GDP Hits 4.1 %! In Second Quarter

Shitsburgh

Shitsburgh Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Another brilliant post from the pig. On his way to 50,000 worthless posts.

Can you read a bar graph, speedy? The graph titled "US wages and salaries growth" (which you even copied in your post #95 above) shows the 12-month gain has ranged between 3.9% and 5.4% since last October.



You're not very good with decimals, are you speedy? I calculated 2.2%, not .022%. And don't forget to annualize it.

Yeah I know, it still looks lackluster - but learn to do the math right, ok? The chart isn't up to date anyway. Originally Posted by lustylad

You are right on the last point in that my math skills were lacking.

The chart goes up to May of 2018. That means the 12-month period started in June of 2017. Wage growth was 2.1%, 2.2%, 2.6%, 3.1% and then grows.

I will give you the same opportunity -- cite one article by an economist that says the wage growth over the last 12 months has been in the 3.5-4% range which is considered "good".

You are right on the last point in that my math skills were lacking.

The chart goes up to May of 2018. That means the 12-month period started in June of 2017. Wage growth was 2.1%, 2.2%, 2.6%, 3.1% and then grows.

I will give you the same opportunity -- cite one article by an economist that says the wage growth over the last 12 months has been in the 3.5-4% range which is considered "good". Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Two were already cited, speedy, but again you stick your supercilious head up your ass, move the goal posts and pretend not to see the obvious.

LustyLad, Something that's intrigued me is the relationship between per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power, and government spending as % GDP. When you kick out very tiny countries and petro states (Kuwait, Norway, etc.), the most prosperous countries out of what’s left left don’t spend as much on government as other developed countries. The two places that kind of blew my theory were Luxembourg and Ireland, rich countries and their government expenditures are high.

Anyway, your post above got me thinking. What if you were to knock the transfer payments out of government expenditures? What would the correlation with per capita GDP adjusted for PPP look like? I started looking, and ran across a statistic, government final consumption expenditure (GFCE) as % GDP. GFCE is defined as the amount “representing government expenditure on goods and services that are used for the direct satisfaction of individual needs (individual consumption) or collective needs of members of the community.” I'm sure this number does not include transfer payments. However, I suspect it also may not include certain other categories of government expenditure, one of the reasons being that GFCE for the USA in 2016 was 14.2% of GDP, lower than "G" in your equation (20% of GDP). I'll probably need to read a good bit to figure out exactly what GFCE is.

Anyway, if you use GFCE, my theory appears to be spot on. Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Ireland and the United States, the wealthiest countries in the world (again, throwing out tiny places and petro states), all spend less on “government final consumption” as % GDP than other developed countries, like Sweden, France, Japan, etc.

My question, do you know if there's another name for "G"? If this is a statistic that's compiled for many countries, it would be interesting to me to see the correlation with per capita GDP. Originally Posted by Tiny

Tiny - measures of govt spending, and even the "G" in national income accounting, appear to vary from country to country. I would need to do more research, but you can find a lot of info if you google "govt spending by country as a percent of gdp". The OECD and the World Bank try to compile and track comparable data by country. Here is an interesting link from 2011. The CBPP is a left-wing think tank. They want to expand govt - while at the same time challenging any data showing govt is expanding lol.

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/is-governm...percent-of-gdp

Two were already cited, speedy, but again you stick your supercilious head up your ass, move the goal posts and pretend not to see the obvious. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here is one article I can find that you cited:

Pay gains during Trump's first year in office best since the Great Recession

Workers looking for fatter paychecks had their best year in 2017 since before the financial crisis, according to a government report Wednesday.

"The Employment Cost Index, a measure of salary and benefit costs, registered a 2.6 percent gain for the full year, tied for the best since 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported."


Yes the gains were better than under Obama. But the article CLEARLY states the gain was 2.6% for the full year, which does not meet the 3.5-4.0% gain that is considered to be good. This is not a comparison of Obama vs. Trump. It is whether or not under Trump have wage increases risen to a specific level, which as of right now they have not.

And the July jobs report fell significantly short of Twitler's predictions.

The economy is doing quite well, I'll give him that, but nowhere near as BIGLY as the Orange Sphincter brags.

The chart goes up to May of 2018. That means the 12-month period started in June of 2017. Wage growth was 2.1%, 2.2%, 2.6%, 3.1% and then grows.

I will give you the same opportunity -- cite one article by an economist that says the wage growth over the last 12 months has been in the 3.5-4% range which is considered "good". Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You just made my point, speedy. The trend is your friend. The 12-month gain in this particular bar graph has been over 4% since last October. That's above the range you deem "good".

If you were as perceptive as you are polemical, you would have noticed the graph measures "wage and salary" growth, not just average hourly wage rates. The former tends to be higher than the latter, due to overtime, bonuses and other factors.

The economy is doing quite well, I'll give him that... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That's very generous of you, asswipe.

Funny how every time someone cites "BLS" statistics you snap to attention. Then you're crestfallen when you realize we're not talking about Ball Licking and Sucking.

And the July jobs report fell significantly short of Twitler's predictions.

The economy is doing quite well, I'll give him that, but nowhere near as BIGLY as the Orange Sphincter brags. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The last 3 months the jobs report has been revised upwards to the tune of 60,000 jobs. This one will be revised upwards too. You wanna bet?

Here is one article I can find that you cited:

Pay gains during Trump's first year in office best since the Great Recession

Workers looking for fatter paychecks had their best year in 2017 since before the financial crisis, according to a government report Wednesday.

"The Employment Cost Index, a measure of salary and benefit costs, registered a 2.6 percent gain for the full year, tied for the best since 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported."


Yes the gains were better than under Obama. But the article CLEARLY states the gain was 2.6% for the full year, which does not meet the 3.5-4.0% gain that is considered to be good. This is not a comparison of Obama vs. Trump. It is whether or not under Trump have wage increases risen to a specific level, which as of right now they have not. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your post is pure denial and equivocation, speedy. Pull your head out of your ass, speedy. Workers are gaining against inflation, speedy, not losing.

Report: Houston median salary increased 1 percent in first half of 2018

It’s been a pretty good six months for local employee pay, according to a recently released report.

Between January and June of this year, the median base pay in Houston grew $749, or 1 percent, according to “Local Pay Reports” published each month by job review site Glassdoor Inc. Overall, Houston’s best month for salaries so far this year was April: The median base pay hit $55,736, which was a year-over-year increase of 2.5 percent.

(Houston Business Journal)

Booming economy has Trump taking a well-deserved victory lap

... the economy might well grow at 3 percent overall this year; Brian Coulton, Fitch’s chief economist, wrote to clients that the second-quarter results “bring the possibility of 3% growth for 2018 as a whole into the frame.”

... data shows no progress at all for workers if you take inflation into account. But those figures are misleading. Some 600,000 people entered the workforce in June, resulted in a tick up in the unemployment rate.

That increase is good news: Many folks who had given up looking for work are being lured back by the hot jobs market. Some of those are people who previously struggled to find work, like felons and those with little education. Those folks are presumably earning entry-level wages, probably bringing the averages down.

Other data supports that theory. A group called Glassdoor, which maintains a website on which employees anonymously review companies and managements, monitors pay for various occupations.

Millions of participants share salary data, which analysts at Glassdoor summarize each month. In early July, Glassdoor reported that median base pay for U.S. workers rose by 1.6 percent in June, the fastest rate since October 2017.

Glassdoor Chief Economist Andrew Chamberlain commented on his blog, “This continued pay growth is a likely sign that today’s 18-year-low unemployment rate is finally translating into broad-based wage gains.”

He further explained in a press release, “With unemployment hovering around historic lows…more workers, especially in high demand industries like healthcare, finance, and e-commerce, are in the driver's seat to negotiate for better pay…”

Pay hikes were recorded for all kinds of jobs. Chamberlain reports, “Many lower-paying roles are seeing strong pay gains today, such as retail key holder (4.9% percent to $29,746 per year), security officer (4.7% percent to $35,554 per year) and bank teller (8.1 percent to $31,108 per year)…. For years, slack in the labor market has helped hold down pay for these roles. But with the economy running hot, we’re finally starting to see raises for many lower-paying jobs.”

Blue-collar workers in numerous slots did well; truck drivers saw pay go up 7 percent compared to last year, as did warehouse associates.

Bottom line: There’s a reason a higher percentage of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country than we have seen in the past 12 years. People are more confidant in their prospects and in the economy.

When growth accelerates, as it did in the second quarter, nearly everyone participates. That is good news for workers, for the country and — yes — for the GOP as we approach the midterm elections.

(The Hill)

And the July jobs report fell significantly short of Twitler's predictions.

The economy is doing quite well, I'll give him that, but nowhere near as BIGLY as the Orange Sphincter brags. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The only thing short around here is your, speedy's and Pelosi's IQs, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

"Between the first and second quarters of 2018 — after the tax cuts were enacted — real wages fell by 1.8 percent."
— Nancy Pelosi on Thursday, July 26th, 2018 in a tweet



(Politifact)

When there are more jobs than applicants pay and benefits increase.

Unfortunately for the socialist/liberals most of their yardmen are qualified to fill those newly created manufacturing and supply jobs, but on the other hand they won't have to replace their yardman.

When there are more jobs than applicants pay and benefits increase.

Unfortunately for the socialist/liberals most of their yardmen are NOT qualified to fill those newly created manufacturing and supply jobs, but on the other hand they won't have to replace their yardman. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Meant to write "not qualified"!

Meant to write "not qualified"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Of course you did, Twitler!

LMAO!

Can you say == SHARTNADO?

You just made my point, speedy. The trend is your friend. The 12-month gain in this particular bar graph has been over 4% since last October. That's above the range you deem "good".

If you were as perceptive as you are polemical, you would have noticed the graph measures "wage and salary" growth, not just average hourly wage rates. The former tends to be higher than the latter, due to overtime, bonuses and other factors. Originally Posted by lustylad

I never said that the trend was not showing an increase. However, according to EVERY article I've read on the subject, the 12-month index is still at 2.7%. Will it get to the 3.5-4% range in the near future? Very possible.

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.