• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From the Economist: Basically flawed

dimensionallava said:
Improving the whole economy would mean improving the lives of the people they hate
Click to expand...

Perversion in the governance of a nation is nothing new.

All it takes is an ignorant portion of the population to want, at all costs, dominate the electoral system. Then say, "No! No! No!" to any and all laws or measures that are meant to maintain fairness and impartiality that might threaten their tax-advantages assuring them massive Income and, thus, Wealth ...

The existence of the lowest-classes are to furnish cheap labor that produces goods/services for the economy; which itself then provides the profits that, in turn, becomes their Income. And after minimal flat-tax payments then gushes up into first Wealth and then Net Worth.

And all is well with the world. Their tiny, selfish and inhuman world ...
________________________
 
Lafayette said:
The debate regarding a Basic Income is very current throughout Europe. Do not even expect a whisper about it in the upcoming election debates. Out of fear, likely, that the "wrath of God will smite the candidate with due vengeance".

Still the debate continues here on this side of the pond. And though I don't agree entirely with the Economist on this one, the commentary is worthy of debate.

Excerpts:

The article is well-worth reading in its entirety.

I cannot agree with some of the arguments posited above, because they seem (for the moment) only intuitive and not based upon hard-fact. In the US, with its high-crime rate - due to a Poverty Threshold containing 50 million people, all of whom desperate to live better lives - perhaps a Basic Income could dampen their urge for murder and mayhem that lands far too many of them in jail?

Is it not worth the effort to "try and see", given that crime is a major problem?
___________________________
Click to expand...

Here's Federal Reserve study that would take issue with the premise of stagnant wages.


Have U.S. wages stagnated? Probably not.


The impression that most people in the middle class are slipping backward seems overwrought.

How many times have you heard that Americans’ wages have stagnated? Countless commentators (including me) have repeated this complaint. Naturally, politicians of both parties — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — deplore it. It’s conventional wisdom that wage stagnation has contributed to the sluggish recovery and the downcast attitudes of millions.
But what if it’s not true?
A new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco suggests just that. It concludes that widely cited figures showing stagnation are mostly a statistical fluke. Workers continuously employed in full-time jobs received wage increases higher than inflation from 2002 to 2015. Last year, the gain was a 3.5 percent increase after inflation, up from 1.2 percent in 2010. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
The impression that most people in the middle class are slipping backward seems overwrought.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

Consider these infographics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and notice the percentages: Percent Change in Real Compensation for Civilian Workers

Percent Change Real Compensation 1of2.jpg

Note:
This picture of pay inequality lends support to other studies that find positive wage growth among highly paid jobs but wage stagnation among jobs with lower pay
Click to expand...

And this one also:percent Change in Real Compensation (again note the percentagaes) for Private Industry

Percent Change in Real Compensation 2of2.jpg

Note:
Notable in figures 1 and 2 is that compensation growth lies below wage growth at lower percentiles and above wage growth at higher percentiles. In other words, compensation inequality grew faster than did wage inequality over the 2007–2014 period. This result is possible because the relationship between wages and total compensation is not constant across wage levels.
Click to expand...

Private Industry workers did better in Compensation than Civilian Workers (city, state, Federal)

Which does not conflict with the point you are making. Yes, wage stagnation does not seem to exist, according to the BLS - but one sector is doing better than another in terms of wage growth.

So, one must look at the "percentage change" differences depending upon type of worker (Private or Civilian).

NB: Note also that at the lower levels of compensation (percentiles), the reverse is true: Civilian Workers do better than Private (Industry/Commerce) workers ...
 
Last edited:
dimensionallava said:
who do you hate ahlevah? who do you want too execute?
Click to expand...

I hate anyone who murders an innocent. (If a drug dealer murders another drug dealer or murderer I can't honestly say I hate the murderer. In one sense he's performed a public service.) But beyond that, it's, as I said, a case of equity. The closest thing to an equitable solution for a person who murders another is to execute him, especially if the victim is innocent of any wrongdoing.
 
Jack Hays said:
Here's Federal Reserve study that would take issue with the premise of stagnant wages.


Have U.S. wages stagnated? Probably not.


The impression that most people in the middle class are slipping backward seems overwrought.

How many times have you heard that Americans’ wages have stagnated? Countless commentators (including me) have repeated this complaint. Naturally, politicians of both parties — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — deplore it. It’s conventional wisdom that wage stagnation has contributed to the sluggish recovery and the downcast attitudes of millions.
But what if it’s not true?
A new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco suggests just that. It concludes that widely cited figures showing stagnation are mostly a statistical fluke. Workers continuously employed in full-time jobs received wage increases higher than inflation from 2002 to 2015. Last year, the gain was a 3.5 percent increase after inflation, up from 1.2 percent in 2010. . . .
Click to expand...

What you are saying is of course correct. Don't know many nurses, teachers etc who have had the same job in the timeframe who don't make more money. That is one side of the coin.

The other of course is the factory worker who has been laid off and is now a Wal Mart greeter. Or a job where someone retired, or was fired and a younger, cheaper person replaced him/her.

In a $19 trillion economy "facts" are how you decide to spin them.
 
Lafayette said:
Maybe, maybe not.

Consider these infographics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and notice the percentages: Percent Change in Real Compensation for Civilian Workers

View attachment 67202650

Note:

And this one also:percent Change in Real Compensation (again note the percentagaes) for Private Industry

View attachment 67202652

Note:

Private Industry workers did better in Compensation than Civilian Workers (city, state, Federal)

Which does not conflict with the point you are making. Yes, wage stagnation does not seem to exist, according to the BLS - but one sector is doing better than another in terms of wage growth.

So, one must look at the "percentage change" differences depending upon type of worker (Private or Civilian).

NB: Note also that at the lower levels of compensation (percentiles), the reverse is true: Civilian Workers do better than Private (Industry/Commerce) workers ...
Click to expand...

The Fed study suggests that the fault is in the "median wage" metric because more highly paid workers are retiring and being replaced by lower-paid entry level workers.
 
washunut said:
What you are saying is of course correct. Don't know many nurses, teachers etc who have had the same job in the timeframe who don't make more money. That is one side of the coin.

The other of course is the factory worker who has been laid off and is now a Wal Mart greeter. Or a job where someone retired, or was fired and a younger, cheaper person replaced him/her.

In a $19 trillion economy "facts" are how you decide to spin them.
Click to expand...

The Fed study suggests that the fault is in the "median wage" metric because more highly paid workers are retiring and being replaced by lower-paid entry level workers.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Fed study suggests that the fault is in the "median wage" metric because more highly paid workers are retiring and being replaced by lower-paid entry level workers.
Click to expand...

Again, it is one reason as I stated in my response. To pick one reason in such a large, diverse economy may sound good but not accurate IMO.
 
Ahlevah said:
I hate anyone who murders an innocent. (If a drug dealer murders another drug dealer or murderer I can't honestly say I hate the murderer. In one sense he's performed a public service.) But beyond that, it's, as I said, a case of equity. The closest thing to an equitable solution for a person who murders another is to execute him, especially if the victim is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

and what group is doing all the murdering?
 
Jack Hays said:
The Fed study suggests that the fault is in the "median wage" metric because more highly paid workers are retiring and being replaced by lower-paid entry level workers.
Click to expand...

thats referencing 2001-2012 lafayettte was referencing the 1970-2012 period which cant be explained by that

change-since-1979-600.gif
 
dimensionallava said:
the article you posted says the baby boomers slightly skew the numbers from 2001-2012, it has nothing to do with a 40-50 year economic trend
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble finding the word "slightly."

How many times have you heard that Americans’ wages have stagnated? Countless commentators (including me) have repeated this complaint. Naturally, politicians of both parties — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — deplore it. It’s conventional wisdom that wage stagnation has contributed to the sluggish recovery and the downcast attitudes of millions.

But what if it’s not true?
A new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco suggests just that. It concludes that widely cited figures showing stagnation are mostly a statistical fluke. Workers continuously employed in full-time jobs received wage increases higher than inflation from 2002 to 2015. Last year, the gain was a 3.5 percent increase after inflation, up from 1.2 percent in 2010.
Typically, the median wage — the wage exactly in the middle of all wages — is cited as evidence of stagnation. Indeed, the Fed study confirms this. Median wage increases have fluctuated around 2 percent, unadjusted for inflation. But the median wage is misleading, the report argues, because it’s heavily driven by demographic changes: an influx of young and part-time workers whose relatively low wages drag down the median; and the retirement of baby-boom workers whose relatively higher pay no longer lifts up the median.
“Exiting workers with higher wage levels are [being] replaced by entrants to full-time employment who earn less than the median wage,” says the study, which was done by economists Mary Daly and Benjamin Pyle of the San Francisco Fed and Bart Hobijn of Arizona State University. The result is that all workers, as judged by the median wage, seem to be treading water when many workers are actually receiving modest increases.







If corroborated, the study resolves a major mystery. Economic theory suggests that, as the recovery proceeded and labor markets tightened, wage increases should have accelerated as employers had to pay more to retain and attract workers. Yet annual gains in the median wage seemed stuck. Now, we know that the likely explanation is that demographic forces have obscured real wage gains for millions.
The implications are significant. For starters, the study urges de-emphasizing the median wage as an indicator of labor market conditions; relying on the wage changes for full-time workers would be more accurate. Indirectly, the study exerts pressure on the Fed to raise interest rates, because labor markets are tighter than indicated by the median wage (though even it has recently risen more rapidly).
The larger implication is that the study compromises the prevailing economic narrative, which emphasizes the stagnation of wages and living standards. Clearly, millions of households — especially the recently unemployed — have suffered large losses, and the gains of many others are underwhelming. But the impression that most people in the middle class are slipping backward seems overwrought. The anxiety about the future is real, but its causes must be more complicated than commonly thought.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm having trouble finding the word "slightly."

How many times have you heard that Americans’ wages have stagnated? Countless commentators (including me) have repeated this complaint. Naturally, politicians of both parties — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — deplore it. It’s conventional wisdom that wage stagnation has contributed to the sluggish recovery and the downcast attitudes of millions.

But what if it’s not true?
A new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco suggests just that. It concludes that widely cited figures showing stagnation are mostly a statistical fluke. Workers continuously employed in full-time jobs received wage increases higher than inflation from 2002 to 2015. Last year, the gain was a 3.5 percent increase after inflation, up from 1.2 percent in 2010.
Typically, the median wage — the wage exactly in the middle of all wages — is cited as evidence of stagnation. Indeed, the Fed study confirms this. Median wage increases have fluctuated around 2 percent, unadjusted for inflation. But the median wage is misleading, the report argues, because it’s heavily driven by demographic changes: an influx of young and part-time workers whose relatively low wages drag down the median; and the retirement of baby-boom workers whose relatively higher pay no longer lifts up the median.
“Exiting workers with higher wage levels are [being] replaced by entrants to full-time employment who earn less than the median wage,” says the study, which was done by economists Mary Daly and Benjamin Pyle of the San Francisco Fed and Bart Hobijn of Arizona State University. The result is that all workers, as judged by the median wage, seem to be treading water when many workers are actually receiving modest increases.







If corroborated, the study resolves a major mystery. Economic theory suggests that, as the recovery proceeded and labor markets tightened, wage increases should have accelerated as employers had to pay more to retain and attract workers. Yet annual gains in the median wage seemed stuck. Now, we know that the likely explanation is that demographic forces have obscured real wage gains for millions.
The implications are significant. For starters, the study urges de-emphasizing the median wage as an indicator of labor market conditions; relying on the wage changes for full-time workers would be more accurate. Indirectly, the study exerts pressure on the Fed to raise interest rates, because labor markets are tighter than indicated by the median wage (though even it has recently risen more rapidly).
The larger implication is that the study compromises the prevailing economic narrative, which emphasizes the stagnation of wages and living standards. Clearly, millions of households — especially the recently unemployed — have suffered large losses, and the gains of many others are underwhelming. But the impression that most people in the middle class are slipping backward seems overwrought. The anxiety about the future is real, but its causes must be more complicated than commonly thought.
Click to expand...

its a small 3.5% increase above inflation, and thats after disqualifying a large chunk of the workforce, like part time workers, independent contractors, and new workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom