I think you may be underestimating the importance of this article to US politics. One of the biggest issues in the 2016 election was stagnating blue-collar wages - it was one of Trump's main platforms, and one of the main factors that made him President. If the economy continues to do well across all income levels, regardless of why, and regardless of how unpopular Trump remains, there is a good chance we will see a second Trump term. As much as I dislike him, Scott Adams made this exact argument recently: http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/10/14/low-public-approval-of-pr...

As Bill Clinton said, "it's the economy, stupid".

That I understand but in the article there's a clear anti-Trump agenda and it's just I had a higher opinion about the Economist than them pushing their agenda in an article.

It's basically: "The economy is getting better (but not thanks to Trump) and there are more jobs (still not thanks to Trump). There has been an increase in wages (you might think it's thanks to Trump, but it is not)..."

The Economist is strongly pro mass low skill immigration.

One major change in the US has been border enforcement and a promise of deportations instead of amnesty. If that's what's resulting in higher blue collar wages and employment then they have to re-think a large part of their world view.

I don't think Scott Adams is really accurate there. What is going on is that Trump and the Republican Congress have been stupendously ineffective on the legislative level, to the point where this tax reform may be their first major legislative accomplishment.

If the tax reform blows everything up, inflates a bubble, whatever, then they'll take a major electoral hit. If they're not bloody-stupid, they'll let "Obamanomics" slide in the background, and allow the long-awaited comeback from the Great Recession to buoy their approval ratings into continued electoral dominance.

Even 2016 was seeing slight increases in wages. We may now be seeing a period in which investment capital is so cheap, but infrastructure and industries so rotted out and wages so low, that it becomes feasible to re-develop whole areas of the country nearly from scratch.

> ...their first major legislative accomplishment

First, Trump and the Republican party are two different political factions. Trump basically ran on that claim. In history books, I would expect this presidency to be marked with an asterisk as one single party does not really control Congress and the White House.

Second, the White House vs. Congress dynamics have been pretty dysfunctional for quite some time now. When there is single party control over all of the above, it's usually fleeting. And rarely with a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. You need to go back to the Carter and Johnson years to see that.

What's the point? People are getting what they vote for. They pretty much want gridlock on issues, they want "our team" to fight "their team", otherwise we'd see consensus on some issues and bills passing and being signed. The thing that concerns me is that the consensus that does seem to be forming is that more should be done by unelected officials: judges and members of the Something Or The Other Administration.

That is, there's no real interest in making sure legislators actually legislate. The lack of separation of powers will be unhealthy in the long run. Possibly catastrophic.

The Economist is a British publication

> Maybe I'm wrong but lately it seems every US media outlet needs to mention him this way or another in every topic possible (positive or negative light)

Yap noticed that as well. It's as if they have to say "Trump" or "Russia" and then get on to the main topic just to get the article approved for publication. I mostly noticed that with NYT, WaPo and HuffPo for example.

Being President means that analysis articles on national political/economic issues tend to mention their relation to your administration and it's policies. This is by no means new with Trump.