a 4% positive approval rating. A month ago, it was 5% negative. Yesterday, the disparity between positive and negative views of Trump was -11.2%:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tru...l-ratings/

[OutsiderFan]

American Airlines to cut 30% of its management and support staff.

The White House refusing to release an economic forecast.

Covid cases rising in 20 states.

I'm just gonna continue piling dirt on that Furman guy from Harvard.

[OutsiderFan]

American Airlines to cut 30% of its management and support staff.

The White House refusing to release an economic forecast.

Covid cases rising in 20 states.

I'm just gonna continue piling dirt on that Furman guy from Harvard.

[CornFed]

[quote="stupac2" pid='281986' dateline='1590625967']


And the polls show Trump slipping. As I'd predicted months ago. When Trump took office, he had a 4% positive approval rating. A month ago, it was 5% negative. Yesterday, the disparity between positive and negative views of Trump was -11.2%:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tru...l-ratings/

Gallup's published results as of November 17, 2016

"PRINCETON, N.J. -- Donald Trump's favorable rating has improved from 34% to 42% after his election as president. While a majority in the U.S. still have an unfavorable view of him, his image is the best it has been since March 2011 when 43% viewed him positively.

Gallup measured opinions of Trump infrequently from 1999 through 2015, and then on a continuous basis from June 2015 through the election. Americans have consistently viewed Trump more negatively than positively. The sole exception in Gallup's trend came in 2005, when Trump's reality show The Apprentice was among the most popular TV programs. At that time, 50% of Americans had a favorable opinion of Trump and 38% an unfavorable one.
Trump's favorability ratings have increased among all political party groups since the election. Republicans have shown the greatest increase -- 11 percentage points -- to 82%. Thirty-nine percent of independents, up from 32%, and 10% of Democrats, up from 5%, view Trump positively."

Trump has never had consistently positive approval ratings and his ratings were only slightly less negative than usual after the election in 2016.

[CornFed]

[quote="stupac2" pid='281986' dateline='1590625967']


And the polls show Trump slipping. As I'd predicted months ago. When Trump took office, he had a 4% positive approval rating. A month ago, it was 5% negative. Yesterday, the disparity between positive and negative views of Trump was -11.2%:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tru...l-ratings/

Gallup's published results as of November 17, 2016

"PRINCETON, N.J. -- Donald Trump's favorable rating has improved from 34% to 42% after his election as president. While a majority in the U.S. still have an unfavorable view of him, his image is the best it has been since March 2011 when 43% viewed him positively.

Gallup measured opinions of Trump infrequently from 1999 through 2015, and then on a continuous basis from June 2015 through the election. Americans have consistently viewed Trump more negatively than positively. The sole exception in Gallup's trend came in 2005, when Trump's reality show The Apprentice was among the most popular TV programs. At that time, 50% of Americans had a favorable opinion of Trump and 38% an unfavorable one.
Trump's favorability ratings have increased among all political party groups since the election. Republicans have shown the greatest increase -- 11 percentage points -- to 82%. Thirty-nine percent of independents, up from 32%, and 10% of Democrats, up from 5%, view Trump positively."

Trump has never had consistently positive approval ratings and his ratings were only slightly less negative than usual after the election in 2016.

[OutsiderFan]

Oh, look: https://www.propublica.org/article/whist...gage-funds

At least the Fed is standing by ready to buy up all these garbage bonds backed by fraudulent mortgages, so the suckers that bought these fraudulent bonds comprised of fraudulent mortgages, don't have to lose their money. Of course, this news will put a big damper on market enthusiasm as more people realize just how fraudulent the entire market is, or maybe isn't?  Who knows, all it takes is a loss of confidence to send markets tumbling, and nothing kills confidence more than investors not being able to trust the numbers.

[OutsiderFan]

Oh, look: https://www.propublica.org/article/whist...gage-funds

At least the Fed is standing by ready to buy up all these garbage bonds backed by fraudulent mortgages, so the suckers that bought these fraudulent bonds comprised of fraudulent mortgages, don't have to lose their money. Of course, this news will put a big damper on market enthusiasm as more people realize just how fraudulent the entire market is, or maybe isn't?  Who knows, all it takes is a loss of confidence to send markets tumbling, and nothing kills confidence more than investors not being able to trust the numbers.

[murky]

...

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.
...

Mick, 

First let me say that I'm sorry to hear that you had to let people go.   That has to suck and take a toll.

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but I work for a company that's gone through many rounds of various layoffs, workforce reductions, or whatever the term of the day.  The decision to reduce headcount invariably comes from a pretty high level in management.  My impression is that, at least lately, the decision of specifically who gets terminated also comes at least one level, if not two, higher than the reporting manager - who finds out who to notify shortly before notice is given.

May I ask if it was your decision how to implement the cuts, or whether you had a say?

[murky]

...

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.
...

Mick, 

First let me say that I'm sorry to hear that you had to let people go.   That has to suck and take a toll.

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but I work for a company that's gone through many rounds of various layoffs, workforce reductions, or whatever the term of the day.  The decision to reduce headcount invariably comes from a pretty high level in management.  My impression is that, at least lately, the decision of specifically who gets terminated also comes at least one level, if not two, higher than the reporting manager - who finds out who to notify shortly before notice is given.

May I ask if it was your decision how to implement the cuts, or whether you had a say?

[Mick]

...

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.
...

Mick, 

First let me say that I'm sorry to hear that you had to let people go.   That has to suck and take a toll.

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but I work for a company that's gone through many rounds of various layoffs, workforce reductions, or whatever the term of the day.  The decision to reduce headcount invariably comes from a pretty high level in management.  My impression is that, at least lately, the decision of specifically who gets terminated also comes at least one level, if not two, higher than the reporting manager - who finds out who to notify shortly before notice is given.

May I ask if it was your decision how to implement the cuts, or whether you had a say?

Funny you should mention.  I had an early say, definitely not the final say. I gave them a list of my preferred eight.  I wanted to harm the overall group as little as possible, and I wanted to harm the individuals as little as possible (in other words, most of my lowest paid individuals were on the list, both because they contributed the least to our overall mission, they were the most replaceable and they could replace their income most easily).

Sr. management wanted me to eliminate three people that I wanted to keep (I kept all three). One is superb at her job but not a great writer and is a bit offputting to the lawyers.  So I don't let her write and I try to minimize her interaction with the attorneys.  The other two, let's just say could have been victims of politics.  They're still with me.  You literally wouldn't believe the circumstances if I told you.

And separately, my top two choices for furlough were vetoed.  See prior comment.

[Mick]

...

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.
...

Mick, 

First let me say that I'm sorry to hear that you had to let people go.   That has to suck and take a toll.

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but I work for a company that's gone through many rounds of various layoffs, workforce reductions, or whatever the term of the day.  The decision to reduce headcount invariably comes from a pretty high level in management.  My impression is that, at least lately, the decision of specifically who gets terminated also comes at least one level, if not two, higher than the reporting manager - who finds out who to notify shortly before notice is given.

May I ask if it was your decision how to implement the cuts, or whether you had a say?

Funny you should mention.  I had an early say, definitely not the final say. I gave them a list of my preferred eight.  I wanted to harm the overall group as little as possible, and I wanted to harm the individuals as little as possible (in other words, most of my lowest paid individuals were on the list, both because they contributed the least to our overall mission, they were the most replaceable and they could replace their income most easily).

Sr. management wanted me to eliminate three people that I wanted to keep (I kept all three). One is superb at her job but not a great writer and is a bit offputting to the lawyers.  So I don't let her write and I try to minimize her interaction with the attorneys.  The other two, let's just say could have been victims of politics.  They're still with me.  You literally wouldn't believe the circumstances if I told you.

And separately, my top two choices for furlough were vetoed.  See prior comment.

[Mick]

The thing about the term "elite," is that in recent years it's been used as a disparaging term in the culture wars -- it's used to create an "us" vs "them" mentality, and its intent is to paint some "elite other" as an uncaring, out-of-touch, pompous, wealthy group of "others" who do not care for the common man.

So I just don't think it makes sense to use that term here on the Cardboard. Like I said, it's just weird for one Cardboarder calling another Cardboarder an "elite." Most of the people here live in Northern California -- with its high levels of college completion and the extremely high cost of living. Only about one-third of Americans complete college. So, far a Cardboarder to call other Cardboarders "elites" is like someone in Spider-Man cosplay calling someone wearing a Starfleet uniform a nerd at a sci-fi convention.

Second, I don't find the term "elites" helpful. It's used to sow divisions, it's used to imply other people are callous, out-of-touch and so well-to-do that they are cruel and oblivious in their mistreatment of the less fortunate, and with those connotations, used to sow divisions and de-humanize others. It's also, I feel, been used to delegitimize science and journalism and create a "gaslighting" environment.

 +1
I hate the codes and dog whistles in politics. It's been growing for decades and it's getting geometrically worse. Emotional triggers. Bad for all.

About ten years ago, I ran the sales and marketing for a very large law firm, and I hired one of my former employees from the Big Four as my equivalent of sales director.  Her first assignment was to strategize the sales approach for a large national trucking firm with the former chair of our law firm.  He was still an Elite rainmaker.  We were going up against our toughest competitor, our Moby Dick, if you will.

In the first fifteen minutes of the call, the former chair lays out his preferred strategy.  Essentially, he wanted to position our firm as a mini-version of our competition, by adopting some of the positioning strategies they did (six sigma and a services version of lean manufacturing – neither of which were in our wheelhouse).  What he suggested was completely and noticeably foreign to our firm and absolutely would not have worked.

After the rainmaker’s 15 minute opening, my brash sales director says forcibly, “No, we’re not going to do that.”  The former chair starts to splutter and she says, not very patiently, “We’re not going to win by looking like a weaker version of our competition.  We’ll win by emphasizing our strengths, our experience in transportation and the fact that we know more than anyone about this branch of the law.”

The chair was convinced we’re going to lose.  He reluctantly goes along with it.  And we won that client.  And we won his next lead.  And the next.  And the next.  And the next.  After five consecutive high profile wins, this Elite rainmaker was ready to run through a brick wall for my sales director.

I later told my sales director that if she’d lost that first client, she’d have been out of a job. Which she acknowledged, and she said (paraphrased)  “I know he’s an Elite.  But we couldn’t afford for him to be wrong.”

It’s very common for lawyers, from inexperienced to Elite rainmakers, to try to dictate to me what a sales strategy should be.  And I’m fine with that.  And I tell them I’m fine with it, and then I say “But you’d better win.  If you don’t win, we’ll do it my way from here on out.”  Because they have to go through the learning curve, if they don’t want to listen to reason out of the gate.  The difference is that the lawyers have time to learn.

I feel the same way with any individual or group or class who essentially are in a position to force a specific strategy to solve a problem.  By definition, whether or not you think it is a pejorative, these are the Elites.  There needs to be an Elite, people who are better trained, better educated, better at strategy, who have a better command of an overall situation, who are more perceptive and can think more quickly and more clearly than everyone else.  Someone has to carry that burden.  And other Elites (Media and Political) support their process.

But they’d better be right.  The stakes are too high.  We acknowledge the authorities (generally speaking) and their right to make those decisions.  They had better be right, or it dooms us all.

In the pell-mell rush to shut the economy down and throw 40 million+ people out of work, it seems to me that the political, media and medical Elites have next to no sympathy for the lowest castes in our society. I see the celebrity advertisements designed to mollify the Deplorables -- “We’re all in this together” – but...we’re not in this together.  If you have a well-stocked larder, well-provisioned house and you can Shelter in Place without a job for an extended period of time, good for you. But the Deplorables aren’t in that position.  They don’t have savings.  They live check to check.  And I don’t hear genuine sympathy for the people whose lives have been ruined by this economy and, IMHO, will be ruined for years to come.

More to the point, I don’t believe the Elites are right.  A century ago, our country not only survived, but thrived against the Spanish Flu. 
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/...etters&amp
Today, our Elites went the other direction.  They shipwrecked our economy and claimed it wouldn't matter.  They've promised a “V” shaped recovery. That is highly unlikely. Instead, we’ll have an ongoing nightmare of an economy.

I'm sorry my use of the word "Elite" bothers you.  And you're right, in the scope of this pandemic it's the very definition of "us" versus "them."  "Us" will succeed enough -- perhaps not thrive.  "Them" are screwed, and it's starting to dawn on them that they're screwed.  Five consecutive nights of rioting and looting...get used to it.  It will get much worse once the stimulus checks run out.

That’s all for me.  I can't really stomach this conversation or the lack of perception by people who should, frankly, know better.

[Mick]

The thing about the term "elite," is that in recent years it's been used as a disparaging term in the culture wars -- it's used to create an "us" vs "them" mentality, and its intent is to paint some "elite other" as an uncaring, out-of-touch, pompous, wealthy group of "others" who do not care for the common man.

So I just don't think it makes sense to use that term here on the Cardboard. Like I said, it's just weird for one Cardboarder calling another Cardboarder an "elite." Most of the people here live in Northern California -- with its high levels of college completion and the extremely high cost of living. Only about one-third of Americans complete college. So, far a Cardboarder to call other Cardboarders "elites" is like someone in Spider-Man cosplay calling someone wearing a Starfleet uniform a nerd at a sci-fi convention.

Second, I don't find the term "elites" helpful. It's used to sow divisions, it's used to imply other people are callous, out-of-touch and so well-to-do that they are cruel and oblivious in their mistreatment of the less fortunate, and with those connotations, used to sow divisions and de-humanize others. It's also, I feel, been used to delegitimize science and journalism and create a "gaslighting" environment.

 +1
I hate the codes and dog whistles in politics. It's been growing for decades and it's getting geometrically worse. Emotional triggers. Bad for all.

About ten years ago, I ran the sales and marketing for a very large law firm, and I hired one of my former employees from the Big Four as my equivalent of sales director.  Her first assignment was to strategize the sales approach for a large national trucking firm with the former chair of our law firm.  He was still an Elite rainmaker.  We were going up against our toughest competitor, our Moby Dick, if you will.

In the first fifteen minutes of the call, the former chair lays out his preferred strategy.  Essentially, he wanted to position our firm as a mini-version of our competition, by adopting some of the positioning strategies they did (six sigma and a services version of lean manufacturing – neither of which were in our wheelhouse).  What he suggested was completely and noticeably foreign to our firm and absolutely would not have worked.

After the rainmaker’s 15 minute opening, my brash sales director says forcibly, “No, we’re not going to do that.”  The former chair starts to splutter and she says, not very patiently, “We’re not going to win by looking like a weaker version of our competition.  We’ll win by emphasizing our strengths, our experience in transportation and the fact that we know more than anyone about this branch of the law.”

The chair was convinced we’re going to lose.  He reluctantly goes along with it.  And we won that client.  And we won his next lead.  And the next.  And the next.  And the next.  After five consecutive high profile wins, this Elite rainmaker was ready to run through a brick wall for my sales director.

I later told my sales director that if she’d lost that first client, she’d have been out of a job. Which she acknowledged, and she said (paraphrased)  “I know he’s an Elite.  But we couldn’t afford for him to be wrong.”

It’s very common for lawyers, from inexperienced to Elite rainmakers, to try to dictate to me what a sales strategy should be.  And I’m fine with that.  And I tell them I’m fine with it, and then I say “But you’d better win.  If you don’t win, we’ll do it my way from here on out.”  Because they have to go through the learning curve, if they don’t want to listen to reason out of the gate.  The difference is that the lawyers have time to learn.

I feel the same way with any individual or group or class who essentially are in a position to force a specific strategy to solve a problem.  By definition, whether or not you think it is a pejorative, these are the Elites.  There needs to be an Elite, people who are better trained, better educated, better at strategy, who have a better command of an overall situation, who are more perceptive and can think more quickly and more clearly than everyone else.  Someone has to carry that burden.  And other Elites (Media and Political) support their process.

But they’d better be right.  The stakes are too high.  We acknowledge the authorities (generally speaking) and their right to make those decisions.  They had better be right, or it dooms us all.

In the pell-mell rush to shut the economy down and throw 40 million+ people out of work, it seems to me that the political, media and medical Elites have next to no sympathy for the lowest castes in our society. I see the celebrity advertisements designed to mollify the Deplorables -- “We’re all in this together” – but...we’re not in this together.  If you have a well-stocked larder, well-provisioned house and you can Shelter in Place without a job for an extended period of time, good for you. But the Deplorables aren’t in that position.  They don’t have savings.  They live check to check.  And I don’t hear genuine sympathy for the people whose lives have been ruined by this economy and, IMHO, will be ruined for years to come.

More to the point, I don’t believe the Elites are right.  A century ago, our country not only survived, but thrived against the Spanish Flu. 
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/...etters&amp
Today, our Elites went the other direction.  They shipwrecked our economy and claimed it wouldn't matter.  They've promised a “V” shaped recovery. That is highly unlikely. Instead, we’ll have an ongoing nightmare of an economy.

I'm sorry my use of the word "Elite" bothers you.  And you're right, in the scope of this pandemic it's the very definition of "us" versus "them."  "Us" will succeed enough -- perhaps not thrive.  "Them" are screwed, and it's starting to dawn on them that they're screwed.  Five consecutive nights of rioting and looting...get used to it.  It will get much worse once the stimulus checks run out.

That’s all for me.  I can't really stomach this conversation or the lack of perception by people who should, frankly, know better.

[2006alum]

I'm sorry my use of the word "Elite" bothers you.  And you're right, in the scope of this pandemic it's the very definition of "us" versus "them."  "Us" will succeed enough -- perhaps not thrive.  "Them" are screwed, and it's starting to dawn on them that they're screwed.  Five consecutive nights of rioting and looting...get used to it.  It will get much worse once the stimulus checks run out.

That’s all for me.  I can't really stomach this conversation or the lack of perception by people who should, frankly, know better.

To the degree you think the rioters are rioting because of "elites," the "elites" they are rebelling against are police departments, the prison industrial complex, and the BBQ Becky's who call the cops on black people. All of those problems have existed for decades (and centuries) before any governmental entity started making decisions about how to handle this pandemic. It is most assuredly not public health officials they are protesting against.

[2006alum]

I'm sorry my use of the word "Elite" bothers you.  And you're right, in the scope of this pandemic it's the very definition of "us" versus "them."  "Us" will succeed enough -- perhaps not thrive.  "Them" are screwed, and it's starting to dawn on them that they're screwed.  Five consecutive nights of rioting and looting...get used to it.  It will get much worse once the stimulus checks run out.

That’s all for me.  I can't really stomach this conversation or the lack of perception by people who should, frankly, know better.

To the degree you think the rioters are rioting because of "elites," the "elites" they are rebelling against are police departments, the prison industrial complex, and the BBQ Becky's who call the cops on black people. All of those problems have existed for decades (and centuries) before any governmental entity started making decisions about how to handle this pandemic. It is most assuredly not public health officials they are protesting against.

[Snorlax94]

"Us" will succeed enough -- perhaps not thrive.  "Them" are screwed, and it's starting to dawn on them that they're screwed.  Five consecutive nights of rioting and looting...get used to it.  It will get much worse once the stimulus checks run out.

That’s all for me.  I can't really stomach this conversation or the lack of perception by people who should, frankly, know better.

To 2006Alum’s point, I don’t think the protests and unrest are due to your attributions.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEZh0C-pmaw

Or, as LeBron Instagrammed:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CAq3fpCgyve/

I am pretty sure the cause of the protests is not because we haven’t enacted more economic policies which you have prescribed.

[Snorlax94]

"Us" will succeed enough -- perhaps not thrive.  "Them" are screwed, and it's starting to dawn on them that they're screwed.  Five consecutive nights of rioting and looting...get used to it.  It will get much worse once the stimulus checks run out.

That’s all for me.  I can't really stomach this conversation or the lack of perception by people who should, frankly, know better.

To 2006Alum’s point, I don’t think the protests and unrest are due to your attributions.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEZh0C-pmaw

Or, as LeBron Instagrammed:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CAq3fpCgyve/

I am pretty sure the cause of the protests is not because we haven’t enacted more economic policies which you have prescribed.

[BostonCard]

This thread has the potential for going off the rails really quickly.  I don't want to be unsympathetic to people out there who are very hurt by what transpired in Minneapolis and more broadly, but getting into the underlying causes of the protests, rioting, and looting out there is going to take this thread sideways in a hurry.

BC

---

More to the point, I don’t believe the Elites are right.  A century ago, our country not only survived, but thrived against the Spanish Flu. 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/...etters&amp

Today, our Elites went the other direction.  They shipwrecked our economy and claimed it wouldn't matter.  They've promised a “V” shaped recovery. That is highly unlikely. Instead, we’ll have an ongoing nightmare of an economy.

Funny you mention the Spanish Flu.  In context, I understand you to mean that the "elites" of the day in 1918 stood aside and let the flu pandemic spread without implementing any social distancing measures.  Not only is that false, but it turns out that the regions of the country where more stringent measures were adopted not only had fewer deaths than those who delayed implementing social distancing measures, but also that those regions did better economically.

I've cited this 2007 paper looking at "nonpharmacological interventions" (AKA social distancing) and the consequences of influenza:

Conclusions These findings demonstrate a strong association between early, sustained, and layered application of nonpharmaceutical interventions and mitigating the consequences of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in the United States. In planning for future severe influenza pandemics, nonpharmaceutical interventions should be considered for inclusion as companion measures to developing effective vaccines and medications for prophylaxis and treatment.

Not only that, but these measures resulted in higher subsequent economic growth:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...he-economy



BC

[BostonCard]

This thread has the potential for going off the rails really quickly.  I don't want to be unsympathetic to people out there who are very hurt by what transpired in Minneapolis and more broadly, but getting into the underlying causes of the protests, rioting, and looting out there is going to take this thread sideways in a hurry.

BC

---

More to the point, I don’t believe the Elites are right.  A century ago, our country not only survived, but thrived against the Spanish Flu. 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/...etters&amp

Today, our Elites went the other direction.  They shipwrecked our economy and claimed it wouldn't matter.  They've promised a “V” shaped recovery. That is highly unlikely. Instead, we’ll have an ongoing nightmare of an economy.

Funny you mention the Spanish Flu.  In context, I understand you to mean that the "elites" of the day in 1918 stood aside and let the flu pandemic spread without implementing any social distancing measures.  Not only is that false, but it turns out that the regions of the country where more stringent measures were adopted not only had fewer deaths than those who delayed implementing social distancing measures, but also that those regions did better economically.

I've cited this 2007 paper looking at "nonpharmacological interventions" (AKA social distancing) and the consequences of influenza:

Conclusions These findings demonstrate a strong association between early, sustained, and layered application of nonpharmaceutical interventions and mitigating the consequences of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in the United States. In planning for future severe influenza pandemics, nonpharmaceutical interventions should be considered for inclusion as companion measures to developing effective vaccines and medications for prophylaxis and treatment.

Not only that, but these measures resulted in higher subsequent economic growth:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...he-economy



BC