djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 1:01:32 GMT -5
Keep spinning. i'm not spinning, Ahamburger. from 1823 to 1973, wages by all economic classes rose beyond the rate of inflation at approximately the same rate. i don't know why you think that child labor has anything to do with this fact. it doesn't. moreover, i don't know why anyone would object to this idea. but whatever. i am getting used to people attacking my points for no reason other than an apparent distaste for the underlying argument. tough shit.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 1:07:44 GMT -5
this chart is an illustration of where the problem is coming from: ![](http://www.currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/productivity_family_income.png)
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Oct 9, 2012 1:09:47 GMT -5
Sure. There was no labour movement in the late 1800's early 1900's because of poor wages and Child labour. What about slavery dude? That went on until like 1869... I think you have lost your own point in this tread along the way. Go ahead a think that sucking money out of the consumer cycle at this point in the recovery won't harm it... Good-night. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 1:20:18 GMT -5
Sure. There was no labour movement in the late 1800's early 1900's because of poor wages and Child labour. and yet wages in all classes kept ahead of inflation during that entire period.What about slavery dude? That went on until like 1869... slaves were not paid. they were considered farm equipment. therefore, they were not counted in the statistics until the 1870's. but they were counted since then. dude.I think you have lost your own point in this tread along the way. why should you even care? it is my point, and my thread.Go ahead a (sic) think that sucking money out of the consumer cycle at this point in the recovery won't harm it... Good-night. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) wtf are you talking about? i have been insisting on exactly the opposite, ahamburger. the consumer is king in this economy, and he is getting killed by it. i have no idea where you got the idea that i am anti-consumer from in this thread, but you are grossly mistaken. look at the chart. the average worker was rewarded for increases in productivity for 150 years, and has been slipping since the 1970's. more productive workers getting paid the same has meant handsome profits to the elite, but it is slowly killing the middle class. moreover, this is a seachange in America. it is a watershed moment. what this means, if you think about it, is that the American dream is over. but what the graph shows is that it CLEARLY doesn't need to be that way. now, if you are looking for explanations of WHY, they are manifold. but interestingly enough, that subject has not even come up during this thread. i guess everyone is hung up on the title, still. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 1:26:40 GMT -5
here is an overview of Wolff's position- but he plays it safe by only going back to the Civil War (probably to eliminate the argument you just made about slavery). i think the portion emphasized is particularly interesting: Wolff’s central argument is clear. During the long century between the end of the Civil War and the 1970s, US capitalism experienced a steady expansion fueled by the introduction of new technologies. The resultant rising levels of production and productivity allowed capitalists to raise wages consistently while maintaining profits. Although this growth did not occur without its blips, notably the several mini crashes of the late 1890s and the Great Depression, it nonetheless proved lasting. Built into this scenario lay the idea of American Exceptionalism (The USA as a unique nation where upward and onward for all forever existed) and of The American Dream (a house, a car, and consumerism) as every person’s birthright. Sometime during the 1970s things began to change. First, the introduction of computers led to rising productivity but without increased job creation or rising wages. Second, a second great wave of massive immigration led to more competition for jobs. Third, outsourcing became available to capital as a way to drive down costs and put a ceiling on pay packets. Fourth, foreign competition from low-wage areas hurt both domestic and foreign sales. This brought the long wave of rising wages to a screeching halt. As a result of the above, workers’ real wages have leveled off from the 1970s (and even declined more recently) to present. But, as we know, in order to survive capital must expand. While surging exports certainly help keep the wheels turning, the US home market is vital to capitalism’s survival. The ruling class (a term used sparingly by Wolff incidentally) hit upon a great new idea. Why not take the surplus value created by the workers and lend it back to them with interest? This produces a profit upon the profit and it allows the internal market to keep churning. And so the great credit bubble of the past decades came into being as money flowed to literally anyone with a job or a home and even apparently some without. But all good things come to an end and this is where today’s reality comes in: the credit expansion has reached its limits. Hence today’s crisis, which is not just another blip in Wolff’s opinion, but a real stone wall up against which the system has crashed. sdonline.org/51/capitalism-hits-the-fan-richard-wolff-on-the-economic-meltdown/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 1:34:33 GMT -5
the basic position that Wolff and others postulate is that when the 150 years of prosperity came to an end in 1970 for the bottom quintile (or two), they first sent their wives to work and became a two income family. and when that failed to keep up with the idea of ever increasing prosperity which is part of the American DNA, they started to borrow what they weren't earning. it is not all so sinister as it sounds, it is just common sense economics. but you can only borrow so much before the bill comes due, and that is precisely what is happening now.
now what we have is a shattered dream. no wonder so many are looking for someone to blame.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Oct 9, 2012 1:43:04 GMT -5
So glad I didn't go to bed. Blips? You're saying that the Long Depression from 1876-1911 and the Great Depression of the 1930's-1940's were blips? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) The reason I think you're missing the point is because a few of us have tried to explain to you that the theme of the video seems to be tax the rich, that is the solution. Funny thing about this conversation, what happened in the 1970's was a welfare class was created... Ask ModE89 at Investing basics and beyond if you don't believe me. Guy has lived through it all. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society But the thing that kicked this great society off was.... There, rich people create jobs and so do tax cuts, and on that point, new tech. Who buys $20,000 32" flat panel TV's when they first come out? Cell Phones when they first come out? Ect, ect? Ideals don't make money appear and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Have a good one my friend. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 1:48:52 GMT -5
So glad I didn't go to bed. Blips? You're saying that the Long Depression from 1876-1911 and the Great Depression of the 1930's-1940's were blips? he was referring to wages. yes, blips. The reason I think you're missing the point is because a few of us have tried to explain to you that the theme of the video seems to be tax the rich, that is the solution. i disagree that this is what the video says. but even if i WERE to agree, i disagree that it is saying tax the rich and give to the poor. instead, what he is saying, if you listen carefully, is tax the rich to pay for projects that help the rich, like infrastructure. you know- stuff that is actually part of what we expect from government? i am fully behind that, btw. i would rather we spend $250M per year building highways, parks, and reclaiming land than rebuilding Afghanistan. wouldn't you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 1:58:59 GMT -5
There, rich people create jobs sorry. where did this come from? and so do tax cuts, and on that point, new tech. Who buys $20,000 32" flat panel TV's when they first come out? Cell Phones when they first come out? Ect, ect? very few. but this has zip to do with my point. Ideals don't make money appear if you give up your ideals, no amount of money will buy them back.and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Have a good one my friend. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) i don't think of any of this as charity. i think of it the way meteorologists think of the water cycle. if it gets disrupted, it alters the environment- and not in a good way. for the record? i think it is already severely disrupted, and only a revolution of one sort or another will change it. the Romney/Obama way leads to dystopia, imo. we will have to find another way.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Oct 9, 2012 8:42:04 GMT -5
Rich People Don't Create Jobs. What a silly statement. I want everybody to think back and tell me One Poor Person that has created a JOB. Don't tell me the ones that Found One but Created ONE. one poor person never created a job. however, a million will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and help many people become rich. that is precisely the point. i take it you didn't watch the video? You've got the chicken and the egg scenario here...how do the poor get the money to buy the things that create the jobs? They either get a job (from a rich person) or money is taken from the rich to give to the poor...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Oct 9, 2012 8:48:49 GMT -5
Sure. There was no labour movement in the late 1800's early 1900's because of poor wages and Child labour. and yet wages in all classes kept ahead of inflation during that entire period.What about slavery dude? That went on until like 1869... slaves were not paid. they were considered farm equipment. therefore, they were not counted in the statistics until the 1870's. but they were counted since then. dude.I think you have lost your own point in this tread along the way. why should you even care? it is my point, and my thread.Go ahead a (sic) think that sucking money out of the consumer cycle at this point in the recovery won't harm it... Good-night. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) wtf are you talking about? i have been insisting on exactly the opposite, ahamburger. the consumer is king in this economy, and he is getting killed by it. i have no idea where you got the idea that i am anti-consumer from in this thread, but you are grossly mistaken. look at the chart. the average worker was rewarded for increases in productivity for 150 years, and has been slipping since the 1970's. more productive workers getting paid the same has meant handsome profits to the elite, but it is slowly killing the middle class. moreover, this is a seachange in America. it is a watershed moment. what this means, if you think about it, is that the American dream is over. but what the graph shows is that it CLEARLY doesn't need to be that way. now, if you are looking for explanations of WHY, they are manifold. but interestingly enough, that subject has not even come up during this thread. i guess everyone is hung up on the title, still. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) Workers also didn't have all the protections they do now, nor did businesses have all the added expenses that they do now: unemployment, workers comp, licensing fees, audit fees, and not to mention the legal fees tied to everything from lawsuits to dealing with new/revised state and federal legislation. Businesses have become just another revenue source for government, and the ones to pay the price are the workers...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Oct 9, 2012 8:51:30 GMT -5
the basic position that Wolff and others postulate is that when the 150 years of prosperity came to an end in 1970 for the bottom quintile (or two), they first sent their wives to work and became a two income family. and when that failed to keep up with the idea of ever increasing prosperity which is part of the American DNA, they started to borrow what they weren't earning. it is not all so sinister as it sounds, it is just common sense economics. but you can only borrow so much before the bill comes due, and that is precisely what is happening now. now what we have is a shattered dream. no wonder so many are looking for someone to blame. Did they send their wives to work, or did the wives prefer to work a job and bring home an income of their own? Many women became used to, and enjoyed, the ability to earn an income and families quickly learned to "live it up" on that two income lifestyle - so much so, that it later became a necessity rather than a luxury.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:57:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 8:55:24 GMT -5
For those that think capital plays a smaller role, or shouldnt get any benefit from their initial investment, consider this How many people do you know, with a decent idea for a business, but that NEVER start it? Why? Capital to risk is the number one reason. Period. untrue. access to capital is the number one reason. period. Ok...access to capital So where does one go to get access to capital? Family, friends, relatives......no go for most, especially those from the bottom rungs of society Banks, credit unions, cooperatives.....they will not give a "new" business the time of day without collateral....so not much chance there So that leaves "other capital" as the only alternative Those that are willing to risk their capital on someone else's idea and sweat equity.....and there are not many of those around These people that have money that they are willing to risk, are being villified in the press. They are rich for the most part, and they want to stay that way. Instead of declaring all rich as "evil and greedy" lets take a moment and figure out exactly what these people do for OUR economy If you stop and actually think about it, we NEED these people to continue to develop new ideas, and new business'es
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 9, 2012 9:05:59 GMT -5
These people that have money that they are willing to risk, are being villified in the press. They are rich for the most part, and they want to stay that way. Instead of declaring all rich as "evil and greedy" lets take a moment and figure out exactly what these people do for OUR economy
All we need to do is look back a few years at NYC and NY State's financial problems which were solely due to loss of revenue from the financial sector that was based in NYC.
NYC and NY State gets 20% of its revenue from this sector. In the heart of the meltdown revenues from this sector were non-existent.
To make up for lost revenue both govt entities raised taxes on the middle class, as well as numerous nusance fees and property taxes. NYC police were writing tickets, left, right and center for all sorts of esoteric violations.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:57:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 9:18:20 GMT -5
Sure. There was no labour movement in the late 1800's early 1900's because of poor wages and Child labour. and yet wages in all classes kept ahead of inflation during that entire period.What about slavery dude? That went on until like 1869... slaves were not paid. they were considered farm equipment. therefore, they were not counted in the statistics until the 1870's. but they were counted since then. dude.I think you have lost your own point in this tread along the way. why should you even care? it is my point, and my thread.Go ahead a (sic) think that sucking money out of the consumer cycle at this point in the recovery won't harm it... Good-night. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) wtf are you talking about? i have been insisting on exactly the opposite, ahamburger. the consumer is king in this economy, and he is getting killed by it. i have no idea where you got the idea that i am anti-consumer from in this thread, but you are grossly mistaken. look at the chart. the average worker was rewarded for increases in productivity for 150 years, and has been slipping since the 1970's. more productive workers getting paid the same has meant handsome profits to the elite, but it is slowly killing the middle class. moreover, this is a seachange in America. it is a watershed moment. what this means, if you think about it, is that the American dream is over. but what the graph shows is that it CLEARLY doesn't need to be that way. now, if you are looking for explanations of WHY, they are manifold. but interestingly enough, that subject has not even come up during this thread. i guess everyone is hung up on the title, still. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) I answered why in another thread Automation We have replaced people jobs, with automation. Less people working doing the exact same thing. Now we just need technicians to keep the machines working properly, programmers to tell the machines what to do, and companies to build bigger better and faster machines. Those middle class line jobs are gone....never to return. They have been replaced by service jobs for those in the top rungs of society. I dont do much around the house anymore as i hire people to do what used to be done by the homeowner himself Yard work.... Carpentry Electrical Plumbing Fix it projects I would rather hire someone to do it right....and i can afford that "luxury"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 11:03:43 GMT -5
one poor person never created a job. however, a million will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and help many people become rich. that is precisely the point. i take it you didn't watch the video? You've got the chicken and the egg scenario here...how do the poor get the money to buy the things that create the jobs? cooperative farming?They either get a job (from a rich person) or money is taken from the rich to give to the poor... capital formation can take place a LOT of different ways. in Chinese communities in the US, for example, the community members pooled their meager resources together from their subsistence farms back home, and bought laundries and restaurants. none of them were rich, but they work together collectively to create wealth. in old word Europe, people got rich by having slaves, basically. their wealth formation created NO wealth for the masses. and that is what created such incredible stasis in the old world. the history of capitalism is not nearly so clear as you make it seem.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 11:04:49 GMT -5
wtf are you talking about? i have been insisting on exactly the opposite, ahamburger. the consumer is king in this economy, and he is getting killed by it. i have no idea where you got the idea that i am anti-consumer from in this thread, but you are grossly mistaken. look at the chart. the average worker was rewarded for increases in productivity for 150 years, and has been slipping since the 1970's. more productive workers getting paid the same has meant handsome profits to the elite, but it is slowly killing the middle class. moreover, this is a seachange in America. it is a watershed moment. what this means, if you think about it, is that the American dream is over. but what the graph shows is that it CLEARLY doesn't need to be that way. now, if you are looking for explanations of WHY, they are manifold. but interestingly enough, that subject has not even come up during this thread. i guess everyone is hung up on the title, still. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) Workers also didn't have all the protections they do now, nor did businesses have all the added expenses that they do now: unemployment, workers comp, licensing fees, audit fees, and not to mention the legal fees tied to everything from lawsuits to dealing with new/revised state and federal legislation. Businesses have become just another revenue source for government, and the ones to pay the price are the workers... well, that clearly wasn't the case before 1973, so i guess my question to you is: what changed? i have my own explanation, but let's hear yours.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 11:06:19 GMT -5
the basic position that Wolff and others postulate is that when the 150 years of prosperity came to an end in 1970 for the bottom quintile (or two), they first sent their wives to work and became a two income family. and when that failed to keep up with the idea of ever increasing prosperity which is part of the American DNA, they started to borrow what they weren't earning. it is not all so sinister as it sounds, it is just common sense economics. but you can only borrow so much before the bill comes due, and that is precisely what is happening now. now what we have is a shattered dream. no wonder so many are looking for someone to blame. Did they send their wives to work, or did the wives prefer to work a job and bring home an income of their own? Many women became used to, and enjoyed, the ability to earn an income and families quickly learned to "live it up" on that two income lifestyle - so much so, that it later became a necessity rather than a luxury. ok, i will grant you that- but no matter what the cause, the affect was the same. wages for the bottom 20% didn't rise, but household incomes did, and it was basically 100% due to women entering the workplace.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 11:07:31 GMT -5
untrue. access to capital is the number one reason. period. Ok...access to capital So where does one go to get access to capital? Family, friends, relatives......no go for most, especially those from the bottom rungs of society it really depends on who you are, and what your community is, as i just pointed out. but credit unions are not necessarily made up of rich guys.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 11:08:32 GMT -5
wtf are you talking about? i have been insisting on exactly the opposite, ahamburger. the consumer is king in this economy, and he is getting killed by it. i have no idea where you got the idea that i am anti-consumer from in this thread, but you are grossly mistaken. look at the chart. the average worker was rewarded for increases in productivity for 150 years, and has been slipping since the 1970's. more productive workers getting paid the same has meant handsome profits to the elite, but it is slowly killing the middle class. moreover, this is a seachange in America. it is a watershed moment. what this means, if you think about it, is that the American dream is over. but what the graph shows is that it CLEARLY doesn't need to be that way. now, if you are looking for explanations of WHY, they are manifold. but interestingly enough, that subject has not even come up during this thread. i guess everyone is hung up on the title, still. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) I answered why in another thread Automation We have replaced people jobs, with automation. Less people working doing the exact same thing. Now we just need technicians to keep the machines working properly, programmers to tell the machines what to do, and companies to build bigger better and faster machines. Those middle class line jobs are gone....never to return. They have been replaced by service jobs for those in the top rungs of society. I dont do much around the house anymore as i hire people to do what used to be done by the homeowner himself Yard work.... Carpentry Electrical Plumbing Fix it projects I would rather hire someone to do it right....and i can afford that "luxury" i actually agree with most of this, but it paints a bleak picture of what awaits us, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:57:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 12:15:47 GMT -5
High school graduation rate rises in U.S.
By Lyndsey Layton,
Published: March 19, 2012
The Washington Post
More high school students across the country are graduating on time but dropouts continue to be a significant national problem, creating a drag on the economy, according to a report to be issued Monday by a nonprofit group headed by former secretary of state Colin L. Powell.
The national graduation rate increased to 75.5 percent in 2009, up from 72 percent in 2001. And the number of “dropout factories” — high schools where at least 60 percent of students do not graduate on time — fell from 2,007 in 2002 to 1,550 in 2010.
This is the OTHER big issue. Out of these dropouts, how many will actually end up with saleable skills in todays workforce?
Maybe 10-15% go to a trade school and learn to be electricians, plumbers, mechanics
The rest are asking, "do you want fries with that?"
And we wonder why wages are not keeping up for these?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 9, 2012 16:04:22 GMT -5
... The national graduation rate increased to 75.5 percent in 2009, ... For a historical perspective: Completion rates peaked in 1969, with 77 percent of that high school class earning diplomas. www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html So we are close to the all time record for high school graduation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:57:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 19:05:03 GMT -5
"businesses can already make decisions"
If a business thinks the result of the election will affect the rate of return, the best course of action, etc, they'd be stupid not to just wait a few months. We're probably only talking about a relatively small portion of decisions here, not something drastic.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:57:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 19:10:22 GMT -5
"this chart is an illustration of where the problem is coming from"
That graph doesn't include all compensation. For instance, healthcare benefits and SS/Medicare taxes paid by the company. Employment cost index is a better measure, although I don't think it goes back to 1947.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 19:44:37 GMT -5
"businesses can already make decisions" If a business thinks the result of the election will affect the rate of return, ............then they are kidding themselves, in all likelihood, and you know it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 19:45:08 GMT -5
"this chart is an illustration of where the problem is coming from" That graph doesn't include all compensation. For instance, healthcare benefits and SS/Medicare taxes paid by the company. Employment cost index is a better measure, although I don't think it goes back to 1947. please post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:57:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 19:57:41 GMT -5
"............then they are kidding themselves, in all likelihood, and you know it."
You're basically saying that the person elected President will have no impact on the business climate, even at a micro level.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 0:57:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 20:00:32 GMT -5
"please post" Post what? The St Louis Fed or the BLS will have the ECI data. ECI has consistently risen faster than wages. Also, there's a clear inflection point in your graph, so knowing what that is would be relevant. research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIWAG
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 22:01:59 GMT -5
"............then they are kidding themselves, in all likelihood, and you know it." You're basically saying that the person elected President will have no impact on the business climate, even at a micro level. i am saying that the person elected president will have no immediate impact, nor will the impact be predictable. for example, who would have thunk that Obama was actually REALLY GOOD for business (from a policy standpoint) when he was elected? not me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 9, 2012 22:02:48 GMT -5
"please post" Post what? The St Louis Fed or the BLS will have the ECI data. ECI has consistently risen faster than wages. Also, there's a clear inflection point in your graph, so knowing what that is would be relevant. research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIWAGsorry to be a pest, but have anything with more data? i am trying to match up to 1970.
|
|