The American economy is doing great as reflected in the fact that blue collar wages are surging. However, please don't give President Donald Trump any credit for this. He is merely the passive recipient of "fortunate timing."
That is the theme of the November 14 story in The Economist that can't even get around to giving Trump even begrudging credit for the economic growth that has taken place since he entered office. This is probably due to the extreme antipathy demonstrated by The Economist towards Trump as was illustrated by their cover featuring him throwing a Molotov cocktail soon after his inauguration. As we shall see, Trump's policies mattered little in what The Economist portrays as just a grand coincidence:
In 2014 the median worker’s inflation-adjusted earnings, by one measure, were no higher than they were in 2000. It is commonly said that wage stagnation contributed to an economic anxiety in middle America that carried Donald Trump into the White House.
Yet Mr Trump’s rise seems to have coincided with a turnaround in fortunes for the middle class. In 2015 median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose by 5.2%; in 2016 it was up by another 3.2%. During those two years, poorer households gained more, on average, than richer ones. The latest development—one that will be of particular interest to Mr Trump—is that blue-collar wages have begun to rocket. In the year to the third quarter, wage and salary growth for the likes of factory workers, builders and drivers easily outstripped that for professionals and managers. In some cases, blue-collar pay growth now exceeds 4%.
"Seems to have coincided." Yup, Trump was a mere potted plant just sitting passively in the White House as wages surged. It would have happened no matter no matter what...according to The Economist which obviously can't tolerate giving Trump credit for this.
Has Mr Trump kept his promise to revive American manufacturing, mining and the like? A more probable explanation is that he came to office just as America began to run out of willing workers to fill all of its job vacancies. As unemployment has fallen, from over 6% in mid-2014 to 4.1% today, wage growth has gradually picked up.
A more probable explanation is that The Economist just can't stand to give credit where it is most definitely due. Oh, and you would figure a major publication would be capable of conjuring up a better excuse than the incredibly lame "he came to office just as America began to run out of willing workers to fill all of its job vacancies."
One reason is a cheapening dollar. On a trade-weighted basis, the greenback fell by almost 9% between the start of the year and mid-September (it has since recovered a little). A weaker dollar and a strengthening world economy have spurred demand for American goods. In the first three quarters of the year, goods exports were up by nearly 4% on 2016.
And, according to The Economist, radically changing economic policies from the stagnancy of the previous administration had little or nothing to do with the improvements.
Mr Trump’s election led to soaring small-business confidence, which is yet to abate. His promise to deregulate the energy sector may have spurred some investment. Yet his apparent economic success to date mostly reflects fortunate timing.
It sounded almost as if The Economist was on the verge of giving Trump some credit for the economic growth only to finally attribute it as due mainly to "fortunate timing."
This absurd reluctance by The Economist to give credit to Trump did not go unnoticed by many of its readers as you can see from their observations in the comments section of this article:
Illigeal border crossings are down 80% and blue collar wages are rising. Can’t anyone at the Economist see the obvious connection? Trump’s border policies are doing what he said they would do.
In a parallel universe with wages down, how likely is it TE would think Trump was simply unlucky?
...it's more than a little disappointing that the left-leaning "media" seem to think it necessary to keep looking, ever more desperately, for any cause for the surge other than Donald Trump.
Yes, the desperation of The Economist seeking causes for the surge OTHER than Donald Trump is quite laughably noticeable.
