Well I hope the Dems are proud of themselves

[twinstudy]

From about WWII until the early 1980s, in the US wages grew at about the same rate as productivity.   This trend became decoupled for many reasons including inflation/recession in the late 1970s and early 1980s, legislation weakening unions, dismantling portions of the social contract (notably education costs being shifted form government to individuals which decreased the trend of educational attainment), restructuring the tax code to benefit high earners, and and to a certain extent, globalization.

It is what it is. If you want your wage to track your productivity, start your own business. It makes no sense for people who don't have capital on the line to expect their wages to track with productivity, particularly with globalisation and AI now big things.

[PeteD01]

From about WWII until the early 1980s, in the US wages grew at about the same rate as productivity.   This trend became decoupled for many reasons including inflation/recession in the late 1970s and early 1980s, legislation weakening unions, dismantling portions of the social contract (notably education costs being shifted form government to individuals which decreased the trend of educational attainment), restructuring the tax code to benefit high earners, and and to a certain extent, globalization.

It is what it is. If you want your wage to track your productivity, start your own business. It makes no sense for people who don't have capital on the line to expect their wages to track with productivity, particularly with globalisation and AI now big things.

It makes perfect sense for wages to track productivity - but it takes labor representation to make it happen.

There is no reason for people who do not have capital to begin with to be excluded from participating in increasing societal prosperity and that's why unionization is critical.

[GuitarStv]

From about WWII until the early 1980s, in the US wages grew at about the same rate as productivity.   This trend became decoupled for many reasons including inflation/recession in the late 1970s and early 1980s, legislation weakening unions, dismantling portions of the social contract (notably education costs being shifted form government to individuals which decreased the trend of educational attainment), restructuring the tax code to benefit high earners, and and to a certain extent, globalization.

It is what it is. If you want your wage to track your productivity, start your own business. It makes no sense for people who don't have capital on the line to expect their wages to track with productivity, particularly with globalisation and AI now big things.

It makes perfect sense for wages to track productivity - but it takes labor representation to make it happen.

There is no reason for people who do not have capital to begin with to be excluded from participating in increasing societal prosperity and that's why unionization is critical.

As I get richer, it really drives home the truth that simply having money makes it easier to make more money, and being broke makes it much harder.  twinstudy seems to be saying here that your wages shouldn't reflect the job you do, but instead how rich you are rather than how hard you work.  This actually undercuts the most important benefit of having a capitalist society - the reward and thus motivation for working hard.

[twinstudy]

From about WWII until the early 1980s, in the US wages grew at about the same rate as productivity.   This trend became decoupled for many reasons including inflation/recession in the late 1970s and early 1980s, legislation weakening unions, dismantling portions of the social contract (notably education costs being shifted form government to individuals which decreased the trend of educational attainment), restructuring the tax code to benefit high earners, and and to a certain extent, globalization.

It is what it is. If you want your wage to track your productivity, start your own business. It makes no sense for people who don't have capital on the line to expect their wages to track with productivity, particularly with globalisation and AI now big things.

It makes perfect sense for wages to track productivity - but it takes labor representation to make it happen.

There is no reason for people who do not have capital to begin with to be excluded from participating in increasing societal prosperity and that's why unionization is critical.

As I get richer, it really drives home the truth that simply having money makes it easier to make more money, and being broke makes it much harder.  twinstudy seems to be saying here that your wages shouldn't reflect the job you do, but instead how rich you are rather than how hard you work.  This actually undercuts the most important benefit of having a capitalist society - the reward and thus motivation for working hard.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Your wages should reflect your share of risk in the venture that you do. If you're an employee, you bear no risk whatsoever and so of course your wage is going to be less than it otherwise would be.

The capital requirements to start your own business are not high, and if you are an employee you can do it seamlessly by going into contracting work, which has almost nil set-up cost at all. The capital that you put on the line is the goodwill and client base that you develop (and that you are beholden to), and the personal liability that you bear; I'm not talking about investing a huge amount of start-up into a business.

I also never said your wage shouldn't reflect how hard you work - stop putting words in my mouth.

The reward and motivation for working hard are there. Get into a selective school, get a scholarship to university to mitigate your student loans, get into any professional job, develop your skillset, and start your own firm or start working as a contractor. None of that takes any existing capital. It takes hard work and talent.

[Ron Scott]

From about WWII until the early 1980s, in the US wages grew at about the same rate as productivity.   This trend became decoupled for many reasons including inflation/recession in the late 1970s and early 1980s, legislation weakening unions, dismantling portions of the social contract (notably education costs being shifted form government to individuals which decreased the trend of educational attainment), restructuring the tax code to benefit high earners, and and to a certain extent, globalization.

It is what it is. If you want your wage to track your productivity, start your own business. It makes no sense for people who don't have capital on the line to expect their wages to track with productivity, particularly with globalisation and AI now big things.

It makes perfect sense for wages to track productivity - but it takes labor representation to make it happen.

There is no reason for people who do not have capital to begin with to be excluded from participating in increasing societal prosperity and that's why unionization is critical.

As I get richer, it really drives home the truth that simply having money makes it easier to make more money, and being broke makes it much harder.  twinstudy seems to be saying here that your wages shouldn't reflect the job you do, but instead how rich you are rather than how hard you work.  This actually undercuts the most important benefit of having a capitalist society - the reward and thus motivation for working hard.

Productivity is a measure that tracks the ratio of output to input. Wage levels are set in the labor market. Apples and oranges. Trying to tie them into some valuable economic principle makes no sense.

One aspect of globalization is the expansion of the labor market.  When Apple saw the price for labor to assemble one of their tech devices was too high in the US, they tried manufacturing in Asia, and eventually moved all such manufacturing out of the US.

[nereo]

One aspect of globalization is the expansion of the labor market.  When Apple saw the price for labor to assemble one of their tech devices was too high in the US, they tried manufacturing in Asia, and eventually moved all such manufacturing out of the US.

This narrative where US companies send production oversees falls into a bias of American technological and manufacturing superiority. Cost is absolutely a core driver, but we must acknowledge that other countries are now able to produce precision products of higher quality and tighter tolerances than can be achieved in the US. 

To your example, Steve Jobs spent a good deal of time with the Obama administration detailing how Apple’s efforts to manufacture processor chips in Silicon Valley were stymied by systemic inadequacies on our side and massive improvements overseas both in capacity and tolerences. Apple has since spent billions on their own domestic manufacturing, and the 2022 CHIPS act was passed because there was bipartisan recognition that we simply are way behind other nations in complex manufacturing, regardless of labor costs.

[Posthumane]

One has to be careful not to confuse education and degrees with talent and productivity. There are many skilled and talented tradespeople who would not do well in a college environment. Many of them learned their trades through on the job training or apprenticeship. They are productive and should be compensated for their talent relative to a newcomer to the trade (and often are, because their talent leads to better output).

[Ron Scott]

One aspect of globalization is the expansion of the labor market.  When Apple saw the price for labor to assemble one of their tech devices was too high in the US, they tried manufacturing in Asia, and eventually moved all such manufacturing out of the US.

This narrative where US companies send production oversees falls into a bias of American technological and manufacturing superiority. Cost is absolutely a core driver, but we must acknowledge that other countries are now able to produce precision products of higher quality and tighter tolerances than can be achieved in the US. 

To your example, Steve Jobs spent a good deal of time with the Obama administration detailing how Apple’s efforts to manufacture processor chips in Silicon Valley were stymied by systemic inadequacies on our side and massive improvements overseas both in capacity and tolerences. Apple has since spent billions on their own domestic manufacturing, and the 2022 CHIPS act was passed because there was bipartisan recognition that we simply are way behind other nations in complex manufacturing, regardless of labor costs.

No doubt. Improvement in quality of the process however ultimately starts with the ability to attract a market…which encourages investment in process improvement. It’s an iterative virtuous cycle.

I suspect CHIPS will work, at least temporarily, but I am afraid we will be unable to keep costs low for long.  Long term, I imagine most manufacturing will move closer to the points of consumption, throughout the world, due to robotics…not human jobs. In market capitalism, input costs are a major god.

[Radagast]

I usually regret not posting predictions when I have them, so here's mine. Harris by a margin of 5.5% over Trump, including over 50% of the vote and an EC win. Surprises more likely to the upside because Trump has been deliberately trying to piss off big groups over the past weeks and I don't know how far those groups will go. Not just liberals. Constitutionalists, libertarians, neocons, good government types, defenders of Ukraine, those who don't like vulgarity (Trump just this morning explained he was not pretending to have oral sex with his microphone, he was obviously pretending to eat a corndog, ELECTION INTERFERENCE!), and of course droves of women and Hispanic voters.

Reasons polls are systematically wrong toward Trump:
Pollsters are determined not to underestimate Trump at any cost.
Harris is trying to project a tight race with slim odds of success to motivate voters
Trump is deliberately trying to project a big lead in polls and early voting (source: 50 text messages I got saying TRUMP WANTS YOU TO VOTE EARLY) so he can claim the vote was stolen, and attempt an end run around the Constitution
The motivation for everyone involved is to overestimate Trump, and they are strongly motivated.

Further, the media echo chamber says "it's too close to call, we've never seen a race this close in history!" and when the echo is this strong it generally means they are about to get it wrong bigly (either they are being fed information, they have their own motives, they are herding together for comfort and safety, or some combination). Combining this with liberal worrywarts who are a contrarian indicator in conjunction with the media echo tells you which side they are about to get it wrong bigly in.

Of course that only happens if everyone votes, so if you read this you should not at all feel like you can relax and not vote, have you not done so already and for some reason would not.

And if I'm wrong you can forum shame me forever and ever.

[Kris]

I usually regret not posting predictions when I have them, so here's mine. Harris by a margin of 5.5% over Trump, including over 50% of the vote and an EC win. Surprises more likely to the upside because Trump has been deliberately trying to piss off big groups over the past weeks and I don't know how far those groups will go. Not just liberals. Constitutionalists, libertarians, neocons, good government types, defenders of Ukraine, those who don't like vulgarity (Trump just this morning explained he was not pretending to have oral sex with his microphone, he was obviously pretending to eat a corndog, ELECTION INTERFERENCE!), and of course droves of women and Hispanic voters.

Reasons polls are systematically wrong toward Trump:
Pollsters are determined not to underestimate Trump at any cost.
Harris is trying to project a tight race with slim odds of success to motivate voters
Trump is deliberately trying to project a big lead in polls and early voting (source: 50 text messages I got saying TRUMP WANTS YOU TO VOTE EARLY) so he can claim the vote was stolen, and attempt an end run around the Constitution
The motivation for everyone involved is to overestimate Trump, and they are strongly motivated.

Further, the media echo chamber says "it's too close to call, we've never seen a race this close in history!" and when the echo is this strong it generally means they are about to get it wrong bigly (either they are being fed information, they have their own motives, they are herding together for comfort and safety, or some combination). Combining this with liberal worrywarts who are a contrarian indicator in conjunction with the media echo tells you which side they are about to get it wrong bigly in.

Of course that only happens if everyone votes, so if you read this you should not at all feel like you can relax and not vote, have you not done so already and for some reason would not.

And if I'm wrong you can forum shame me forever and ever.

I definitely agree with you on the reasons the polls are looking the way they are.

But I’m too anxious to predict anything.

[twinstudy]

The reward and motivation for working hard are there. Get into a selective school, get a scholarship to university to mitigate your student loans, get into any professional job, develop your skillset, and start your own firm or start working as a contractor. None of that takes any existing capital. It takes hard work and talent.

Why should we live in a system that punishes people who simply don't have talent?

Your meritocracy argument appealed a lot to me when I was younger. I was a smart kid and pretty easily able to prove myself in competitive academic environments. But as I get older, I think more and more that I didn't earn that. I've worked hard at times in my life, but I've also coasted through a lot of things on smarts that I'm simply lucky to have. (On the flip side, I'm also lucky that I could get ahead on something besides physical strength.)

I have a 17 year old sister. To be blunt, she is not as smart as me. It's at least partly because her bio parents never sent her to school, so she had to start playing catch-up in about second grade. She is never going to get into a selective college and will probably never work a white collar job. I still want her to be able to build a decent life.

Idk, I find it odd that Ron Scott has spent pages here ranting about democrats losing touch with their core base, but immediately jumped on board with the first guy to say "Working class people deserve worse lives, actually."

I don't think anyone's being "punished" - unless your baseline (relative to reward/punishment) is that everyone 'deserves' some level of comfort a priori - that's not something I subscribe to.

Pragmatically, society's rewards have to be divvied up in some way, and meritocracy seems the fairest, as long as there are mechanisms to ensure that inheritance and other unearned transmission doesn't mess that up too much (inheritance tax being the best mechanism).

There should still be a welfare safety net. No one should be starving. But that aside, it's hard to see why talent + work ethic shouldn't be the decisive factor.

If you've coasted in a lot of ways, do you really know the value of talent and hard work? Whatever smarts I have/had, I never had the luxury of coasting. I had to work really hard to get good grades, get a scholarship and then get high enough marks to get into a good graduate stream. None of that came easily. Maybe if it all came easily to me on talent alone I would have a different perspective. But I suspect that most high-achievers don't get there just by talent. It takes a lot of hard work. You can be the smartest lawyer or surgeon in the world but you're still going to have to get up at 5am to prepare a trial or head into the operating room at 2am when on-call.

[bacchi]

I usually regret not posting predictions when I have them, so here's mine. Harris by a margin of 5.5% over Trump, including over 50% of the vote and an EC win. Surprises more likely to the upside because Trump has been deliberately trying to piss off big groups over the past weeks and I don't know how far those groups will go. Not just liberals. Constitutionalists, libertarians, neocons, good government types, defenders of Ukraine, those who don't like vulgarity (Trump just this morning explained he was not pretending to have oral sex with his microphone, he was obviously pretending to eat a corndog, ELECTION INTERFERENCE!), and of course droves of women and Hispanic voters.

Reasons polls are systematically wrong toward Trump:
Pollsters are determined not to underestimate Trump at any cost.
Harris is trying to project a tight race with slim odds of success to motivate voters
Trump is deliberately trying to project a big lead in polls and early voting (source: 50 text messages I got saying TRUMP WANTS YOU TO VOTE EARLY) so he can claim the vote was stolen, and attempt an end run around the Constitution
The motivation for everyone involved is to overestimate Trump, and they are strongly motivated.

Further, the media echo chamber says "it's too close to call, we've never seen a race this close in history!" and when the echo is this strong it generally means they are about to get it wrong bigly (either they are being fed information, they have their own motives, they are herding together for comfort and safety, or some combination). Combining this with liberal worrywarts who are a contrarian indicator in conjunction with the media echo tells you which side they are about to get it wrong bigly in.

Of course that only happens if everyone votes, so if you read this you should not at all feel like you can relax and not vote, have you not done so already and for some reason would not.

And if I'm wrong you can forum shame me forever and ever.

I agree with the Harris win prediction. We've got the latest Iowa poll and the recent tilt in WI and MI to Harris. Republicans are frothing angry about the recent "secret vote" ads and are claiming that women voting differently from their husbands is "immoral"(1) or "cheating"(2) or "repulsive,"(3) which indicates that the secret women's vote is actually real (How large? We'll find out.) There's also the "whisper caucus" of disgruntled Republicans who are tired of TFG's antics but aren't ready to admit it out loud yet.

I doubt there will be a landslide but Harris will get more states than expected and more than 270.


(1) Newt Gingrich
(2) Jesse Waters, Fox News commentator
(3) Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA

[Omy]

This^^^

[Financial.Velociraptor]

We've got the latest Iowa poll and the recent tilt in WI and MI to Harris. Republicans are frothing angry about the recent "secret vote" ads and are claiming that women voting differently from their husbands is "immoral"(1) or "cheating"(2) or "repulsive,"(3) which indicates that the secret women's vote is actually real (How large? We'll find out.)

I've been expecting the deciding factor to be what some call Roevember effect since the SCOTUS ruling.  I know even Catholics who consider 'the pill' be literal murder and reprehensible who dislike the SCOTUS ruling.  It is one area where a lot of Americans are very Libertarian and hate the government having a say more than they hate infanticide.

[GuitarStv]

From about WWII until the early 1980s, in the US wages grew at about the same rate as productivity.   This trend became decoupled for many reasons including inflation/recession in the late 1970s and early 1980s, legislation weakening unions, dismantling portions of the social contract (notably education costs being shifted form government to individuals which decreased the trend of educational attainment), restructuring the tax code to benefit high earners, and and to a certain extent, globalization.

It is what it is. If you want your wage to track your productivity, start your own business. It makes no sense for people who don't have capital on the line to expect their wages to track with productivity, particularly with globalisation and AI now big things.

It makes perfect sense for wages to track productivity - but it takes labor representation to make it happen.

There is no reason for people who do not have capital to begin with to be excluded from participating in increasing societal prosperity and that's why unionization is critical.

As I get richer, it really drives home the truth that simply having money makes it easier to make more money, and being broke makes it much harder.  twinstudy seems to be saying here that your wages shouldn't reflect the job you do, but instead how rich you are rather than how hard you work.  This actually undercuts the most important benefit of having a capitalist society - the reward and thus motivation for working hard.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Your wages should reflect your share of risk in the venture that you do. If you're an employee, you bear no risk whatsoever and so of course your wage is going to be less than it otherwise would be.

The capital requirements to start your own business are not high, and if you are an employee you can do it seamlessly by going into contracting work, which has almost nil set-up cost at all. The capital that you put on the line is the goodwill and client base that you develop (and that you are beholden to), and the personal liability that you bear; I'm not talking about investing a huge amount of start-up into a business.

I also never said your wage shouldn't reflect how hard you work - stop putting words in my mouth.

The reward and motivation for working hard are there. Get into a selective school, get a scholarship to university to mitigate your student loans, get into any professional job, develop your skillset, and start your own firm or start working as a contractor. None of that takes any existing capital. It takes hard work and talent.

Why should I work hard at a job if my wages won't reflect my efforts?  Why shouldn't I half-ass things?  There is equivalent risk assumed by an employee who works hard and by one who meets minimum criteria for the job.

I disagree that employees have zero risk when they are employed by a company.  Most employers don't train employees or do anything to keep skills up to date in a meaningful way, so an employee is risking their skillet for future employment every time they take a job.  If the employer goes out of business or decides there are too many employees, the employee is left without income.  There are plenty of risks to an employee that involve capital.

[Ron Scott]

From about WWII until the early 1980s, in the US wages grew at about the same rate as productivity.   This trend became decoupled for many reasons including inflation/recession in the late 1970s and early 1980s, legislation weakening unions, dismantling portions of the social contract (notably education costs being shifted form government to individuals which decreased the trend of educational attainment), restructuring the tax code to benefit high earners, and and to a certain extent, globalization.

It is what it is. If you want your wage to track your productivity, start your own business. It makes no sense for people who don't have capital on the line to expect their wages to track with productivity, particularly with globalisation and AI now big things.

It makes perfect sense for wages to track productivity - but it takes labor representation to make it happen.

There is no reason for people who do not have capital to begin with to be excluded from participating in increasing societal prosperity and that's why unionization is critical.

As I get richer, it really drives home the truth that simply having money makes it easier to make more money, and being broke makes it much harder.  twinstudy seems to be saying here that your wages shouldn't reflect the job you do, but instead how rich you are rather than how hard you work.  This actually undercuts the most important benefit of having a capitalist society - the reward and thus motivation for working hard.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Your wages should reflect your share of risk in the venture that you do. If you're an employee, you bear no risk whatsoever and so of course your wage is going to be less than it otherwise would be.

The capital requirements to start your own business are not high, and if you are an employee you can do it seamlessly by going into contracting work, which has almost nil set-up cost at all. The capital that you put on the line is the goodwill and client base that you develop (and that you are beholden to), and the personal liability that you bear; I'm not talking about investing a huge amount of start-up into a business.

I also never said your wage shouldn't reflect how hard you work - stop putting words in my mouth.

The reward and motivation for working hard are there. Get into a selective school, get a scholarship to university to mitigate your student loans, get into any professional job, develop your skillset, and start your own firm or start working as a contractor. None of that takes any existing capital. It takes hard work and talent.

Why should I work hard at a job if my wages won't reflect my efforts?  Why shouldn't I half-ass things?  There is equivalent risk assumed by an employee who works hard and by one who meets minimum criteria for the job.

I disagree that employees have zero risk when they are employed by a company.  Most employers don't train employees or do anything to keep skills up to date in a meaningful way, so an employee is risking their skillet for future employment every time they take a job.  If the employer goes out of business or decides there are too many employees, the employee is left without income.  There are plenty of risks to an employee that involve capital.

In attracting/retaining labor, Risk-Reward does not take precedence over Supply-Demand. This is because employers need to pay market rates for inputs. Globalization dramatically increased the labor supply for some jobs, regardless of the “risk” in choosing to work in them, reducing labor costs for those jobs.

[partgypsy]

After hearing of the Iowa poll I am cautiously hopeful but too close to call. I am def curious about secret voting, both ways. In addition to women secretly voting for Kamala, people who don't advertise but vote for Trump. And Republicans not voting for Trump. No one knows what the numbers for these are. I didn't go but my kids went to the nc state fair. 2016, Trump stuff everywhere. I asked my oldest and she said this time not so much. Could be they are still voting  just not advertising it. Maybe they are remembering how he handled, hurricane Maria, Florence, and CA wildfires. Florence hit us hard. And every single crisis he has to insert himself in it and politicize it, down to who will get money and supplies, and who will not. In contrast to Biden handling of the flooding in western NC, where the gov provided people and money but were otherwise hands off. Everyone across party lines, had to work together. We all need each other. I hope that can be symbolic of the future.

[Ron Scott]

I usually regret not posting predictions when I have them, so here's mine. Harris by a margin of 5.5% over Trump, including over 50% of the vote and an EC win.

I agree with the Harris win prediction.

I’m glad you guys are hopeful. I have a bad feeling about this. I see Trump by a hair. But regardless who wins we’re going to end up with an even more divided country…and this time more violent.

The timing couldn’t be worse either. We are already seeing the seeds of MAJOR international and domestic change, with China/Russia/NK/Iran, AI jobs impact, ongoing US difficulties in reclaiming manufacturing and a dependency on critical imports, etc., and the political upheaval is unprecedented.

My go-to strategy in general in life is to eschew worry and spend my time planning and acting. Problem here is I don’t think the US has a plan to face these challenges and acting without one is suboptimal at best.

[partgypsy]

Is anyone changing anything in their investment portfolio due to the election, and possible turmoil in the next months? I normally do not market time, but this time i'm wondering if the rules have changed...

[Omy]

If there's a big dip in the market, I'm ready to buy...my cash that had been earning 5.2% is looking for a stock sale.

[ChpBstrd]

After hearing of the Iowa poll I am cautiously hopeful but too close to call. I am def curious about secret voting, both ways. In addition to women secretly voting for Kamala, people who don't advertise but vote for Trump. And Republicans not voting for Trump. No one knows what the numbers for these are.

It's very tricky to figure out what the numbers are. In 2016, Trump voters were so conspiratorially-minded that they refused to answer calls from pollsters. This combined with low Democratic enthusiasm for Hillary - their most wooden candidate since Al Gore - led to a surprise outcome. Democrats answered the polls, but didn't consider it worth standing in line for Hillary.

This time, there is visibly lower Republican enthusiasm for a Trump rerun, even in my deep, deep red state here in minimum wage country. In 2016 it was flags attached to pickup trucks that would honk at each other when they passed. Now it's a few timid yard signs.

Yet the polls suggest Trump is doing even better against the more politically talented Harris than he was against Hillary.

Two possible interpretations:

1) Trumpian tribalism has become normalized to the point people don't go through the effort to hand-paint yard signs and decorate their vehicles, but they will vote. Trump's supporters are no longer as reluctant to answer polls, because it now seems like a respectable opinion to have. Thus the polls are more accurate than in 2016 and Harris will probably lose the EC while winning the popular vote by a hair.

2) Republicans are over Trump's shtick. He just doesn't have the shock value he used to have. He got a little boost in the polls after "They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats." but we're at the point where it's what people expect. Excitement has faded about the possibility that breaking all social and moral norms could lead to a new era of swamp-draining politics. Republicans are answering the polls, but whether they'll make the time to go vote is another story.

There is also the issue of between-states migration, driven by the cost of living and possibilities of working from home. Nearly 50k people per year are moving from Florida to battleground state Georgia, for example, and a six-figure number are relocating each year from California to Texas. Overall, blue states are losing residents to states that voted for Trump in 2016 like Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Arizona. Wikipedia's net migration trends page shows the top 10 inflow states all being states that went to Trump in 2016, and the bottom 10 being either blue states or battleground states.

We cannot be sure of the political demographics of who is moving - the numbers could be a factor of geographic polarization, i.e. conservatives in California deciding they like Texas better. However I think trends like increasing Democratic competitiveness in Texas and Georgia, for example, suggest it is mostly Democrats with WFH-eligible knowledge worker careers moving out of their crowded and overpriced coastal enclaves to buy homes where they are affordable. If this is the case, I think we'll see more states becoming competitive and a reduced likelihood of the Democrat winning the popular vote and losing the EC.

This is a move I've often recommended on this board for people stuck in HCOL / blue-state areas asking how they could ever possibly afford a home or save 50% of their income in their current location. Well, you can't, and that's why it makes sense to move.

Another anecdote from my red state: The 2004-2007 residential real estate bubble passed over this area, and house prices increased at less than the rate of inflation while things were going wild in Vegas, New York, and California. The 2020-2023 real estate run-up, however, directly affected us. Livable houses in "D" neighborhoods which once sold for $50k in 2019 are now selling for $120k. In "A" neighborhoods, the price per square foot for existing homes has increased from about $115 to $160. Incidentally my state has had an inter-state influx equal to +1.9% of its pre-pandemic population between 2020 and 2023.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

There has been one little thing that bothers me about the seemingly all good news for Harris/Walz lately, and that is how Musk is quietly in PA (and other battlegrounds I'm sure) doing whatever it is that a Billionaire can do with all that money and technology...  I get this pit in my stomach that Trump is a diversion and Elon Musk is somehow delivering a surprise win on election day, or at least putting a big thumb on the scale.  By the time we see what he did, it'll be too late...

Hopefully I'm wrong, but I can't believe whatever Musk is up to is a complete nothingburger the way it currently seems.  For example, his seemingly illegal voter registration $1M giveaway and paying people to register...  was that really all he's got, and he's just given up now?

[ChpBstrd]

Is anyone changing anything in their investment portfolio due to the election, and possible turmoil in the next months? I normally do not market time, but this time i'm wondering if the rules have changed...

Using a S&P500 total return calculator, I find:

• November 2020 - January 2021: +7.17% (Biden wins WH)
• November 2016 - January 2017: +5.44% (Trump wins WH)
• November 2012 - January 2013: +6.54% (Obama wins WH)
• November 2008 - January 2009: -1.44%(Obama wins WH)
• November 2004 - January 2005: +1.34% (Bush wins WH)

So if anything, it seems there has been a lot more upside than downside over the past 20 years to holding a stock-heavy portfolio through election day, regardless of who wins. The one slightly negative experience in 20 years of history occurred at the bottom of the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, and even that amounted to a not-unusual one-day move. The highest post-election returns occurred as the Capitol was ransacked during a coup attempt!

If there's a big dip in the market, I'm ready to buy...my cash that had been earning 5.2% is looking for a stock sale.

Money sitting on the sidelines, waiting for political certainty, may be a reason for recent pops. E.g. if some number of Dems and Reps keep a few tens of thousands of dollars in cash pre-election, and then deploy those funds only if their preferred candidate wins, then that's a net inflow into the stock market, even if the losing side stays in cash.

Recent data show retail investors flowing money into money market funds, while institutional investors are pulling money out. Are the retail investors expressing election anxiety while the institutional investors are pursuing opportunity? If so, history is on the side of the institutional investors.

[achvfi]

I see much negativity here, I wonder if folks are bracing in case of Trump win.

My predictions are Harris is going to win and win with bigger lead than expected.

Whatever the results will be, Harris/dems ran campaign to be proud of.

[GuitarStv]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

[Omy]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Are you still expecting a Trump win?

[GuitarStv]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Are you still expecting a Trump win?

I'll be pleasantly surprised if that isn't the outcome.

[dividendman]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

How do you plan for the worst here?

[GuitarStv]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

How do you plan for the worst here?

Might be worth it to work an extra year or two rather than retiring if Trump wins and is able to carry through his plan to tank the markets.

[dividendman]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

How do you plan for the worst here?

Might be worth it to work an extra year or two rather than retiring if Trump wins and is able to carry through his plan to tank the markets.

Oh, I'm already out so.... I'll just hang on for dear life lol

[sonofsven]

I made my prediction way up thread, but for posterity, or scorn:
Harris 322 EC votes, maybe more.
A landslide.
Women voters, young voters, late breaking voters going for Kamala big.

[lhamo]

I made my prediction way up thread, but for posterity, or scorn:
Harris 322 EC votes, maybe more.
A landslide.
Women voters, young voters, late breaking voters going for Kamala big.

May it be so!

I am also hoping for such an outcome.

Time to fill out my ballot....

[sonofsven]

I made my prediction way up thread, but for posterity, or scorn:
Harris 322 EC votes, maybe more.
A landslide.
Women voters, young voters, late breaking voters going for Kamala big.

May it be so!

I am also hoping for such an outcome.

Time to fill out my ballot....

Vote early and often!

[Financial.Velociraptor]

ongoing US difficulties in reclaiming manufacturing

I keep seeing this concept.  I used to even believe it.  Truth is, since WWII domestic manufacturing has very steadily grown year after year in both dollars and tonnage.  The only thing that is down with respect to domestic manufacturing is domestic employment (average manufacturing wages per employee up greatly!).  This is as it should be.  Fewer wrench turners and more (but lesser than before) machine operators.  The jobs we exported were (mostly - some exceptions apply) little better than McJobs.  Chinamen didn't take the skilled laborer jobs.  Machines did. 

[sonofsven]

ongoing US difficulties in reclaiming manufacturing

I keep seeing this concept.  I used to even believe it.  Truth is, since WWII domestic manufacturing has very steadily grown year after year in both dollars and tonnage.  The only thing that is down with respect to domestic manufacturing is domestic employment (average manufacturing wages per employee up greatly!).  This is as it should be.  Fewer wrench turners and more (but lesser than before) machine operators.  The jobs we exported were (mostly - some exceptions apply) little better than McJobs.  Chinamen didn't take the skilled laborer jobs.  Machines did.

This holds true in the logging industry as well. One buncher/feller machine does the work of multiple ground men.
Don't get me started on the fiasco of us allowing raw logs to be shipped overseas for processing into lumber instead of requiring the sawmill jobs stay in country (as Canada does).

[RetiredAt63]

How do Canadians plan for the worst re an American election (asked up thread to GuitarStv)?  If MAGA wins then our ultra-right conservatives will be more bold.  And we are already looking at an election sometime soonish.  So we will have to plan for that.

Can I just point something out?  Everyone is talking about Trump, but if he wins and then is medically unable to be President (quite likely in the next year or two looking at him the last few weeks) then J.D. Vance is the next President.  The man who thimks domestic violence is acceptable.

[partgypsy]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

How do you plan for the worst here?

myself I may need to move up job search activities, as it may be an unfavorable climate for working for the gov (I work for the VA in research). It's a last resort. I have devoted my last 20 years of my career working here and would prefer to stay and have it be viable.

[lhamo]

Can I just point something out?  Everyone is talking about Trump, but if he wins and then is medically unable to be President (quite likely in the next year or two looking at him the last few weeks) then J.D. Vance is the next President.  The man who thimks domestic violence is acceptable.

Trump is a fairly easy to manipulate buffoon.  Vance is much more sinister/worrisome, in my book.

[sixwings]

Can I just point something out?  Everyone is talking about Trump, but if he wins and then is medically unable to be President (quite likely in the next year or two looking at him the last few weeks) then J.D. Vance is the next President.  The man who thimks domestic violence is acceptable.

Trump is a fairly easy to manipulate buffoon.  Vance is much more sinister/worrisome, in my book.

I think Vance is even more easily manipulated. He's completely bought and paid for and does what he's told. Like look at his about-face between 2016, 2020, and now. He just does as he's told and has no real thoughts or agenda of things he wants to do. Trumps a moron but he is consistent on some issues, like he's been harping on trade and military isolationism since like the mid 90s and no one is going to convince him otherwise. Vance has no stances except what rich people tell him to do.

[reeshau]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

How do you plan for the worst here?

Understand that we still won't know come Wednesday morning, possibly for legitimate reasons (hand counts / recounts)  and then, we're quite likely IMHO to go through legal challenges on the scale of 2020, anyway.  Not just for the Presidential, but also Congress, as control of both houses will be tight.

[jrhampt]

Can I just point something out?  Everyone is talking about Trump, but if he wins and then is medically unable to be President (quite likely in the next year or two looking at him the last few weeks) then J.D. Vance is the next President.  The man who thimks domestic violence is acceptable.

Trump is a fairly easy to manipulate buffoon.  Vance is much more sinister/worrisome, in my book.

I think Vance is even more easily manipulated. He's completely bought and paid for and does what he's told. Like look at his about-face between 2016, 2020, and now. He just does as he's told and has no real thoughts or agenda of things he wants to do. Trumps a moron but he is consistent on some issues, like he's been harping on trade and military isolationism since like the mid 90s and no one is going to convince him otherwise. Vance has no stances except what rich people tell him to do.

Idk, I believe Vance is a sincere misogynist at least.

[Kris]

Vance is smarter, for sure. That comes with both pros and cons.

And he is a creation of Peter Thiel. His marching orders are clear.

[Michael in ABQ]

It's the day before the election. I'll just throw out my prediction that Trump will win. Definitely in the electoral college and probably close in the popular vote.

I think Harris will still will Wisconsin and Michigan, but Trump will take the remaining swing states - Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.


Per the attached image from Real Clear Polling on this date in 2020 the final polling average showed Biden up in 5 of 7 swing states. Actual results had him win 6 of 7 but the error was mostly overestimating Biden - including by 6% in Wisconsin. Georgia was the only state where the polling underestimated Biden - by 1.3%. This time around Trump is up by a decent margin in all but Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college


Pennsylvania is clearly where it's going to be decided and if you look at the latest polls (attached below) they're leaning slightly towards Trump. NY Times/Sienna is ranked #1 in accuracy by 538 and they have it tied. Atlas Intel has the largest sample size with 2,049 likely voters and a 2.0% margin of error and they show Trump up 2%. The best poll for Harris showing her up by 2% has a much smaller sample size of only 469 likely voters with a much larger 6.0% margin of error.


https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/pennsylvania/trump-vs-harris

[dividendman]

It's the day before the election. I'll just throw out my prediction that Trump will win. Definitely in the electoral college and probably close in the popular vote.

I think Harris will still will Wisconsin and Michigan, but Trump will take the remaining swing states - Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.


Per the attached image from Real Clear Polling on this date in 2020 the final polling average showed Biden up in 5 of 7 swing states. Actual results had him win 6 of 7 but the error was mostly overestimating Biden - including by 6% in Wisconsin. Georgia was the only state where the polling underestimated Biden - by 1.3%. This time around Trump is up by a decent margin in all but Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college


Pennsylvania is clearly where it's going to be decided and if you look at the latest polls (attached below) they're leaning slightly towards Trump. NY Times/Sienna is ranked #1 in accuracy by 538 and they have it tied. Atlas Intel has the largest sample size with 2,049 likely voters and a 2.0% margin of error and they show Trump up 2%. The best poll for Harris showing her up by 2% has a much smaller sample size of only 469 likely voters with a much larger 6.0% margin of error.


https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/pennsylvania/trump-vs-harris

That's pretty much what betting markets are saying too (Harris takes only Wisconsin and Michigan) : https://forecasttrader.interactivebrokers.com/eventtrader/#/markets

[ChpBstrd]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

How do you plan for the worst here?

1) I hedged the stocks in my portfolio using an options collar back in late June / early July. This puts a floor on my potential losses, in exchange for an acceptable ceiling on my potential gains. Thus getting wiped out is not possible. Historically, the recession that traditionally accompanies Republican presidencies has come later in their term (Bush 1, Bush 2, Trump) and there are usually good investing years ahead of the bear market. I feel I'm solving for the paradox of how to both stay invested and also not get wiped out.

2) Fresh passports for the entire family. Funny how little things like proper documentation have historically been the difference between life and death for people caught in a rise-of-fascism moment.

3) An internationally accessible brokerage account with currency conversion options where I can transfer funds to use if I end up in foreign lands.

4) Still need to dig out my old Spanish CD set, or see how much free content is on Duolingo. Europe and Canada should not be assumed to be safe places, given the success of their own right-wing parties. Like these places, Australia and NZ have a cost of living crisis that will only get worse due to foreign investment. If I'm going to be a refugee, I'd rather retire in confidence in a place like Panama or Chile than quickly go broke in a place like Sydney. My hypothesis is that English-speaking places are more likely to go fascist than places where social media culture is less ingrained. I'm not a fan of the machismo or religiosity of Latin America, and their democracies have not been as stable in the past, but I simply see no need to flee the Republican party for Germany, only to watch the AfD win their next election. UK voters, meanwhile, have shot themselves in the foot so often in the past several years that it seems they are destined to destroy their democracy too.

5) Stop acquiring unnecessary stuff. The ratty couch can wait another year to be replaced. Decorations are just burdens. This is not a good time to be getting another pet. Etc. In fact, it's a good time to de-clutter or have a yard sale. Raise capital, reduce stuff.

[Metalcat]

Vance is smarter, for sure. That comes with both pros and cons.

And he is a creation of Peter Thiel. His marching orders are clear.

Thiel...the guy who walked away from Trump for not being willing to be extreme enough...

[partgypsy]

I have been putting off some house stuff, just trying to get through last year of oldest in college (8 more months) before I feel I can spend money. But I def need to have exterior house painted. Even if the company is American owned often the workers may not be. So, if Trump is elected in might need to fit in the painting sooner than later (before labor costs increase). Realistically that's not going to be sooner than this summer.

[SunnyDays]

How do Canadians plan for the worst re an American election (asked up thread to GuitarStv)?  If MAGA wins then our ultra-right conservatives will be more bold.  And we are already looking at an election sometime soonish.  So we will have to plan for that.

Can I just point something out?  Everyone is talking about Trump, but if he wins and then is medically unable to be President (quite likely in the next year or two looking at him the last few weeks) then J.D. Vance is the next President.  The man who thimks domestic violence is acceptable.

I was watching some news clips from 2020 and Trump has aged about 10 years in the last 4.  There's some part of me that hopes that Vance is maybe pulling the biggest con ever, and is still a secret Democrat trying to sneak into office through the back door.  Then I think that conspiracy theories are affecting my brain.

Doesn't Trump think any kind of violence is acceptable? Not sure I see a difference between him and Vance.

[LennStar]

Can I just point something out?  Everyone is talking about Trump, but if he wins and then is medically unable to be President (quite likely in the next year or two looking at him the last few weeks) then J.D. Vance is the next President.  The man who thimks domestic violence is acceptable.

Trump is a fairly easy to manipulate buffoon.  Vance is much more sinister/worrisome, in my book.

Yeah, that is actually (and I think I said it somewhere up??) what I fear. Trump is a catastrophe, but he is incompetent. And his mental health is not getting better. I would not be surprised if Vance is even counting on Trump getting uhm... unfit for office.

Europe and Canada should not be assumed to be safe places, given the success of their own right-wing parties.

Not to mention that you may have to make the choice between sitting under Trump/Vance's arse and Putin's fist.

[MMMarbleheader]

How do Canadians plan for the worst re an American election (asked up thread to GuitarStv)?  If MAGA wins then our ultra-right conservatives will be more bold.  And we are already looking at an election sometime soonish.  So we will have to plan for that.

Can I just point something out?  Everyone is talking about Trump, but if he wins and then is medically unable to be President (quite likely in the next year or two looking at him the last few weeks) then J.D. Vance is the next President.  The man who thimks domestic violence is acceptable.

I was watching some news clips from 2020 and Trump has aged about 10 years in the last 4.  There's some part of me that hopes that Vance is maybe pulling the biggest con ever, and is still a secret Democrat trying to sneak into office through the back door.  Then I think that that conspiracy theories are affecting my brain.

Doesn't Trump think any kind of violence is acceptable? Not sure I see a difference between him and Vance.

IMO, the best hope is Vance reverts back to his NeoCon older self but that probably wont happen either.