This. It's documented that the Russian state security apparatus was not seeking (and did not believe it possible) to prevent Clinton from winning.
What they wanted, and got, is mania.
What they wanted, and got, is mania.
Every day income inequality gets worse, workers are treated like garbage[1], wages are going down[2] with unemployment going down, people can't afford health insurance and even if they can they will probably still be broken as deductibles and out of pocket costs rise, 80% of all people are living paycheck[3], 50% of all people in USA are defined as poor or low income[4], 80% of the country makes under $65k/year while the value of our money becomes less[5], 1/5 of children are in poverty[6].
I really think this is a natural occurrence to the failures of this corrupt capitalist system that provides for the few instead of the many. Things are shifting left, and it's certainly not because Russia spent $50k on advertisements on Facebook. You can also argue that the UK was a far greater influence with Cambridge Analytica, but it's something people like to ignore.
These are absolutely our own policies having this effect.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/30/accidents...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-t...
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck...
[4] https://kairoscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Poverty-...
It's equally possible to look at the same world, and see that business is booming, the stock market is at record highs, employers are hiring and making investments at rates we haven't seen in years. Tension in areas of the world that have been problematic my entire life appear to be on the ebb at the moment. Maybe it's a regional thing... But things are looking pretty fricking awesome over on this side of the fence.
Business is booming for the elite, the stock market is almost entirely owned by the top 10%[1] so nobody is really seeing those gains except people who already have plenty, employers are hiring but nobody has really seen a wage increase since the 90's[2] and wages are actually slightly falling[3]. Where's the bargaining power as we close in on full employment? It's nowhere to be found, and conditions are getting worse for the people who do the work.
[1] http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-ric...
[2] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-t...
According to your source wages fell, in real terms, between May 2017 and May 2018 by 0.1%. They're up from 5 years ago, up from 10 years ago and way up from 50 years ago. The principal cause of that real decline was gas prices rising unexpectedly.
https://www.businessinsider.com/record-median-household-inco...
Yes. "Without adjusting for inflation, these 'nonsupervisory' workers saw their average hourly earnings jump 2.8 percent from last year. But that was not enough to keep pace with the 2.9 percent increase in inflation, which economists attributed to rising gas prices" [1].
> Most Americans haven't seen any real wage growth when adjusted for inflation since the 70's
This is not true for people employed full time [2]. Real hourly wages for hourly nonfarm workers [3] are up. About the only people I can find who are earning less, in real terms, than they were in the 1970s are manufacturing workers, and even they are up over the last decade.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-t...
Clearly improvements in the things you mention can't happen overnight. But improving the availability of jobs and having the stock market going up instead of crashing are objectively better than the opposite.
The article you cite explains that the net loss of YoY wages was entirely due to inflation, and in nominal terms wages actually increased YoY, and it also cherry picks the "production and nonsupervisory" group of workers (inflation adjusted wages for all workers actually increased) -- so its somewhat dishonest to not clarify those aspects. Inflation adjustments are also a notoriously tricky business, and without delving into the details of what inflation metric was used, and if it was applied on a region-by-region basis, hair splitting over the effects of inflation on wages to drive a narrative around wage growth (when the direction is generally "upwards") seems wrong.
You seem to be looking for reasons to explain why the trajectory of the US economy is negative, but I'm afraid that the evidence is mounting that wage growth and job opportunities should be expected to improve over time going forward, absent some new financial crisis.
edit: Also worth mentioning: staring at medians around wages is, imho, missing an critical aspect to understanding the actual experience of participants in the economy: income mobility. There's evidence that upward mobility has been stable despite an increase in point-in-time income inequality [1]. The question we should be asking is if income inequality at a point-in-time is necessarily bad if participants in the economy have ample opportunity to move up to higher levels of income. I don't have the answer to this, but any arguments about wage growth or income inequality need to take into account mobility, and they almost never do.
https://www.npr.org/2014/01/23/265356290/study-upward-mobili...
Stock market is entirely irrelevant for most of Americans [2]
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/record-median-household-inco...
[2] http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-ric...
But if you assume that new entrants to the economy develop skills and move up over time as they acquire skills and responsibility, as is likely a closer reflection of reality, then their wages have grown over time. The observation you are making shows that for new entrants to the economy at low income levels, there has not been a net increase in the starting wages those people earn since the 1970s.
I guess the question to ask is: should we expect the real earnings of low level, low skill jobs (not people) to increase over time as the economy does? As you said, these are relatively flat. I have no reason to assume someone performing low-skilled labor in 1970 should be paid more in real terms than someone today doing the same job, in pure economic terms. For that to be true, they'd need to be performing some kind of increased value in their job relative to 40 years ago -- but if they were doing that, they wouldn't be performing a low-skilled job anymore, and hence would be moving up in income level!
80% of the country makes under $65k[1]. They're pretty locked in. This talk of "upward mobility" is not really true. Only a few will move up the chain, but not the majority. Not everyone is moving into management, not everyone is becoming a software engineer. With the costs of college education & textbooks rising exorbitantly, less people are able to afford to get the skills to move up [2].
>I guess the question to ask is: should we expect the real earnings of low level, low skill jobs (not people) to increase over time as the economy does? As you said, these are relatively flat. I have no reason to assume someone performing low-skilled labor in 1970 should be paid more in real terms than someone today doing the same job, in pure economic terms.
The cost of everything necessary is rising[2] while income's have stayed the same since the 70's when adjusted for inflation, so yes I expect "low skill" jobs to keep up. "Low skill" jobs are still a necessary part of the economy and someone hast to do them; who's going to pick up your trash at work, who's going to make your smoothies, who's going to prepare your breakfast sandwiches, who's going to pick up trash at event stadiums, who's going to cut your hair?
[1] https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2016
[2] https://www.abi.org/newsroom/chart-of-the-day/price-changes-...
Do you have a citation to support these claims? A cursory search yielded a study that showed at least from 1995-2005 these claims were completely false, and the majority of people moved up from the lowest quintiles of the economy.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/inside-the-vault/spr...
> The cost of everything necessary is rising[2]
If you look at your reference this is also false. Some necessities are flat, some have gone up. And most of the necessities like food and housing that have gone up, at least according to your reference, have tracked inflation so in real terms have not gone up and hence we should not feel like flat wage growth has reduced the availability of these necessities to the people who are economically immobile. And of course, in real terms, clothing and other necessities have gotten cheaper. You also gloss over that non-essential items that improve quality of life like tech have dropped radically, increasing the overall purchasing power of people within those spheres over time.
The remaining items like medical care and college education cited are cause for concern, but if we're being honest both of those areas are effectively in a state of crisis right now due to out of control costs, broken systems, and predatory lending practices. On the education front at least there is cause for hope due to the increasing availability of alternatives.
You paint a particularly bleak picture that is not backed up by your own sources, I'm afraid. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement in income mobility in the US or reducing the costs and waste in systems like healthcare, but like I said there are plenty of reasons for optimism and a belief that the trajectory is a positive one.
It is cheaper in most fields to skill up than it ever has been.
It's just more expensive to get a piece of paper....
> I expect "low skill" jobs to keep up.
Then I hope you are against all low and semi-skilled immigration.
And regardless of the magnitude, we would surely be hypocrites to keep finger-pointing. The US has been implicitly meddling heavily with international elections for decades.
It’s quite sad that Americans are not taught the basic lessons of the 19th century French Revolutions, because learning these lessons the hard way is yet again proving catastrophic.
The “liberals” (known to Americans as the ‘Democratic Party establishment’) forego moral action for moral identity. The “proletariat” (or, working class, Democratic Socialists) must overcome the denial of their self-identity which is, in American culture and media, a battle on all sides.
The average American’s head spins when they try to interpret polical nuances of foreign nations. They are limited to 2 dimensions; every opinion is either good, bad, or moderate; every piece of information is either fact, fake, or partially fact. I cannot tell if the left-leaning American pundits are being sincere when they act surprised at the newish factions in the American left. Are they truly so ignorant of history and political theory? Serious question. It’s one thing that’s American citizens are so simple-minded, but I find it hard to believe the media is not simply playing dumb. It’s truly agregious.
Whether approached through morality, love for one’s neighbor, mathematics, or otherwise, capital precarity has every reason to be the first place to look, and must therefore be proven not the culprit before it can be discounted.
US security agencies have been clear that Russian intelligence interfered in our election to support Trump.
Putin admitted just two weeks ago that he wanted Trump to win.
Generalized unrest was one goal. Electing Trump, however difficult that might have seemed, was another.
Why would you blindly trust intelligence agencies that have been very untrustworthy throughout US history?
At a certain point you start arguing "why believe anything" and that's literally not a conversation worth having.
We now know that to be a lie.
Again, why would you trust intelligence agencies that haven't been trustworthy throughout US history?
Is everything stated by an intelligence agency true? No. Is everything false? No. So you evaluate the claims they make. This isn't complicated.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies...
From article:
>The Chilcot report identifies a series of major blunders by the British intelligence services that produced “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the basis for going to war.
So again, why trust intelligence agencies that have been untrustworthy throughout US history?
So, again, Is everything stated by an intelligence agency true? No. Is everything false? No. So you evaluate the claims they make. This isn't complicated.
You could say the same about the DNC server, which in 2016, the FBI claimed had not been provided to them for forensics.
The one firm who did have direct access was CrowdStrike, whose report had a couple inaccuracies, and whose CTO, Dmitri Alperovitch, isn't impartial either. Firstly, the claim about the APT controlling Ukrainian artillery equipment was disproven. Secondly, they cited an outdated Ukranian Wordpress vulnerability as attribution evidence, which did not hold up under scrutiny. These are the forensics they gave to the FBI.
Naturally, mid-July The Daily Beast, owned by a company chaired by Chelsea Clinton, breaks a story in response to Trump's comments at Helinski, with a piece about the DNC server's virtual image being given to the FBI - something that the FBI did not comment on and also is in contradiction with the FBI's claim from 2016.
'' Providing details Tuesday to the Senate intelligence committee about the bureau’s investigation into Russian hacks targeting the election, Mr. Comey said the FBI made “multiple requests” for access, but ultimately a private company was the one to conduct the forensic review and then shared details about what it found with investigators.
“It’s not the way we would prefer to do the investigation,” Mr. Comey said. '' Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey...
Also, the agenda of discrediting the US intelligence community is a long-standing goal of Russian intelligence, evidenced by their support of Wikileaks and Snowden.
Absolute nonsense. The Mccarthyite "Blame Everything on Russia" bots are now on Hacker News.
Skepticism over US Intel Agencies is not a 'Russian Goal'. It's common sense, and all you have to do is research their history of overthrowing governments and lying to us intentionally to lose any trust in them. You don't need a 'Russia' element to research their dark and dirty past.
>The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks that Guccifer 2.0 has said were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC were committed by two Russian intelligence groups. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Fireeye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.
And we all know how trustworthy Putin is.
Well, there is the Steele dossier, which FusionGPS was paid twice for - once by a Republican PAC, then second by Clinton's Perkins & Coie - before providing it to the FBI directly. You could say that it's MI5/MI6 (once a <three letter agency> operative, always a <three letter agency> operative, amirite?) intel, but the unverified parts of it are from Russian sources.
The investigation into Trump's campaign and its Russian contacts was NOT started by the dossier. The FBI was not given the dossier until December of 2016. By this time there was no campaign anymore since Trump was president-elect. In fact the investigation had already started months prior when Papadopolous made suspicious comments to a diplomat about the campaign's knowledge of information related to Hillary's emails. [2]
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/why-trump-wont-stop-talking-abou... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier
But October 2016 is still after Page left the Trump campaign, and after the Russian investigation had started.
It's at least plausible that, at least originally, defeating Clinton wasn't a goal, weakening and dividing the US as a whole and the expected next President’s public and Congressional support might have been the whole goal. Actually causing her defeat may be a happy accident from the Russian POV (or a bit of a unhappy one that required escalating efforts to promote disunity, because in the short-term, even if the administration produced was not particularly popular, there was the risk of accidental strength from executive-legislative partisan alignment.)