>Just for interest, can you show me where this metric has been routinely used to measure tax change effects? It seems an odd way to do it, as does the downplaying of effect on blue collar workers. Social dividend usually relates wellbeing of the lowest citizens and blue collar workers and to paraphrase your earlier observation, other presidents would have been canonized for pulling out of endless wars and breaking all employment records including for workers a previous president said could never be employed again unless you have a magic wand. But for this POTUS, some people insist that every silver lining must have a cloud and the cloud is all that mstters. So with that background, these days imho we need to suspend belief until satisfied that this isn't just the latest russian collusion dossier/ fake news/ elaborate smear. The concept that it's automatically true if it comes from a piece labeled "opinion" in the NYT is no longer valid, assuming it was ever.

Agree on the double standard.

One the incoming female dem reps called Trump a mother****.
Just imagine the outrage if he had called her something equivalent.

The NYT has gotten better at separating news and opinion, but it still has some work to do.
TV "news" is absurd.

It's not clear that there has been ANY blue collar benefit from the tax cuts.
For sure, blue collar employment is up, but that trend started long before the cuts.
Here in NJ, some school kids have to wait for a round trip to return because of the shortage of school bus drivers (thanks to Amazon, who is scooping up anyone who can steer a car)
There's currently of shortage of 600K long haul truck drivers here.
However, the standard of living of for blue collar workers is pretty dismal.
During the 1960's a Teamster driver could easily support a stay-at-home Mom and family in a nice home and send his kids to college.
Not even close today.