Wage growth well short of what was promised from tax reform

[siablo14]

Yes which is why the article should never have been published in its present form where it clearly says $75 per week in the opening bit.

Any article which contadicts itself like this one does is a waste of time. How hard is it to proof read?

It states that if you add up the total per week it has amounted to 75$ earn since the cut has passed.

12 weeks * 6.21 = 75(when rounded up)

[Lomadeaux]

I think it’s still a bit early to pass judgement but if these numbers continue to hold up it just proves once again that Reaganomics doesn’t work.

I'm getting back 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 more next year on my return.

And damn that's one fine chocolate goddess in your avatar.

[siablo14]

Gruber didn't call them stupid for nothing.

When will this guy learn to read and comprehend?

[GrandmasterWang]

It states that if you add up the total per week it has amounted to 75$ earn since the cut has passed.

12 weeks * 6.21 = 75(when rounded up)

I'm not disputing that.

It also however says,
"The latest Employment Situation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows weekly employee earnings have grown $75 since tax reform passed"

Which it contradicts with what you posted........so imo the article and its editor fails.

If they can't even check the article for simple errors like the one I immediately spotted then they don't deserve any credibility. If they got that basic opening bit wrong.... how can I the reader be expected to take the rest of what they write seriously. There could be many other errors in there.

[siablo14]

I'm not disputing that.

It also however says,
"The latest Employment Situation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows weekly employee earnings have grown $75 since tax reform passed"

Which it contradicts with what you posted........so imo the article and its editor fails.

If they can't even check the article for simple errors like the one I immediately spotted then they don't deserve any credibility. If they got that basic opening bit wrong.... how can I the reader be expected to take the rest of what they write seriously. There could be many other errors in there.

Yes. That's the part I was describing. That part should be interpreted how I did.

weekly employee earnings = $6.21
over the twelve weeks it has grown to $75
1.6.21
2.12.42 - 6.21 + 6.21
3.18.63 - 6.21 + 6.21 + 6.21 and so forth.
4. 24.84
5. 31.05
6. 37.26
7. 43.47
8. 49.68
9. 55.89
10. 62.10
11. 68.31
12. 74.52

See. That part that is confusing you should be interpreted this way. The article is saying if you add up all the average weekly earning since the tax cut was passed it(has grown over the three months) would approximately be $75.00.

[Citizen Koba]

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3...rom-tax-reform

Does anyone still believe that corporate tax breaks are somehow designed to increase equality? Basically 'trickle down' economics revisited... how long will it take for people to notice that income inequality is growing as fast or faster than ever.

Does anyone really still think these policies are somehow well intentioned failures?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-how-it-works

[1bad65]

Does anyone still believe that corporate tax breaks are somehow designed to increase equality?

Who the hell said they were????

Basically 'trickle down' economics revisited...

No such term as "trickle down" in the field of Economics. It's a made up term designed to fool the stupid.

It obviously fooled you.....

how long will it take for people to notice that income inequality is growing as fast or faster than ever.

Sources please.

And before you answer, I highly suggest you look at income inequality under Obama.

Does anyone really still think these policies are somehow well intentioned failures?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-how-it-works

No, they are not well intentioned failures. They are designed to spur economic growth.

And they are working. Thats why GDP growth after ONE Trump year is better than Obama achieved over EIGHT years.

[Citizen Koba]

Who the hell said they were????



No such term as "trickle down" in the field of Economics. It's a made up term designed to fool the stupid.

It obviously fooled you.....



Sources please.

And before you answer, I highly suggest you look at income inequality under Obama.



No, they are not well intentioned failures. They are designed to spur economic growth.

And they are working. Thats why GDP growth after ONE Trump year is better than Obama achieved over EIGHT years.

Indeed. Yet they were sold (i believe) under the auspices of promoting wage growth for the population at large. They didn't do this nor where they intended to. Economic growth?... well possibly - I ain't looked at the figures cos the minutiae of US economics ain't of great interest to me - but if that economic growth only benefits a small minority and doesn't increase wages or reduce inequality why the fuck should anyone apart from the wealthy want it or want their representatives to vote for it?

And yeah. Trickle down. I always thought it was bull**** so I wouldn't exactly say it fooled me, no. But you are aware that such a term exists and roughly what people mean by it, yes?


And why would I care about Obama or his economic record? I'm not from the US, just making a general point... same kind of **** is going on in the rest of the world too, believe it or not.

[1bad65]

Indeed. Yet they were sold (i believe) under the auspices of promoting wage growth for the population at large.

They are up though.

Wages are up after the tax cuts.

They fell under Obama (except for the 1%, fyi).

They didn't do this nor where they intended to. Economic growth?... well possibly - I ain't looked at the figures cos the minutiae of US economics ain't of great interest to me - but if that economic growth only benefits a small minority and doesn't increase wages or reduce inequality why the fuck should anyone apart from the wealthy want it or want their representatives to vote for it?

Again, wages are up after the cuts.

So yes, business AND labor is benefiting.

Just like under the Reagan years.

And why would I care about Obama or his economic record? I'm not from the US, just making a general point... same kind of **** is going on in the rest of the world too, believe it or not.

You should care because it's called comparing data. That's a basic concept in Logic.

Obama implemented Keynesian solutions. Trump is implementing Supply Side theory.

Common sense says we take the data and see which policies resulted in higher economic growth, rising wages, etc. Surely you agree??

[siablo14]

Does anyone still believe that corporate tax breaks are somehow designed to increase equality? Basically 'trickle down' economics revisited... how long will it take for people to notice that income inequality is growing as fast or faster than ever.

Does anyone really still think these policies are somehow well intentioned failures?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-how-it-works

Good drop, Koba

Economists will tell you that wages generally increase with productivity – that you’re paid in line with the value of what you do. This was credible from the end of the second world war to the 1970s, when productivity and hourly wages rose almost perfectly in sync. But according to research by the Economic Policy Institute, from the early 1970s to 2016 productivity went up 73.7%, and wages only 12.3%.

Similarly, there used to be a positive relationship between stock prices and wage increases. But some initial signs of wage growth in February sent the market spiraling over inflation fears – until it became clear that the reported wage gains were all concentrated among top earners. Then everyone calmed down and stopped selling.

JimRaynor, dem big boys got all the food. All the gains. I offer you my condolences.

Many major franchises also forbid their franchisees from hiring workers away from each other. So a McDonald’s on this corner isn’t allowed to hire away workers from the McDonald’s on the other corner by offering 25 cents more. (Such rules were a classic tool of white landlords in the Jim Crow South to keep down the pay of black sharecroppers.)