• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Donc said:
Hhmm...You must be one of those, RARE seniors with no pre-existing conditions Eh?
Click to expand...

Yeah.

<Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, workers earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for joint filers) must pay higher Medicare hospital insurance (HI) taxes beginning in 2013. The new tax is 2.35% (an increase of 0.9%) of applicable wages above those thresholds, so a worker earning $300,000 a year will pay HI taxes of 1.45% on $200,000 plus 2.35% on $100,000. There is no change to the employer’s share of the HI tax.>


High-Income Individuals to Pay Higher Medicare Taxes Starting in 2013 | Towers Watson - Towers Watson

Look on the positive side of BOCARE....people with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied health insurance as of 2014.So if you have a pre-existing condition more than likely your " private insurance "will not cost you more.In essence, the cost is spread around.Smacks of socialism eh? :2wave:
Click to expand...

Technically under the Affordable Healthcare Act, I can afford all premiums and just pay the fine which is cheaper. Then when I'm sick, I can just get insurance after the fact.

Either way, its a win for me. Not so much for the individuals who have to play by the rules and the misfortune who this is designed to help.

I never said I was part of the solution.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Again, trends already in place before reform. Why would you believe reform is the cause? Would other economic factors be more likely, just as they were before reform?
Click to expand...

Corporations making record profits. Retail Sales are growing. Wholesale sales are growing. So no.
 
AmazonTania said:
Corporations making record profits. Retail Sales are growing. Wholesale sales are growing. So no.
Click to expand...

As they have been, by decreasing full time employment, outsourcing, automation, and lowering wages. So, my question still stands.
 
Boo Radley said:
As they have been, by decreasing full time employment, outsourcing, automation, and lowering wages. So, my question still stands.
Click to expand...

Labour cost have not decreased at all. Neither has employee compensation. So you are wrong. Also you have ignored the fact that sales are higher, which means corporations are more profitable. There is really no reason why there should be a reduction in hours and a surge in part-time labour.

The only explanation is uncertainty from a new governmental regulatory burden.
 
Last edited:
AmazonTania said:
Yeah.



Technically under the Affordable Healthcare Act, I can afford all premiums and just pay the fine which is cheaper. Then when I'm sick, I can just get insurance after the fact.

Either way, its a win for me. Not so much for the individuals who have to play by the rules and the misfortune who this is designed to help.

I never said I was part of the solution.
Click to expand...

Andy_Griffith_Show_1961.JPG


WELL...hopefully,as Barney Fife woulda said, we,ll nip in the bud the almost fifty thousand Americans deaths every year do lack of healthcare.:2wave:
 
AmazonTania said:
Labour cost have not decreased at all.
Click to expand...
Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 4.3 percent in the first
quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 3.8 percent decrease in hourly
compensation and the 0.5 percent increase in productivity. The decline in hourly compensation is the largest in the series, which begins in 1947. First Quarter 2013, Revised
 
winston53660 said:
Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 4.3 percent in the first
quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 3.8 percent decrease in hourly
compensation and the 0.5 percent increase in productivity. The decline in hourly compensation is the largest in the series, which begins in 1947. First Quarter 2013, Revised
Click to expand...

That's the precentage change. Unit Labor cost are higher than pre-recession levels.

fredgraph.png
 
AmazonTania said:
Labour cost have not decreased at all. Neither has employee compensation. So you are wrong. Also you have ignored the fact that sales are higher, which means corporations are more profitable. There is really no reason why there should be a reduction in hours and a surge in part-time labour.

The only explanation is uncertainty from a new governmental regulatory burden.
Click to expand...

I hate to have to link everything, but:


The incredible shrinking pay raise: Wages can't keep up with inflation

The incredible shrinking pay raise: Wages can't keep up with inflation - CSMonitor.com

The Incredible Shrinking Pay Raise: Wages Can't Keep Up With Inflation

The Incredible Shrinking Pay Raise: Wages Can't Keep Up With Inflation

Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 3.8 percent decrease in hourly compensation and the 0.5 percent increase in productivity. The decline in hourly compensation is the largest in the series, which begins in 1947. However, over the last four quarters hourly compensation increased 2.0 percent and unit labor costs rose 1.1 percent. (See chart 2 and table A.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf

Do you really need the numbers concerning part time employment?
 
winston53660 said:
Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 4.3 percent in the first
quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 3.8 percent decrease in hourly
compensation and the 0.5 percent increase in productivity. The decline in hourly compensation is the largest in the series, which begins in 1947. First Quarter 2013, Revised
Click to expand...

Missed us giving the same link. Great minds. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
I hate to have to link everything, but:


The incredible shrinking pay raise: Wages can't keep up with inflation

The incredible shrinking pay raise: Wages can't keep up with inflation - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

Whether or not wages cannot keep up with inflation is irrelevant. Employment compensation has not fallen and there is no downward trend.


fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png


Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 3.8 percent decrease in hourly compensation and the 0.5 percent increase in productivity. The decline in hourly compensation is the largest in the series, which begins in 1947. However, over the last four quarters hourly compensation increased 2.0 percent and unit labor costs rose 1.1 percent. (See chart 2 and table A.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf
Click to expand...

Unit Labour Cost is higher than Pre-Recession Trends:

fredgraph.png

Do you really need the numbers concerning part time employment?
Click to expand...

I already have those:

pd5m.png


q9q.png
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Duh! Of course they'd improve a little bit. Not the point.
Click to expand...

It is the point. It's really not surprising you both have missed it, which is why I took the liberty of showing a graph. The percentage changes regarding has dropped and risen all within the past 5 years. There is no decrease, it's stagnant. Labour cost has not decreased from it's trend, at all. Labour Cost are higher than they've ever been along with Corporate Profits. The notion that one recent quarter changes anything is pretty nonseasonal.

You're very wrong.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
not a horrible month. i agree that the money printing should stop.
Click to expand...

True... it's been a horrible 4.5 years.

Nice to see Obama, The Economic Illiterate pivot for about the 10th or 20th time on his laser-like focus on the economy.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just as bad. Less order. Less constraints where we need constraints. Less attention to the hard decisions. All of which leads to abuse of someone as well.
Click to expand...

Ok, So then explain what the "transformation" that today's progressive liberals are searching for then.
 
AmazonTania said:
Whether or not wages cannot keep up with inflation is irrelevant. Employment compensation has not fallen and there is no downward trend.


fredgraph.png


​
Click to expand...
Trend? Hon, the trend has not regained to previous levels, the recession caused a major shift to left, that 3 year gap remains in an average of ALL salary.​
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Trend? Hon, the trend has not regained to previous levels, the recession caused a major shift to left, that 3 year gap remains in an average of ALL salary.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The trajectory is still upward. The current trend is a anemic recovery growth. The previous trend is an inflated bubble trend. There really is no way the gap is going to be bridged together. Not in this life time.

Comparing the two is really beyond dumb.
 
AmazonTania said:
Irrelevant. The trajectory is still upward. The current trend is a anemic recovery growth. The previous trend is an inflated bubble trend. There really is no way the gap is going to be bridged together. Not in this life time.

Comparing the two is really beyond dumb.
Click to expand...
Um, the two trajectories of wage increases are nearly identical, the growth is slightly less inclined... and the gap (caused by the recession) is anything but irrelevant, it represents a real setback in wage gains. The real issue is that you are focusing on average, whereas the gains for lower incomes is nearly flat, that gains are being realized more by top earners. I know that the gap won't be "bridged", I never made that claim, it is straw argument. The fact that you admit the gap will not be realized is not a point for you or your argument.
 
AmazonTania said:
And yet, still has not fallen, as well as the highest point it's ever been.

My point still stands.
Click to expand...
Um, they DID fall, they have barely recovered to 2008 levels, you already acknowledged a gap of years of gains.....or is your argument that time stood still?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, they DID fall, they have barely recovered to 2008 levels, you already acknowledged a gap of years of gains.....or is your argument that time stood still?
Click to expand...

It did for Unit Labour Cost. The argument is that Unit Labor cost are generally at 2007/2008 levels and has hovered at these levels since.They are stagnant at these levels with no significant changes.

Again, my point still stands.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, the two trajectories of wage increases are nearly identical, the growth is slightly less inclined... and the gap (caused by the recession) is anything but irrelevant, it represents a real setback in wage gains. The real issue is that you are focusing on average, whereas the gains for lower incomes is nearly flat, that gains are being realized more by top earners. I know that the gap won't be "bridged", I never made that claim, it is straw argument. The fact that you admit the gap will not be realized is not a point for you or your argument.
Click to expand...

I never created a strawman for you, but you did for me. I am not focusing on the wages of any particular income earner. Just wages overall. Wages have not fallen. At all. There are modest increases in wages shown by my second chart which you have conveniently ignored, but employees are not receiving less compensation.

Whether or not these wages can keep up with inflation is irrelevant. Whether or not there is a real setback is irrelevant. If anything, wage increases has just re-calibrated back to the norm
 
AmazonTania said:
It did for Unit Labour Cost. The argument is that Unit Labor cost are generally at 2007/2008 levels and has hovered at these levels since.They are stagnant at these levels with no significant changes.

Again, my point still stands.
Click to expand...
You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, on one side you say wages did not fall and time stood still, wages are increasing......and on the other side you say labor costs (wages) are "stagnate".

Your "point" keeps changing.
 
AmazonTania said:
Whether or not wages cannot keep up with inflation is irrelevant. Employment compensation has not fallen and there is no downward trend.


fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png




Unit Labour Cost is higher than Pre-Recession Trends:

fredgraph.png



I already have those:

pd5m.png


q9q.png
Click to expand...


If they don't keep up, there is a downward trend.​
 
AmazonTania said:
I never created a strawman for you, but you did for me.
Click to expand...
You certainly did, you implied I thought that the gap in wage increases would be "bridged". I know they won't, the loss is still being absorbed.


I am not focusing on the wages of any particular income earner. Just wages overall.
Click to expand...
I know that, that is why I pointed out your reliance on averages.


Wages have not fallen. At all.
Click to expand...
Your read it here first: Real wages fell 0.2% in 2012, down from $295.49 (1982-84 dollars) to $294.83 per week, according to the 2013 Economic Report of the President. Thus, a 1.9% increase in nominal wages was more than wiped out by inflation, marking the 40th consecutive year that real wages have remained below their 1972 peak.

Read more: Real Wages Decline Again


There are modest increases in wages shown by my second chart which you have conveniently ignored, but employees are not receiving less compensation.
Click to expand...
In real terms, they have....and you are still ignoring that time does not stand still.

Whether or not these wages can keep up with inflation is irrelevant. Whether or not there is a real setback is irrelevant. If anything, wage increases has just re-calibrated back to the norm
Click to expand...
Wow, time stands still AND inflation is irrelevant...again and again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom