GOP Leaders Don’t Expect White House Tax-Plan Details

bluesmoke · Sep 5, 2017

code1211 said:
Your final thought was this:

"What is also well documented is the fact that the US unemployment ratio has improved 1970 to 2013 from 57.4 to 67.4.

That covers the period of time of “The flow of companies, manufacturing and jobs from the US to other countries.”

Those nations, about a dozen or so, with better ratios as of 2013, have not but for one or two improved so much."

First, your statement is wildly inaccurate. The participation rate in 2013 was not at the level you have conjured. You overstated the number from December, 2013 by about 5 points. This was down by about 1 point from January same year. Your 1957 number seems to be about right. However, in the intervening years, the US participation rate was at the 67.+ area in the late 90's. Unless you were born yesterday, you would know that the widespread rise of the two income household started in the later 60's early 70's. That changed everything in regard to the participation rate.

Also, the world was changing around us as we changed with it. After most countries were bombed into rubble during WW2, we were left pretty much untouched. The US profitability was pretty much the result of being the only game on the planet. That changed during the Eisenhower Administration's years as we started to see cars with foreign nameplates and many other foreign originated products sold in our cities.

Your agenda driven selective omission of fact seems intended more to deceive than to inform. Your thoughts on this?

Now, are you seriously asserting that lowering the taxes on US companies will not provide incentives for them to remain in the US or to expand in the US?

Your new assertion is that greater profits and higher stock prices depresses employee compensation. Interesting. Conversely, then, it would follow that lower profits or perhaps no profits and going out of business would increase employee compensation. Not likely.

Employee compensation, like everything else for sale, is a market driven commodity. If there is more labor available than needed, the value goes down. If there is less labor than needed, the value goes up. This is not rocket science.

A humming economy that is using all of the qualified workers already will need to increase compensation to attract workers.

THAT is what Trump is trying to produce.

Why are you campaigning to keep wages low?

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01102014.pdf

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

Thanks for the correction on the data. Still, it doesn’t change my point. As of August 2017, the labor participation rate was 62.9. That is still considerably higher than the 57.4 of 1970, being a 9.6% difference.

“Two-income” households do not explain, nor have you given data to refute, that:

…considering other factors in what results in after-tax profits, “high” corporate tax rates are offset with the ultimate outcome being in the benefit of corps. AND
Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.

“Also, the world was changing around us as we changed with it.”, etc.

You're attempting to make other points without addressing the points I’ve made.

I’ve given you factual statements, with one data correction, that support the points I’ve made. Try to address each point.

“Now, are you seriously asserting that lowering the taxes on US companies will not provide incentives for them to remain in the US or to expand in the US?”
I’m seriously asserting that you haven’t provided any such proof to the point: “Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.”

“Your new assertion is that greater profits and higher stock prices depresses employee compensation. Interesting. Conversely, then, it would follow that lower profits or perhaps no profits and going out of business would increase employee compensation. Not likely.”

I never said any such thing. I’m saying that greater corporate profits have not been shared with the employees. Your binary extreme is your own concocted scenario.

Show me the proof that as available labor goes down, relative employee compensation goes up. Your axiom is false. Employee compensation as a % of GDP has steadily gone done over many years, regardless of % employed:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa

Why are you falsely attributing to me what you I've not said? Really? I think the minimum wage, federal and by state, should go up.

code1211 · Sep 9, 2017

bluesmoke said:
Thanks for the correction on the data. Still, it doesn’t change my point. As of August 2017, the labor participation rate was 62.9. That is still considerably higher than the 57.4 of 1970, being a 9.6% difference.

“Two-income” households do not explain, nor have you given data to refute, that:

…considering other factors in what results in after-tax profits, “high” corporate tax rates are offset with the ultimate outcome being in the benefit of corps. AND
Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.

“Also, the world was changing around us as we changed with it.”, etc.

You're attempting to make other points without addressing the points I’ve made.

I’ve given you factual statements, with one data correction, that support the points I’ve made. Try to address each point.

“Now, are you seriously asserting that lowering the taxes on US companies will not provide incentives for them to remain in the US or to expand in the US?”
I’m seriously asserting that you haven’t provided any such proof to the point: “Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.”

“Your new assertion is that greater profits and higher stock prices depresses employee compensation. Interesting. Conversely, then, it would follow that lower profits or perhaps no profits and going out of business would increase employee compensation. Not likely.”

I never said any such thing. I’m saying that greater corporate profits have not been shared with the employees. Your binary extreme is your own concocted scenario.

Show me the proof that as available labor goes down, relative employee compensation goes up. Your axiom is false. Employee compensation as a % of GDP has steadily gone done over many years, regardless of % employed:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa

Why are you falsely attributing to me what you I've not said? Really? I think the minimum wage, federal and by state, should go up.

In the links below, you disconnection from the real world is defined.

Illinois has punitive tax policies and is driving companies and their employees out of the state. THAT is the evidence that supports your request: “Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.”

In North Dakota, there are more jobs than people. Just getting people to apply for a job is a chore. Paying them enough to keep them from going elsewhere forces the wage rates up.

If you want people to be given higher wages for the same work, you need to increase the value of the work performed. The best way to do this is to increase the number of jobs looking for employees to fill them. THIS is what Trump is proposing and what you are opposing.

THAT is why I accurately see your position as one that opposes higher wages.

Disagree? Provide the logic that supports your position and the links to historical examples from the real world.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/econ...mpanies-leaving-illinois-turning-into-a-flood

North Dakota: No Minimum Wage Needed For High | The Daily Caller

bluesmoke · Sep 9, 2017

code1211 said:
In the links below, you disconnection from the real world is defined.

Illinois has punitive tax policies and is driving companies and their employees out of the state. THAT is the evidence that supports your request: “Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.”

In North Dakota, there are more jobs than people. Just getting people to apply for a job is a chore. Paying them enough to keep them from going elsewhere forces the wage rates up.

If you want people to be given higher wages for the same work, you need to increase the value of the work performed. The best way to do this is to increase the number of jobs looking for employees to fill them. THIS is what Trump is proposing and what you are opposing.

THAT is why I accurately see your position as one that opposes higher wages.

Disagree? Provide the logic that supports your position and the links to historical examples from the real world.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/econ...mpanies-leaving-illinois-turning-into-a-flood

North Dakota: No Minimum Wage Needed For High | The Daily Caller

“Illinois has punitive tax policies and is driving companies and their employees out of the state. THAT is the evidence that supports your request…”

You are not comprehending. One state cannot prove the whole. There are always outliers. That is a nature of data/statistics.

“In North Dakota, there are more jobs than people. Just getting people to apply for a job is a chore. Paying them enough to keep them from going elsewhere forces the wage rates up.”

Again, you are attempting to prove the whole of it by a part of it.

“If you want people to be given higher wages for the same work, you need to increase the value of the work performed. The best way to do this is to increase the number of jobs looking for employees to fill them. THIS is what Trump is proposing and what you are opposing.”

Since about 1976, worker production has exceeded compensation. The exact opposite of what you say. Tell me how do you “…increase the number of jobs looking for employees to fill them.” when “the market” isn’t providing that?

“THAT is why I accurately see your position as one that opposes higher wages.”

I’m on record as supporting higher wages. You can’t deny that. The difference is that to get higher wages, those with the most have to give up what are the giveaways to them and figure out how to get by on steak and lobster.

“Disagree? Provide the logic that supports your position and the links to historical examples from the real world.”

One state. How many time must I repeat.

“North Dakota: No Minimum Wage Needed For High | The Daily Caller”

You’ll have to be more specific. Your reference led me to a plethora.

code1211 · Sep 10, 2017

bluesmoke said:
“Illinois has punitive tax policies and is driving companies and their employees out of the state. THAT is the evidence that supports your request…”

You are not comprehending. One state cannot prove the whole. There are always outliers. That is a nature of data/statistics.

“In North Dakota, there are more jobs than people. Just getting people to apply for a job is a chore. Paying them enough to keep them from going elsewhere forces the wage rates up.”

Again, you are attempting to prove the whole of it by a part of it.

“If you want people to be given higher wages for the same work, you need to increase the value of the work performed. The best way to do this is to increase the number of jobs looking for employees to fill them. THIS is what Trump is proposing and what you are opposing.”

Since about 1976, worker production has exceeded compensation. The exact opposite of what you say. Tell me how do you “…increase the number of jobs looking for employees to fill them.” when “the market” isn’t providing that?

“THAT is why I accurately see your position as one that opposes higher wages.”

I’m on record as supporting higher wages. You can’t deny that. The difference is that to get higher wages, those with the most have to give up what are the giveaways to them and figure out how to get by on steak and lobster.

“Disagree? Provide the logic that supports your position and the links to historical examples from the real world.”

One state. How many time must I repeat.

“North Dakota: No Minimum Wage Needed For High | The Daily Caller”

You’ll have to be more specific. Your reference led me to a plethora.

When the number of jobs exceeds the number of job applicants, the wages increase to attract workers.

Wages paid to the workers has very little to do with the value of the end product or with the productivity of any worker.

Where I work, as an example, purchased technologies increased the productivity of each worker by about 20%. The workers were no smarter and worked no harder. In truth, the addition of the technologies made the positions less demanding and more easily filled by workers of lesser qualifications.

The examples of Illinois losing jobs to the surrounding neighbor states is a perfect example of employers moving from a bad situation to a better situation.

What evidence do you present to show that employers prefer to stay in a bad situation and not try to find a better situation?

Wages increase to attract or keep good employees. Henry Ford raised the hourly wage of his workers from $2.25 to $5.00 primarily to reduce workforce turnover rates. The problem was that his workers were walking of the job and taking jobs elsewhere.

This was a point in time in which the number of Jobs was greater than the number of employees to fill them.

What evidence do you present to prove whatever it is you are asserting is the way to increase wages?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ay-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#7dfb3b0a766d

bluesmoke · Sep 10, 2017

code1211 said:
When the number of jobs exceeds the number of job applicants, the wages increase to attract workers.

Wages paid to the workers has very little to do with the value of the end product or with the productivity of any worker.

Where I work, as an example, purchased technologies increased the productivity of each worker by about 20%. The workers were no smarter and worked no harder. In truth, the addition of the technologies made the positions less demanding and more easily filled by workers of lesser qualifications.

The examples of Illinois losing jobs to the surrounding neighbor states is a perfect example of employers moving from a bad situation to a better situation.

What evidence do you present to show that employers prefer to stay in a bad situation and not try to find a better situation?

Wages increase to attract or keep good employees. Henry Ford raised the hourly wage of his workers from $2.25 to $5.00 primarily to reduce workforce turnover rates. The problem was that his workers were walking of the job and taking jobs elsewhere.

This was a point in time in which the number of Jobs was greater than the number of employees to fill them.

What evidence do you present to prove whatever it is you are asserting is the way to increase wages?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ay-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#7dfb3b0a766d

“When the number of jobs exceeds the number of job applicants, the wages increase to attract workers.”

Again, you make a claim without any supporting data.

“Wages paid to the workers has very little to do with the value of the end product or with the productivity of any worker.”

Wages not tracking worker productivity is the problem. If they tracked, as they had up until about 1976, the reward of meritocracy would more likely replace the need for increasing minimum wage.

“Where I work, as an example, purchased technologies increased the productivity of each worker by about 20%. The workers were no smarter and worked no harder. In truth, the addition of the technologies made the positions less demanding and more easily filled by workers of lesser qualifications.”

Advancing technology requires worker re-education and retraining, which is a greater demand on the employee than would otherwise be. Besides the fact that what you say is a diversion from your failure to provide any data to support your initial claim.

“The examples of Illinois losing jobs to the surrounding neighbor states is a perfect example of employers moving from a bad situation to a better situation.”

Again, Illinois is a single example and does not reflect the whole nation. BTW, July Illinois unemployment rate was 4.7% while the national rate was 4.3%. Even your one example doesn’t hold water.

“What evidence do you present to show that employers prefer to stay in a bad situation and not try to find a better situation?”

I never made any such assertion. Your statement is a complete falsehood.

“What evidence do you present to prove whatever it is you are asserting is the way to increase wages?”

I can’t make any sense of what you say. Increasing the minimum wage would increase minimum wages because it literally does. It can be argued that raising minimum wages could impact higher income wages.

“https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#7dfb3b0a766d”

Your reference says nothing to support your main claim. In fact, there is no significant correlation to support lower unemployment leading to higher wages. Your “Henry Ford” example is not of any statistical significance:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-e...re-wages-and-the-unemployment-rate-correlated

code1211 · Sep 10, 2017

bluesmoke said:
“When the number of jobs exceeds the number of job applicants, the wages increase to attract workers.”

Again, you make a claim without any supporting data.

“Wages paid to the workers has very little to do with the value of the end product or with the productivity of any worker.”

Wages not tracking worker productivity is the problem. If they tracked, as they had up until about 1976, the reward of meritocracy would more likely replace the need for increasing minimum wage.

“Where I work, as an example, purchased technologies increased the productivity of each worker by about 20%. The workers were no smarter and worked no harder. In truth, the addition of the technologies made the positions less demanding and more easily filled by workers of lesser qualifications.”

Advancing technology requires worker re-education and retraining, which is a greater demand on the employee than would otherwise be. Besides the fact that what you say is a diversion from your failure to provide any data to support your initial claim.

“The examples of Illinois losing jobs to the surrounding neighbor states is a perfect example of employers moving from a bad situation to a better situation.”

Again, Illinois is a single example and does not reflect the whole nation. BTW, July Illinois unemployment rate was 4.7% while the national rate was 4.3%. Even your one example doesn’t hold water.

“What evidence do you present to show that employers prefer to stay in a bad situation and not try to find a better situation?”

I never made any such assertion. Your statement is a complete falsehood.

“What evidence do you present to prove whatever it is you are asserting is the way to increase wages?”

I can’t make any sense of what you say. Increasing the minimum wage would increase minimum wages because it literally does. It can be argued that raising minimum wages could impact higher income wages.

“https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#7dfb3b0a766d”

Your reference says nothing to support your main claim. In fact, there is no significant correlation to support lower unemployment leading to higher wages. Your “Henry Ford” example is not of any statistical significance:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-e...re-wages-and-the-unemployment-rate-correlated

My God! You have a mysterious way of not reading the links that support exactly what I am saying and then say that I am not supporting my claims.

READ THE LINKS.

reinoe · Sep 11, 2017

Unitedwestand13 said:
From today's Bloomberg article

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...id-not-to-expect-white-house-tax-plan-details

Trump plans to push for tax legislation,

It's not the White House's job to write legislation. Why is it so hard for people to understand that? This is a failure belonging to McConnell and Ryan.

Stinger · Sep 11, 2017

bluesmoke said:
Thanks for the correction on the data. Still, it doesn’t change my point. As of August 2017, the labor participation rate was 62.9. That is still considerably higher than the 57.4 of 1970, being a 9.6% difference.

“Two-income” households do not explain, nor have you given data to refute, that:

"Changes in gender structure of the labor
force. Women in the labor force increased
their numbers at an extremely rapid pace in
the past 50 years. It is anticipated that their
labor force growth will slow markedly in the
next 50 years. The factor most responsible
for the earlier high growth rate was the rapid
increase in the labor force participation rate
of women, which stood at 34 percent in 1950
and increased to 60 percent by 2000. The
number of women in the labor force rose from
18 million in 1950 to 66 million in 2000, an annual
growth rate of 2.6 percent. The share of
women in the labor force grew from 30 percent
in 1950 to almost 47 percent in 2000, and the
number of working women is projected to reach
92 million by 2050—on the basis of an annual
growth rate of 0.7 percent. That same year,
women’s share of the workforce is expected to
be nearly 48 percent."
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

Show me the proof that tax breaks, as you imply, bring in large corps or keep them from moving out at a benefit to the given city.

Are you refuting it or just claiming ignorance of the facts? Do you actually believe tax incentives do not influence site selection for a new manufacturing plant or whether to keep one there?

I never said any such thing. I’m saying that greater corporate profits have not been shared with the employees.

Why do you think profits are obligated to be shared with the employees? If you want to share in the profits then invest in the company and share the risk. Now some companies do offer profit sharing programs as an incentive, some offer employee stock options, some offer a bonus if targets are met. But profits are not necessarily "shared" with employees they go to the owners as a return on their investment.

Show me the proof that as available labor goes down, relative employee compensation goes up. Your axiom is false. Employee compensation as a % of GDP has steadily gone done over many years, regardless of % employed:

Well you are conflating GDP with employment numbers and compensation. Labor is a market commodity and as with any commodity when there is a shortage the cost will rise when there is a surplus cost will go down. Labor cost are an EXPENSE to a company like any other expense and affected by availability. But it is not measured by % of GDP.

Go look at the BLS tables and you will see compensation growth slows as unemployment rises and it grows when unemployment falls.

Why are you falsely attributing to me what you I've not said? Really? I think the minimum wage, federal and by state, should go up.

Why? Why not all employees wages go up by having a growing economy and more jobs available than workers?

bluesmoke · Sep 11, 2017

code1211 said:
My God! You have a mysterious way of not reading the links that support exactly what I am saying and then say that I am not supporting my claims.

READ THE LINKS.

My God! You have a mysterious way of posting links without bothering to give the pertinent details yourself. Why don't you just post encyclopedic and just say, "figure it out for yourself".
You are the one that made the claim. Be specific. Don't just hand us the dictionary and say "It's all in there."

An excerpt from my given reference: "higher levels of wages were less correlated with the unemployment rate. At all points of the distribution, the correlation was quite low. During and after the Great Recession, this correlation became slightly weaker overall, but it was not an economically or statistically significant difference."

The data given in said reference supports the excerpt given above. Exactly the opposite of what you say. Be specific and give me whatever excerpt from your reference supports what you say, and the data to back that up.

You are the one that made the claim. It's up to you to back up what you say, not so much for me to give evidence in refutation. Though I did.

Strings · Sep 11, 2017

Seriously? Billionaires demanding tax cuts that add to the deficit? Trump trying to convince Americans THEY need a tax cut? The GOP "raiders" will cut taxes for the rich at the expense of the people. SS and Medicare cuts are next ... to pay for the tax cuts. Geez, do we never learn?

bluesmoke · Sep 12, 2017

Stinger said:
"Changes in gender structure of the labor
force. Women in the labor force increased
their numbers at an extremely rapid pace in
the past 50 years. It is anticipated that their
labor force growth will slow markedly in the
next 50 years. The factor most responsible
for the earlier high growth rate was the rapid
increase in the labor force participation rate
of women, which stood at 34 percent in 1950
and increased to 60 percent by 2000. The
number of women in the labor force rose from
18 million in 1950 to 66 million in 2000, an annual
growth rate of 2.6 percent. The share of
women in the labor force grew from 30 percent
in 1950 to almost 47 percent in 2000, and the
number of working women is projected to reach
92 million by 2050—on the basis of an annual
growth rate of 0.7 percent. That same year,
women’s share of the workforce is expected to
be nearly 48 percent."
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

Are you refuting it or just claiming ignorance of the facts? Do you actually believe tax incentives do not influence site selection for a new manufacturing plant or whether to keep one there?

Why do you think profits are obligated to be shared with the employees? If you want to share in the profits then invest in the company and share the risk. Now some companies do offer profit sharing programs as an incentive, some offer employee stock options, some offer a bonus if targets are met. But profits are not necessarily "shared" with employees they go to the owners as a return on their investment.

Well you are conflating GDP with employment numbers and compensation. Labor is a market commodity and as with any commodity when there is a shortage the cost will rise when there is a surplus cost will go down. Labor cost are an EXPENSE to a company like any other expense and affected by availability. But it is not measured by % of GDP.

Go look at the BLS tables and you will see compensation growth slows as unemployment rises and it grows when unemployment falls.

Why? Why not all employees wages go up by having a growing economy and more jobs available than workers?

"Changes in gender structure of the labor
force.” (etc.)

I really don’t see the relevance of what you say. Again, it does not refute what I posted. I could add more irrelevance by pointing out that the great majority of females hired were part-time workers. So, what? Labor force participation is to do with those actively seeking work. That does not count “housewives”. Simply adding females to the labor force does not necessarily change the participation RATE.

“Are you refuting it or just claiming ignorance of the facts? Do you actually believe tax incentives do not influence site selection for a new manufacturing plant or whether to keep one there?”

I’m saying you’ve presented no relevant facts to support your claim. I am saying you’ve shown no proof that tax incentives designed to influence site selection have economic benefit, whether for a manufacturing plant or any type of business. You’ve made an unfounded claim, without any supporting data.

“Why do you think profits are obligated to be shared with the employees?”

I’m saying that wages have been depressed for many years and the resulting increase in profits and stock prices, which benefit but few, is has thus born on the backs of wage earners.

“Well you are conflating GDP with employment numbers and compensation.”

No. I’m using employment numbers and compensation as a % of GDP, which is quite appropriate. Data as a percentage of GDP is an economic standard, FYI.

“Go look at the BLS tables and you will see compensation growth slows as unemployment rises and it grows when unemployment falls.”

I already addressed this point. The rise and fall you attempt to use as supporting data is insignificant. Go look at my previously given reference:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-ec...ate-correlated

“Why? Why not all employees wages go up by having a growing economy and more jobs available than workers?”

Why not indeed. The fact is that while economic (GDP) growth increases jobs available, it does not result in increased employee compensation. That’s a fact I’ve already established which refutes your unsupported claim. Here’s another reference:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/june/wages-arent-keeping-up-with-economic-growth/

Stinger · Sep 13, 2017

Strings said:
Seriously? Billionaires demanding tax cuts that add to the deficit? Trump trying to convince Americans THEY need a tax cut? The GOP "raiders" will cut taxes for the rich at the expense of the people. SS and Medicare cuts are next ... to pay for the tax cuts. Geez, do we never learn?

No tax rate cuts that grow the economy and increase tax revenues as with the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts and Bush43 tax rate cuts. Geez do you ever learn?

disneydude · Sep 13, 2017

Trickle down economics.....the very definition of insanity. Why do fools still fall for the Republican ploy?....when time and again it has shown that it doesn't work.

Stinger · Sep 13, 2017

bluesmoke said:
Labor force participation is to do with those actively seeking work. That does not count “housewives”.

Well for one thing a housewive is not counted in the LFPR so she does not effect the rate, but if she decides to enter the workforce it is likely because she is entering a job not doing so as unemployed and considers herself no long a housewife, so she is counted as in the workforce and working, a plus for the LFPR. She chooses to go back to being a housewife she is no longer not counted as in the workforce but not working, it does not effect the rate.

More detail here

"The rise in female participation rates contributed a 3.5percentage point increase, while male participation rates contributed a 1.0 percentagepoint decline. Over the 1990s, female participation slowed considerably,contributing only a 1.4 percentage point increase. In the latest period, 1999–2004,all three factors contributed to a decline. The sharp turnaround in female laborforce participation rates is the major reason for the change in the overall participationtrends pre- and post-1989. ....Will Women’s Labor Force Participation Continue to Rise?The biggest story in labor force participation rates in recent decades involvesthe labor force attachment of women."
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scsp...dia/Chinhui and Potter_2006_Labor Markets.pdf

Does it account for all? Of course not, but definitely had an effect.

I’m saying you’ve presented no relevant facts to support your claim.......

Tax incentives for expansions: Are you claiming they do not or just claiming ignorance of the facts? Do you actually believe tax incentives do not influence site selection for a new manufacturing plant?

I’m saying that wages have been depressed for many years and the resulting increase in profits and stock prices, which benefit but few, is has thus born on the backs of wage earners.

Wages have gone up and down for many years and will continue to do so for many years. But you specifically spoke of profits being "shared" And if you choose not to benefit from the stock market that's your own doing. Labor cost are an expense, they are based not on how much profit a company makes it is based on how much the job is worth. If you want to base that on profits then when profits go do you agree the wages being paid should go down accordingly?

No. I’m using employment numbers and compensation as a % of GDP, which is quite appropriate. Data as a percentage of GDP is an economic standard, FYI.

GDP can stay steady but if the available workforce falls compensation will go up or if more workers are available compensation will hold steady or fall.

“Go look at the BLS tables and you will see compensation growth slows as unemployment rises and it grows when unemployment falls.”

Go look at my previously given reference:

Your link does not work.

Why not indeed. The fact is that while economic (GDP) growth increases jobs available, it does not result in increased employee compensation. That’s a fact I’ve already established which refutes your unsupported claim. Here’s another reference:

Your link does not even touch on employment levels and merely makes observations. Labor is a commodity, it there is more available to hire compensation will not increase, is there is less of it available compensation can increase unless the cost outweighs the value of the labor.

"To make it a little easier to interpret, I've color coded the 60 years shown in the chart by shading the periods when workers were losing their share of productivity growth red, while the periods when workers were increasing their share of productivity gains are shaded in green.This helps to make it quite clear that "green" times - i.e. times when workers seem to be enjoying more of the gains in productivity - were periods when unemployment was falling. "Red" times (I guess it actually looks more pink than red in this chart) are clearly associated with periods when the unemployment rate was stagnant or rising.

One implication of this is clear: the high unemployment rate in the US right now, which is expected to decline only slowly over the next several years, is likely to mean that it will be a long time before worker compensation begins to rise as rapidly as worker productivity.
Put another way, the overall level of high unemployment right now not only has the obviously enormous personal implications for those who are unemployed -- it also is likely to seriously affect the compensation of workers who have never lost their jobs, for years and years to come."
The Unemployment Rate And Compensation Growth - Business Insider

You want incomes to rise, get everyone back to work.

Stinger · Sep 13, 2017

bluesmoke said:
An excerpt from my given reference: "higher levels of wages were less correlated with the unemployment rate. At all points of the distribution, the correlation was quite low. During and after the Great Recession, this correlation became slightly weaker overall, but it was not an economically or statistically significant difference."

Because we still have low LFPR and available labor. It's not just the U3 number.

What's you bottom line here? That the amount of available labor has no effect on wage growth or decline?

JasperL · Sep 13, 2017

Stinger said:
No tax rate cuts that grow the economy and increase tax revenues as with the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts and Bush43 tax rate cuts. Geez do you ever learn?

LOL, false. No matter how many times that zombie lie is trotted out there, it will still be a zombie lie.

Stinger · Sep 13, 2017

JasperL said:
LOL, false. No matter how many times that zombie lie is trotted out there, it will still be a zombie lie.

ROFL nope true and your zombie lies don't change the facts, it's contributed to the budget surpluses and almost hit them again in 2007 as I have shown.

JasperL · Sep 13, 2017

Stinger said:
ROFL nope true and your zombie lies don't change the facts, it's contributed to the budget surpluses and almost hit them again in 2007 as I have shown.

There is no Tax Santa Clause, no free lunch. Any party that asserts such things are true, that we CAN cut taxes AND increase spending! is a broken, corrupt, dishonest, shell of a party that deserves no one's trust or respect or vote. And that's where the GOP is.

Seriously, the idea that to fund more spending, grow government, make government bigger, is to lower tax rates is so stupid that to state the assertion in plain language is enough to debunk it. No one who is not legitimately mentally handicapped in some way believes that the best way to make government ever bigger is to CUT tax rates, and if revenues falls short, keep cutting tax rates until the additional revenue magically materializes. You can't find a single legitimate economist anywhere, even economists who support lower taxes for any reason or no reason, who believe that lower tax rates allow for MORE government spending, at least not at rates anywhere near U.S. rates in 2017. Kansas tried this and they FAILED. The magic never happened. Never has happened.

You showed a table of capital gain tax rates and revenue from taxes on capital gains. First of all, you can't merely see revenue going up and say, "Hey, ALL of that increase in capital gains is due to changes in the tax rate!" That's incorrect because it implies that every blip, every downturn, every upturn in the economy is ENTIRELY caused by changes in tax rates, and of course that's false. Much more important than tax rates are borrowing rates, economic growth, world demand, oil prices, labor prices, demographic changes, population growth, etc. So at a minimum, your analysis has to control for those factors in some way, and the tables above disregard ALL those factors. It's not an honest analysis.

Second what happens when we lower capital gains rates is lots of wealthy taxpayers who are flexible in how they're paid and when spend VAST efforts and money to convert what is or was "ordinary income" taxed at ordinary rates to "capital gains" taxed at lower rates. In other words, what lowering cap gains rates does is cause $billions of income to shift from one column of taxable income ("ordinary income") to the other ("Capital Gains"), and those billions are taxed at those lower rates. There is no NEW income - just shifts, and those shifts lower federal receipts. To be sure, lower cap gains rates encourage investments, and will result in (all things equal) more investments, and therefore more gains taxed at preferential rates, and that's a good thing. But you can't assume that all those additional gains are new - they're not.

So when you show what you did, you've shown really nothing at all to prove the point that 'tax rate cuts' increase revenues.

Stinger · Sep 13, 2017

JasperL said:
There is no Tax Santa Clause, no free lunch. Any party that asserts such things are true, that we CAN cut taxes AND increase spending! is a broken, corrupt, dishonest, shell of a party that deserves no one's trust or respect or vote. And that's where the GOP is.

It is the party that did it and balanced the budges and produced surpluses and took a recessionary $400B deficit down to $161B in just 3 years on the way to surplus. Your bromides and platitudes refute nothing. This has been demonstrated to you and your simple dismissals refute nothing.

You showed a table of capital gain tax rates and revenue from taxes on capital gains.

Yes the tax cuts for the wealthy who then paid HUGELY more revenues and a bigger piece of the tax pie.

You have shown nothing.

First of all, you can't merely see revenue going up and say, "Hey, ALL of that increase in capital gains is due to changes in the tax rate!" That's incorrect because it implies that every blip, every downturn, every upturn in the economy is ENTIRELY caused by changes in tax rates, and of course that's false. Much more important than tax rates are borrowing rates, economic growth, world demand, oil prices, labor prices, demographic changes, population growth, etc. So at a minimum, your analysis has to control for those factors in some way, and the tables above disregard ALL those factors. It's not an honest analysis.

Get rid of the ENTIRELY and get back to me. They were part and parcel to it along with getting everyone back to work, thanks to the economic activity as reflected by realizations and turning people from people being government expense into government revenues. And trying to throw all the mud on the wall hoping something sticks does not work here.

Second what happens when we lower capital gains rates is lots of wealthy taxpayers who are flexible in how they're paid and when spend VAST efforts and money to convert what is or was "ordinary income" taxed at ordinary rates to "capital gains" taxed at lower rates. In other words, what lowering cap gains rates does is cause $billions of income to shift from one column of taxable income ("ordinary income") to the other ("Capital Gains"),

No it doesn't do, you can't simple change one into the other.

There is no NEW income

Yes there was new income and new tax revenues. Revenue increases hit double digits.

- just shifts, and those shifts lower federal receipts.

Federal revenues increased at record paces.

So when you show what you did, you've shown really nothing at all to prove the point that 'tax rate cuts' increase revenues.

I have shown the historical outcomes, you have shown nothing to refute it. So again I have to ask are you asserting tax rates do not affect the economy and tax revenues because it sure seems so. And if that is the case then even better to lower rates than increase them wouldn't you say?

bluesmoke · Sep 15, 2017

Stinger posted:

“Well for one thing a housewive is not counted in the LFPR so she does not effect the rate...”

Yup. That’s what I said.

“Do you actually believe tax incentives do not influence site selection for a new manufacturing plant?”

No. I’m saying you cannot show any data to support there is economic benefit from giving tax incentives to any business just to have them stay or relocate to the offering city’s locale.

“ If you want to base that on profits then when profits go do you agree the wages being paid should go down accordingly?”

No. I’m saying that as productivity rises, so should employee compensation, most importantly wages.

“Your link does not work.”

Try this:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-e...re-wages-and-the-unemployment-rate-correlated

“Your link does not even touch on employment levels and merely makes observations."

Employment was not the point of the link. It was the fact that compensation has not been tracking with productivity (GDP), as I clearly stated.

I’ll stick with my linked data rather than your graph. There is no significant rise in wages as unemployment falls. Besides, your graph shows an unemployment rate of less than 6.5% in 2010, when the actual rate was 9.7%. Can you explain?

bluesmoke · Sep 15, 2017

Stinger said:
Because we still have low LFPR and available labor. It's not just the U3 number.

What's you bottom line here? That the amount of available labor has no effect on wage growth or decline?

To repeat myself, I'm saying the rise and fall of the unemployment rate has no significant effect on wages.

code1211 · Sep 16, 2017

bluesmoke said:
My God! You have a mysterious way of posting links without bothering to give the pertinent details yourself. Why don't you just post encyclopedic and just say, "figure it out for yourself".
You are the one that made the claim. Be specific. Don't just hand us the dictionary and say "It's all in there."

An excerpt from my given reference: "higher levels of wages were less correlated with the unemployment rate. At all points of the distribution, the correlation was quite low. During and after the Great Recession, this correlation became slightly weaker overall, but it was not an economically or statistically significant difference."

The data given in said reference supports the excerpt given above. Exactly the opposite of what you say. Be specific and give me whatever excerpt from your reference supports what you say, and the data to back that up.

You are the one that made the claim. It's up to you to back up what you say, not so much for me to give evidence in refutation. Though I did.

Here are the links. READ THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Henry Ford was having a great deal of difficulty holding onto workers. He doubled the wages and implemented policies to create a culture of long term employment. There were too many jobs chasing too few workers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...-an-hour-mcdonalds-minimum-wage/#c8d0b785c1fb

Illinois is a state with punitively high tax rates on individuals and business. Companies are leaving to find less punishing rates for themselves to enhance profits and for their employees to help augment their wage rates. Illinois is surrounded by states with lower taxes on everything.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/econ...mpanies-leaving-illinois-turning-into-a-flood

North Dakota is in the throes of a oil rush and an employment boom. Too Many Jobs chasing too few workers: Wages are rising faster than any artificial regulation could make them rise.

North Dakota: No Minimum Wage Needed For High | The Daily Caller

Now, support your empty claims with real world examples.

The whole articles are the support.

In a marketplace, supply and demand causes flows. Another example is price gouging in a natural disaster.

If you want to see wages rising and companies relocating to the US, follow the lessons of the examples in the links. Create a marketplace that is conducive to increasing the number of jobs and the level of wage rates and it will happen all by itself. Always has, always will.

The question will not be whether the cup is half empty or half full. The question will by why does my cup runneth over.

bluesmoke · Sep 20, 2017

code1211 said:
Here are the links. READ THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Henry Ford was having a great deal of difficulty holding onto workers. He doubled the wages and implemented policies to create a culture of long term employment. There were too many jobs chasing too few workers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...-an-hour-mcdonalds-minimum-wage/#c8d0b785c1fb

Illinois is a state with punitively high tax rates on individuals and business. Companies are leaving to find less punishing rates for themselves to enhance profits and for their employees to help augment their wage rates. Illinois is surrounded by states with lower taxes on everything.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/econ...mpanies-leaving-illinois-turning-into-a-flood

North Dakota is in the throes of a oil rush and an employment boom. Too Many Jobs chasing too few workers: Wages are rising faster than any artificial regulation could make them rise.

North Dakota: No Minimum Wage Needed For High | The Daily Caller

Now, support your empty claims with real world examples.

The whole articles are the support.

In a marketplace, supply and demand causes flows. Another example is price gouging in a natural disaster.

If you want to see wages rising and companies relocating to the US, follow the lessons of the examples in the links. Create a marketplace that is conducive to increasing the number of jobs and the level of wage rates and it will happen all by itself. Always has, always will.

The question will not be whether the cup is half empty or half full. The question will by why does my cup runneth over.

I already posted the link that gave a historical study of the correlation between unemployment and wages that concluded there was no significant correlation.

The "real world examples" you gave were for a period of "Henry Ford" time and not in the historical context of the data I provided, and two single-state examples. Not hardly national figures.

code1211 · Sep 22, 2017

bluesmoke said:
I already posted the link that gave a historical study of the correlation between unemployment and wages that concluded there was no significant correlation.

The "real world examples" you gave were for a period of "Henry Ford" time and not in the historical context of the data I provided, and two single-state examples. Not hardly national figures.

You can ignore reality.

Reality will not change as a result.

bluesmoke · Sep 23, 2017

code1211 said:
You can ignore reality.

Reality will not change as a result.

What you posted was real, but isolated, not significant and thus not statistically valid. What I posted was also real, but was nationwide, historically significant and statistically valid.

GOP Leaders Don’t Expect White House Tax-Plan Details

New member