PJ O'Rourke quoted one of his textbook authors from college: Wealth is created when assets are moved from lesser- to higher-valued purposes.

The number of people who understand that, and who believe it, is dwindling, desperately. They prefer to think 'the money' can simply be redistributed.

I am encountering a depressing number of people who think the employer, not the customer, pays wages. They have the idea that some magical money bin is being kept from them by that heartless SOB running the company, and now good ol' Uncle Joe is going to PUNISH those people and make things right.

They never seem able to explain why they should be paid more for the exact same work, but that is to be expected because they don't know anything.

But they should.

Why not make it $20 an hour? $100 per hour? ~ from a link by Radwaste at March 4, 2021 4:13 AM

You're not that far off.

Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has said that the $15 minimum wage is a "deep compromise" and that it "should be" much higher. She cites Denmark's equivalent of $22 an hour wage for McDonald's workers as justification for an even higher US minimum wage. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez ignores the fact that the cost of living is lower in most of the US than it is in the Netherlands.

Remember, this woman is a cum laude graduate in economics from Boston University.

Remember also, that her perspective is New York City, which has a higher cost of living than Amsterdam. In addition, her only private sector job experience is as a bartender and barista - i.e., the receiving end of a minimum wage hike. So, from her perspective, $15/hour is justifiable, even necessary.

A $15/hr job is nice, unless you can't get one. Then you're stuck at $0/hr.

A $15/hr job is nice, unless you can't get one. Then you're stuck at $0/hr. ~ IRA Darth Aggie at March 4, 2021 6:50 AM

That's the flip side that advocates for a higher minimum wage rarely examine or even acknowledge - the loss of jobs due to the higher cost of labor. Mind you, the task will still get done; it just won't get done by an employee.

And that's the failure in thinking of many higher minimum wage advocates. They see that the task still needs to be done -- i.e., floors to be swept, shelves to be stocked -- and assume an employee will be needed to do those tasks.

Is it better for society to have more unskilled or low-skill workers employed at lower wages or fewer employed at higher wages? Some people just don't have the skills, experience, or work record to command a higher minimum wage. And keep in mind that some of these folks will never acquire the skills, experience, or work record to command that higher minimum wage.

In that case, employers will look to other means of getting certain jobs done. ATMs, self pump gas, and self-checkout have all but completely replaced tellers, attendants, and cashiers, to the delight of many customers who prefer the quick in-and-out of not having to deal with another person in their retail transactions. In some cases, the replaced interaction can be done at point-of-sale, so any lines or wait times are reduced (i.e., no going into the gas station and standing behind a little old lady scrounging in her purse to find exact change).

Online banking has further eroded the need for minimum wage tellers at banks, Online grocery ordering and delivery is eroding the need for in-store grocery cashiers. When grocery shelves are no longer seen by the public, the need for stock to be unboxed and faced on the shelf will be reduced, thus eroding the need for minimum wage labor to do those tasks.

Electric cars that can be conveniently recharged at home or while the owner does other things (e.g., grocery shop) will reduce the need for gas stations and gas station attendants. In fact, charging at grocery stores, dentists offices, etc. while one shops would be convenient and eliminate the need for charging stations on all but long-haul highways. Good-bye to the Gas-n-Go.

Electronic retail has made inroads into eliminating the brick-and-mortar retail store, reducing the amount of minimum wage labor needed to service customers, make stock accessible (i.e., put it where customers can see it), and handle backroom inventory. For mom-and-pop retailers, Amazon will do all that at a lower cost since it can handle multiple storefronts with the same labor pool.

Instead of arguing about a higher minimum wage, we need to be considering what is to be done when minimum wage / minimum skill jobs are being done by automation -- and what to do about the people who are incapable of rising to the challenge of acquiring higher-level skills to do higher-level jobs. Not all the displaced coal miners will be capable of "learn[ing] to code."

A government-distributed UBI is not necessarily the answer as many people who are capable, but indolent, will game the system for free benefits, putting such a system at risk of eventual insolvency.

Our education process could do a great deal today to help prepare people for a world in which floor sweeping and shelf stocking are no longer a viable jobs for humans. However, it cannot do it the way it's configured now with mathematics being called "racist" and classroom paces being set by the slowest and laziest students.

In that sense, the pandemic may have done us a favor, highlighting where the current system is dysfunctional and which problems universal home-based learning cannot resolve. A great deal will depend upon the teachers, unions, politicians, and parents being flexible (and wise) enough to implement far-reaching solutions.

In other words, we're doomed -- eventually. A structural shift is coming and we, as a society, are not preparing for it. History is littered with the wreckage of civilizations that could not adapt to sea changes.

"Mind you, the task will still get done" ~Conan

Not always. I've had that conversation with a number of accountants.

-'You need to count all these parts.'
-'Ok, I will scrap all those parts.'
-'NO NO NO! You can't do that!'
-'Sure I can. The trash can is right over there. Counting those parts would cost more than the parts are worth. If we need more we just order more later.'

It is amazing how many objectively intelligent and educated people are culturally blind to things like that.

Not always. I've had that conversation with a number of accountants. ~ Ben at March 4, 2021 8:42 AM

In that case, it's not a task that needs to be done. So, with some exceptions, the tasks that need to be done will be done -- just not necessarily by humans.

And yes, a cost-benefit analysis will reveal that some tasks don't actually need to be done. I had that discussion with a number of department managers about reports they were paying someone to produce.

Conan Says:

"Remember, this woman is a cum laude graduate in economics from Boston University.

Remember also, that her perspective is New York City, which has a higher cost of living than Amsterdam. In addition, her only private sector job experience is as a bartender and barista - i.e., the receiving end of a minimum wage hike. So, from her perspective, $15/hour is justifiable, even necessary."

You start off by pointing out her background expertise in the subject material... only to then reduce her position to nothing more than a "perspective" to be ignored on the basis of where she comes from... what her job history includes... to what you suspect her motivations to be.

None of what you have said here constitutes a logical or rational argument.

It is just dismissive nonsense that allows you to avoid dealing with the very first part of your statement... that she has background expertise in the field of economics that might inform her position on a rational basis.

Deal with her actual arguments whatever they happen to be. Where she is from is irrelevant unless it is the foundational basis for her argument... where she has worked in the past is irrelevant unless it is the foundational basis for her argument.

We could just as easily ignore what you have to say on any subject on the basis of where you have lived or the jobs you may or may not have had.

Stick to the substance. When you fail to do that it is reasonable to conclude you have nothing of substance to offer on the topic at hand.

That being said, what exactly are your specific arguments against raising the minimum wage?

How do you respond to the actual arguments in favor of raising the minimum wage?

As it stands the current minimum wage does not meet the purpose for which it was originally implemented.

If you disagree with that original purpose that is all well and good, but it will do little or nothing to persuade those who are aligned with that original purpose.

Conan Says:

"Instead of arguing about a higher minimum wage, we need to be considering what is to be done when minimum wage / minimum skill jobs are being done by automation -- and what to do about the people who are incapable of rising to the challenge of acquiring higher-level skills to do higher-level jobs. Not all the displaced coal miners will be capable of "learn[ing] to code.""

These are not mutually exclusive items.

This would be like someone chatting with someone who needs a filling and saying the following "Instead of arguing about whether or not we should fill this cavity, we need to be considering what is to be done about your diabetic condition.".

Sometimes we have to be able to have multiple discussions.

Keeping the minimum wage where it currently sits will do nothing to prevent the replacement of humans as a source of labor.

This also is not limited to manual labor jobs or jobs that you might consider to be low-skilled.

While it is true that in short order there will be little need for cab and truck drivers... little need for cashiers... little need for farmers... etc...

It won't be much longer before we will have little need for accountants or lawyers or physicians.

So-called higher-level jobs are only moments away from elimination as well.

Computers can already produce creative works of art.

There is nothing that a human being can do that in due time a computer will not be able to replace.

This is indeed an important item worthy of discussion... but it is largely a discussion that is independent of discussions about minimum wage.

Conan, almost all tasks don't need to be done. And definitely not as often or as well as they may be performed. Does the floor have to be cleaned? Not really. Lots of people lived with dirt floors. A number live with them today. If it becomes too expensive to clean the floor every day then people will clean it every other day. And if that is still too expensive then once a week. Or not at all.

It is cost/benefit analyses all the way down. Even to the extent of closing the business and firing everyone.

In places that have implemented a $15 min wage for restaurants (for some reason), there has been mass closure of restaurants because they can't make a profit. It has been shown that low skill (particularly black) workers lose jobs, as Walter Williams states.
One of the flaws in the argument for a higher min wage is that you can't live on the current min wage. However, entry level jobs, as Williams notes, are stepping stones to better jobs. When I was a teen I cut grass, worked fast food, etc but not with the intention of doing that for life. It gave me skills and credentials.
One of the consequences of this push for a higher wage is that it eliminates the options for paid work for the retarded (have a better term?). There are a dozen of them bagging groceries at my local grocer and you can see that they cannot handle more complex work. Should they get $30000/yr for bagging groceries? That is a salary for a recent college grad around here.
The whole push for a high min wage is the urge to use force to achieve social goals, as if taking money from business is all ok. The way to achieve higher wages is to boom the economy and create a labor shortage so companies bid up wages. That was happening before the corona. My friend created a business that supported 20 workers for 40 years--in what sense does he need to be punished? Some of these workers were uneducated and frankly not very bright but he kept them on.

They might as well stop pretending and like the good Socialists they are, impose a maximum wage* cap instead.

*Obviously government workers are exempted from it because they know better than us.

You start off by pointing out her background expertise in the subject material... only to then reduce her position to nothing more than a "perspective" to be ignored on the basis of where she comes from... what her job history includes... to what you suspect her motivations to be.

I'd hardly call it "expertise." And I called it out to point out how economically illiterate she is. Despite being a cum laude graduate in economics, she has demonstrated no concept of cost trade-offs, opportunity costs, and tax incentives -- witness her attacks against Amazon HQ2 where she conflated future tax breaks with the city writing Amazon a check from existing funds.

As for her perspective, it's worth keeping in mind that she's never made a payroll, never run a business, and has never worked for someone who has. She had only ever worked at near-minimum wage level jobs until she ran for Congress and won. Her "start up" publishing company never published a book and never expanded beyond being just her and a desk she rented from a start-up incubator in The Bronx; and it still wound up owing Albany more than $1,800 in unpaid taxes.

She's never lived or worked anywhere but the Northeast and ignores the variances in costs of living between regions in the US and what impacts the proposed $15 minimum wage might have on places where that represents a sharp rise in the average cost of labor.

All of this means that her perspective on minimum wages is solely from the point of view of the people making them, not from the viewpoint of people who have to bear the cost of an increase in them. She's never sat on that side of the table. That doesn't mean her viewpoint is wrong, but it does mean it's limited.

So, yes Artie, perspective matters. Where she lived, where she studied, and where she worked has colored her perceptions. Those things color all of our perspectives. That's why travel is said to be "...fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness...."

==========

So-called higher-level jobs are only moments away from elimination as well. ~ Artemis at March 4, 2021 10:35 AM

In the grand scheme of things, yes. But by that time, we won't need to worry about UBI and how to provide a living to the displaced. We'll be more worried about keeping the machines from killing us as extraneous or putting us in zoos.

==========

Keeping the minimum wage where it currently sits will do nothing to prevent the replacement of humans as a source of labor. ~ Artemis at March 4, 2021 10:35 AM

Never said it would.

Raising it above the average existing cost of labor in a market, however, will accelerate the transition to automation.

When the cost of automating is lower than the cost of maintaining a labor force to do that job and the risks of mistakes are equal or lower, the job will be automated. Until then, higher level human labor is still preferable to a machine for some jobs.

Lower level labor jobs that require repetition and not creativity or non-linear analytical ability are fairly easily replaced with today's technology. Right now, computers are still limited by their programming -- although, that is changing, perhaps more rapidly than we should be comfortable with.

The CBO has already determined that the proposed $15 minimum wage will cost 1,400,000 jobs while benefiting 900,000 people.

That's quite the negative trade-off. Easy to justify if you're unaffected, but more difficult when you have to tell 1.4 million people they're losing their livelihoods and are unlikely to get them back.

==========

Computers can already produce creative works of art. ~ Artemis at March 4, 2021 10:35 AM

Creative? I'd argue a hard "no" on that. "Creative" works of art are not within the purview of computers. Creativity takes sentience and self-awareness, things computers don't yet have. Someday perhaps, but not today.

I say that from the perspective of a photographer who is already seeing that computerized cameras have taken much of the once-required expertise out of photography. Post processing on a computer can rescue all but the worst images.

I used to have to get it right in the camera. Now, I can rescue anything bad with Lightroom or Luminar. Composing the photograph still requires a human eye, but for how long?

That's why I never bought that Star Trek thing about the pure logic race having music, art, drama, etc. Those things cannot be created or appreciated where there are no emotions.

> a hard "no"

✔

"That's why I never bought that Star Trek thing about the pure logic race having music, art, drama, etc. Those things cannot be created or appreciated where there are no emotions."

Dwell a moment on the pon farr.

Conan Says:

"I'd hardly call it "expertise." And I called it out to point out how economically illiterate she is."

Great... so it was ad hominem nonsense from start to finish.

Please actually put forth a sound rational argument in favor of your position... whatever your position happens to be.

If AOC is arguing in favor of increasing the minimum wage and all you have to say is that she is an illiterate bartender from the state of New York... then you lose that argument on the merits.

Nothing you said had any substance.

Focus your attention on the topic at hand.

You are aware of why attacks against the person are irrelevant in a discussion, correct?

What is relevant are arguments you have that advance your own position. Nothing else has any importance in these discussions.

"As for her perspective, it's worth keeping in mind that she's never made a payroll, never run a business, and has never worked for someone who has. She had only ever worked at near-minimum wage level jobs until she ran for Congress and won."

So what?

There is nothing magical about running a business that gives anyone special insight into public policy.

We just went through this exercise with disastrous results.

We ran the experiment of putting a "business owner" in charge and this doesn't look like paradise to me or pretty much anyone else... how's that whole pandemic thing working out for you?

The point is that until folks understand that what wins the day are good rational arguments we will continue to circle the drain.

The reality is that when one looks at the population at large and examines the polling we end up with roughly three groups when it comes to "perspectives" on the minimum wage.

Group 1 - People who earn near minimum wage are generally in favor.

Group 2 - People who earn a little bit more than minimum wage are generally opposed.

Group 3 - People who earn significantly more than minimum wager are generally in favor.

If we are to analyze the "perspectives" the only real conclusions we can draw from this are that the people most vehemently against raising the minimum wage are those who feel threatened by the idea that they will be no better off than "unskilled" labor from a financial perspective.

The majority of highly skilled workers that earn high salaries are not the least bit threatened by people earning ~15k per year having their salaries bumped up.

It is the folks earning ~40k per year that get upset by the idea of a person working in the service industry getting a salary of ~30k.

In any event, none of this is really relevant.

However if you want to focus on "perspectives" at least this should give you more context.

Conan,

I just wanted to quickly correct the record because what I wrote ended up mixing statistics up a bit between Republican voters, Democrat voters, and the general populace.

Let me correct the record based on the following polling data:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/two-thirds-of-americans-favor-raising-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/

The general public favors increasing the minimum wage across all wage groups.

Democrats favor increasing the minimum wage across all wage groups.

Only Republicans show a significant decrease in support for increasing the minimum wage above a salary of ~40k... below ~40k they are in favor.

Needless to say your focus on "perspective" when it comes to AOC makes no sense.

87% of Democrats earning less than ~40k are in favor of raising the minimum wage... and 84% of Democrats earning more than ~75k are in favor of raising the minimum wage.

In other words... you are just upset AOC has the "perspective" of a Democrat... she doesn't have the "perspective" of a low wage earner.

The wage based distinction in opinion about raising the minimum wage only exists in Republican circles.

That you want to cast this entire discussion as simply a matter of self-interest is telling because that is only how the statistics line up when it comes to Republican voters.

Democrats clearly don't think about things in the same way.

Even those who have nothing to gain personally are still overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal.

Only Republicans show a significant decrease in support for increasing the minimum wage above a salary of ~40k... below ~40k they are in favor. ~ Artemis at March 5, 2021 3:27 AM

So. It doesn't matter how many Democrats or Republicans support or oppose raising the minimum wage. I'm talking about AOC's claim that $15 an hour is a "deep compromise" and her argument that it "should be much higher."

The "living" wage argument is being presented in emotional terms with the actual and long-term costs left unmentioned. That's where it gets support.

We're all in favor of a magic bullet that could lift the poor out of poverty, but raising, or even having, the minimum wage ain't that bullet.

==========

Even those who have nothing to gain personally are still overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal. ~ Artemis at March 5, 2021 3:27 AM

Now, perhaps we will need to raise the minimum wage in a political compromise. However, doubling it to $15 will be a drag chute on an economy already buffeted by COVID and the resulting high unemployment, even if phased in. The incentive will be to automate rote jobs, making a $15 minimum wage a net job destroyer.

As the CBO has found, doubling the minimum wage will cost millions of jobs - 1.4 million by the CBO estimate. That's an awful lot of people to put out of work forever.

Presented that way instead of as the emotionally triggering "living wage," I wonder how many Democrats would support it.

==========

If AOC is arguing in favor of increasing the minimum wage and all you have to say is that she is an illiterate bartender from the state of New York... then you lose that argument on the merits. ~ Artemis at March 5, 2021 3:07 AM

I never argued that her argument was wrong because she was "an illiterate bartender." Nor did I argue that she was illiterate. Economically illiterate, yes, but overall illiterate, no.

I argued that her experience in the world is very narrow and has not enabled her to see the issue from all sides, but only from her own perspective of having been a minimum wage worker before being elected to Congress.

And I didn't say that her perspective was wrong, just narrow. I think her argument in favor of the minimum wage is wrong, but I can appreciate where she's coming from. There are a lot of people making minimum wage, and their voices should be heard in this debate.

However, money does not grow on trees and simply forcing businesses to endure higher labor costs will not solve the problem of the poverty of unskilled workers. It will just raise costs and, by extension, prices -- thus putting those unskilled workers back in the same position from which the increased minimum wage was supposed to raise them.

==========

There is nothing magical about running a business that gives anyone special insight into public policy. ~ Artemis at March 5, 2021 3:07 AM

No, but it does teach you something about what it takes to run a business and how political decisions affect the ability to continue in business. In the minimum wage debate, having such a perspective provides valuable insight.

The argument for increasing the minimum wage is presented almost solely from the perspective of the unskilled laborer wanting a "living" wage, with almost never any acknowledgement of what effects mandating higher labor costs will have on the economy.

There are a lot of levers in the economy. You can't just start pulling them willy-nilly and expect the machine to keep running smoothly.

==========

We just went through this exercise with disastrous results. ~ Artemis at March 5, 2021 3:07 AM

Disastrous? Lest we forget, as big an ass as Trump was, the pre-COVID economy his low-tax, low-regulation policies produced gave us the highest GDP growth and the lowest minority unemployment in decades. He was a political disaster yes, but not necessarily an economic one. As Mark Twain advised, learn to gain wisdom from an experience:

We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore. ~ Mark Twain

A populist at heart, Trump was a political neophyte. His inexperience in politics and unwillingness to adjust to a new environment led him to make a hash out of his presidency. Like Obama, he did not cultivate allies in the legislature, but attempted to bully his way through policy. While some of Trump's policies were good, the assistance of more experienced politicians might have served to rescue his bad policies or temper his worst qualities. He lacked the self-awareness to seek such assistance, expecting blind loyalty instead.

True believers should not be put in charge of a democracy. Compromise is the heart of governing in a democracy and true believers, of whatever stripe, are rarely capable of compromise.

Die-hard conservatives thought that if I couldn't get everything I asked for, I should jump off the cliff with the flag flying - go down in flames. No, if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what it is I'm trying to get, yes I'll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future. And maybe it's easier to get it as they see that this works. And this was what they were critical of. They couldn't stand it that I would compromise and settle for less than I'd ask. ~ Ronald Reagan

==========

The solution to the poverty of unskilled and low-skill labor, Artie, is not to be found in mandating additional expenses on the engine of the economy -- i.e., higher labor costs.

The solution is to be found in reducing the numbers of unskilled and low-skill labor via training, apprenticeship programs, and an education system not focused solely on college prep.

It is to be found in reducing the costs of running a business in the US in order to encourage domestic employment and discourage off-shoring.

True believers should not be put in charge of a democracy. Compromise is the heart of governing in a democracy and true believers, of whatever stripe, are rarely capable of compromise.

That was fun to read... Just wanted to see it again.

True believers should not be put in charge of a democracy. Compromise is the heart of governing in a democracy and true believers, of whatever stripe, are rarely capable of compromise.

Dwell a moment on the pon farr. ~ Spiderfall at March 4, 2021 9:18 PM

Spidey, I honestly have no idea what that means. Based on the context, I'm assuming a Star Trek reference, but I exhausted my limited knowledge of the franchise with my last comment.

Pon farr is the horny Vulcan goes violent sex mad and loses all logic part of the series. Happen every so many years and goes all the way back to Spock and such.

Honestly the 'logical' races in the series just show that the writers and directors only have a window religious view on what logic actually is. The 'logical' races they designed are more cargo cult than anything deeper.

With the new age of streaming and being able to watch large batches of shows one after another I find Star Trek almost unwatchable. Being able to only see one episode a week really helps you forget all the flaws and stupidity. Watching ten in a row is painful. And don't get me started on the various schematics and 'technical specs' they've released over the years. It all sounds impressive if you don't know what any of the numbers mean. But if you do you find out the Enterprise can't find the sun from earth orbit. I guess Data pokes his head out a window every now and then to take a peek.

Conan Says:

"So. It doesn't matter how many Democrats or Republicans support or oppose raising the minimum wage. I'm talking about AOC's claim that $15 an hour is a "deep compromise" and her argument that it "should be much higher.""

No Conan... you aren't talking about that.

Instead you decided to point out that she holds a degree in economics (that you later indicated you only pointed out as a means to make fun of her)... and then you focused on the fact that she grew up in NY... and that she once worked as a bar tender.

None of this constitutes the makings of a logical or rational argument to refute her position.

I'll ask once again... you do know and understand what an ad hominem is, right?

You also understand why they have no place is rational discourse, right?

Conan Says:

"However, doubling it to $15 will be a drag chute on an economy already buffeted by COVID and the resulting high unemployment, even if phased in. The incentive will be to automate rote jobs, making a $15 minimum wage a net job destroyer."

This is just an assertion that isn't substantiated by credible evidence Conan.

As for the CBO... I lost faith in their ability to make accurate predictions about the future of the economy long ago (and for very good reason).

Just look at this report from 1999:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/106th-congress-1999-2000/reports/eb0199.pdf

"Under CBO’s baseline assumptions, the first total
budget surplus since 1969 will be followed by even
larger surpluses in the next 11 years."

The report goes on and on about how much revenue the government was expected to bring in between 2000 and 2009.

Obviously none of that occurred and the CBO even failed to predict the imminent dot com crash. We had record deficits during the entire time span the CBO predicted record surpluses.

The CBO builds models that are frequently wrong because their "baseline assumptions" are frequently wrong.

Garbage in = garbage out.

Economic analysis also that indicates absolutely no relationship between historic wage increases and unemployment:

https://www.nelp.org/publication/raise-wages-kill-jobs-no-correlation-minimum-wage-increases-employment-levels/

Why should we ignore the weight of history in favor of the CBO, which has a horrible track record for predicting anything?

Conan Says:

"Disastrous? Lest we forget, as big an ass as Trump was, the pre-COVID economy his low-tax, low-regulation policies produced gave us the highest GDP growth and the lowest minority unemployment in decades. He was a political disaster yes, but not necessarily an economic one."

I would argue that his political failings directly resulted in his failings post-COVID.

While there was bound to be economic hardship in a post-COVID economy... his negligence in properly handling the pandemic resulted in a variety of self-owns.

Had he been a more competent administrator we would have been better off (and in all likelihood he would have pulled off a political victory for himself, but I digress).

So the post-COVID economic issues were greatly exacerbated by his incompetence.

Ignoring that, your claim that "his low-tax, low-regulation policies produced gave us the highest GDP growth" in decades is demonstrably false.

Despite all of those activities his GDP growth prior to COVID was just average:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-08-13/how-trump-s-economic-growth-record-compares-with-past-presidents

As you can see, prior to COVID Trump averaged ~2.4%... that is compared to Obama who averaged ~2.3% during his 8 years in office... also note that we aren't giving Obama the handicap of eliminating the 2008 housing market crash from his numbers.

So even when we ignore the entirety of Trump's final year in office... he did no better than Obama by this metric despite massively increasing the debt through his "his low-tax, low-regulation policies".

In other words... with higher taxes and more regulation Obama did just as well provided we include the 2008 crash he inherited and ignore the 2000 pandemic Trump failed to properly handle.

Needless to say, the data doesn't support what you are saying even when we skew it heavily in your favor.

A fair appraisal would put Obama's average well above that of Trump because including the housing crash while excluding the pandemic is not an apples to apples comparison.