I hope this is sarcasm as it is very obvious that the liberuls of 2+2 do not like conservatives celebrating how much better the poorest of the poor Americans (especially minorities) are after de-regulation and tax cuts. It tilts liberuls even more because many of those conservatives said this was going to happen - it makes those conservatives look like they are the f-wording big bambino calling their damn shot.

In all seriousness, if you have a couple hours you should look at a list of all the companies who gave pay raises, bonuses or increased hiring immediately following GOATrump's announced tax cut.

Next conservative prediction: in the next 2 years we are going to see something we haven't seen in a long long time... Wage Growth.

I meant to add that wage is growth is going to be...

Lol, as if we haven't just got out of listening to eight years of bull**** made-up terrible things that were going to happen under Obama.

Now come all the bull**** made-up good things that are going to happen under Trump.

Wage Growth Well Short of What Was Promised from Tax Reform.

Assuming a full 52 weeks of work, the $6.21 increase in weekly earnings would result in a $323 annual increase, nowhere near the minimum $4,000 promised and $9,000 potential annual increases projected by President Trump and Speaker Ryan.


Why Hasn't the GOP Tax Bill Supercharged Wage Growth?

William Brangham:

Wages, though, have remained a little bit sluggish.

And my basic understanding of economics is, when unemployment is low and the economy is roaring, there is more competition for that scarce number of workers, wages ought to go up. Why are they not?

Jim Tankersley:

Well, that’s a big mystery for economists.

And there’s a few theories. One theory is that there’s actually still not as much competition as you might imagine based on the unemployment number because there are about two million people who could be working, but are not looking for jobs right now.

And that lack of them in the labor force is keeping wages down. Another possible explanation is that workers right now have for so long not had bargaining power with companies. They have not had the ability to demand raises, that they’re having a hard time getting it back for whatever reason.

Companies are just not used to paying them more,

William Brangham:

So, is that investment that they’re describing, that if they suddenly get a big windfall from this tax cut, are they plowing it, or does the record reflect that companies are putting that money investment-wise into offices, factories, plants, et cetera?

Jim Tankersley:

There’s not great evidence yet that the tax bill has unleashed any sort of an avalanche of investment.

William Brangham:

We have seen a lot of companies doing the stock buybacks, Apple most recently, very strikingly big buyback.

For those who don’t know exactly what it is, what is a stock buyback and who does it benefit?

Jim Tankersley:

Well, what it is, is a company decides that it is going to repurchase shares of its stock which are out on public markets.

So it goes out, it spends money to buy its own shares. Now it controls more of its own shares, and that puts money in the hands of people who did own the stock and decide to sell it. And it also increases the value of stock held by existing shareholders,

I can't imagine how you got banned from posting about politics in multiple sub-forums with such amazing insights as this.

.

So that's the ending format! Makes sense. I already copied the starting format from you years ago. Now I can post a short jingle for my upcoming three stack challenge. Thanks Morph!

Your $323 number is just taking what we saw the first 3 months after the tax cut and multiplied it by 4. Like almost every new policy or law, it will take more than 3 months to see the full effect of these tax cuts.

Although Jim seems very limited in his knowledge of the topic at hand in what you posted I do agree with him here that Obama was so successful in his War on the Poor that employees are scared to demand raises, businesses don't remember what it is like to have to fight to keep good employees and there are still people sitting on the sidelines thinking they can't find work. This all changes by the time GOATrump wins his second term.

Hold on let me get this straight. There hasn't been hundreds of companies that can build a new plant or factory in 5 months?

A tax cut isn't a one time windfall like obama's (and even bush 2) home buyer credit, cash for clunker, bank bail out, etc. This tax cut will be like extra revenue every year.

A stock buy back is also good for a company as those who accept the cash offer obviously prefer the cash to the stock and now they have cash to do whatever the want with.

I wonder why these 2 clowns didn't discuss the thousand or so companies that have increased hiring and/or gave out bonuses & raises they otherwise wouldn't have immediately after the tax cut. I would email you the list of companies that did this but the file is too large - you can google it when you have a few hours to yourself.

income inequality is ****ing problematic and you are blowing your horn over mega corps slathering themselves in extra money.

+1

The clowns are a veteran PBS host and an economics expert who is for the tax cuts, and trying to defend them. And you are a supporter of someone whose own policy experts and cabinet members have called a moron and an imbecile.

The existence of a list of company names that would fill a file that would be too large to email is a transparent lie. Is it a 1080p video of someone reading out the names for several hours?

Income inequality has never and will never be a significant problem in a country as developed & free as the US. How are you worse off if your neighbor's income goes from $40k/yr to $4M/yr?

I'm not saying trump isn't a "moron and an imbecile". I am just pointing out that the poorest of American's will be way better off under GOATrump than obama. Although I am not one of the poorest of American's I am happy that we now have a president who is trying to help these people and not the middle class like obama did.

haha... the file being too YUGE to email was a joke. The point is that it is a YUGE list.

It's not reasonable to pay McDonald's workers a pre-negotiated weekly sum of company leftovers when they could be paid a more equitable dollar sum per hamburger cooked. Unit pricing for everything, and scale the Chance cards (taxes) in a way that hurts people evenly....overtime changes like these will affect a metric that is apparently totally invisible to you at the moment. But in xx years when every aspect of life has less friction you can say to yourself, "that's what that idiot in bbv4life was talking about when he said income inequality was ****ing problematic."

Imagine an economy of just you and your neighbor produces 80 widgets. Both you and your neighbor value the widgets equally and both earn $40k/yr so you each use your entire $40k/yr to purchase 40 widgets each. The market price of widgets is $1k.

Now your neighbor's income goes to $4M. Since he doesn't care about you and is non-satiated in widgets he wants to buy all the widgets. $4M/80 = $50k per widget.

Well, you're **** out of luck bud because that $40k/yr salary ain't getting you a single widget and you went from 40 widgets to 0 widgets.

But how can the neighbor's enjoy his $4M/yr if he can't drive a Benz?

You lost credibility when you said you are worse off when your neighbor got a pay raise because of "Scarcity." The economy isn't a zero sum game.

Story needs more info. Why is the neighbors income now $4m? Maybe he created a device that will create another product that will replace my need for widgets. Maybe he created a device to create more widgets. Maybe I can work for him and create more money and be able to buy more of other products.

Maybe I need to change jobs if I am creating something relatively worthless in my economy. There is a reason it is tough to survive as a bowling alley pin setter today - it sounds like I need to adept to changing times and maybe I can figure out something my neighbor wants since he is making so much money.

The story has exactly enough information to show that your claim that there aren't distributional effects on utility is absurd.

Also economics is basically a constrained optimization problem. The constrained part comes from scarcity. So, you don't really understand that either.

well so do i get like 5c for every sq foot i mop up and clean real nice? how am i supposed to track that? are we talking about Smart Mops? is this a business idea you already came up with? because i'm stealing it

lol. You are so sure that you are right that you can't give one scenario that you are right.

So if me and my neighbor are stuck on an island catching 40 fish a month and then my neighbor creates a net that catches many times that I am somehow worse off? I'm sure he wouldn't pay me x fish to build him a home, start him a fire, build him a boat or any other action where he'd be better off because he doesn't like me and he wants all the fish/widgets to himself. Yeah, cool story.

If you like the idea of sharing profits in hamburger sales with employees you should open up a burger joint and TRY to hire people by telling them they can share in profits and the risks. That option is available to you as it is to mcdonalds who has taken a lot of risks to get where they are today.

It doesn't even have to be burgers. Go start any company and try to hire people by telling them they are commission only. Some may like it, but a lot of people want the consistent paycheck that comes with other companies. Of course, it is easy to sit on the sidelines and say "Now that an owner of a company took all the risk and succeeded he should have to share a higher percent of her profits with those that took zero risk."