Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 189

Thread: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

  1. #161
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by WallStreetVixen View Post
    No, it doesn't. All it tells us is that Group A is in one particular place in Year 1 and Group A is in the same group in Year 2....etc
    And yet, for some reason you didn't bother to link to the relevant studies. Somehow, I doubt their conclusions are significantly different than what I'm asserting here. Guess I'll look for myself.


    The chart shows that economic mobility is exactly in sync with reality. Only 43% of children raised in bottom income households are likely to remain in such households....
    I suggest you re-examine the charts. It suggests that 68% of people born in the bottom quintile ($20k/household/yr) either stay in that quintile, or do not make it past the 2nd quintile ($40k/household/yr).

    If our economy exhibited perfect equality (which, realistically, no one expects), then everyone born into any quintile would have an equal chance of ending up in any other quintile.

    Further, I was pointing out that perceptions are completely out of whack with actual current rates of income inequality:




    This has already been studied extensively. The bottom 50% in 1975 were at the Top 40% 16 years later. Among 25 year olds and older who filed their income tax returns in 1996, by 2005, their incomes rose 91%.
    Link please?


    Wages haven't flatlined in 40 years. You'd see that if you measure wages on their own merits.
    Oh, I see what I've missed. A misleading statistic. It looks a little bit different when adjusted for inflation....


  2. #162
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by WallStreetVixen View Post
    Who ever wrote that has obviously never looked at a DEF 14A form issued by any corporation to the SEC. Board of Directors don't measure stock returns in determining performance (maybe. If there is a BOD that measures stock returns, I haven't seen it). There are actual benchmarked used in determining that.
    It was an article about the study put forth by Equilar.

    Here is the link to the actual report.

    There is a ton of evidence that supports the concept that CEO pay is certainly not correlated to performance.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #163
    Educator WallStreetVixen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York City/London
    Last Seen
    06-04-15 @ 11:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    715

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    You stated that ULC's are already indexed for inflation. This is simply not true.
    Unit Labour Cost are indexed for a particular year to show the growth in relative terms. It keeps the growth of wages/productivity in perspective to inflation.

  4. #164
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,383

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by WallStreetVixen View Post
    Yes. If incomes from the top are being transferred to the people on the bottom, their incomes will rise while the incomes at the bottom will fall.



    The workforce has many different forms of compensation. It cannot be captured with only wages and salaries. Your employer can either give you $10,000 in extra annual taxable income, or $10,000 in untaxed health insurance funds It works out to about the same.



    That's not necessarily a bad thing.
    Except when we have an economy like ours where 70% of GDP is consumer spending. That's why we must make the tax rates more progressive. This mess all started with the drastic tax cuts for the top brackets. CEO's would not be taking those huge salaries if most of it was going to the IRS.

  5. #165
    Educator WallStreetVixen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York City/London
    Last Seen
    06-04-15 @ 11:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    715

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    And yet, for some reason you didn't bother to link to the relevant studies. Somehow, I doubt their conclusions are significantly different than what I'm asserting here. Guess I'll look for myself.
    My research generally speaks for itself.

    I suggest you re-examine the charts. It suggests that 68% of people born in the bottom quintile ($20k/household/yr) either stay in that quintile, or do not make it past the 2nd quintile ($40k/household/yr).

    If our economy exhibited perfect equality (which, realistically, no one expects), then everyone born into any quintile would have an equal chance of ending up in any other quintile.
    You're looking at your own information wrong.



    Income earners are categorized from Red - Green, with red being the lowest income earners and green being the highest. Left to right from lowest income group to highest. 48% of people in the lowest income group are likely to stay there, if they were born within that income group. 27% of people born in the lowest income group are likely to move up in the second quintile, and so on and so forth.

    Again, there is only limited income mobility for 48% of people born in the bottom income quintile.

    Further, I was pointing out that perceptions are completely out of whack with actual current rates of income inequality:

    So?

    Link please?
    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...3-08revise.pdf

    https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/doc.../1999/ar95.pdf

    Oh, I see what I've missed. A misleading statistic. It looks a little bit different when adjusted for inflation....

    Unit Labor cost is intended to track inflation. You don't adjust unit labour cost for inflation. That is statistically invalid. You should really reframe from looking up charts on Google, especially if you don't have a clue of the validity of your source.

  6. #166
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    A few tidbits from the BLS report (household survey):

    In addition to only 4,000 more Americans gaining employment AND 150,000 fewer of them working full time, the following groups had fewer people employed last month;

    - teenagers (22k)
    - 20-24 year olds (147k)
    - Men, all ages (268k)
    - Married men and women (spouse present) (169k)

    Plus - 735,000(!!!) less Americans were employed full time (NOT seasonally adjusted)

    Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


    Oh yeah, this was a fantastic report!

    Read past the headlines America.


    Btw, once again, I am neither dem nor rep.
    Last edited by DA60; 12-09-14 at 04:12 PM.

  7. #167
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    A few tidbits from the BLS report (household survey):

    In addition to only 4,000 more Americans gaining employment AND 150,000 fewer of them working full time, the following groups had fewer people employed last month;

    - teenagers (22k)
    - 20-24 year olds (147k)
    - Men, all ages (268k)
    - Married men and women (spouse present) (169k)

    Plus - 735,000(!!!) less Americans were employed full time (NOT seasonally adjusted)

    Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


    Oh yeah, this was a fantastic report!

    Read past the headlines America.


    Btw, once again, I am neither dem nor rep.

    And what are the margins of error for those changes? http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf
    Month to month level changes from the household survey are almost never statistically significant..you really have to look at the longer trends.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    And what are the margins of error for those changes? http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf
    Month to month level changes from the household survey are almost never statistically significant..you really have to look at the longer trends.
    My post was nothing to do with 'trends'...it was strictly to do with the BLS's report.


    Did I post any statistic that is not correct according to the BLS?

    Yes or no, please?

  9. #169
    Educator WallStreetVixen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York City/London
    Last Seen
    06-04-15 @ 11:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    715

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    It was an article about the study put forth by Equilar.

    Here is the link to the actual report.

    There is a ton of evidence that supports the concept that CEO pay is certainly not correlated to performance.
    Well, I briefly read the study (or the relevant parts, anyway). I don't really see much of that evidence. For the most part, you can see that performance-based stock compensation has increased 7.2% from 2009 to 2013 (page 13). It also shows that performance awards are the most prevalent form of compensation (page 21). I haven't seen anything regarding CEO underperforming or performing well for these awards.

    Again, what the article (not the study) does is evaluate CEO performance by looking at their compensation relative to stock performance. This is one of the most popular ways of determining whether or not a CEO is overpaid, which only makes sense if you are an investor. Stock prices are a reflection of future earnings. When the company makes more revenue, stock prices increase and CEO compensation must increase as an inevitable result. As an investor, the CEO's must have investors best interest at heart and make sure shareholder's equity is preserved. However, when Board of Directors determine CEO compensation, it is determined on a wide range of different factors, and each company is different. I don't see any factors determining an increase in CEO performance compensation or time based stock (or the decline in options).

  10. #170
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by WallStreetVixen View Post
    You're not saying much of anything.
    I'm trying to illustrate how 401(k)s are great for companies, but are not a consistent win for employees. It shifts all the risk (and the fees...) to the employees, and most of the management infrastructure to a 3rd party. That's certainly saying something.


    You have complete 100% freedom with a 401k plan....
    Yes, it's a good thing to give the average investor "100% freedom" over their retirement assets.




    Is there significantly more risk in 401k? Sure, however, the rewards are significantly greater.
    Are they? A few funds really smack it out of the park with 11-15% returns, but most 401(k) long-term returns are apparently in the 5-6% range. Freedom!

    I'd be willing to change my mind if you posted actual statistics that show 401(k) recipients as better off than pension recipients. Bare assertions are... less convincing. And no, we can't look exclusively at returns, we also have to look at total withdrawals. Remember, retirees are required to take minimum distributions, and have to draw down a bigger percentage of their total 401(k) in a downturn. Many pension funds do not change their payouts based on market conditions or the holdings of the fund. All of this reduces those Freedom Rewards.


    No, it isn't clear, because it isn't clear where this basis of this statement lies. Out of pocket cost also includes copayments and/or deductibles. This hasn't really increased as a percentage of health care expenditures either.
    *sigh* let's try again



    As I clarified, I'm not talking about "total health care costs." I'm talking about "health insurance as a part of employee compensation." (Employers do not, and rarely did, pay for actual health care costs, so why would we discuss that in the first place?) As those health insurance costs have risen, companies have passed on more of that cost to employees. NOW do you understand what I'm referring to?


    This is simply false. CEO compensation is determined strictly on performance...
    lol, if you say so

    The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says - Forbes
    Blast from the past! https://hbr.org/1990/05/ceo-incentiv...ou-pay-but-how
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/bu...rsalaries.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/bu...ing-stick.html


    Compensation can increase anywhere from 31% to - 41%. If you, as an employee, experienced a 41% drop in income, I don't think you would be too happy about that.
    I assume you're referring to Jeff Smisek in 2012? His pay shrank by 41%... to $7.9 million. In a year when United Airlines lost $723 million. His base pay (just shy of $1 million) didn't change.

    United also cut 1300 jobs early in 2012, and another 600 in January 2013. His bonuses could have kept 92 employees, with an average pay of $75k, on the job rolls.

    Should we even hazard a guess how much he'd collect if he was fired? Are exit packages also an example of "pay for performance?"

    And of course, even with his "pay cut," not everyone thinks he was actually compensated for that year's performance:
    http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...arn-that-bonus

    Great example.


    Then again, most financial savvy people don't compare employee task and duties to the CEO. It's nonsensical.
    We're not talking about "tasks and duties." We're talking about the ratio of compensation for employees to the CEO. And yes, it does make sense to note how significantly that ratio has changed, because it's a major component of income inequality, and why the average worker's pay has flatlined relative to inflation over the past several decades.

Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •