Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:14 AM
Irishman Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,304
Trump's economic plan working

I work for Walmart. Many of you may have already heard the news, but for those of you who haven't...

Walmart made an announcement the other day that because of changes to tax laws and reduction of regulations, they have decided to pass along some of the windfall to the employees. So they have raised their minimum wage from $9/hour (intro rate jumps to $10/hr when you pass the trial period) to $11/hour. They also have a one-time bonus for employees based on length of service, from $200 up to $1000 for employees of 20 years or more.

Yep, I just got trickled on. Crap, now I have to thank Trump.
  #2  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:19 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,272
I think it's more likely that an increasingly tight labor market is causing wages to finally grow in accordance with economic activity. We saw this sort of thing last in the 1990s when unemployment ducked below 4.3 and wages sure spiked there.

The fact is, to compete, WMT must raise wages or lose workers - talented, regular or low-skilled - to better paying jobs with either competitors or out of the retail sector completely.
  #3  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:20 AM
samclem samclem is offline
Graphite is a great
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 26,202
To take a contrary view, I wonder if the labor market tightening would not have produced close to the same result this year. Many companies have been raising starting salaries.

But, I'm glad for you and what you got.

Last edited by samclem; 01-21-2018 at 10:21 AM.
  #4  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:26 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,272
The Moderator Speaks

And upon further thought, I'll move this over to Great Debates. It'll do better there.
  #5  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:31 AM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,374
They are just making up for it in other areas.
  #6  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:43 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,776
It's definitely working. Polls show that the BHQ (Billionaires' Happiness Quotient) is up 10 points!

I'm glad the OP is seeing his prospects improved, but tying any one act by a company to a given government policy is problematic (unless we are talking about a specific regulation that can be traced to actions taken in response).
  #7  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:04 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,689
Good.

Of course the GOP could've just passed a tax law offering incentives for companies that agreed to raise their wages instead. That would have been far more efficient.

Or mandated a new minimum wage. That would've been 100x more effective too.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #8  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:37 PM
Llama Llogophile Llama Llogophile is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: 50% chord point
Posts: 3,767
$1000 for working 20 years? At Wal Mart? Pull the other one...

This reminds me of the time I got a check for around $350 as a result of GWB’s tax policy. I interpreted it as a thinly veiled attempt to get me to ignore the ongoing systemic problems his administration had no intention at all of addressing.

I’d rather have had my taxes spent on fixing the healthcare system, schools and infrastructure. And I say that as a person with decent health insurance and no children.
  #9  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:16 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
To take a contrary view, I wonder if the labor market tightening would not have produced close to the same result this year. Many companies have been raising starting salaries.

But, I'm glad for you and what you got.
Perhaps most pertinently, the labor market is, in truth, the ONLY obvious explanation for this.

It would be insane for Walmart to give employees a pay raise for no market-related reason. It isn't their job to share a tax windfall with the employees, and makes no obvious sense as a business move.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if you're struggling with maintaining staffing levels. The work has to get done.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #10  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:26 PM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,046
It does make sense to raise pay for market related reasons and time it to boost the perception that this is trickle down working. The Waltons made out like bandits on the new tax law, they'd really like it if we didn't vote the people into office who will take it away in favor of actual long term benefit to the middle class - so this is a savvy PR move.
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #11  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:43 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,311
The raises and the bonuses are not going to do much for all the workers laid off.

Businesses give raises when they have to give out raises to maintain their staff. They do not give out raises because they have extra money laying around.

The low unemployment in the labor market is really to thank for the raise and bonus, and for that, you can thank the longest growth cycle in history, which was initiated and presided over by the Obama administration.

That this tax cut will inject money into the economy is not in question. The question on the tax cut is whether it is an effective use of resources. The tax savings largely go to those who do not spend their extra marginal money in the economy, they are costing our country quite a bit of debt, and it is questionable if we need to "stimulate" the economy, when it is already at historic highs.

Back during the financial crises of 2008, republicans were aghast at the idea of adding onto the debt in order to promote a stimulus package that was desperately needed. The economy was in the worst position it had been since the great recession.

Now that they are in charge though, they think that deficit spending for stimulating and already healthy economy is a great idea.

The idea is to go into debt during down times, to prop up the economy, then raise taxes when the economy is doing well, not just to pay back what was borrowed, but also for the specific purpose of slowing the economy from growing too fast.
  #12  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:44 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 77,466
Yeah, there's no reason for Wal-Mart to actually do this in response to the new tax law. But there's plenty of reason for them to say they're doing it in response to the new tax law.
  #13  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:57 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 22,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The low unemployment in the labor market is really to thank for the raise and bonus, and for that, you can thank the longest growth cycle in history, which was initiated and presided over by the Obama administration.
There's always disagreement over when a new administration can take responsibility for what happens in the country; was 9/11 due to a lapse by Clinton or Bush, that sort of thing.

So, for those who are claiming that the current economy is due to Trump I want to ask:

Are you ready to accept responsibility for the economy; will you give credit or blame for the economy to Trump and the Republicans from this point forward?
  #14  
Old 01-21-2018, 03:11 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
There's always disagreement over when a new administration can take responsibility for what happens in the country;
True, but you can look at things.

In 2008, the economy was down, and going further down. The Obama administration changed fiscal policies to try to help, and it seemed to have worked. The economy managed to rebound and start to pick up again.

In 2016, the economy had been chuggin along relatively happily for quite a bit. Trump and the republicans win, and they really haven't touched any fiscal policy since. The tax bill was the first thing that they changed about the way the economy was running.

I feel fairly confident in saying that the things that happened due to the fiscal policies of the previous administration are the responsibility of the previous administration, but once they have taken the reigns and started making big changes, then they own the economy.
Quote:


was 9/11 due to a lapse by Clinton or Bush, that sort of thing.
Not to sidetrack, but Osama did grow up under Clinton's watch, but they were keeping an eye on him. Bush may not have been responsible for Osama, but he is responsible for not taking the threat seriously.
Quote:
So, for those who are claiming that the current economy is due to Trump I want to ask:

Are you ready to accept responsibility for the economy; will you give credit or blame for the economy to Trump and the Republicans from this point forward?
Not one of those, but I will put the responsibility of the economy from more or less this time forward on Trump and the republicans. They did inherit a pretty healthy economy, so they have no excuses if their ideas don't work out.
  #15  
Old 01-21-2018, 03:39 PM
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,494
The bubble didn’t burst yet because Trump installed another inflator at the Fed. So hail Trump,I guess, for now.

I also suppose now that the Republicans have passed the most meager of tax cuts, this will be used to explain the inevitable downturn that will take place in the next year or two.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 01-21-2018 at 03:41 PM.
  #16  
Old 01-21-2018, 03:47 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
It does make sense to raise pay for market related reasons and time it to boost the perception that this is trickle down working. The Waltons made out like bandits on the new tax law, they'd really like it if we didn't vote the people into office who will take it away in favor of actual long term benefit to the middle class - so this is a savvy PR move.
This is what happened. I'm sure other companies will be following suit.
  #17  
Old 01-21-2018, 06:00 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
... the inevitable downturn that will take place in the next year or two.
"Inevitable"? You feel comfortable using that word in this sentence?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-21-2018 at 06:01 PM.
  #18  
Old 01-21-2018, 07:03 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I think it's more likely that an increasingly tight labor market is causing wages to finally grow in accordance with economic activity. We saw this sort of thing last in the 1990s when unemployment ducked below 4.3 and wages sure spiked there.

The fact is, to compete, WMT must raise wages or lose workers - talented, regular or low-skilled - to better paying jobs with either competitors or out of the retail sector completely.
Which happened without needing more minimum wage laws? Supply and demand works with labor? How surprising.
  #19  
Old 01-21-2018, 07:23 PM
samclem samclem is offline
Graphite is a great
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 26,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Which happened without needing more minimum wage laws? Supply and demand works with labor? How surprising.
You're surprised? That surprises me.

It's all about timing. If left to their own schedule, owners would drag out raising wages until the bitter end. I don't fault them. They have stockholders to answer to. Their job retention comes before employee consideration.
  #20  
Old 01-21-2018, 09:10 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
I work for Walmart. Many of you may have already heard the news, but for those of you who haven't...

Walmart made an announcement the other day that because of changes to tax laws and reduction of regulations, they have decided to pass along some of the windfall to the employees. So they have raised their minimum wage from $9/hour (intro rate jumps to $10/hr when you pass the trial period) to $11/hour. They also have a one-time bonus for employees based on length of service, from $200 up to $1000 for employees of 20 years or more.

Yep, I just got trickled on. Crap, now I have to thank Trump.
That Target had already raised wages to $11 might have something to do with it. And the increased minimum wage. And that the announcement might have been trying to deflect attention away from their massive Sam's Club layoff.
I thin Wally's World might have finally woken up to the indisputable fact that if you pay people crap wages in a good economy, they will do crap work for you.
  #21  
Old 01-21-2018, 09:14 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
The bubble didn’t burst yet because Trump installed another inflator at the Fed. So hail Trump,I guess, for now.
Another inflator? You mean to continue the policies leading to the huge inflation we are seeing now? Or which you guys have been expecting for the past 8 years or so?
Quote:
I also suppose now that the Republicans have passed the most meager of tax cuts, this will be used to explain the inevitable downturn that will take place in the next year or two.
The downturn will happen when Wile C. Wall Street looks down and sees the canyon floor. Or when the idiots in the administration screw up the long overdue crisis stemming from somewhere. (I'm betting on China.)
Then the increased deficit will make it hard to deal with the downturn. Just like what happened during the Bush years.
  #22  
Old 01-21-2018, 09:46 PM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
It does make sense to raise pay for market related reasons and time it to boost the perception that this is trickle down working. The Waltons made out like bandits on the new tax law, they'd really like it if we didn't vote the people into office who will take it away in favor of actual long term benefit to the middle class - so this is a savvy PR move.
This.

It's insane to imagine that the reason that Walmart pays employees X is because that's all they can afford to pay. They pay as little as they can and still maintain staffing levels / quality.

In this situation however, with a sudden, massive corporate tax break, it definitely makes strategic sense for them to throw out some breadcrumbs so no-one gets too upset and agitates for a repeal.
  #23  
Old 01-21-2018, 11:12 PM
andros andros is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 9,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"Inevitable"? You feel comfortable using that word in this sentence?
That an economic downturn is inevitable should be obvious. That it will occur in the next two years is certainly debatable.
  #24  
Old 01-22-2018, 12:17 AM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
That an economic downturn is inevitable should be obvious. That it will occur in the next two years is certainly debatable.
Wait, we are predicting that the business cycle will occur now?
  #25  
Old 01-22-2018, 01:47 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,324
One thing I wasn't going to mention in this thread, because I didn't want to hijack, but sod it; is that in much of the conservative media they are talking about Trump getting the economy "back on track" after "years of decline"

But what apple to apple benchmark was going in the wrong direction under Obama, and the right direction now?

But I'm willing to give trump credit for not screwing up the economy yet, and look forward to conservatives giving Obama credit for his accomplishments.
  #26  
Old 01-22-2018, 02:00 AM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,690
"Wages Rise as U.S. Unemployment Rate Falls Below 5%" (February 2016)

"As wages rise, CEOs are starting to complain" (July 2016)

"U.S. Wages Rising At The Fastest Pace In Years Amid Solid Hiring" (November 2016)

It's the amazing time-traveling tax cut!

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 01-22-2018 at 02:01 AM.
  #27  
Old 01-22-2018, 03:00 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
... But what apple to apple benchmark was going in the wrong direction under Obama, and the right direction now? ...
GDP growth was rather anemic under Obama. I don't know if you'd call that "the wrong direction", but ~2% growth is nothing to sing about. Under Trump it's done better.
  #28  
Old 01-22-2018, 04:03 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,228
The economy is doing well in part due to Trump's policies, but it's not really accurate to call it an "economic plan". More kneejerk Trumpian instincts like immigration control and tax cuts are causing wages to rise. Shortage of workers plus more money in corporate coffers.
  #29  
Old 01-22-2018, 04:05 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
"Wages Rise as U.S. Unemployment Rate Falls Below 5%" (February 2016)

"As wages rise, CEOs are starting to complain" (July 2016)

"U.S. Wages Rising At The Fastest Pace In Years Amid Solid Hiring" (November 2016)

It's the amazing time-traveling tax cut!
There is never any one policy that affects the economy, but it is very likely that better immigration enforcement+ tax cuts is helping wages rise now even more than in 2016. While recognizing that the factors leading to wages rising in the first place were already in place under Obama, Trump's policies have added more fuel to the trend.
  #30  
Old 01-22-2018, 07:14 AM
bucketybuck bucketybuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,109
I would love Trump to stand in front of me and explain exactly what his economic plan actually was...

No doubt he would know exactly what his aims were and economic theories involved.
  #31  
Old 01-22-2018, 07:58 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
GDP growth was rather anemic under Obama. I don't know if you'd call that "the wrong direction", but ~2% growth is nothing to sing about. Under Trump it's done better.
If you look at this graph of GDP and then click "10Y" you'll notice that actually under Obama we had a number of quarters at or above the current rate, and so far there is no real indication of an uptick versus the longer term trend.

And anyway I think calling 2% anaemic would be unfair. Wealthy countries only look to grow 2-3% a year; more might mean a damaging spell of inflation, and post-recession, most industrialized countries wished they could hit the lower end of that bracket.
  #32  
Old 01-22-2018, 10:16 AM
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"Inevitable"? You feel comfortable using that word in this sentence?
I’m pretty comfortable, yes. We having been living in unprecedented times of Fed manipulation since 2008, so it’s possible the bubble will continue to grow for over two years, but not likely by my guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Another inflator? You mean to continue the policies leading to the huge inflation we are seeing now? Or which you guys have been expecting for the past 8 years or so?
I haven’t been predicting price inflation as measured by CPI. Some have. I have been seeing predictions that have not panned out from “you guys” as well.

Quote:
The downturn will happen when Wile C. Wall Street looks down and sees the canyon floor. Or when the idiots in the administration screw up the long overdue crisis stemming from somewhere. (I'm betting on China.)
Then the increased deficit will make it hard to deal with the downturn. Just like what happened during the Bush years.
The Fed had no difficulty in its unprecedented interventions during the downturn. The Congress also had no difficulty in spending huge sums of money for bailouts and stimulus either. Not sure why you think large budget deficits make it “difficult” to enact Keynesian measures when the Keynesian measures are budget deficits.

What will make it difficult during the next downturn is that the misallocation of resources and malinvestment will not be directed into sustainable ventures because of Fed and congressional intervention. The same thing happened with the last downturn and the one before that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
That an economic downturn is inevitable should be obvious. That it will occur in the next two years is certainly debatable.
Or we could wait and see.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 01-22-2018 at 10:18 AM.
  #33  
Old 01-22-2018, 10:28 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
If you look at this graph of GDP and then click "10Y" you'll notice that actually under Obama we had a number of quarters at or above the current rate, and so far there is no real indication of an uptick versus the longer term trend.
You do have to consider the magnitude of the financial disaster he inherited, and from whom.
  #34  
Old 01-22-2018, 11:27 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You do have to consider the magnitude of the financial disaster he inherited, and from whom.
Mijin asked for an "apple to apple benchmark". If this is your response for GDP growth, is it fair to say that you just don't believe there are any valid apple to apple benchmarks?
  #35  
Old 01-22-2018, 11:31 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,774
You don't think it's appropriate to allow for some lead time for a President's first budget even to be passed, much less kick in, or for his policy changes to take effect before holding him responsible for the results?

You want to credit Trump for Obama's policies while blaming Obama for Bush's disasters, and credit Bush for Clinton's successes ("Irrational exuberance", remember?); we get that. It lets you support repeating Bush's disastrous policies while, we can predict, similarly denying responsibility.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-22-2018 at 11:34 AM.
  #36  
Old 01-22-2018, 11:38 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You don't think it's appropriate to allow for some lead time for a President's first budget even to be passed, much less kick in, before holding him responsible for the results?
To the extent that Trump's executive orders have been to dismantle regulations on business and introduce policy to reduce taxes, I must reluctantly give him credit for adding fuel to the existing rate of economic growth. Whether his policies ultimately prove themselves to be vaporware, or even sugar in the economic gas tank, well, that remains to be seen. I'm absolutely certain that his administration's ability to deal with or avoid a potential collapse of an economic bubble is nil.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 01-22-2018 at 11:39 AM.
  #37  
Old 01-22-2018, 11:42 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,774
True enough, and some of the continuation of the stock market boom is the result of anticipation of such things by investors, even if they never actually come to happen. So, if the hoped-for results do not occur and stock prices begin to reflect that reality instead, to that extent it's the responsibility of short-term-thinking market manipulators than of anyone in the government.
  #38  
Old 01-22-2018, 11:50 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
I still say that gov't policies set the mood for the market and its reactionaries (which are by their nature short sighted). To that extent, we must give unto Trump that which is his. Of course, when things go in the other direction, that too must be given on to him.
  #39  
Old 01-22-2018, 11:51 AM
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 34,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
True enough, and some of the continuation of the stock market boom is the result of anticipation of such things by investors, even if they never actually come to happen. So, if the hoped-for results do not occur and stock prices begin to reflect that reality instead, to that extent it's the responsibility of short-term-thinking market manipulators than of anyone in the government.
But a real economist advising Trump would understand that and would make Trump aware of the possible downside and that the stock market doesn't necessarily reflect true economic change.
Not that Trump would understand or even listen one bit.
  #40  
Old 01-22-2018, 11:53 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,774
He'd understand that his own portfolio is growing. That's all the economic change that interests him.
  #41  
Old 01-22-2018, 11:54 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,561
Stock prices will inevitably reflect the fact that they're stock prices. They have never just risen on and on indefinitely, and never will, because that's impossible. They are already overvalued and a significant setback is inevitable in the near future.

Deserved or not, Trump will suffer for it.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #42  
Old 01-22-2018, 12:05 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Stock prices will inevitably reflect the fact that they're stock prices. They have never just risen on and on indefinitely, and never will, because that's impossible. They are already overvalued and a significant setback is inevitable in the near future.

Deserved or not, Trump will suffer for it.
He won't be the only one. Nor will he accept any of the responsibility.
  #43  
Old 01-22-2018, 12:07 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I’m pretty comfortable, yes. We having been living in unprecedented times of Fed manipulation since 2008, so it’s possible the bubble will continue to grow for over two years, but not likely by my guess.
I agree with you that the bubble will burst. I don't think the Fed will be the cause, though. We can't predict what the cause will be.
Quote:
I haven’t been predicting price inflation as measured by CPI. Some have. I have been seeing predictions that have not panned out from “you guys” as well.
I was fooled by you accusing the Fed of being inflatory. We guys have said that the Fed policies will not cause inflation, especially not right after the downturn, and we've been right.
Quote:
The Fed had no difficulty in its unprecedented interventions during the downturn. The Congress also had no difficulty in spending huge sums of money for bailouts and stimulus either. Not sure why you think large budget deficits make it “difficult” to enact Keynesian measures when the Keynesian measures are budget deficits.
You don't recall the opposition to stimulus spending in 2009? You haven't seen Republicans even today braying about the gigantic Obama deficits? True Republicans don't care about deficits when they are associated with tax cuts, but they do seem to be opposed to them associated with government spending.
Keynsian economics says to decrease deficits during good times and increase them during downturns. Since Republican policy is to increase deficits during good times - Reagan, Bush and now, that means that the deficits will be bigger than they should be during downturns - and harder to get through.
Quote:
What will make it difficult during the next downturn is that the misallocation of resources and malinvestment will not be directed into sustainable ventures because of Fed and congressional intervention. The same thing happened with the last downturn and the one before that.
You mean like solar energy investments that don't pan out? A trivial amount, and as any VC can tell you, lots of bets don't work. Infrastructure investments pay off also and are pretty well guaranteed to work. When I was commuting I enjoyed the benefits of them every day.
Saving the auto industry worked out pretty well also.
One thing that Obama did well (with advice from Sunstein I bet) was to give people more money by increasing their paychecks through cutting FICA payments. Behavioral economics has shown that this encourages spending more than giving people a check - which goes to debt repayment or savings. Usually a good thing, but not during a demand crunch.
Since these policies got us out of the worst downturn since the Depression and launched a long recovery, I think it is hard to say they didn't work.
  #44  
Old 01-22-2018, 08:19 PM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You don't think it's appropriate to allow for some lead time for a President's first budget even to be passed, much less kick in, or for his policy changes to take effect before holding him responsible for the results?

You want to credit Trump for Obama's policies while blaming Obama for Bush's disasters, and credit Bush for Clinton's successes ("Irrational exuberance", remember?); we get that. It lets you support repeating Bush's disastrous policies while, we can predict, similarly denying responsibility.
You'll note that upthread I did give Trump credit, with no conditions or caveats.

I just also pointed out that the current meme on right-wing media -- that Trump has "turned the economy around" -- is nonsense. It's based on Spicer-logic of "The numbers were fake before but they're very real now" i.e. the main thing that has changed has been how some people choose to interpret the numbers.

It makes me sad to imagine people only watching those shows and believing that story, but what can you do?
  #45  
Old 01-23-2018, 10:41 AM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,831
Corporate taxes fall both on labor and capital, the fraction depends on the market for both. Since labor markets are tight and capital markets are not we should expect almost all of the recent corporate tax cut to go to workers like the OP.
  #46  
Old 01-24-2018, 12:51 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Corporate taxes fall both on labor and capital, the fraction depends on the market for both. Since labor markets are tight and capital markets are not we should expect almost all of the recent corporate tax cut to go to workers like the OP.
I don't quite follow.
The costs associated with employing someone are only tenuously linked to salaries. Salaries are mostly driven by supply and demand.

For example, I'm a software engineer. A significant expense of hiring more SEs used to be buying the big-ass computer monitors they required.
Nowadays big monitors are cheap as chips, so did every SE get a pay rise because of that? Of course not, because pay is set by market forces. Companies pocketed the difference, and that drop in expense will have contributed to the productivity figures.

This isn't a rant, I'm just talking about some of the basic concepts of how labor markets work.
  #47  
Old 01-24-2018, 08:03 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,561
The tariffs Trump slapped on solar panels will conservatively cause a net loss of 25,000 jobs. Low guess. I wonder if Trump will mention that the next time he brags about the Foxconn thing he had nothing to do with.

Meanwhile, ten countries have signed onto the TPP (or whatever they call it now) and left the USA out. That will cost a few more American jobs.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #48  
Old 01-24-2018, 08:45 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The tariffs Trump slapped on solar panels will conservatively cause a net loss of 25,000 jobs. Low guess. I wonder if Trump will mention that the next time he brags about the Foxconn thing he had nothing to do with.
With the boost in coal production this will cause, most of them can find good jobs in he coal mines of West Virginia.
  #49  
Old 01-24-2018, 09:09 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,774
Unfortunately the anti-dumping tariffs are too late to save Solyndra.
  #50  
Old 01-24-2018, 03:02 PM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I don't quite follow.
The costs associated with employing someone are only tenuously linked to salaries. Salaries are mostly driven by supply and demand.

For example, I'm a software engineer. A significant expense of hiring more SEs used to be buying the big-ass computer monitors they required.
Nowadays big monitors are cheap as chips, so did every SE get a pay rise because of that? Of course not, because pay is set by market forces. Companies pocketed the difference, and that drop in expense will have contributed to the productivity figures.

This isn't a rant, I'm just talking about some of the basic concepts of how labor markets work.
As you say wages are determined by supply and demand. When demand is high and supply low wages will go up as they are currently doing. However, when employers have more money the wages will go up quicker because there is more surplus to capture.
If a company wants to hire a software engineer, they have to pay them more than they are currently making. Since they have more money either due to cheap monitors or lower taxes they can offer the SE more. The more demand for SEs the more they have to pay to outbid the other employers. Given enough demand the SEs will capture all the savings and the company will get none of it. It just depends on the elasticity of supply and demand in the market for SEs.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017