| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
JJLehto 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
 Posted: March 14 2017 at 00:22 |
Back to boring econ, this is one of the more drab posts from EPI, even I struggled, but it makes a bold claim: Higher wages may help productivity  Lots of real life data to back it up too.
This is kinda crazy since we always hear it the other way around: Productivity is the key to better wages. It's always the be all end all, the answer to everything and perhaps the issue is a two way street. As it points out: Investment remains low, (hurting productivity) despite record profits. So this can't be the reason, it could be lack of demand. This is all logical and normal economics so there could be some real validity to the theory higher wages will help productivity.
As they propose, we need to boost the economy or let it get hot, and let it run there for a bit. Bold proposals coming from the left these days  |
 |
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: March 14 2017 at 00:34 |
|
Not sure about productivity but higher wages would certainly stimulate the economy, in big way. Even those who'd save and wouldn't overspend would still invest in property and stocks, small businesses would boom (though half would go bust in a couple years), and the spenders would be online shopping or traveling like there's no tomorrow. We'd still have problems; a growing economy doesn't necessarily mean a stable one, but there would definitely be more money around and more people would have assets.
Edited by Atavachron - March 14 2017 at 00:35
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: March 14 2017 at 01:51 |
|
One comment about the wire-tapping and one about the healthcare act:
I was expecting some new sinister move against the intel services to follow in defense of the
unprovable wire-tapping accusation, but a backtracking on a kindergarten level
is something I hadn’t reckoned with. It’s just surreal, especially after the
nationwide uproar. Was that really the best they could come up with after
having over a week to think up some face-saving strategy? Jeez!
The health care act: I wasn’t really going to comment on this, because
I regard it as an internal American affair which doesn’t impact me, so it’s
more of a question:
Can the GOP really afford to go along with it? Surely, it’s political
suicide that impacts the most important factor for a political party: votes.
Millions of them.
I would imagine that those with lower income will be directly effected
by the bill, and they were mainly the ones who elected Trump and the GOP. They
are the ones who will be facing higher premiums, higher direct costs, or no
insurance coverage at all. Being directly effected in such a way will with a
fair degree of certainty result in turning away from Trump at the next
election.
So, as the GOP isn’t that foolish, can they afford to let the act go
ahead as planned?
Or alternatively, can anyone imagine what spin the Trump administration
might give this social catastrophe to get it to pass without losing millions of low-income supporters over the next few years? I'm completely baffled, but then again, I've been completely baffled by just about everything this administration has done since it came into office.
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: March 14 2017 at 02:32 |
About a possible income increase for the population: now, I can’t claim
to understand much about economics. I did study it at university for 2 years in
the early ‘80s, but I gave up quickly, because as a science, it seemed to lack
any rock solid foundation to build upon, as a science normally should. That
might have changed by now, but looking at the results of any economic
predictions, I very much doubt it. From what I’ve heard, I would imagine that there might be a temporary
income increase resultant on some wave of temporary euphoria, but as the
planned import taxes especially come into effect, this has to have a negative
impact on production, especially on the chain-producing industries that rely on imports to sustain these chains. The USA is not self-sufficient in this way. Such taxes will artificially distort the relationship between supply
and demand, and that can only lead to a decrease in production, and therefore the
loss of jobs and a decrease in income in a relatively short time.
Am I wrong here? How can serious economists really think this can work?
|
|
Kepler62
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 09 2017
Location: Fort Erie
Status: Offline
Points: 501
|
Posted: March 14 2017 at 06:02 |
|
Kepler62 is a female.
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: March 14 2017 at 06:15 |
|
I am so sorry, I didn't realise. Always a pleasure, dear lady.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: March 14 2017 at 07:20 |
 npjnpj wrote:
One comment about the wire-tapping and one about the healthcare act:
I was expecting some new sinister move against the intel services to follow in defense of the
unprovable wire-tapping accusation, but a backtracking on a kindergarten level
is something I hadn’t reckoned with. It’s just surreal, especially after the
nationwide uproar. Was that really the best they could come up with after
having over a week to think up some face-saving strategy? Jeez!
The health care act: I wasn’t really going to comment on this, because
I regard it as an internal American affair which doesn’t impact me, so it’s
more of a question:
Can the GOP really afford to go along with it? Surely, it’s political
suicide that impacts the most important factor for a political party: votes.
Millions of them.
I would imagine that those with lower income will be directly effected
by the bill, and they were mainly the ones who elected Trump and the GOP. They
are the ones who will be facing higher premiums, higher direct costs, or no
insurance coverage at all. Being directly effected in such a way will with a
fair degree of certainty result in turning away from Trump at the next
election.
So, as the GOP isn’t that foolish, can they afford to let the act go
ahead as planned?
Or alternatively, can anyone imagine what spin the Trump administration
might give this social catastrophe to get it to pass without losing millions of low-income supporters over the next few years? I'm completely baffled, but then again, I've been completely baffled by just about everything this administration has done since it came into office.
|
yeah that was some great face saving strategy wasn't it  5 year olds around the world approve.... no need to be baffled. We've been down this road on other issues. Of course they can, and will try to go ahead with it. You would think it was political suicide. It should be but It is NOT however and that is the problem America has today. Political suicide was every 3rd word out of Trump's mouth, political suicide was being associated with the Russians, political suicide was being a obstructionists and do nothing as the last Congress was. Yet America continues to elect them. In their minds, as Trump so accurately noted, he could have shot someone down in the street in cold blood on live TV and they still would have voted from him. They would have fallen for the story that it was doctored footage put out my the evil left leaning media... or simply shrugged their heads and said... 'well he is different and that is what we need in Washington'. thus going back to why they could get away with this with their own constituents. Most simply don't care, probably are writing off those numbers as 'alt-facts'. It should be enough to swing the House in the next election, hopefully there are enough thinking Americans out there, but honestly... I'm not holding my breath on that one
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
Posted: March 14 2017 at 14:38 |
npjnpj wrote:
I was expecting some new sinister move against the intel services to follow in defense of the unprovable wire-tapping accusation, but a backtracking on a kindergarten level is something I hadn’t reckoned with. It’s just surreal, especially after the nationwide uproar. Was that really the best they could come up with after having over a week to think up some face-saving strategy? Jeez! |
He has a personality disorder. Expect more such things. Not much has changed since the whole birther thing, because I doubt he's getting any therapy.
|
|
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: March 14 2017 at 15:37 |
|
^ Absolutely. A "personality disorder" is putting it mildly. He is deeply disturbed.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: March 14 2017 at 16:16 |
No I don't think he is either. Going back to something David brought up last night. So much made of the traditional working class voting Republican, what of the well to do. In where once Republican strongholds... Interesting. 10 Weathiest Counties in US by median household income - Loudoun County, Va.; $122,238. Clinton by 30 points over Trump
- Falls Church City, Va. (independent city); $120,000. Clinton by 58 points over Trump
- Fairfax County, Va.; $110,292. Clinton by 36 points over Trump
- Howard County, Md.; $109,865. Clinton by 34 points over Trump
- Los Alamos County, NM; $106,686. Clinton by 20 points over Trump
- Hunterdon County, NJ; $106,143. Trump by 14 points over Clinton
- Arlington County, Va.; $103,208. Clinton by 60 points over Trump
- Douglas County, Colo.; $101,591 Trump by 18 points over Clinton
- Somerset County, NJ; $99,020 Clinton by 13 points over Trump
- Morris County, NJ; $98,633 Trump by 4 points over Clinton
what about education 10 most educated Counties in US by % with a Graduate Degree - Arlington County, Va; 36.7%. Clinton by 60 points over Trump
- Alexandria City, Va; 32.9%. Clinton by 59 points over Trump
- Montgomery County, Maryland; 31.6% Clinton by 55 points over Trump
- District of Columbia; 30.6%. Clinton by 88 points over Trump
- Howard County, Md.; 30.5%. Clinton by 34 points over Trump
- Fairfax County, Va.; 30.2%. Clinton by 36 points over Trump
- Orange County, N.C.; 30% Clinton by 51 points over Trump
- New York County, N.Y.; 28.5% Clinton by 77 points over Trump
- Tomkins County, N.Y.; 28.4% Clinton by 42 points over Trump
- Washtenaw County, Mi.; 28.3% Clinton by 41 points over Trump
just for kicks and giggles I'd be curious to see what the lowest income and educated voted...
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
omphaloskepsis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6343
|
Posted: March 15 2017 at 06:25 |
WASHINGTON — One of the most closely guarded secrets in politics — Donald Trump’s income taxes — became a little bit less mysterious late Tuesday as prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston and MSNBC published a partial copy of the president’s 2005 federal filing. The two-page disclosure shed little light on the entrepreneur’s complex financial dealings, showing he paid about $38 million on income of roughly $150 million, an effective tax rate of 25 percent.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-wall-around-donald-trumps-taxes-cracks-a-little-021916975.html
|
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20623
|
Posted: March 15 2017 at 13:35 |
^ And that leaves 11 years unaccounted for regarding his taxes....the mind boggles at what went on in those years.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: March 15 2017 at 14:25 |
|
Putin said that Trump is a modest man and not to worry about his taxes.
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
LearsFool
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 09 2014
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 8642
|
Posted: March 15 2017 at 15:18 |
Trump should have paid around 35% in taxes, but his negative income malarkey allowed him to pay the 24% paid by a family that makes about $400,000 a year. Furthermore, most of said taxes had to be paid via the alternative minimum tax - otherwise, he would only have paid 4% in taxes, around $5M, hence why he wants to obliterate the AMT.
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: March 15 2017 at 15:54 |
|
ehhh... the issue isn't really what he paid in taxes. That bombshell blew up last yearwith his negative income. That hardly bothered anyone. Can't blame him or anyone for taking what the system gives you. Trump may be many things.. but a good hearted philanthropist who believes in the social contract he is not. No problem there, not everyone is.
however
What could.. and would get him impeached... is finding out just where that income came from and if from Russian investments... he's gone... what got released was ..what 2 pages. Basic stuff, not the detailed return. He has been hiding something.. there would be no reason to NOT release them if not....and it wasn't 'avoiding taxes'.
Speaking of taxes.. AMT and all that jazz.. yeah man. Again, that is why we are seeing the freakiness out of Washington these days. The rushed 'health care' bill that really is not a 'health care' bill as they don't care about providing cheap coverage or anyone can afford it. That was never the goal. The goal?
The CBO scored the AHCA (Trumpcare/Ryancare/Don'tgiveaf**kingcare) as a deficit reducer, since the cost of repealing of
Obamacare’s wealth taxes would be more than offset by slashing funding
for Medicaid and scrapping Obamacare’s subsidies. Thus it’s easier to make tax reform (ie.. slashing corporate taxes and those on the rich) revenue-neutral, thereby qualifying it
for the budget “reconciliation” process that disallows filibusters by
the Senate minority.
all of this.. it isn't about Healthcare.. it is about taxes and their attempts to 'reform' the tax laws.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
omphaloskepsis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6343
|
Posted: March 15 2017 at 18:56 |
LearsFool wrote:
Trump should have paid around 35% in taxes, but his negative income malarkey allowed him to pay the 24% paid by a family that makes about $400,000 a year. Furthermore, most of said taxes had to be paid via the alternative minimum tax - otherwise, he would only have paid 4% in taxes, around $5M, hence why he wants to obliterate the AMT.
|
I agree. Trump should have paid 35% in taxes. It seems rich people have great tax lawyers. Obama paid 19% in taxes. Bernie Sanders paid 13% in taxes.
|
|
progaardvark
Collaborator
Crossover/Symphonic/RPI Teams
Joined: June 14 2007
Location: Sea of Peas
Status: Offline
Points: 51060
|
Posted: March 16 2017 at 06:58 |
The actual tax returns released by candidates and former presidents can be found here:
|
|
----------
i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag
that's a happy bag of lettuce
this car smells like cartilage
nothing beats a good video about fractions
|
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
Posted: March 16 2017 at 20:35 |
|
So Trump's proposed budget eliminates funding to the National Endowment for the Humanities, I'm sorry to say as someone whose research was funded by them for a year. It also cuts out the National Endowment for the Arts. That might have a negative effect on some musicians. A whole bunch of cuts, the purpose of which is not to shrink the deficit but to help fund an increase in the Defense budget. BTW, lots of people, even liberals, have made a great deal about how Trump's not a conservative. I never bought that, and this budget doesn't strike me as anything other than genuinely conservative.
Edited by HackettFan - March 16 2017 at 20:37
|
|
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13058
|
Posted: March 16 2017 at 20:58 |
The detestable Scrotum-in-Chief plans to destroy the environment, eliminate arts and education, and basically build a police state with a larger army and a wall that won't keep anyone out. Here are some cuts that will affect my family, friends, neighborhood and state: 1) Eliminates the $500 million Water and Wastewater loan and grant program. 2) Cuts Women, Infants and Children nutrition assistance from $6.4 billion to $6.2 billion. 3) Cuts $250 million from coastal research programs that ready communities for rising seas and worsening storms. 4) Cuts $3.7 billion in grants for teacher training, after-school and summer programs, and aid programs to first-generation and low-income students. 5) "Significantly" reduces federal work-study aid to college students. 6) Cuts $900 million from the Office of Science. 7) Eliminates the Energy Star, Weatherization Assistance Program, ARPA-E, Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, and Title 17 loan guarantees. 8) Decreases funding for the National Institutes of Health and certain programs to train health professionals. 9) Eliminates funding for the 49 National Historic Sites. 10) Eliminates the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which helps low-income seniors find work. 11) Eliminates climate-change prevention programs, including pledged payments to U.N. climate-change programs. 12) Discontinues funding for international climate-change programs. 13) Cuts funding for the Superfund cleanup program and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance. 14) Cuts $102 million of funding from NASA Earth science, terminating four missions aimed at understanding climate-change. 15) Eliminates the $115 million NASA Office of Education. 16) Eliminates all $148 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and all $148 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. 17) Eliminates the $445 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports public television and radio, including PBS and NPR. 18) Slash Environmental Protection Agency funding that pays for Great Lakes pollution cleanup by 97 percent. Throw in the huge tax breaks Trump and his Republican cronies plan on giving millionaires once they destroy Obamacare and steal health insurance from 20+ million people, it is obvious this a****le needs to go. This a****le needs to go quickly. This a****le needs to go now.
|
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: March 16 2017 at 21:11 |
|
^ And yet somehow I hear the people who voted for him thinking "Now we're getting somewhere!-- "
Beaches? We don't need no stinking beaches.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The American Politics Thread
