Financial Samurai: How To Prepare For Trump’s Middle Class Tax Hike


#21

Landlords will still have work to do…The only salvation for the middle class. .


#22

Folks in the bay area live in a bubble and have absolutely no idea as to what the rest of the USA is like.

Iowa outranks california on this happiness scale, and from a work environment perspective, Iowa ranks 5th whilst california ranks 37th.
https://wallethub.com/edu/happiest-states/6959/

How can Iowa be happy if they don’t have thriving app startups leveraging the new economy! How on earth do they manage to feed themselves? It must be a real nightmare! :wink:


#23

I highly recommend a road trip across America…Huge place…Lots of land…A lots of great people. .Just met someone who has been traveling for four years in an RV by herself…incredible journey…


#24

I think the reverse trend is taking hold, that more and more people are coming to the cities. I keep harping on this, but we see this trend first hand in Bay Area. People are choosing to set up companies, choosing to live in the most expensive bit of the Bay Area: San Francisco. I think this trend is not done yet.


#25

Automation helps. Days were there people used horses or carts to travel. Now, we have cars, flights…etc. It is a transformation.

Advancement in Technology created jobs, but it migrated across US Border. If US blocks all imports, many countries will be affected. For example,if trade blocked, majority of Foxconn 1 Billion employees will be jobless !


#26

New technology creates jobs. It has always done that. But the type of work changes and new training is required. As manual labor get increasingly automated away, I think jobs that require human empathy will increase, like teachers, nurses, and suicide counselors. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Men will get automated away. Women will rule. Back to matriarchy. :ok_woman: :dancers:


#27

We need 4 percent growth to put a dent in inequality and Asia is a perfect example of why. There was NO rapidly expanding middle class anywhere there except Japan until growth picked up starting in the 90’s. Here in the US the 4% growth rates of the 80’s greatly benefited the middle class. When economies stagnate at 1 or 2 percent THAT’S when all the wealth accumulates at the top. We need growth not only to address inequality but ultimately to service the 20 trillion and climbing national debt once rates normalize - which they ultimately will regardless of the policies of our central bank. We can’t rely on the rest of the world’s dysfunction for our survival.
Jil dealt with the “automation kills jobs” myth which got started when economist Paul Krugman rushed to defend an unbelievably silly remark Obama made about auto-tellers. Google the “ROBO” ETF to see how much money folks betting that way lost out on while the market rallied.


#28

I’m talking at global level. Advancement in technology creates new jobs, and reduces some existing jobs. Net net is less people get employed for a given population. For example, in the manufacturing sector, recently read about Foxconn employs less production workers because of automation, but may be create some new jobs in the area of automation, and software engineering. Net net is less people get employed. If I go to research about agriculture, I believe similar outcomes… I believe the number of workers on the field that are reduced is more than the number of new employment opportunities in capital equipment building. Remember I’m talking about at global level for a given population… growing population mask the effect until now… slowing (or is it declining) global population?


#29

Exactly. Why the need to compare? The argument against income inequality implies there is unfairness in the system. Essentially saying some people are over compensated while others are under compensated. Is that true? What is the criteria? It becomes more fair by forcing reduced income inequality? May be I am thinking from the wrong perspective, humans dislike others more successful than them regardless of whether it is through talents, hard work or just lucky. If that is the case, I guess reducing income inequality helps so long not to the extent of same compensation regardless of talent and effort… because humans do want their talent and effort recognize :slight_smile: either through money or publish some papers or show off with clothing, cars, houses, etc.


#30

Income inequality is caused by democrats immigration and trade policy, period.

Canada has no illegal immigrants. They do not have an income inequality problem. Illegal immigration is a time bomb for usa. Those illegal immigrants are happy to make below minimum wage in the beginning, but they will cause a huge political crisis or riot in the future.

This year we had a white working class movement sending trump to White House. In the future, we may have an illegal immigrant revolution.


#31

Even if global level, technology kills one sector and creates job in another sector.

Say for example, Flim cameras are obsolete, but digital camera are flooding the market. These digital cameras will also go away when we use smart phones, but smart phones are heavily used, more demand is growing. More demand creates job in one sector and kills job in another sector.

Globally, population increased over 100 years, productivity increased, demand is also increased. Definitely, more jobs are created with technological advancements.


#32

I think we are not analyzing from the same perspective… different parameters. Too lazy to research to prove the case. I’m pretty sure technology advancement net reduce number of people employed for a given population size. Are there more or less employed per million people compare with 20 years ago?


#33

That’s not the metric to maximize. Turn it the other way, better technology and thus greater wealth lets us afford something our ancestors could not afford: the luxury of NOT working.

I am sure compared to 100 years ago we are spending more years in schools, and thus not working.

As a balancing factor, we have a much higher proportion of women in the work force. So net on net I think we have more percentage of population working today than in 1916.


#34

Careful on how you compare. Housewives doing household chores are not considered employed. But some1 come to your house, do the same chores and get paid is considered employed. Mothers taking care of their own children are not considered employed. Getting some1 to take care for them, that some1 is employed. Is so hard to compare is why I’m lazy to do research, not trying to do a PhD :slight_smile:


#35

This is so obviously wrong.

Canada’s Gini coefficient after tax is 0.324. USA is 0.378. Canada’s is better, but I won’t say Canada has NO inequality problem. Canada ranks 23rd out of 34 among OECD countries, USA is worse at 31st.

I have never seen people linking income inequality problem to illegal immigration. I’d be very curious to see analysis with real numbers.


#36

Yes, that should be the effect we want.


#37

Most people don’t have maids to cook and take care of babies for them. We are not in Singapore or Hong Kong anymore. At least in the West, when mothers go to work, there is a net gain of 1 person being employed.


#38

Hey, the child is sent to day care :slight_smile: and schools :rage: instead of playing at home.


#39

Speaking of maids, does Singapore have separate min wage for foreign maids? In Hong Kong it does. Wait, does Singapore even have min wage?


#40

No. Singaporeans are rich. Some have up to 3 maids :grin: