GDP Hits 4.1 %! In Second Quarter

As for the chart -- if you believe it inaccurately depicts what started the discussion off -- wage increases -- take it up with IB who posted the chart in his defense. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I never said the chart was inaccurate for what it measures. There are literally hundreds of economic data series (some are broken down by industry/occupation) that are tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank for wages, wage rates, and various worker compensation measures. The chart showed one broad-based compensation measure which has increased in recent months by more than your arbitrary 3.5-4.0% benchmark (clocked on a 12-month or year-over-year basis).

This is why I try to avoid trying to discuss issues with you. Simply put, you aren't very bright. That sentence reads like a 2nd grader posted it.

Since you say I have a "lib-retard" agenda, please tell me why you think I am liberal. Specifics. I know you will proceed with your normal irrelevant BS but try anyway. On second thought, don't even try. You know absolutely nothing about my feelings on political issues. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You are a globalist, speedy. You might reconsider? or not...

http://honoranddaring.com/who-are-the-globalists/

Who Are The Globalists?
Michael Sebastian · July 3, 2016 · 10 Comments

Globalism versus nationalism. It used to be that you’d rarely hear these terms but today it is not uncommon to hear journalists use these terms. Even American political candidates are using the terms. But who are the globalists? And what do they stand for?

WHAT IS GLOBALISM?
Sociologists Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King defined globalization as “all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society.” In other words, it is gradually tending away from the nation-state toward a single world government.

The reason that globalists want to get rid of national borders is because global corporations and their owners view borders as artificial boundaries that get in the way of trade. National borders make it more expensive to manufacture their products in other countries. If you get rid of the borders, there is only one government to negotiate with and there is one huge global market.

Another problem with borders, from a globalist perspective, is that they inhibit free movement of labor. Globalists think of humans as fungible economic units—workers are just another resource that goes into making goods or providing services.

Another word for this philosophy is neoliberalism. It is the idea that free trade is the most important value.

GLOBALISM IS THE NORM
Globalism is the orthodoxy of our day. The leaders of virtually every western nation are globalists. It is the editorial position of every major newspaper. The majority of CEOs are globalists. Every western university pushes globalist ideas.

There’s a good reason for this: Globalization is a great money making machine for the globalist elite. They own the companies that cheaply manufacture things in third world countries and sell them to consumers in the first world. They want to keep the gravy train running.

The heresy today is nationalism. Nationalism is the idea that the government of a country should do what is best to benefit the citizens of that country—not the multinational corporations who might have an office there.

It was a crock of shit, all along...

You are a globalist, speedy. You might reconsider? or not... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You give him way too much credit ... may be a glob-a-list ...

10-20-2016, 08:03 AM #21
SpeedRacerXXX


This election is OVER. Republicans should start focusing on 2020. Unless a bomb hits between now and November 8th there is no way Trump can overcome the lead that Clinton has in the polls. For those of you who are still not believing the polls . . . we'll see in a handful of days how accurate they are.

"...a "bomb" hits"! He's still feeling the "fall out"!

He talks the talk, but can't walk the walk.

You give him way too much credit ... may be a glob-a-list ...



"...a "bomb" hits"! He's still feeling the "fall out"!

He talks the talk, but can't walk the walk. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I don't think he could chew gum and ride a bike. If he did he would get run over in 15 minutes.

I never said the chart was inaccurate for what it measures. There are literally hundreds of economic data series (some are broken down by industry/occupation) that are tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank for wages, wage rates, and various worker compensation measures. The chart showed one broad-based compensation measure which has increased in recent months by more than your arbitrary 3.5-4.0% benchmark (clocked on a 12-month or year-over-year basis). Originally Posted by lustylad

The 3.5-4.0% benchmark I cited is NOT mine.

"The following charts–which will be updated regularly when new data are released–help explain why the Fed should hold off on raising interest rates until nominal wages are growing at a much faster pace. Until nominal wages are rising by 3.5 to 4 percent, there is no threat that price inflation will begin to significantly exceed the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target. And it will take wage growth of at least 3.5 to 4 percent for workers to begin to reap the benefits of economic growth–and to achieve a genuine recovery from the Great Recession."


https://www.epi.org/nominal-wage-tracker/

"Stronger economic growth will likely push the jobless rate down further. Already unemployment has fallen to a level that in the past has generated wage gains of around 3.5% to 4%."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...23-story.html#

"Indeed, average hourly earnings were up 2.9 percent in January year-on-year, the biggest rise in more than 8-1/2 years but still less than the 3.5 percent to 4 percent economists say would be a sign of a healthy economy."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1FP0IC




So THAT is where the fuck the 3.5%-4.0% goal came from.

Let's see now...

Nominal wages are up. Check.

Real (inflation-adjusted) wages are up. Check.

But that's not good enough for speedy, so he lays down an arbitrary marker - hold the applause until the 12-month growth in nominal wages exceeds 3.5-4.0%. Where the fuck did that come from?

Question for speedy - would you rather see your wages go up 2.8% when inflation is only 1.8%? Or would you rather have your paycheck go up 5% (beating your arbitrary target) with inflation running at 10%? Originally Posted by lustylad

Again, as I showed in my last post, the 3.5-4.0 growth goal is NOT mine. I have challenged you and anyone else to find a economist or someone schooled in economics who believes that the 2.7% wage growth rate is consistent with a healthy economy. Haven't seen anyone cite an article yet.

I don't think he could chew gum and ride a bike. If he did he would get run over in 15 minutes.



Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Making rather idiotic statements again Iiffy.

u 2 are an asshole. Live with it.

Again, as I showed in my last post, the 3.5-4.0 growth goal is NOT mine. I have challenged you and anyone else to find a economist or someone schooled in economics who believes that the 2.7% wage growth rate is consistent with a healthy economy. Haven't seen anyone cite an article yet. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Gee, that's funny. You just cited such an article yourself, speedy.

Here is the opening paragraph from your Feb. 2018 Reuters link above:

"The kind of pay raises for which American workers have waited years are now here for a broadening swath of the country, according to a Reuters analysis of state-by-state data that suggests falling unemployment has finally begun boosting wages."

How about that? Your own Reuters link says American workers have been waiting for years - and it looks like happy days are finally here again! Hmmm... does that sound "consistent with a healthy economy", speedy? It does to me.


Here's a more recent article noting how one measure of worker pay has climbed to a 10-year high, speedy:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/31/work...ince-2008.html

You do realize that if wage growth is at a 10-year high, it means worker pay is now rising faster than it did during all 8 years of the obama administration, right speedy?


Thanks for the link to the EPI (Economic Policy Institute) article. It explains why they would like to see 3.5-4.0% annual nominal pay gains. To quote from the link:

"It will take wage growth of at least 3.5 to 4 percent for workers to begin to reap the benefits of economic growth - and to achieve a genuine recovery from the Great Recession."

The EPI's own data (compiled from Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts) indicate that workers' share of US corporate income plummeted from nearly 80% in Jan. 2009 to 73-75% throughout most of obama's two terms. Under Trump it has been increasing again, reaching 76.6% in Jan. 2018. So it looks like we're on an upward trajectory allowing workers to recover their traditional share of national income, which was gutted under obama. Of course, no one would know this if they only listened to phony democrat talking points.

By the way, speedy, EPI is a liberal think tank dominated by labor unions and democrats. Its board of directors includes a dozen current or former labor chiefs, along with well-known leftist dems like Tom Perez, Keith Ellison and Robert Reich. So obviously, EPI will set the bar much higher than others when it comes to establishing arbitrary targets for nominal wage growth.

Gee, that's funny. You just cited such an article yourself, speedy.

Here is the opening paragraph from your Feb. 2018 Reuters link above:

"The kind of pay raises for which American workers have waited years are now here for a broadening swath of the country, according to a Reuters analysis of state-by-state data that suggests falling unemployment has finally begun boosting wages."

How about that? Your own Reuters link says American workers have been waiting for years - and it looks like happy days are finally here again! Hmmm... does that sound "consistent with a healthy economy", speedy? It does to me.


Here's a more recent article noting how one measure of worker pay has climbed to a 10-year high, speedy:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/31/work...ince-2008.html

You do realize that if wage growth is at a 10-year high, it means worker pay is now rising faster than it did during all 8 years of the obama administration, right speedy?


Thanks for the link to the EPI (Economic Policy Institute) article. It explains why they would like to see 3.5-4.0% annual nominal pay gains. To quote from the link:

"It will take wage growth of at least 3.5 to 4 percent for workers to begin to reap the benefits of economic growth - and to achieve a genuine recovery from the Great Recession."

The EPI's own data (compiled from Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts) indicate that workers' share of US corporate income plummeted from nearly 80% in Jan. 2009 to 73-75% throughout most of obama's two terms. Under Trump it has been increasing again, reaching 76.6% in Jan. 2018. So it looks like we're on an upward trajectory allowing workers to recover their traditional share of national income, which was gutted under obama. Of course, no one would know this if they only listened to phony democrat talking points.

By the way, speedy, EPI is a liberal think tank dominated by labor unions and democrats. Its board of directors includes a dozen current or former labor chiefs, along with well-known leftist dems like Tom Perez, Keith Ellison and Robert Reich. So obviously, EPI will set the bar much higher than others when it comes to establishing arbitrary targets for nominal wage growth. Originally Posted by lustylad

In January 2009 we were in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. To compare the economic conditions of this country when Obama took over versus the economic conditions when Trump took over is ridiculous. Trump has taken a good economy and improved on it.

Again, you have not come up with anyone who believes that a 2.7% wage growth over the last 12 months is considered healthy. You asked where the 3.5-4% goal came from and I gave you several examples. I cited numerous links that say a 2.7% rate is not a sign of a healthy economy. Is the rate trending upwards in recent months? Definitely.

In case you've forgotten or missed it, the one area in which I've given Trump high grades in several posts is his handling of the economy.

In January 2009 we were in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I see you have those talking points down the media gives you.

I see you have those talking points down the media gives you. Originally Posted by LexusLover

So the DJIA dropping to about 6,600 was media driven?

Unemployment hitting 10% in 2009 was media driven?

Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers collapsing was media driven?

So the DJIA dropping to about 6,600 was media driven?

Unemployment hitting 10% in 2009 was media driven?

Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers collapsing was media driven? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your driveling hysteria was (and is) media driven. Does your wife put up with your silly childishness? Or is that why she travels?

Talking points.

What do you get when you cross a lemming and a parrot, LLiarMan?

A Brownshirt in the Turd Reich!