Middle-class income rose above $61,000 for the first time last year, U.S. Census Bureau says

[Jack V Savage]

High levels of taxation hamper economic growth. It doesn't take an expert to see the obvious. Of course, many experts do agree with the statement I made.

No experts will agree with the statement you actually made. You know it was pure hackery.

Here's the top google return from a quick search. It may be unorthodox among your colleagues, but clearly many economists think in terms very similar to those I expressed.

This was your comment: "But if taxes are too high they hamper economic growth, and that's where we found ourselves. The tax cuts were good because they allowed the economy to begin to thrive in a way it hadn't for a decade."

Not, "in theory, corporate taxes specifically could slow growth," or even "the U.S. could grow faster if corporate taxes were lower." Those would be defensible.

Here's tax levels from 1950 to 2017:

Any evidence that taxes were high before the cuts, much less that high taxes were hampering economic growth? No, of course not.

Your argument here is an argument from authority, which aside from commonly leading to logical fallacies here breaks down because you do not accurately describe the views of the experts.

An argument from authority is only a fallacy if it's made as a logical argument, in the form of "an authority says X; therefore X is true." It's not a fallacy if you point out that authorities tend to understand stuff better than amoral hacks like you.

The US debt stood at 10.6 trillion dollars in Jan 2009. By 2016 that increased to 19.7 trillion dollars. (https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/19/news/economy/debt-obama-trump/index.html) An increase of 9.1 trillion over 10.6 can be reasonably generalized as doubling. If the imprecision bothers you, can we agree that during Obama's tenure as president the national debt increased 86% rather than 100%?

We can agree that "during Obama's tenure as president ..." But what you said was "Obama doubled the debt," which is false. And that Obama did not promote pro-growth policies, which is also false. The whole point of the ARRA was to grow the economy, and by all measures, it exceeded expectations.

Look at GDP over the past 10 years.

You can see in the chart where the ARRA started.

And the deeper problem here isn't that you're getting things wrong; it's that you have utterly no interest in getting them right. As usual, you just lie for propaganda purposes, and then you lie about your own comments when they are challenged.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

No experts will agree with the statement you actually made. You know it was pure hackery.

And yet I quoted a professor from Columbia, who in conjunction with researchers from Duke and Yale supported my statement. There is nothing at all radical or hackish about the claim that high levels of taxation hinder economic growth.

Now I realize that some economists disagree. And this is where you and I handle things differently. When someone disagrees with me, and yet their position is valid, I do not attack them personally or act as if their view is heretical.

Your spin about Obama's responsibility for massively increasing the debt is amusing. The buck stops with him, and along with George W and quite possibly Trump, he'll go down as the man most individually responsible for our national debt.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And yet I quoted a professor from Columbia, who in conjunction with researchers from Duke and Yale supported my statement. There is nothing at all radical or hackish about the claim that high levels of taxation hinder economic growth.

They didn't support your actual statement. I would support the statement that high levels of taxation can hinder economic growth.

This is the part that is hackery and false:

"that's where we found ourselves. The tax cuts were good because they allowed the economy to begin to thrive in a way it hadn't for a decade."

Now I realize that some economists disagree. And this is where you and I handle things differently. When someone disagrees with me, and yet their position is valid, I do not attack them personally or act as if their view is heretical.

That's now where we handle things differently. Where we handle things differently is that I don't make objectively false claims in an authoritative tone and then equivocate under challenge, but you do. I care deeply about personal morality and integrity, and you do not.

Your spin about Obama's responsibility for massively increasing the debt is amusing. The buck stops with him, and along with George W and quite possibly Trump, he'll go down as the man most individually responsible for our national debt.

Except you know that that is 100% false, and your analytical method (credit the president with 100% of the change in spending and revenue that occurs from inauguration to leaving office) is not something that any rational or honest person would use. Right? So when you say that he "massively increased the debt," what policies are you referring to? What actions? None. To call anything I said "spin" just further demonstrates your low character. You know it, but you pretend as if there are some because you don't care whether your statements are true.

 

[C0NCH3TO]

lulz thats bum money in ny.....

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I would support the statement that high levels of taxation can hinder economic growth.

Zero evidence that high levels of taxation has a measurable impact on growth.

Lol. Pick your Jack.

 

[Letssnuggle]

If you need a professor to tell you that high levels of taxation hamper growth you’re a idiot.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol. Pick your Jack.

"Can" vs. "evidence."

Note that developed countries all grow at roughly the same rate despite widely varying levels of taxation. Bit of a mystery, especially as there are deadweight impacts that can be observed. What it comes down to is that impact is probably very small, and not easily measured because of that.

Remember that your claim is "has been." That allegedly high taxes had been a drag on growth and the recent tax cuts for the rich lifted that drag. BTW, now that your errors have been corrected, are you going to stop making them? I know the answer because it's happened before, but you can't claim it's an honest mistake anymore.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Considering how cost of living moves relative to income, increases in income is kind of moot. Cost of living will move accordingly causing a wash. Not really sure how something like that can be controlled though without draconian policies.

Prices for goods and living expenses are lot like prices for labor. More supply of goods and services, more competition, pushes prices downwards. Draconian policies though can stump competition, and reduce supply by putting up entry barriers, and protecting the established players.

On flip side, more consumers means more demand and should push prices up. However, if most of the consumers dont garner much wages, they cant demand much at all. They simply wont buy much of anything at all except the most basic needs which they may even need government assistance with.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Well it took almost 7 pages, but someone finally gave me an actual idea they had. Much, much appreciated.

So say this is implemented, 15% increase each year until $15 is minimum. Here are my two biggest issues that I don't see how to avoid. Maybe you do as this is your suggestion.

1- For the aisle 7 supermarket worker with no real skill now making $15h, how does that motivate a say, construction worker or office supervisor or etc to keep working hard on their unchanged $17h salary? Would they not feel entitled to a massive raise if they only made a dollar or two more? Would it even be fair for these people to not make more money, and if it isn't, how would we address increasing their pay? Companies aren't going to increase it out of the kindness of their own heart, so I can picture this causing a whole new wave of problems. I could even see people quitting jobs of much higher value and need to make almost the same doing braindead work. There's no way you can leave it to companies to "do the right thing".

2- What happens to start up companies, thousands of local mom and pops around the country, etc, paying such high wages to staff. How? Many of them can only afford to pay low wages for a small number of staff, but forcing them to pay such a significantly higher amount to staff would run many of them out of business or be unable to open or expand business. Do you really want the overwhelming majority of businesses to evolve into a rich players only club?

The construction worker, or office supervisor will keep at his job because he dont want to get fired. If you are assuming this office supervisor, or construction worker can easily easily steal the now good paying supermarket job from the under achievers, you are likely going to be surprised. Supermarket rather keep their old employees. They likely dont think job is underneath them, and already know what they are doing.

As for mom and pop shops, they should just fire their employees and do the work themselves. They save themselves even more money. If they dont bring in enough customers to make profit, and still pay workers, they dont need the extra help.

 

[COTUR1@43]

 

[MMABrooklyn]

What I took from it mainly was that unemployment was down, even so for minorities. Which in turn can empower their lives.

The Median Black family is worth $1,500. What can you empower with $1500?

 

[IDL]

The Median Black family is worth $1,500. What can you empower with $1500?

You can empower a refrigerator for several years!

 

[HIMBOB]

Well it took almost 7 pages, but someone finally gave me an actual idea they had. Much, much appreciated.

So say this is implemented, 15% increase each year until $15 is minimum. Here are my two biggest issues that I don't see how to avoid. Maybe you do as this is your suggestion.

1- For the aisle 7 supermarket worker with no real skill now making $15h, how does that motivate a say, construction worker or office supervisor or etc to keep working hard on their unchanged $17h salary? Would they not feel entitled to a massive raise if they only made a dollar or two more? Would it even be fair for these people to not make more money, and if it isn't, how would we address increasing their pay? Companies aren't going to increase it out of the kindness of their own heart, so I can picture this causing a whole new wave of problems. I could even see people quitting jobs of much higher value and need to make almost the same doing braindead work. There's no way you can leave it to companies to "do the right thing".

2- What happens to start up companies, thousands of local mom and pops around the country, etc, paying such high wages to staff. How? Many of them can only afford to pay low wages for a small number of staff, but forcing them to pay such a significantly higher amount to staff would run many of them out of business or be unable to open or expand business. Do you really want the overwhelming majority of businesses to evolve into a rich players only club?

1. Given time they would make more through the very mechanism you describe. $15 for easy unskilled, vs $17 for physical skilled, more will accept $15. Thus employers will have to Start offering more for skills. So while this mandate would only directly effect those under $15ph, it would push up wages for a significant portion of low to mid incomes.
We have clearly seen wages arent tied to profits but instead align more closely to the lowest wage.
This would push more funds into the real driver of economic growth, the middle class consumption.

2.
Any job which consumes more than it produces is inherently bad. If a job can not support it's worker it shouldn't exist. That doesn't change depending on the size of the business. The destruction of such jobs is best for the economy mid and long term.

This increase would require start ups to have more capital which is a negative. However I believe this would be out weighed by the increased spending of the middle class.

 

[HIMBOB]

You need to look at the perecentiles and standard deviation. Because few things in life are normally distrubted. Most often more than 50% of a population or whatever is being measured falls either below the mean or above the mean. Meaning averages are often NOT the middle poiny nor do they represent where 50% is above or below. Averages get skewed given high minority scotes at either tail end that throw can throw it off.

To be clear I was saying median is the better metric.

In an ideal world mean and median should be close. However as upper class pulls away this is getting worse.

 

[xcvbn]

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

BY DREW DESILVER

On the face of it, these should be heady times for American workers. U.S. unemployment is as low as it’s been in nearly two decades (3.9% as of July) and the nation’s private-sector employers have been adding jobs for 101 straight months – 19.5 million since the Great Recession-related cuts finally abated in early 2010, and 1.5 million just since the beginning of the year.

But despite the strong labor market, wage growth has lagged economists’ expectations. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers.

The disconnect between the job market and workers’ paychecks has fueled much of the recent activism in states and cities around raising minimum wages, and it also has become a factor in at least some of this year’s congressional campaigns.

Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013. But in the years just before the 2007-08 financial collapse, average hourly earnings often increased by around 4% year-over-year. And during the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 7%, 8% or even 9% year-over-year.



After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.

A similar measure – the “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time wage and salary workers – tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of 1979 (when the data series began) to $879 in the second quarter of this year, which might sound like a lot. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars.

Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426).

Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course – health insurance, retirement-account contributions, tuition reimbursement, transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.

Wage stagnation has been a subject of much economic analysis and commentary, though perhaps predictably there’s little agreement about what’s causing it (or, indeed, whether the BLS data adequately capture what’s going on). One theory is that rising benefit costs – particularly employer-provided health insurance – may be constraining employers’ ability or willingness to raise cash wages. According to BLS-generated compensation cost indices, total benefit costs for all civilian workers have risen an inflation-adjusted 22.5% since 2001 (when the data series began), versus 5.3% for wage and salary costs.

Other factors that have been suggested include the continuing decline of labor unions; lagging educational attainmentrelative to other countries; noncompete clauses and other restrictions on job-switching; a large pool of potential workers who are outside the formally defined labor force, neither employed nor seeking work; and broad employment declines in manufacturing and production sectors and a consequent shift toward job growth in low-wage industries.

Sluggish and uneven wage growth has been cited as a key factor behind widening income inequality in the United States. A recent Pew Research Center report, based on an analysis of household income data from the Census Bureau, found that in 2016 Americans in the top tenth of the income distribution earned 8.7 times as much as Americans in the bottom tenth ($109,578 versus $12,523). In 1970, when the analysis period began, the top tenth earned 6.9 times as much as the bottom tenth ($63,512 versus $9,212).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

 

[Bunk Moreland]

A lot of the current boom is fueled by debt, which is going to bite the economy in the ass down the road.



https://qz.com/1280927/us-household-debt-has-hit-an-all-time-high-of-13-2-trillion/

This.

Its a train wreck waiting to happen

Why is personal debt bad?

 

[sickc0d3r]

The reality is we need a social safety net.

However,

I would make it smaller myself. If you’re able bodied, you shouldn’t receive benefits. We can thank democrats for rewarding people who are too lazy to be productive citizens.

Able bodied adults with no kids and who are not caregivers are a very small percentage of welfare recipients, and almost all of them are working or find work within a year of getting benefits. The cost is not worth fretting over. For example, a single-person household averaging 30 hours a week at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 qualifies for $16 in SNAP, which is by far the most available benefit to that group. Next closest is EITC (which is only for the employed).

 

[Seaside]

1. I completely agree on the omnibus spending bill. That was a big mistake imo. We should definitely be tightening up spending. I'd like to see cuts across the board.
2. I think the corporate tax rate cut was a no brainer for both parties. We need to be competitive globally, and this brings us closer to being in line with global corporate tax rates. Fixing our broken trade agreements is also a big help in this regard. Trump's trade wars are just what the doctor ordered for many American companies.
3. I think the booming economy is clearly helping the little guy. Unemployment is down, wages are up. Workers wages are rising faster than CEO pay, which is good imo.

You dont need to tighten your spending if you increase taxes.

To be clear I was saying median is the better metric.

In an ideal world mean and median should be close. However as upper class pulls away this is getting worse.

Percentiles and SD is better. But yes median helps.

 

[cincymma79]

Why is personal debt bad?

Depends on what it is and the debt to income ratio

 

[Letssnuggle]

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

ROFL.....this is hilarious. Inflation seems to come and go totally dependent on the current argument.