U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2019, 07:28 PM
 
29,342 posts, read 46,381,114 times
Reputation: 15402

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB View Post
That’s not at all correct. High taxes hamper growth and reducing what was one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world has a positive economic impact. It does trickle down to everyone because companies have more money to spend and invest. It’s basic math. If you taxed at 100% there would be no business, so the lower the taxes the more businesses keep for reinvestment and retention of valuable employees.
When companies spend their tax largess on stock buybacks—who benefits but higher eschelion bosses who claim stock options on stock prices?
The fact that companies received a huge windfall in tax rebates has not helped the average employee very much at all...
The growth of the US economy in the 50s when taxes were much higher was very strong—despite tax rates
Because companies were investing in the company—not buying back stock...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2019, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,907 posts, read 12,708,711 times
Reputation: 21190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The actual number of jobs was 101,203 but the anal retentive like pretty graphs, so the real number of jobs was "seasonally adjusted" downward.
I can't find that 101,203 number anywhere. I google it and get a link to your post, nothing else. Would you mind providing a cite for it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2019, 08:57 PM
 
19,579 posts, read 12,830,475 times
Reputation: 13306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
I am a lifelong Democrat but the reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than many imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.

Don't get me wrong...I think supply side economics is bad policy. But outlandish claims or assertions should die on the vine, especially in the age of Trump.
Thank you! Also *exactly*


POTUS and or their administration along with Federal Reserve have *NO* direct influence over employment. Or course various policies from federal and or local governments can set the stage for employers to increase or decrease payrolls; but that is the extent. At end of day such decisions are made by individual businesses themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 07:26 AM
 
4,879 posts, read 1,995,456 times
Reputation: 15142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
As one of my Econ professors used to say "one month does not make a trend" in most economic data series. You need to look at quarterly data at a minimum.

Cleary this was a bad month but the reviews I read pointed to the govt shut down and bad weather as contributing to the poor monthly performance. Wage growth was a positive in this report. So take it with a grain of salt for now....

Yep.



I do think it's going to get harder and harder to drive the unemployment rate down from here. I mean, it became vogue for a while among economists to assert that it was impossible to get unemployment below 5%. At the same time, there is a portion of the population that is simply unemployable due to work habits, location, and a host of other factors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 07:36 AM
 
4,879 posts, read 1,995,456 times
Reputation: 15142
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read View Post
When companies spend their tax largess on stock buybacks—who benefits but higher eschelion bosses who claim stock options on stock prices?
The fact that companies received a huge windfall in tax rebates has not helped the average employee very much at all...
The growth of the US economy in the 50s when taxes were much higher was very strong—despite tax rates
Because companies were investing in the company—not buying back stock...



I'm so tired of this lazy argument against a lower tax rate. There are more than 18,000 corporations in this country that have 500 or more employees. Meanwhile, there are less than 3,700 publicly-traded companies in this country. So even among the largest companies out there, stock buybacks are relatively rare. And that doesn't even take into account companies with fewer than 500 employees who still are benefiting from the tax cut.



Meanwhile, capital investments have soared. Heck, in 1Q 2018 alone, capital investments increased closed to 40% over the previous year. It'll be interesting to see where it ends up the year. Wage growth has increased markedly.



The truth of the matter is that the corporate tax rate was lowered to be a little below that of the EU. I mean, even Sweden's is 22.5%. Yet while people squeal like teenaged girls in excitement over Sweden, they don't want to the same basic fiscal policy applied to domestic companies. Go figure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 01:13 PM
 
946 posts, read 190,376 times
Reputation: 1621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
In the big picture the TCJA will make rich people better off at the expense of lower-income households and future generations.
Speaking of having drunk the cool-aid...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,967 posts, read 13,817,865 times
Reputation: 15143
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I can't find that 101,203 number anywhere. I google it and get a link to your post, nothing else. Would you mind providing a cite for it?
Same cite as always:


Series Id: LNU02000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Go to this link:

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate

Copy and paste LNU02000000

Hit "Next->"

Hit "Retrieve Data"

Observe.

That is the actual raw data. It is not manipulated to make graphs look pretty for the anal retentive.

You may compare with CEU0500000001, which is the raw data for Total Private Employment and which indicates 418,000 new jobs were created in February, not 20,000 jobs.

The difference between LNU02000000 and CEU0500000001 is the data sources. The former comes from the Current Population Survey and the latter comes from Current Employment Survey.

Even though the CES is more accurate, since it's based on payroll data, I choose to be conservative in estimates and rely on the CPS, but consider both when analyzing the data.

If you're wondering how "seasonally adjusting" works, you can go to the US Census Bureau web-site and down load X-13ARIMA-SEATS, which is the program used for seasonal adjustments and study it to your heart's content.

BLS stupidly applies seasonal adjustments to everything, from the labor force, to employed, full-time and all types of part-time employment, to populations, to the unemployed, to wages, to benefits, to prices, to the number of persons applying for unemployment benefits and everything you can imagine.

Seasonal adjustments aren't necessary, hide trends and distort the true economic picture.

It doesn't take a big-brain to figure out that weather can negatively impact employment, especially in construction and open mines, and force consumers to stay home, instead of shopping and spending money, which also negatively impacts retail, restaurant and other hospitality employment where employees are sent home early or told not to report for work due to low customer volume.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 05:53 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,907 posts, read 12,708,711 times
Reputation: 21190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Same cite as always:
Series Id: LNU02000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted

You may compare with CEU0500000001, which is the raw data for Total Private Employment and which indicates 418,000 new jobs were created in February, not 20,000 jobs.

The difference between LNU02000000 and CEU0500000001 is the data sources. The former comes from the Current Population Survey and the latter comes from Current Employment Survey.
LNU02000000 measures civilian employment level, it isn't a calculation of jobs created. I'm not sure why you are using that or how you are coming up with 101,203. or why every source on the internet agrees with the 20,000 jobs number except you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 06:08 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
12,835 posts, read 8,111,197 times
Reputation: 18637
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read View Post
When companies spend their tax largess on stock buybacks—who benefits but higher eschelion bosses who claim stock options on stock prices?
The fact that companies received a huge windfall in tax rebates has not helped the average employee very much at all...
The growth of the US economy in the 50s when taxes were much higher was very strong—despite tax rates
Because companies were investing in the company—not buying back stock...
But the very purpose of the company is to benefit stockholders. Creating jobs and contributing to wage growth is nice, but only if it benefits the company.
Your "average employee" should help himself by making himself more valuable.


Still, I take serious issue with a publicly owned company who pays his CEO 10's of million a year. In fact, I would not invest in such a company, while I could not care less whether they expand the company or buy their own stock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,852 posts, read 1,524,037 times
Reputation: 3268
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Speaking of having drunk the cool-aid...

More like waking up and smelling the coffee.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top