Job Experience Myth

I have been watching advertisements on TV for "experienced" applicants.  This sounds good, but if you look deeper, it is a total "myth".  That is what this blog is all about.

Like I have pointed out in the past, you first need a clear objective and exactly what it that?  You need to hire a person who can do the job, but a lot more.  You need someone who can not only do the job, but can grow with the job and possibly be promoted to a different job in the future.  When you look at an applicant with experience, you have to ask, "how did they get that experience?"  Who taught them what they needed to know?  Do you think that you could teach better than that other person?  It is the trend that people change jobs today, a lot more often than they did in the past.  Thus you need to try to hire people who can make those changes when the time comes and it will.  Are you starting to see the problem with just considering experience?

To meet the objective above, you need a person who is "smart" and who can adapt to new situations.  You have heard of people described as "fast learners".  Those types of people really do exist and you need a way to find them.  How about "work ethic"?  I think that you know that a person with lots of experience can also be low on the work ethic side.  What if a person has too much experience?  I mean, what if they have been in the very same job for a long time.  Is there a reason for that?  When I was in college many years ago, I had a professor in Industrial Psychology who was promoting a concept called "MAQ".  It stood for management advancement quoation.  Boiled down, it was the ratio of age and management level.  Here is an example.  Let's say we have two candidates of different ages but who hold similar level jobs.  The "MAQ" concepts says that the younger candidate is the preferred one.  I think that you can see why.  Like most things related to human performance, none of these measures are "exact", but they are much better than 50/50 and that is the game one is playing in the selection process.

This is a little repeat, but bear with me.  In the interview process, you need to find out if the person has come into their experience by way of an algorithmic or empirical path or an analytical one.  Empirical knowledge suffers from the fact that it is often domain specific and thus can not be extended to new situations, where as, analytical knowledge is based on sound proven principles that apply universally.  This is a critical point to determine in the interview process.  As you can see, some experience may be worse than no experience at all.

I know that many managers responsible for hiring go by the principle that, "They need to hire people smarter than themselves".  It is impossible to for a manager to manage people if they do not know how to do the job themselves.  You only have to look at successful technical companies to see that this is true.  In most cases, it is better to hire a person with potential and then train them yourself.

A final point.  As jobs change and we all know that they are changing very fast, it will become more and more difficult to find people who have experience in future jobs that are not yet even defined.  Empirical knowledge become more and more worthless while analytical knowledge becomes more valuable.  Most experience is thus empirical and is a myth as it may apply to the future.

Birth Rates And Global Warming

Remember when China came out with the new policy of "only one child"?  The world could not believe that any government could come up with a more uncivilized policy, but now I think that many feel that China was just ahead of the times.  What do you think?  That is the idea behind this blog.

I check some of the figures on the internet on birth rates by country and found some interesting facts.  The countries with the highest birth rates were in Africa and Muslim countries.  The USA ranked 150th in the world, or about the middle.  It has to be clear to everyone that Africa is the poorest place in the world, yet they have the highest birth rate.  Is that civilized or stupid?  If us humans are the cause of global warming then the worst offenders have to be the counties of Africa and the Muslim countries.

Look at the Gaza Strip.  The birth rate there has dropped a little in the past 40 years, but over breeding is still their number one problem.  They have not been able to feed themselves for many years and depend on food aid just to survive.  I checked a few years ago on Egypt and found that they double their population every 20 or so years.  We all know about India and their population problems, but did you know that Pakistan has a higher birth rate and Muslims living in India have a higher birth rate than the Hindu's!

When I used to teach Decision Theory, I would ask the new class what was the first step toward solving a problem and most of the class would respond that it was to "define the problem",  Wrong!  The first step is to "admit that you have a problem"!  This is true with over weight people, alcohol or drug addicts and it is the same with over population.  I know that most people want a better life or a better quality of life, but they don't seem to understand that breeding too many kids is directly counter to that objective.

The data shows that those with the lowest birth rates tend to have the highest quality of life, while those with the highest birth rates have the lowest quality of life.  Could that be any clearer?  What is it going to take before the human race wakes up too the facts?  We seem to have come to grips with the problem of over population of dogs and cats, so why not humans?  If we wake up to over breeding, we can stop global warming and have a better quality of life at the same time.  What we are doing now is not the solution for either!!

Berlin Terrorist Discussion

It happened again in Berlin!  What is needed is an open minded discussion of the whole terrorist problem and specifically what Germany is and has been doing.  That is what this blog will try to do.

We need to agree on a few simple facts.  For thousands of years the civilizations of the West have been dealing with crime using "fear of punishment" as the solution.  It has worked as long as those who were committing the crimes were concerned about getting caught or their own health and safety.  There have been all kinds of brutal types of punishment used.  More recently and in the constitution of the USA we have banned many of these old types of punishment.  Civilized people have judged that it is better to put up with a "few" criminals who are not deterred by brutal punishment rather than "over" punishing regular criminals.  We take pride in our position based on the "past", but what do we do when we have a new situation where we now have "many" criminals or terrorists who have "zero" fear of punishment?  That is the problem that we now face.

If we can agree that we want to stop terrorist, what are our alternative actions?  All we can do is to be sure that we have all the alternatives on the table and then  to pick the one that is "best", but it has to be one that actually does stop terrorist.  We could take the position that we now have with murder or bank robbery which is to follow a policy that keeps these to a low "acceptable" level.  Realized that both murder and bank robbery are against the law, and we still have murders and bank robberies.  Do you think that this is what we want regarding terrorism?   I don't think so!

We know that 100% of terrorists are followers of the Muslim religion and thus one way to assure that we do not allow in more terrorist is to stop letting in Muslims!  This would mean that we would exclude over 90% of Muslims who are not terrorists.  Exactly what do we owe anyone including Muslims who want to immigrate into the USA anyway?  If we let them in, it is "at our pleasure".  There is no legal basis for letting them in.  This is the same with Germany.

Look at the smoke screen coming out of Germany on this recent truck terrorist.  The German police had the terrorist under surveillance  for months to assure that he did not commit any crime.  That is what they claimed, but it is not true.  Given that a terrorist can decide at any moment to take criminal action like driving their car into into a group of people or business, how can the police stop it?  The whole thing takes place in a matter of seconds!  Even if the police were able to shoot the individual immediately, what difference would it have made?  None!

Do you know of any other solution to eliminate terrorist other than not letting them in to the USA in the first place?  If not, I guess that we are stuck with not letting in anymore Muslims!  I don't think that Trump likes this alternative, but what other choice does he have?

PS--The fact that they found and killed the terrorist will have "zero" affect on preventing future terrorist events.  If this were a typical bank robber, it would have some affect, but not with Muslim inspired terrorists.  That is why we need to totally rethink how we deal with Muslim inspired terrorist.  We can't keep using the old formula that does not work with these types of terrorists.  One of the strategies for take over of the West my Muslims is to "out breed them".  It is hard for most people to get their heads around this one, but it is the truth and we need to understand that!!  The Muslims in France are breeding at 10 times the rate of original Frenchmen.  Do the math!!

"ImmigrationI Is Good" Myth

I have been blogging for some time that immigration is "not" good.  Almost everyone seems to feel that immigration is good for the economy.  That is clearly a myth! I will try to explain how many have been taken in by this myth in this blog.

To evaluate a decision, you first need some kind of objective to judge a decision against.  I'll deal with that first.  Here is a list of possible objectives.

(1) Help poor people around the world by allowing them to move to the USA for the good life.

(2) Make the economy "bigger" by allowing in people who can produce some "value added", no matter how small that amount might be.

(3) Make decisions that improve the quality of life for the people who are citizens of the USA including their kids and grand children.

(4) Make decisions that raise the "median family income" and avoid those that lower it, given that median income is the main driver of median quality of life.

With any list of objectives, they are bound not to be mutually exclusive and may actually be in conflict.  I think that my list above is a good example.  Take (1), if helping poor people around the world by letting them immigrate into the USA is "good", it is also "bad" at the same time.  You need to be able to answer whether the decision "nets" out positive for the USA.  More immigrants lower the quality of life by making the USA poorer and more congested with less and less free space.  New immigrants tend to be breeders of big families and thus do much more future damage to the USA over time.

How about (2)?  I don't know how many simple minded people that I have heard saying that poor immigrants take jobs that our people do not want to take and that they pay taxes and contribute to the economy.  This may be partly true, but it misses the main point and that is, it lowers the median family income and makes us poorer.  The pie may be a little bit bigger, but the  size of the pie that the median person gets is "smaller".  That seriously violates objective (4) and you can't do that if you want USA to be a better place to live.

How about (3)?  Most people can not see beyond their noses and do not take into account the future implications of their knee jerk actions.  The future of the USA and the future of our children is not something that short term thinkers have any business playing with.  My family has been here for over 30 generations and during that time, they were always working for the "future" of the USA and their unborn children.  I don;t want to see anyone sell out our future for some kind of short term gain!

Finally, it is very difficult to raise median family income by just value added labor alone.  Our economic history has been based on the exploitation of our natural resources from day one.  It has been supplemented with value added labor like making shoes or building cars, but few of those workers ever earned much more than the median level income.  Before Obama became President, the median family income was about $55,000.  Now, it is down to about $47,000!  Many very skilled hard working people earn much more than the $55,000 or $47,000, but it does not raise the median family income because there is not enough of them.  An average person mining Gold or drilling an oil is easily "worth" more than the median family income.  More immigrants do not help Gold mining or oil well drilling or farming.  It just means we have more mouths to feed from the pot!!

Who do you think that the children of immigrants are going to vote for?  The party who let their parents immigrate here and allowed them to live on welfare, that's who!!  No wonder Obama and the Democrats want to let in more and more immigrants.  They don't really care about the immigrants or the welfare of the USA, all they want is to stay in power!!  States like California and New York are a couple of the poorest educated states now while places like Iowa, and the Dakotas are the best.  Why do you think that is????

Skin In The Game For Global Warming Advocates

One of the things that bugs the hell out of me is hearing global warming advocates shooting their mouths off and proposing ways to restrict my freedom when they have no skin in the game.  That is the point of this blog.

Every time I hear a global warming advocate tell me not to cut my own trees or shoot deer on my own property, I think that they should be looking in the mirror and asking why they never planted any trees on the property that they pay taxes on.  It is like those people down at Starbucks drinking over priced coffee with money that their parents gave them.  What do they really know and don't seem to want to pay for with the tax money that they paid on the money they worked for.  Here are just a few idea that I have to allow them to get some skin in the game.

(1)  For each child that they have, they should be required to plant at least 10 trees.  I would rather make that 100 trees, but that would eliminate 90% as possible parents.  I was watching the war in Syria and noticed that there had to  be at least 1,000 people for every tree.  No wonder they have problems!

(2)  Now for wind power.  Most of these "save the world" global warming people want to spend more and more of my tax money on wind mills to generate "clean" power should have some skin in the game.  I recommend that all wind power has to be consumed within 50 miles of where it was originally generated.  Global warming advocates want to put their wind mills that are paid for with my tax money in my back yard, not their own back yards.  It is the same for solar power.  Both solar and wind power cost at least 10 times that from coal or natural gas, but when it is mixed at a small percentage with cheaper power most consumers don't see the real cost.  If people in these urban areas who want all this green power had to pay the full cost, I don't think that they would be as enthusiastic.

(3)  Here is another one.  How about garbage?  These big urban areas generate most of the garbage, but they want to dump their garbage in my back yard, far from their big cities.  I recommend that we pass a law that all garbage had to be disposed of within 50 miles of where it was generated.  What do you think places like New York City would be like if they were required dispose of their garbage within 50 miles rather than hauling it by truck and train many miles away into other states?

(4)  How about water?  In the case of California, the people in the LA area voted to steal the water from Northern California and ship it by canal over 500 miles to LA so that the people there could water their lawns a golf courses.  Farmers in Northern California who had land next to the Sacramento river could not take water out of that river to water their cattle because they were out voted by people in LA who wanted the water for their swimming pools.  It is the same with the water from the Colorado river.  I recommend that water should not be shipped across state lines or beyond 50 miles of the river from where it came.  In this case, I do not see a simple way for greenies or global warming advocates to get some skin in the game.  Do you know anything about Owens Valley?  It was another one.

(5)  I have one final one.  How about immigrants?  If they feel that where they are living is so bad that they have to get out, "no matter what", then here is how they can get some skin in the game.  I recommend that they agree to be neutered.  It is one thing for us to allow them in, but what about some equal value for them to have to give up?  I think that neutering them is a good way for them to put some skin in the game.  If we don't do something like this, it will not be too many years before we are over run with Muslims people from other places that they over populated.

PS---When the humane society saves the life of a dog or cat, they neuter the animal so that the animal ends up with some skin in the game.  The main reason that they have the animals in the first place was due to "over" breeding.  If they just sent the animal back out into the society without neutering, it would make the problem worse.  I think that neutering is better than letting the animals die as Darwin would have done!!

Leave Global Warming To Darwin

It is interesting that Darwin has been here a lot longer than the politicians and scientists and has done a very good job.  Don't follow that?  That is the point of this blog.

The modern thought process by our current generation of College professors and the kids who graduated from their classes is that us humans are the major cause of global warming.  This whole thing can be divided into it parts for better understanding.  First, we need to answer the simple question, "do we really have global warming?" If the answer to this first question is "no", why are we even having this discussion.  If I grant some latitude that the answer "may" be "yes" we can go on to discuss other aspects.

Rather than just discuss short range impacts of global warming, why don't we jump to the "end game" and discuss how global warming will end up after it runs its course.  Think about what this world will look like after global warming has run it course.  I think that most scientists agree that many of us humans will die off because the places where they live will become totally uninhabitable.  Let's start with that point--"totally uninhabitable".

if you look around, you will find places on Earth that are currently uninhabitable.  How about those?  Look at Death Valley in California.  It is hotter there than what many places are projected to be due to global warming in the next several hundred years.  The world has not come to an end due to the special climate of Death Valley and it won't if other places become uninhabitable.  Look at the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma?  When that area became uninhabitable, the humans who tried to live there moved to places less affected, like California.  We called them Okies.  You remember that!!

Remember Easter Island?  It had a lot of trees when the first humans showed up and they thrived.  Over time the number of humans grew and grew until they cut down all the trees for fuel and building material.  Had the same trees all died because of global warming, the net results would have been the same.  Unlike the Okies who moved to California, the humans on Easter Island could not leave because they had no wood to build boats.  Darwin stepped in and let most of the humans die off until Easter Island could grow enough food for the few humans who were left.  This is how Darwin will deal with global warming.  If those human on Easter Island were allowed to leave Easter Island and go to another island, the process of over population would have continued until that new island also died off.  The only advantage is that the final die off was delayed by a few years.

Isn't that what we are looking at with global warming given how we are currently dealing with it?   No matter how bad it gets here on Earth due to global warming, there will still be places where humans can survive.  Look at Eskimos in Alaska.  They live in a very uninhabitable place, but they have been living there for several thousands of years.  Darwin just keeps the population density down to a point that norther Alaska can support.  If humans are the cause of global warming, then as most of the humans of the world die off, global warming should stop!  Right!!  You can't have it both ways.

Now, look at the USA.  We only have 75 people per square mile and millions of trees per each of our citizens.  Compare that with countries who have many times our density and many fewer trees per citizen.  Why should we save them at our expense when they over populated their own countries?  Why should we allow them to come here like Okies came to California.  Let Darwin deal with them!!!

PS--This is a repeat. The right strategy for global warming is not to prevent global warming, but to be one of the survivors.  To do that we need to be the wealthy and have a low population density. Squandering our wealth trying to prevent global warming and allowing in more and more immigrants makes both key things above much "worse"!!!  Once the human die off as a result of global warming has run its course those of us who survive will gradually get back to normal.

What Is The Cause Of Claimed Global Warming?

If you have a broken arm and it hurts, what is the cure?  We all know that the cure is "time" for your body to heal the broken bone, but what does the doctor do?  He gives you pain pills.  I think that most of us know that the pain pill has zero to do with healing the broke  bone.  A further examination shows that this person has had two broken arms before.  When asked about his life style, the patient admits that he is a rock climber and falls from time to time.  Now that we have some facts, what is the cure for broken arms?  Don't risk your life climbing rocks!!  Now, let's look at global warming,

We know a few facts about global warming.  Thousands of years ago, we did not have a serious problem with global warming, or did we?  Something happened that caused the massive glaciers that covered much of Earth to melt.  Global warming people ignored that this event ever happened.  They do seem to agree that the quality of life of us humans caused global warming.  We know that our high quality of life is a direct result of the use of energy rather than muscle power.  Can't have one without the other.  If we only had a few countries in the world who had a high quality of life and thus used a lot of energy, global warming would not be a problem, but that is not what is happening.

It is clear that the cause of global warming, according to the global warming advocates, is caused by the high use of energy used to attain a high quality of life.  If we were all hunter gatherers, we would not have a global warming problem!  The problem with that is that few would have any quality of life.  Further, we would have to reduce the population of humans here on Earth by at least 90%.  The number of humans per square mile would have to be down to about 5 or 6.  In the USA, our population density is low, but it is still about 75 per square mile.  In many countries around the world their population density is over 500 per square mile.  It is impossible to ever get their use of energy down to a level where they have zero impact on global warming.

In England, they have a tradition that the oldest son gets the farm.  When I first heard this, I thought that this is not fair!  Now, when I look back at it with a wider understanding, I now feel that England had the correct tradition.  If they had split up the farm with each generation, sooner or later the land would be divided up into section smaller than a city lot and all would starve or be very poor.  What happened to my family was that they were forced to divide up the farm and all got poorer and poorer.  The Catholic church has been standing in the way of birth control for over 2,000 years with the result that countries where they dominate becoming the poorest on the Earth.  Quality of life is also among the worst on Earth for these same people.  Now, you are starting to see the Catholic church climbing on the global warming band wagon, when they have been the main cause for the past 2,000 years.  It makes me sick!!

In college I took a class in Wildlife Conservation and learned that wild life habitat's have a "limit" of how many animals they can support.  It is so simple to understand when it comes to animals, but it is impossible to get the same point across when it comes to "people".  Why is that?  We have countries in Central America where there are 500 people or more per square mile.  You need to ask, "Who is responsible for this problem?"  It is liberal "do gooders" and the Catholic church.  I should not lay all the blame on Catholic dogma when Muslim dogma advocates maximum breeding even if they can not afford to feed their children.  That is just one more reason why responsible USA citizens need to minimize Muslim immigration.  If we don't we will end up as poor as the places where the Muslims came from.  Our quality of life will be only a ancient memory!!

War Of 1812 Land Warrants And Immigrtion

Many in my family fought in the War Of 1812 and for their 6 months service, they got land warrants for 160 acres in Missouri and Arkansas.  The value of that land today is about $3,000 per acre.  That means for just 6 months of service, they were paid a bonus of $480,000.  That meant they had a net worth of $480,000 if they had no other assets.  The bottom line is that back in 1812, the median family net worth was almost 10 times what it is today.  What is the definition of "rich"?  It is how much you are worth, not how much you make.  That is the point of this blog.

I checked the data and found that today, the median family net worth is about $45,000;  Just 10 years ago the number was about $55,000.  With my 4th grade math, I  calculate that our net worth has been going down at the rate of about $2,000 per year which is about the same as for the past 10 years.  These are the starting facts.  Now we need to see if we can figure out exactly "why" our wealth has been going down.

If a typical family was able to save 10% of their median family income of $50,000, how many years would it take for a median family to get back to as wealthy as we were back in 1812?  My calculations show that it would take 96 years.  Notice that most people do not live that long and all new people whether born here or are immigrants, most start with a net worth of zero.  What we need are fewer of these "zero's" if we want to become a richer country.

I blogged in the past that no country in the world has ever gotten rich by value added labor.  All the richest countries got rich by the exploitation of their natural resources and then divided that wealth by the fewest number of people.  The math does not lie.  If you can tell me how more immigrants are going to raise the median family income or net worth, I will change my tune.  The immigrant kid from Somalia who tried to kill those students at Ohio State was on welfare along with his mother and her 6 other kids.  Did that family raise the median family net worth or lower it?  You have to be able to use your 4th grade math to come to the correct answer.

The USA used to be rich and we were able to give soldiers who served just 6 months 160 acres of land that is now worth about half a million dollars.  Think about that one!!

PS--There is another point. Many of the soldiers who got the 160 acres sold that land or the warrants and then used that money or net worth to buy things like food and clothing that now has a value of zero.  What we have been doing and are still doing is using up our net worth.  It makes a lot of people feel richer when they are not.  Our government does the same thing by borrowing money to add to the taxes they collect and then spend that on things that now have zero value.  The affect is that the net worth of our country or government is also going down too.

PS--My family had gotten land warrants in Tennessee by serving in the Revolutionary War, but had 10 kids and that land or net worth had to be divided up and thus each person got poorer.  The original wealth was 100% from natural resources and the addition of more mouths diluted that wealth and made all poorer.  Don't you see that it is exactly the same with our current situation with massive immigration!!!  They worked hard to create net worth by "value added", but it did  not compare to the net wealth from natural resources----160 acres of land.

PS---Years ago, we gave new immigrants 160 acres of land under the "homestead act".  This made them instantly rich.  Now, most  new immigrates are destitute and have zero net worth.  This makes our median net worth go "down" and thus make us poorer and poorer along with our quality of life.

Super Container Ships And Amazon Impact On Economics

Several years ago, I was sailing from the Bahamas to Palm Beach when I encountered one of those giant container ships.  He was about 10 miles away, but I knew that they traveled a lot faster than most people think.  I called the captain on the radio and asked if I should pass behind or ahead of him.  He call that I should pass ahead of him.  Every thing worked out OK.  Super container ships is the idea behind this blog.

Let's go back before there were any super container ships.  In those days the transportation of a product from China add 20% to the retail cost of a product.  Now it is down to only about 5%.  Why is this a big deal, you might ask?  It is a very big deal and here is why.  Think about a product made here in the USA that sells for $100 and a product from China that sells for $95.  That is not much and most people would buy the product made in the USA even though it cost $5.00 or 5% more.  Now look at the impact of the super container ship.  The product from China used to include $20 for shipping, but now with the super container ship the cost is only $5.00.  That results in a final retail cost of  $80.  Now we are looking at a big enough difference of 20% and now you buy the product made in China.  Who ever made the USA product is out of job.  Simple isn't it?

We are not through.  What is the impact of companies like Amazon?  It is the same as that of the super container ship.  The USA made product that has a retail price of $100 has a total of $25 to support the big  box retail stores where the product is sold.  When Amazon came along, they cut out the added cost of the big box retail store and reduced the cost from $25 to just $10.  This is good, right?  Not when it comes to made in the USA and her's is how.  The product from China that used to cost $80 now has a cost thru Amazon of $65.  The USA product can play this game too and their product now has a retail cost of $85.  Notice that it is still that same $20 difference, so what is the big deal?

Before the super container ship, the product from China has the same retail cost as the one made here in the USA.  After the impact of the super container ship the product from China had a retail cost of $80.  That was 20% less than the USA made product.  Now when you add in the impact of Amazon, the product from China has a retail cost of $65 and the USA made product has a retail cost of $85.  What is the big deal?  Now the product from China has a retail cost of 23.5% less than the product made here.  See what is happening?  The USA made products are getting less and less competitive with those made in China.  China still has their same labor cost advantage as their percent advantage keeps getting bigger.

I hope that you have followed my simple example and see what is happening with world trade and how we are at a big disadvantage and that disadvantage will keep growing.  I could come up with many more examples, but  I think you can see what is happening!!!

PS--Efficiency does not solve the problem either because China can buy the same equipment and tools.  Since we are about 35th in the world in math, our workers are not any better or efficient either.  The future does not look too good, does it?  All we have is our natural resources and diluting them with immigration will cancel out that advantage too.

Trump Administration Tax Cuts

The Trump administration is promising big tax cuts as the solution for our economy, but it might not be as simple as that.  That is what this bog is all about.

What I am hearing from the news is that Trump is proposing a reduction in individual income taxes as well tax on businesses.  When 10% of the tax payers pay 90% of the taxes, do you really think that we need to reduce individual income taxes on the middle class?  I think that many of these politicians think that it will put more money into the pockets of tax payers and that they will spend that money and drive our economy higher.  I ask you, "How is giving a family who is not paying a significant amount it income tax now going to have enough extra money to spend on something "made in the USA" when most of what they buy is not made in the USA"?  Where are they going to get all these new jobs?  Will it be as a greeter at WalMart or some other retailer of imported products?  The increased cost of Obamacare is going to eat up any pay increase, no matter how it is done.  Even if Trump gets rid of Obamacare, it appears that he is going to keep some of the "mandates" that continue to increase family and business costs significantly.

Given that most voters do not understand basic economics, I think that Trump may be throwing them a bone to keep them under control while he does things that actually do help the economy and jobs.  There are several things that affect the number of jobs and the pay rate for those jobs and earning more for doing the same thing is not some thing that helps to create more jobs.  Obama has made it more difficult for businesses more by his regulations and mandates than the affect of taxes.  High tax on businesses is a slight of hand trick that politicians use to pull the wool over the voter's eyes.  They do not seem to have the character to face voters and explain to them that workers pay the tax in the end any way.

 You can increase the GNP by a couple of ways and getting more of our voters off welfare and into jobs is one way.  Workers only deserve higher paying jobs when they are "worth" more by producing more, not when they use extortion or political pressure.  We are the dumping grounds for almost every country in the world for their products.  We have a lot of agriculture products, but many of the countries around the world who need the food are so poor that they can not afford to pay "full" price.  We have all kinds of programs that subsidize these countries with out tax money.  The bottom line is that we need more exports a fewer imports.  How do we do that?  Simple, right?  Make our products cost less and imported products cost more.  I think that a 3rd grader can understand that.

How do we do that?  Shift the tax and things like social security and health care for the poor off the backs of businesses and onto "consumption".  That means "sales tax"!  People who cheat on their income tax with the "black market", now would end up paying their share of taxes.  Illegal drugs is a big business here and they don't pay any tax.  Shifting to more of our taxes coming from "value added" tax would mean that we would be taxing their illegal income.  Imported products from places like Mexico and China would cost more and thus level the playing field for our businesses.

The bottom line is that Trump should not lower income tax for middle class.  He needs to work on getting the middle class to be "worth" more and thus able to pay their share of tax.