• 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!

Wage Growth Is on Fire

Wages could go through the floor, and the Trumpets would insist they are improving the economy. Welcome to the Post-Truth World.
My post assumed, with Reason/current Momentum/labor tightness, wages would continue to rise.
I'm the only one who posted Stats in the string.


Visbek said:
Like your empty posts deserve to be tired of anything.


Visbek said:
We have no way of knowing how long wages will continue that trajectory. We don't even know what policies he wants, let alone what will pass into law.
Again, we have momentum and continuing labor market tightness. Read the last Jobs/Wages report and see the Chart I Already posted.


Visbek said:
He has no basis to claim any influence on wages before his policies actually start to kick in. (At best, summer 2017)
That was MY point. More ridiculous response. Unless he does something that would obviously tighten the labor market more. Gee, what would that be?


Visbek said:
He is not going to successfully get rid of 11 million undocumented workers. And no, mandatory e-verify won't work, as it is not that difficult to pay people under the table. (If anything, it will just drive that work further underground and/or result in further gaming of the system.)
Who said he was?
But any significant number would Obviously make the labor market tightER. You want citations again or do you know simple math?


Visbek said:
If by some miracle he did kick them out, it would have the same effect as basically kicking Ohio out of the Union. It would be an economic disaster, especially in the short term.
Yes, there would be dislocation in the "short term" certainly. Though a well managed E-verify could allow for Temporary, Seasonal, and even permanent Non-citizen workers. The latter done elsewhere worldwide with success, and perhaps more often than not.

and one notes you responded to me twice. Like you have some point you think you won/can win.
You Always fail with me buddy: always


Moderate Right said:

Truth has really taken a hit over the last eight years.
Yeah, all "eight Years" since, ie, Watergate/70s and Iran-Contra/Read-my-Lips/80s, etc, etc.
Another unwitting Joke of a post.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was known that employment growth was rather strong during this period as well. Should i provide the data?

Sure it ought to be funny to laugh at all the growth that didn't even beat population growth. As I said, new small business growth has been down in smaller towns across the US. Care to address that or are you going to keep evading to other metrics you are comfortable describing through rosy lenses?
 
Sure it ought to be funny to laugh at all the growth that didn't even beat population growth.

The employment and wages showed very strong growth following 2004, which is what i was responding to.

As I said, new small business growth has been down in smaller towns across the US. Care to address that or are you going to keep evading to other metrics you are comfortable describing through rosy lenses?

You are not providing any data, which would allow me to address your statement with greater accuracy than if i were to take your word for it.
 
The employment and wages showed very strong growth following 2004, which is what i was responding to.



You are not providing any data, which would allow me to address your statement with greater accuracy than if i were to take your word for it.

Ah. I understand now. Bush was 100% responsible for the mortgage bubble following 2004 and he is also 100% responsible for the fact that employment and wages showed very strong growth following 2004.
 
Last edited:
Ah. I understand now. Bush was 100% responsible for the mortgage bubble following 2004 and he is also 100% responsible for the fact that employment and wages showed very strong growth following 2004.

My statement was rather straight forward. Fishking claimed that the mortgage bubble wouldn't have popped if wages and employment were not in decline. I showed him this was not the case.

Hopefully that clears things up for you.
 
Truth has really taken a hit over the last eight years.

Completely unsupported. There are so many examples that you manage to offer … none.

any significant number [of deportations] would Obviously make the labor market tightER.

Not obvious t' me. If it precipitated a recession, it would weaken the labor market.

>>You want citations again or do you know simple math?

"Simple math" and "common sense" don't always explain macroeconomic phenomena.

>>Yes, there would be dislocation in the "short term" certainly.

Like the one we just went through?

Sure it ought to be funny to laugh at all the growth that didn't even beat population growth.

If it didn't meet population growth, how is it that unemployment was cut in half? An obvious concern is the decline in the labor force participation rate, but that's largely the result of demographic and societal changes (aging baby boomers, more people staying in school, and more withdrawing temporarily from the labor force to care for sick/elderly/disabled relatives or to raise young children).

The US population has expanded from 309.3 million in 2010 to 325 in 2016, up 5.1%, while private-sector employment has grown from 105.4 million to 123.3 million, an increase of seventeen percent — more than three times the rate.

Enjoy yer laugh.

>>As I said, new small business growth has been down in smaller towns across the US.

Yeah, you said it. Did you offer any evidence to support it? I can't comment on yer claim regarding "smaller towns," but I'd like to hear more about it.

The number of establishments with fewer than 250 employees has been expanding since 2010 and has now returned to the pre-recession level.

new_businesses_1994_2015.jpg

The number of jobs created annually by these businesses has grown from 2.5 million to three million during the recovery.

jobs_in_new_businesses_1994_2015.jpg

That measure exhibited a rather steep downward trend 2000-10 which has since been reversed. It's still down about a third from the level in the late 1990s, indicating that the number of new jobs in each new establishment is declining. (source)

In 2000, the average new firm had 7.7 employees; by 2010, that number had declined to 5.5. Part of this reflects a changing sector mix, with fewer firms in construction and manufacturing and more in professional services. It also reflects growth in outsourcing clerical functions such as accounting and finance. (source)​

As the analysis in that article indicates, a lot of the problem has resulted from a lack diminished access to credit by small businesses and a lack of confidence among them.

Illegal Aliens Depress Wages for Some in U.S.

Depress how much and for how many? I've been arguing here that the net effect is positive, and that the solution is to increase the MW.

Did you notice this part of the article:

llegal aliens allowed some of the businesses to grow or survive foreign competition, indirectly expanding job opportunities and wages for higher-skilled workers in the same trades.

Without a pool of illegal immigrants willing to be garment workers or shoemakers, the accounting office said, many companies would shut down.


>>I know it's the NYT, which is a biased rag now, but I didn't have time to look for something better.

Ya mean something "better" in the sense of not being eighteen years old?

You describe the highly-respected NYT as a "biased rag," then provide a link to a doc published by the RW think tank Center for Immigration Studies … and don't even provide an excerpt from it. And fwiw, that Times piece is a reprint of an AP article.

You guys need to step up yer game. I won't hold my breath.
 
Last edited:
Completely unsupported. There are so many examples that you manage to offer … none.



Not obvious t' me. If it precipitated a recession, it would weaken the labor market.

>>You want citations again or do you know simple math?

"Simple math" and "common sense" don't always explain macroeconomic phenomena.

>>Yes, there would be dislocation in the "short term" certainly.

Like the one we just went through?



If it didn't meet population growth, how is it that unemployment was cut in half? An obvious concern is the decline in the labor force participation rate, but that's largely the result of demographic and societal changes (aging baby boomers, more people staying in school, and more withdrawing temporarily from the labor force to care for sick/elderly/disabled relatives or to raise young children).

The US population has expanded from 309.3 million in 2010 to 325 in 2016, up 5.1%, while private-sector employment has grown from 105.4 million to 123.3 million, an increase of seventeen percent — more than three times the rate.

Enjoy yer laugh.

>>As I said, new small business growth has been down in smaller towns across the US.

Yeah, you said it. Did you offer any evidence to support it? I can't comment on yer claim regarding "smaller towns," but I'd like to hear more about it.

The number of establishments with fewer than 250 employees has been expanding since 2010 and has now returned to the pre-recession level.

View attachment 67210558

The number of jobs created annually by these businesses has grown from 2.5 million to three million during the recovery.

View attachment 67210559

That measure exhibited a rather steep downward trend 2000-10 which has since been reversed. It's still down about a third from the level in the late 1990s, indicating that the number of new jobs in each new establishment is declining. (source)

In 2000, the average new firm had 7.7 employees; by 2010, that number had declined to 5.5. Part of this reflects a changing sector mix, with fewer firms in construction and manufacturing and more in professional services. It also reflects growth in outsourcing clerical functions such as accounting and finance. (source)​

As the analysis in that article indicates, a lot of the problem has resulted from a lack diminished access to credit by small businesses and a lack of confidence among them.



Depress how much and for how many? I've been arguing here that the net effect is positive, and that the solution is to increase the MW.

Did you notice this part of the article:

llegal aliens allowed some of the businesses to grow or survive foreign competition, indirectly expanding job opportunities and wages for higher-skilled workers in the same trades.

Without a pool of illegal immigrants willing to be garment workers or shoemakers, the accounting office said, many companies would shut down.


>>I know it's the NYT, which is a biased rag now, but I didn't have time to look for something better.

Ya mean something "better" in the sense of not being eighteen years old?

You describe the highly-respected NYT as a "biased rag," then provide a link to a doc published by the RW think tank Center for Immigration Studies … and don't even provide an excerpt from it. You guys need to step up yer game. I won't hold my breath.


You bitch about needing a source, and when provided two you bitch about how it was provided. I'm not you bitch, so you get it like I give it. Learn to live with it, and be grateful that someone bothered to even listen to you.
 
I wonder if Trump/GOPers will take credit for this in 2017's good Stats.
They Will, and I will refer to this post to show the economy was already picking up, and wage growth already rising due to the Longest Recovery in US economic history. Near full employment is finally raising the bottom's wages.

However, if Trump does get rid of some of these ILLEGALS who depress the bottom's wages, he too can claim credit.
I support E-verify: No National ID, NO job.

Wage Growth Is Galloping Higher at Its Fastest Pace in Nearly Eight Years
A new cycle high.
Luke Kawa - Bloomberg - November 15, 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...her-at-its-fastest-pace-in-nearly-eight-years

Wage growth is on fire.

The Atlanta Fed's Wage Growth Tracker indicates that the median U.S. worker saw pay rise by 3.9% year-over-year in October, the fastest rate of growth since November 2008.

740x-1.jpg


This number comes on the heels of October's non-farm payrolls report, which showed average hourly earnings increasing at the fastest annual clip of this current expansion, a sign that the economy is getting close to full employment.

The Atlanta Fed's wage metric tracks the incomes of individual workers over time, and as such is not prone to the composition effects — like the exit of higher-paid baby boomers from the labor force — that have weighed on the usual measure of average hourly earnings this cycle.

"Average hourly earnings are more susceptible to compositional and demographic changes in the labor force, while the tracker is comparing the wages of the same individuals over time, providing a unique insight into wage growth,"
[.......]​

Wage growth will lead to inflation and higher interest rates. Hillary dodged a bullet. Trump will get the blame. :)
 
You bitch about needing a source

Bitch? Hilarious.

>>provided two you bitch about how it was provided.

No bitching, simply noting that that's not a NYT analysis (they don't publish articles that short on topics like this), and deciding to dismiss a piece published by an organisation with ties to white supremacist groups, one that you don't even cite from. What's in it that you see as "evidence" supporting yer position? Did you read it?

>>I'm not you bitch

Are you calling me a bitch? Should I take the pathetic reactionary position of running to cry to the staff to have you disciplined for uncivil behaviour?

>>so you get it like I give it.

Nah, I choose to toss yer puke right back at ya.

>>Learn to live with it, and be grateful that someone bothered to even listen to you.

I don't benefit from ignorant responses my posts, and neither does anyone else.
 
Bitch? Hilarious.

>>provided two you bitch about how it was provided.

No bitching, simply noting that that's not a NYT analysis (they don't publish articles that short on topics like this), and deciding to dismiss a piece published by an organisation with ties to white supremacist groups, one that you don't even cite from. What's in it that you see as "evidence" supporting yer position? Did you read it?

>>I'm not you bitch

Are you calling me a bitch? Should I take the pathetic reactionary position of running to cry to the staff to have you disciplined for uncivil behaviour?

>>so you get it like I give it.

Nah, I choose to toss yer puke right back at ya.

>>Learn to live with it, and be grateful that someone bothered to even listen to you.

I don't benefit from ignorant responses my posts, and neither does anyone else.

You can run to the staff if you like, but they will see it was a typo, and you'll likely be ignored. I gave you two sources that confirm a negative affect on wages at the low levels. There were many others, unfortunately you are too lazy to do anything yourself. So you get what you get. Next time don't ask. And quite frankly, I don't care of you benefit or not from my response. Have a nice day.
 
they will see it was a typo

Ahh, you thought my name is Mitch. OK.

>>I gave you two sources that confirm a negative affect on wages at the low levels.

Yeah, one that's from 1998, doesn't indicate how much of an effect, explicitly states that there's also a benefit to other workers, and refers to a GAO report you haven't even looked at. You didn't even realise that it's an AP report republished online by the Times. Then another from the "Hail Frump" crowd. Not convincing to me.

>>There were many others, unfortunately you are too lazy to do anything yourself.

I'm too lazy? For not presenting evidence to support yer position? Good one.

>>So you get what you get.

Not even another meaningless tautology from the Right, but rather simply mindless repetition. Like I said, many of the "conservatives" in this community have absolutely nothing to offer. Unfortunate.

>>Next time don't ask.

I sure didn't ask you. Imo, mbig (who I did ask) is a perfectly reasonable fellow, and we just disagree about the evidence available regarding the effect of undocumented workers on wages. I figure it's a very difficult issue to analyse due to the nature of that population, and that there's a great deal of complexity involved. I ask that readers accept these limitations and perhaps consider that comprehensive immigration reform combined with raising the MW may well alleviate any problems.

>>I don't care of you benefit or not from my response.

That makes sense. How could anyone benefit from it?

>>Have a nice day.

You as well.
 
Last edited:
The employment and wages showed very strong growth following 2004, which is what i was responding to.



You are not providing any data, which would allow me to address your statement with greater accuracy than if i were to take your word for it.

Kush, you know I'm not making it up out of whole cloth. Why is it so hard for you to address my counterpoint?

Startup Activity Report, Charts & Graphs | Kauffman.org

kauffman_index_entrepreneurial_activity_2015.jpg
 
Kush, you know I'm not making it up out of whole cloth. Why is it so hard for you to address my counterpoint?

Startup Activity Report, Charts & Graphs | Kauffman.org

View attachment 67210561

Startups were well above trend between 2004 and 2009. This only strengthens my position, that people could not afford the homes to begin with.

Yes, we went into a deep economic downturn where roughly $13 trillion in wealth was lost. Such a reality can have a lasting impact on business creation.


Refer to the context of the discussion.
 
Startups were well above trend between 2004 and 2009. This only strengthens my position, that people could not afford the homes to begin with.

Yes, we went into a deep economic downturn where roughly $13 trillion in wealth was lost. Such a reality can have a lasting impact on business creation.


Refer to the context of the discussion.

I see you are deliberately missing the point. The recovery missed rural America completely. While liberal policies were destroying small manufacturing, they were simultaneously not aiding small business growth in areas under 100K population. The recovery was designed to help metros--Democrat strongholds. Yet you wonder why democrats cant get rural votes to save their lives. They voted with their wallet.
 
Completely unsupported. There are so many examples that you manage to offer … none.



Not obvious t' me. If it precipitated a recession, it would weaken the labor market.

>>You want citations again or do you know simple math?

"Simple math" and "common sense" don't always explain macroeconomic phenomena.

>>Yes, there would be dislocation in the "short term" certainly.

Like the one we just went through?



If it didn't meet population growth, how is it that unemployment was cut in half? An obvious concern is the decline in the labor force participation rate, but that's largely the result of demographic and societal changes (aging baby boomers, more people staying in school, and more withdrawing temporarily from the labor force to care for sick/elderly/disabled relatives or to raise young children).

The US population has expanded from 309.3 million in 2010 to 325 in 2016, up 5.1%, while private-sector employment has grown from 105.4 million to 123.3 million, an increase of seventeen percent — more than three times the rate.

Enjoy yer laugh.

>>As I said, new small business growth has been down in smaller towns across the US.

Yeah, you said it. Did you offer any evidence to support it? I can't comment on yer claim regarding "smaller towns," but I'd like to hear more about it.

The number of establishments with fewer than 250 employees has been expanding since 2010 and has now returned to the pre-recession level.

View attachment 67210558

The number of jobs created annually by these businesses has grown from 2.5 million to three million during the recovery.

View attachment 67210559

That measure exhibited a rather steep downward trend 2000-10 which has since been reversed. It's still down about a third from the level in the late 1990s, indicating that the number of new jobs in each new establishment is declining. (source)

In 2000, the average new firm had 7.7 employees; by 2010, that number had declined to 5.5. Part of this reflects a changing sector mix, with fewer firms in construction and manufacturing and more in professional services. It also reflects growth in outsourcing clerical functions such as accounting and finance. (source)​

As the analysis in that article indicates, a lot of the problem has resulted from a lack diminished access to credit by small businesses and a lack of confidence among them.



Depress how much and for how many? I've been arguing here that the net effect is positive, and that the solution is to increase the MW.

Did you notice this part of the article:

llegal aliens allowed some of the businesses to grow or survive foreign competition, indirectly expanding job opportunities and wages for higher-skilled workers in the same trades.

Without a pool of illegal immigrants willing to be garment workers or shoemakers, the accounting office said, many companies would shut down.


>>I know it's the NYT, which is a biased rag now, but I didn't have time to look for something better.

Ya mean something "better" in the sense of not being eighteen years old?

You describe the highly-respected NYT as a "biased rag," then provide a link to a doc published by the RW think tank Center for Immigration Studies … and don't even provide an excerpt from it. And fwiw, that Times piece is a reprint of an AP article.

You guys need to step up yer game. I won't hold my breath.


Didn't read, too much unclear, jumbled bull****. Learn to use the quote function, I will not respond to your stupid formatting and it certainly looks like that is its intended function.
 
I see you are deliberately missing the point.

You are trying to take my statements out of context to make a point.

The recovery missed rural America completely. While liberal policies were destroying small manufacturing, they were simultaneously not aiding small business growth in areas under 100K population.

Small manufacturing is being destroyed by capitalism itself, as the invisible hand seeks additional profit through efficiency.

The recovery was designed to help metros--Democrat strongholds. Yet you wonder why democrats cant get rural votes to save their lives. They voted with their wallet.

Metropolitan areas have superior infrastructure, available talent, access to markets, etc.... While i am not going to place all the blame entirely on Republican obstructionism, they did have a hand in preventing investment into these communities.
 
You are trying to take my statements out of context to make a point.



Small manufacturing is being destroyed by capitalism itself, as the invisible hand seeks additional profit through efficiency.



Metropolitan areas have superior infrastructure, available talent, access to markets, etc.... While i am not going to place all the blame entirely on Republican obstructionism, they did have a hand in preventing investment into these communities.

That's partisan horse****. They didn't enact the recovery spending bill, Democrats did. Republican obstruction had not a damn thing to do with it.
 
Didn't read, too much unclear, jumbled bull****. Learn to use the quote function, I will not respond to your stupid formatting and it certainly looks like that is its intended function.

I accept yer pathetic surrender.
 
That's partisan horse****. They didn't enact the recovery spending bill, Democrats did. Republican obstruction had not a damn thing to do with it.

1.) You only addressed a portion of my statement, but included the entirety in the reply.

2.) I am not placing the blame entirely on Republican obstructionism.
 
I accept yer pathetic surrender.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, if you cant adhere to simple board courtesy to properly use the board quote functions and make your posts legible and able to be quoted without endless editing don't blame me that you are in an echo chamber where everyone is ignoring you.
 
1.) You only addressed a portion of my statement, but included the entirety in the reply.

2.) I am not placing the blame entirely on Republican obstructionism.

As far as I can see you aren't really addressing it much at all. You want to blame market forces when policy contributed as much if not more. Theory alone isn't going to square the circle.
 
As far as I can see you aren't really addressing it much at all. You want to blame market forces when policy contributed as much if not more.

There could have been better policies in place to help transition displaced laborers.

Theory alone isn't going to square the circle.

Your opinion of my position isn't a valid critique.
 
The Atlanta Fed's Wage Growth Tracker indicates that the median U.S. worker saw pay rise by 3.9% year-over-year in October, the fastest rate of growth since November 2008.
Yes .. but I fear the number of "median U.S. workers" is decreasing.
 
Back
Top Bottom