Supreme Court victory to Trump gives him a big boost

This was the week that belonged to Donald Trump --- in a series of events that gave him the ability to shore up his sagging polls, and overcome the drum beating that he has taken from the detention of children from their parents at the Southern border of the United States, part of his zero tolerance policy towards illegal immigration.

On Wednesday, the biggest contribution to his presidency was the gift  from the Supreme Court, validating his travel ban against five predominantly Muslim nations.

While Chief Justice Roberts was expected to give some validation, as a conservative, to the ban, what surprised many was that he swept aside the taint of religious bias, that Trump, had uttered on more than one occasion, to say that instead that it was his job, as chief executive to protect the nation from harm, and in this case terrorism, from these countries.

GOP lawmakers and their most ardent supporters were vocal in condemning President Obama from not uttering the line “radical Islamic terrorists” and the Supreme Court decision, gives a judicial point to those that feel the brunt of those words; the validation is now complete, and while the overly broad decision, can be seen as a victory for America, it is really a partisan victory, and the roaring approval of Trump’s base.

Roberts placed his decision “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA," referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act.” In particular he noted, that the Constitution “exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187. The Proclamation falls well within this comprehensive delegation. The sole prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find[ ]” that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

“The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here. He first ordered DHS and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline. He then issued a Proclamation with extensive findings about the deficiencies and their impact. Based on that review, he found that restricting entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information was in the national interest.”

The fact that many of the visitors were American citizens, travelling abroad, in its original version, seemingly tainted by being on the soil of their native land, was not mentioned, or even seen in the majority opinion. 

Much of Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail, in the 2016 election, and even in office, has defined illegal immigrants, law abiding, or not, as “animals” and “invaders” desiring to wreak havoc on the American mainland, and that their wish to enter is solely based on that desire.

The argument is so broad, and so discriminatory that it gives support to critics of the president. But, as The Hill reported, “Roberts and the majority disagreed, arguing the government’s stated objective for the ban — to protect the country and improve vetting processes — was plausible.  

“Because there is persuasive evidence that the entry suspension has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart from any religious hostility, we must accept that independent justification,” he said.

“Ultimately, what began as a policy explicitly ‘calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ has since morphed into a ‘Proclamation’ putatively based on national-security concerns,” said Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent.

“But this new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact: the words of the President and his advisers create the strong perception that the Proclamation is contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers.”

“That constitutional promise is why, for centuries now, people have come to this country from every corner of the world to share in the blessing of religious freedom. Instead of vindicating those principles, today’s decision tosses them aside,” Justice Ginsburg noted.

Correctly identifying this as a personal, and partisan, victory was the president, who said, “This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

A recent Quinnipiac poll, in early June, showed that 85 percent of Republicans approved of  Trump's handling of immigration, while 42 percent of independent voters did not; and, needless to say the GOP numbers will now increase.

The issue of protection is not all that it seems, what is at stake is the age old tactics of playing to the base, mixed with some imperial powers, gave credence that Trump was here to stay, and that all other considerations, be they collusion with the Russians, or obstruction of justice, whichever came first, the issue is to win, at all costs.

With the midterm elections looming, Trump, and in turn, the GOP now has a powerful quiver of victories that can be used: the tax plan, the repeal of the Iran Treat, attacks on NAFTA, and this ban --- and supported by a series of controlled optics, the president favors, such as large campaign rallies, the battle with the Democrats, now painted as dis-loyalists whose soft stance towards immigrants, would threaten the safety of the country.

Then the news like a thunderclap that Justice Anthony Kennedy would retire in just over 30 days, giving Trump the opportunity to fulfill another campaign promise - recall ROE V. WADE in a destruction worthy of all that is sacred to the fiercest foes of abortion.

For those that opposed the passage of the 1973 legislation, the time for repeal is now, and as Trump had promised, he would dismantle it as soon as he was elected. Certainly, the battle will not be won without a fight, a huge partisan and ugly fight, but a win in this area, also means GOP support, even if he is impeached. The spoils will be theirs.

One of the linchpins of the liberal progressive agenda is the right to choose --- pro-choice -- and what better way to bring down the despised enemy of the people than to take one of their prime planks away, and leave liberals gasping.

"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be, that's what will happen," Trump said at the final presidential debate in October 2016. "And that will happen automatically in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

NPR, perhaps, put it most succinctly when they reported, “Kennedy's departure will usher in a fight for the future of the Supreme Court that many social and religious conservatives anticipated and hoped for during the 2016 campaign. Trump's promise to appoint conservative, anti-abortion justices helped turn out the base voters he needed to secure his surprise victory. Exit polls suggested the makeup of the Supreme Court played a major role for many voters on both sides, but more for Republicans.”

In an interview with NPR, Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins called the retirement of the court's swing vote "a day that we've been waiting for."

"Our goal in the pro-life movement has always been to make abortion illegal and unthinkable," Hawkins said. "So we want Roe to be overturned ... and we expect that,” they also noted.

While it can’t happen overnight, Trump’s ploy -- hand it to the states---.gives ample movement towards repeal, with Iowa being one example, having one of the most stringent and restrictive of anti-abortion laws in the nation.

“Nancy Northup, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said restrictive laws recently passed by several states could work their way to the Supreme Court. She points to what is known as a "heartbeat bill" in Iowa, where state lawmakers recently approved one of the strictest abortion laws in the nation”.

“The law, which is being challenged in the courts, bans the procedure after a heartbeat can be detected, which is often before a woman knows she is pregnant. Other states, including Mississippi and Louisiana, have banned abortion at 15 weeks' gestation, and others have prohibited specific methods,” NPR continued.

Add to this heady mix of Trump’s success the tax reform --even though the Congressional Budget Office has said that it will increase deficits in 10 years, and especially disturbing is even if there was a move to permanize the individual cuts, the results will be the same, giving credence to his critics that the president does not know economics and does not care -- winning is the game.

Updated June 30, 2018 at 2:35 p.m. (CSDT)

Donald Trump separated kids from parents at border

Immigration, both legal and illegal, has long been an emotional issue for the United States, as the debate centered, mostly, if not always acknowledged, on just who, and what defines an American; especially for those whose ancestry is far removed from the bakers dozen of the former British colonies. 

In an attempt to force the issue, and keep campaign promises to push identity politics, and to keep a campaign promise on the building of the long-promised wall on the nation’s Southern border, Donald Trump, as president, issued an executive order to separate over 2,000 children from those illegally crossing the border with their parents.

The result was the thunderous response of condemnation, both domestic and international, which also brought bipartisan denunciation to an issue that was straight out of the Stephen Bannon playbook, but without the former presidential advisor to stage manage the madness.

With the fall out and then censure of the president and the Republican party, plus the blow to American ideals, all but forced Trump to rescind the order on Wednesday.

The damage was done, and the image of American Democracy, not only chipped the historical and value laden vision of America, but made it also seem like a cruel joke. 

Adding to the horror, on an audio tape released to the press and the social media scions, one could hear the cries of children, wailing for Mama and Papi, and, with some guards mocking the children, saying, “We’ve got an orchestra here, all we need is a conductor!”

Against this background of horror and shock were the following comments on YouTube:

“Damn! This man is trying so hard to do the right thing at every opportunity, maybe his style is a little ruff but the Dems need to cut him some slack, I was  democrat my entire life until last year NOW I cant even watch Pelosi or Schumer, what disgraces they cannot put aside their fight for money and power to help this man do more good for the American people.”

“So people are getting mad that people are getting deported coz their here illegally? So if you break in someones house illegally u expect them to welcome you? Lol im just saying.”

“For once in my life I feel like he doing the right thing PS I never thought I get this many likes”

“Well another mess left from previous administrations that our President had to fix. Hope they all stop crying over illegals and help the kids here in the U. S.!!!!!!”

The latter comment shows how vicious American nativism is wedded to ignorance of the law, plus the lingering stench of racism towards President Barack Obama, whose administration never had a policy of separating children.  When it did happen, it was done when the relationship with the child crossing with an adult could not be verified, when it was, the the reunion was swiftly affected, once it was established.

Perhaps there is truth the old amorphism, that said, “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it,” which has often been attributed to President John Kennedy.

This drama is not new to the United States, and adding to this nativist debacle, it’s necessary  to take a brief look in the rearview  mirror of  history, to see how it was played out.

While the colonists had their restrictions of who could reach the new nation, nativism, in all its ugliness, seemingly reached its zenith in the 1860s, with the “Know Nothing Party”  when the country saw a steady influx of the Irish, that resulted, in anti-Catholicism, coupled with racist cartoons that tried to cobble together “atypical” Irish facial features.

Magazines, and newspapers, of the period,  were filled with drawings of mitre-clad snapping alligators (a.k.a. Catholic bishops) at America’s shore, represented by a young blonde-haired girl; and at its worst, but only marginally better, vaudeville characters of Paddy the Irishman, with his whisky and brogue, falling on the stage to hysterical laughter from the  audience.

In the aftermath of the debacle and very public embarrassment, the White House and the Trump administration has returned, in some its statements, to the old mantra of “Well, President Obama did the same thing,” and now after lack of support from the Bush family, they have added George W. Bush to the mantra. The former stance of “blame the black man” was extended to the lack of support for Trump, from the Bush family.

It does no good for observers, academia, and former members of both the Obama and Bush administration officials to deny and clarify these distortions. The die was cast, and the Trump base, of which this effort was played to, as evidenced by the above comments, has applauded.

What did happen under the Obama administration was an attempt to streamline the process between immigration judges and those that were looking at felonies, since the illegal crossing are misdemeanors. And, those efforts fell to the bulk of bureaucrats, who were often stymied by self-serving attempts for profit.

The closing of the Bush era detention center that housed families together, but in minimal cells, with open toilets in them, was closed by President Obama.

Now Congress, this weekend after rejecting a conservative bill that took stringent methods to solve the long held issue. Sponsored by Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and which every Democrat vetoed and “41 Republicans voted against”, reported The Hill.

“Goodlatte’s bill would have provided funding for a wall along the southern border, ended the diversity visa lottery program, limited family-based visas, created an agriculture guest worker program require employers to use the E-Verify program — a pivotal provision in garnering conservative support — and allowed for the administration to cut funding toward sanctuary cities,” they reported.

“A second vote on the compromise measure was delayed until Friday as leaders seek to rally support for it. The compromise measure would provide a pathway to citizenship for up to 1.8 millions "Dreamers," provide $25 billion for Trump's border wall and other security measures, and prevent families from being separated at the border,” but neither seems to gain a strong enough backing to garner enough votes to pass.

As has been pointed out before had these illegal immigrants been white Northern Europeans, the response would have been vastly different. One can easily imagine the joyous welcome and embrace of them, in the media, and elsewhere.

Looking at the children who were separated from their parents, has now resulted in an effort of reunification, for many who were scattered across the country, and 66 to Chicago. But, the effort to reunify the children is fraught with the cumbersome apparatus of American bureaucracy, and poor record keeping, with the result, say critics, that many children will not see their parents again.

Lingering is a fault line between the values of America, and how it is practiced. And, Attorney General taking a Biblical defense, made those across the world recoil in horror.

The problem of race in America, beginning with the travail of African Americans, has extended to those from the southern borders, and the result makes the problem more acute, as we see ourselves doomed to never end the most incalculable problem of the nation.

The current crop fleeing gang violence, forced prostitution on girls as young as twelve has sent them fleeing from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador in search of peace, and safety, only to become pawns in an ill-guided partisan war by a president who ignored most of the advice from top brass, and has jeopardized the GOP in the upcoming midterm elections, this fall.

CNN reported that “The aide most identified with Trump's hardline stance, Stephen Miller, has drawn barbs from colleagues who accuse him of overseeing what amounted to a chaotic mess. Some have harkened back to his role in executing the travel ban on residents of certain Muslim majority countries, another bumpy rollout mired in legal complications.”

Entering the fray was First Lady Melania Trump supposedly on a mission to the border to see how the children were being treated, and to help reunite them with their families, was no more than a photo-op and then, adding to the madness, she wore a coat with the words on the back, printed in white letters saying: “I really don’t care, do U” as she left Texas.

New reports say this was a statement jacket from Zara, but which many saw as an insult to the people she was there to supposedly help.

Baby boomers cannot help but think of when First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy addressed, in Spanish, the Cubans, released after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, wearing a simple summer dress, and saying in part, that she hoped her son would be as brave as they were, to thunderous applause.

The optics on this mess, because it truly has become one, clearly indicate that Trump is a loose cannon whose recklessness has continued to damage the prestige and morality of the United States, and whose continuing presence only makes bad situations worse.

The fate of the children --- 364 out of 2,500 children, have been reunited with their parents, the  rest are still in limbo, and the 26 July deadline date set by U.S. Judge Dana Sabraw, may not be met by that date, and the government has said that DNA testing and other measures, has slowed the effort down.

While 850 parents have been cleared, the reaming 229 have not with charges of criminal conduct, says The Guardian, who also report that the judge has stayed that order pending legal counsel for them.

Updated 20 July 2018 at 2:38 (CSDT)

Centrists and women solidify California primary for Dems

There were many observers, and many more nervous souls watching the California primary, on Tuesday, as the pundits all vied to see it as an indicator for the Democrats to join the predicted rise in taking a majority in the House of Representatives this fall, in the November midterm elections.

The Dems did very well, handily scoring a success in key areas, but the Republicans did too, hanging onto key seats that might have gone blue ---- and for both parties there were indicators that California might be able to provide a template, of sorts, for the midterms. 

This was all set against the ghosts of the 2016 presidential election which was used as a scorecard, by the Dems to see if those districts, governed by the GOP, but voting in the majority, for Hillary Clinton, could be theirs.

Politics in the United States is a numbers game and California was no different, even if the game often resembled more of a Bingo card, than a chessboard.

One of the reasons for the nail biting was the structure of the primary --- not a winner takes all, but the two candidates that get the most votes, facing off each other, which could lead to decimation, or fighting within the family, in what one media pundit called the “cyclical migraine for voters and candidates alike”

The latter did happen with veteran Dianne Feinstein, against a relative newcomer in the Senate race, sending some shivers, but Feinstein easily batted him away with some fast shuffling on the issues, thus offering a rebranding at the same time.

As the erstwhile media outlet, The Hill, noted, “Democrats appear to have secured at least a second-place finish in every race they targeted. With plenty of votes left to count, Democrats felt confident about their chances of claiming a spot in the November runoff in districts held by Reps. Ed Royce (R) and Darrell Issa (R), who are retiring, and Reps. Mimi Walters (R) and Dana Rohrabacher (R), who are seeking another term.”

“Two Republican women, former Assemblywoman Young Kim and state tax board member Diane Harkey”, received the most votes in their bids to replace the retiring Royce and Issa, respectively. Both races will be challenging for the GOP.”

Taking a look back into that rear window from 2016, “Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won all four of those districts in 2016, along with districts held by Reps. Steve Knight (R), David Valadao (R) and Jeff Denham.”

Feinstein is set to face “fellow Democrat, former state Senate President Kevin de León, in November, though plenty of votes are left to be counted. But in the race for governor, businessman John Cox (R) secured a spot in November's general election against Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D),” a party favorite, and former mayor of San Francisco, and whose matinee idol  looks, have not been a detriment.

As they reported, “Cox is not going to win in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by an almost two-to-one margin. But the fact that there is a Republican on the ballot in the first place is enough to give Republican voters a reason to show up, avoiding a turnout collapse that could have been a catastrophe for every Republican farther down the ballot.
 
"You have to have a Republican talking about the issues," House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told The Hill this weekend. "If you have nobody making the policy arguments, turnout would collapse. Now we've got a whole different conversation."

“With about 4 in 10 precincts reporting, Feinstein held a strong lead over de León, 44 percent to 11 percent, with unknown Republican James Bradley nipping at de León's heels. Feinstein led the vote in every county in California.
 
The former state Senate president built one of the more liberal records in recent memory during his time in Sacramento, giving him a foundation from which he hoped to spring a surprise on a veteran Democrat who was slow to adapt to the changing face of the Democratic Party.
 
But those hopes now prove a long shot, and Feinstein begins the race to November as a heavy favorite.
 
"I think [de León] thought people would think that Dianne's age and her more moderate positioning gave him a real opening. And the problem with that is, if you have watched her for as long as she's been in office, the one thing you should never underestimate is her political savvy and her stomach," said Gale Kaufman, a longtime Democratic strategist in Sacramento.

As The Economist noted last December, there has been a contest, of sort, by those still devoted to Bernie Sanders, and his radicalized agenda, versus the more moderate one of Hillary Clinton - there go those ghosts again -- that defined the term centrist, a watchword for both Clintons.

The New York Times observed that “Most candidates who won in the primaries appear close in their views to the average Democratic candidate in California, while fewer winners are farther to the left, according to a methodology developed by Adam Bonica, a professor of political science at Stanford University. In some districts, where Democrats feared getting shut out of the general election under California’s “top two” system of open primaries, voters may have put tactics over ideology in casting their ballots,” giving support, and gravitas, to the old school standard of Clinton.

To be more direct, “Democrats appear set to test whether conventionally liberal candidates — not left-wing activists — can make deep inroads in moderate areas that have historically supported Republicans. They are especially focused on seven Republican-held districts that Hillary Clinton carried in the 2016 presidential race.”

This is a huge element in the midterms as embracing the more radical ideology of Sanders over the establishment Clinton, was also was a contributing factor, in her defeat.

We’ve noted before the importance of women candidates, and black female candidates in the South, and it seems that, once again, “Democratic success in November increasingly lies on the shoulders of female candidates after another primary night in which women rolled to party nominations — in some cases by surprisingly large margins,” noted The Hill.
 
“High-profile Democratic women  . . . did well on the whole in California. Katie Porter, a law professor and protégé of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), is poised to move onto a runoff against Rep. Mimi Walters (R). And Katie Hill, an advocate for the homeless, is currently in position to take on Rep. Steve Knight (R-Calif.).

But Sara Jacobs, a nonprofit CEO endorsed by EMILY's List, appears unlikely to make the runoff in the race to replace retiring Rep. Darrell Issa (R).
 
Christina Reynolds, who heads communications for EMILY's List, the group that backs pro-abortion rights Democratic women, said women who are winning represent a diverse cross-section.
 
"It's a wide variety of women," Reynolds said Tuesday. "We have women who have served in state legislatures, have worked in policy and things like water rights. We have women who are coming from other offices and first-time candidates. They have proven that if you understand the district and do the work in the district, you can win pretty handily."
 
Ethnic and racial diversity also are apparent, as “ Deb Haaland would be the first Native American woman to serve in the House. Michelle Lujan Grisham would be the first female Hispanic Democrat to run a state."
 
Not to be outdone, “Republicans are also likely to add one prominent woman to their roster next year, after Rep. Kristi Noem won the GOP primary to replace outgoing South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R). South Dakota has not elected a Democratic governor since 1974 — and it has never elected a woman governor.”
 

 

Unemployment drops in U.S. but wages remain low

April showers may bring May flowers as the old poem said, but the May Jobs Report released on Friday, brought a continuation of what we have seen the last few months: strong job growth, and weak wage growth, to the consternation of many economists, bankers and observers.

While many stumbled over themselves with superlative adjectives, it’s hard to see the ravings - true enough the economy added 223,000 jobs (190,000 were predicted) and the unemployment banner, or as we like to term it, the marquee rate hit 3.8 percent, a low not seen since 2000, but the clouds are still there.

For those that saw good, “the only negative in the report was a slight drop in the share of Americans who are either working or looking for a job, paced by a 170,000 increase in the number of people not in the labor force. That, in turn, put downward pressure on the unemployment rate, which sank from 3.9 percent in April.”

Simply put, 2.7 percent wage growth seems tepid to us, and with growth coming in low skilled jobs, that require little more than a high school education, this does not bode for a strong economic future.

“This is the last shoe to drop in the labor market,” said Torsten Slok, chief international economist at Deutsche Bank. “It’s just a matter of time before wages start going up more strongly, but there’s frustration that it hasn’t happened yet, even though unemployment is the lowest it has been in almost 18 years,” he told The New York Times.

He also has a theory as to why wages are so low: “While job switchers are being rewarded with raises, people who stay where they are not. Nearly 15 percent of what he calls “job stayers” saw no increase in wages in the past 12 months. At comparable periods in past economic cycles, that share was more like 10 percent.

“If you just stay around, you have less bargaining power,” Mr. Slok said.”

CBS reported on its website that “The unemployment rate for those with less than a high-school degree is now 5.4 percent, while unemployment for high-school grads is below 4 percent. 

"People with high school degrees or less than a high school diploma have been doing quite well in recent months," said Cathy Barrera, chief economist at ZipRecruiter. "Over the past year they have been rebounding faster than people with some college or with a college degree."

The Wall Street Journal quoting Adam Kamins, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics, reported: "This is a very tight labor market," and that, "Most everyone who wants a job has one."

"At the same time, that means that the jobs being added are sort of on the lower end of the pay scale, so that dampens overall wage growth," added Barrera.

On the other hand, it also leaves a hole for those that are looking for specific technical and quantitative skills to fill empty slots.

In McHenry County, Illinois, Terri Greeno, owner of an Express Employment Professionals, questioned whether some employers, and clients were being "realistic in their demands for workers with clean criminal histories and higher levels of education.  She told the Journal, "Is it a health and safety issue? If not, you have to ask if those demands are really related to to the outcome on the job," adding that in the tight labor market, "you're really competing for workers who already have jobs."

Payroll processor ADP reported on Wednesday a figure of 178,000, but some predicted them to show 190,000, and the difference is still the spread between wages and job growth, which historically should reflect a much stronger market.

“Job growth is strong, but slowing, as businesses are unable to fill a record number of open positions,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, which helps ADP compile the report. “Finding workers is increasingly becoming businesses’ No. 1 problem.”

Here is a list of those, in May, with the strongest growth: retail, 31,1000, health care, 31,700, 25,000 in construction and 18,000 in manufacturing. But, some caution should be taken here, as these figures like the much ballyhooed “business services” are catch all, for all manner of jobs, low and high.

Perhaps wedded to employment gains for some of those above, “Black unemployment dropped to 5.9 percent, the lowest figure on record. That figure is usually double the unemployment rate for whites. It was 6.6 percent last month, also a record low at the time.”

What’s missing is sustained growth, overall with corresponding wages, to help sustain the nation’s biggest economic driver, consumer spending. The last time unemployment was this low, in mid-2009, the hourly non supervisory rate rose 3.9 percent. 

Still problematic is the severe drop in the labor force participation, a key economic indicator, and those not working, or seeking work, has declined over the last two decades shrinking the pool for prospective employees, but also many that need to be lured back to work by better wages.

Circling back, Pacific Standard noted “The lack of meaningful wage growth displayed so far in this recovery continues to puzzle economists. Most of the major economic indicators—unemployment, job openings, etc.—currently point to a tight labor market in which employers should be ramping up their efforts to attract workers. Despite scattered reports of companies utilizing large signing bonuses and additional perks for employees to attract workers, broad wage growth remains elusive.”

On the other hand, seeing the glass half full is “Glassdoor’s ranking of jobs showing the fastest wage gains over the past year includes high-skill positions as well as lower-skill, lower-paying fields where workers are in high demand. Paychecks for some of those jobs have been so low for so long they’re due for catch-up, says Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist of the job-posting site.

“Today’s strong labor market may be starting to improve pay across the income spectrum,” Chamberlain says, optimistically, in contrast to the opinion of the others. And, his list includes attorneys, truck drivers, cashiers and web developers showing the greatest growth, and corresponding higher salaries.

To note, a “severe nationwide shortage of drivers has driven up wages and led trucking companies to offer sign-on bonuses. Job site Indeed lists truck driver as the occupation with the most postings,” to the surprise of many and with a median base pay of $54,000, for those that like the long and winding road, there is gold at the end of the rainbow.

Trucking accounted for nearly 7,000 of the jobs gained nationwide last month.

For some employers, the tight market also has a deleterious effect on the overall economy, and the much needed consumer spending; but not being able to meet client and customer demands, with increased employees, some businesses could close and others might "not run a third shift at their factory."

Looking at one often overlooked area is Diane Swonk, an economist with Grant Thornton, who is “watching teenage unemployment, which was 12.8 percent last month. In April, it stood at 12.9 percent, down from 14.7 percent in April 2017.” in her conversation with the Times.

“The teenage unemployment rate is significant because this cohort is a prime beneficiary of tight labor markets, Ms. Swonk explained. When there was more slack in the system, teenagers had to compete with 50-somethings for scarce jobs. Now, as the latter group finds higher-paying positions, young workers are filling the gap.”

All of this is unlikely to make the Fed take a different turn, for rate increases, other than what has been established, and Jerome Powell, the chair, is too data driven, like his predecessor Janet Yellen, to be incautious, at their meeting in two weeks.

For the jobseeker the winners will be those that are younger, less educated and less affluent, and for those that have the skills that to meet advanced, or specialized employment, it’s time to move from the current job, to see any future, as the longer you stay, your paycheck will remain the same.

Updated June 10th, at 5:30 p.m. CSDT