• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Why does it have to be jealousy? Why can't it be pragmatism? There is no industrialized, first world country on the planet that doesn't have a system where the rich are expected to have a higher tax burden than everyone else.
 

Tim-E

Member
High taxes and high inflation are very much related to a stagnant economy, unlike standard of living and income inequality. Jealousy is not an ethical value and certainly not a value to legislate upon. You're in the wrong country if you want that to happen en masse ever.

Au3CF.png


tax_inc.gif


It is absolute bullshit to claim that economic prosperity comes from low taxes for the wealthy. There's absolutely no indication that a high top tax rate has any significant impact on growth. The period in which America grew to become the superpower it is had a top tax rate of 91%. I'm tired of seeing this bullshit argument.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Er...tax rates have certainly been very high in times of high economic growth and activity in the past

Why have worker wages stagnated? You might have a case for CEO-worker income disparity but not the lack of wage growth overall.

Not only that, but workers are more efficient than ever before, numbers are intentionally kept low at corporations around the country, causing one employee to have more to do than ever before. But pay hasn't rising. WTF.
 

Chichikov

Member
Why does it have to be jealousy? Why can't it be pragmatism? There is no industrialized, first world country on the planet that doesn't have a system where the rich are expected to have a higher tax burden than everyone else.
Also, 36% top marginal rate is not jealousy, but 39% is omg jelly.
It's fine to be a lower tax rate advocate, but seriously, we can't have this discussion on such a stupid level.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
I must confess to not always being able to tell when you're being sarcastic. For example, unemployment in 1979 was almost exactly the historical average. (Of course, if you stop the graph at 1979, it would have been just a little above average at that time for the post-WWII period (but still below 1950, 1955, 1959, 1962, and 1971-72). Post-1979 has the raised the unemployment bar enough to make 1979 average.) And I'm not really sure what your other assertions mean or how they relate.

UU2hZ.jpg

I saw a modified version of this graph once, which was the same data, but the historical average line was altered: the average excluded unemployment data from quarters in which the economy was in recession (negative GDP growth). The idea was to better illustrate just how far from a "normal" historical employment level we are currently are currently; the depth of the current recession actually pushes the historical average line up a bit, making it seem less ugly than it is. (Of course, this method still leaves the high unemployment rates from post-recession recoveries in place, but it still helps to normalize the line.)

I could probably re-create it in relatively little time, and might this weekend if there is time.
 
High taxes and high inflation are very much related to a stagnant economy, unlike standard of living and income inequality. Jealousy is not an ethical value and certainly not a value to legislate upon. You're in the wrong country if you want that to happen en masse ever.

Income inequality is not related to economic growth. You heard it hear first.

Journal of Economic Growth said:
We present a model that links the division of labor and economic growth with the division of wealth in society. When capital market imperfections restrict the access of poor households to capital, the division of wealth affects individual incentives to invest in specialization. In turn, the division of labor determines the dynamics of the wealth distribution. A highly concentrated distribution of wealth leads to a low degree of specialization, low productivity, and low wages. In that case workers are unable to accumulate enough wealth to invest in specialization. Hence, in a highly unequal society, there is a vicious cycle in which the degree of specialization, productivity and wages stay low, wealth and income inequality stays high and the economy stagnates. By contrast, greater equality increases investment in specialization and leads to a greater division of labor and higher long run development.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/harr3ngq1d4uyp04/

In fact, inequality matters. And it matters in all corners of the globe. ...

The increase in U.S. income inequality in recent decades is strikingly similar to the increase in the 1920s. In both cases there was a boom in the financial sector, poor people borrowed a lot, and it all ended in huge financial crises. Did the recent financial crisis result somehow from the increase in inequality?

Some time ago, we became interested in long periods of high growth (“growth spells”) and what keeps them going. The initial thought was that sometimes crises happen when a “growth spell” comes to an end, as perhaps occurred with Japan in the 1990s.

We approached the problem as a medical researcher might think of life expectancy, looking at age, weight, gender, smoking habits, etc. We do something similar, looking for what might bring long “growth spells” to an end by focusing on factors like political institutions, health and education, macroeconomic instability, debt, trade openness, and so on.

Somewhat to our surprise, income inequality stood out in our analysis as a key driver of the duration of “growth spells”.

We found that high “growth spells” were much more likely to end in countries with less equal income distributions. The effect is large. ... Inequality seemed to make a big difference almost no matter what other variables were in the model or exactly how we defined a “growth spell”.

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2011/04/08/inequality-and-growth/
 
It is absolute bullshit to claim that economic prosperity comes from low taxes for the wealthy. There's absolutely no indication that a high top tax rate has any significant impact on growth. The period in which America grew to become the superpower it is had a top tax rate of 91%. I'm tired of seeing this bullshit argument.
It is not even an argument at this point. It is an article of faith. A religion.

So it is very hard to dispute with mere facts.
 
Okay let me overview so you people can get the dry humor.

I don't think you get the big picture here. In 1979 the fed was a mess

No explanation necessary.

oil prices were skyrocketing
800px-Oil_Prices_1861_2007.svg.png



unemployment was high

US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif


and our main rival's economic system was looking more appealing to people with some predicting that they may become the top world power in the not so distant future.

125px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png


and our main rival's economic system was looking more appealing to people with some predicting that they may become the top world power in the not so distant future.

For present day reuse the same things and replace the last line with this:


and our main rival's economic system was looking more appealing to people with some predicting that they may become the top world power in the not so distant future.

125px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png


Bit of a stretch(specifically the last part) but comparable.
 
Anyway, CEOs' salaries have grown because companies have grown. The larger a company becomes, the more important the decisions of its top figurehead become, hence the deviation of CEO pay versus the average worker's pay. If you think a specific CEO or some member of a major company does not deserve the size of his/her paycheck, then become a shareholder and make your case among your fellow shareholders of that particular company.

However, if even the average CEO of a major US company divvied up half of his/her pay, between the rest of his/her company's employees, each employee would likely receive just $20-80 more per month (before payroll and income taxes). If you think $80/month (well, again there's at least payroll taxes, so more like $75/month) more in your pocket is going to change your life around, please PM me, because that's got to be one hell of a plan.

I'm not going to even get on you for the tax part. But this right here is dumb. It's not like the US is the only country in the world with multinational corporations. You could look at companies in South Korea, Japan, and Europe whose CEOs don't make as high a ratio in income compared to their workforce.

And why focus on sending that money back to the workers. It could also be spent on R&D or buying assets to improve the company. Hell, AT&T could improve their network, or Massey Energy could improve their mine safety standards. What I don't like is that giving all this money to a few is a waste of resources. All that capital is concentrated at the top and there is no way those few individuals can spend it all. This holds back growth, demand, and numerous other things. That is why we have taxes. It takes money that is languishing in bank accounts and redistribute it to more worthwhile things. You know that an educated workforce, a stable interstate infrastructure, and the health of the nation requires all of us to chip in. I don't want to go back to Charles Dickens/The Jungle times. Sorry.
 

leroidys

Member
Okay let me overview so you people can get the dry humor.



No explanation necessary.


800px-Oil_Prices_1861_2007.svg.png





US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif




125px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png




For present day reuse the same things and replace the last line with this:




125px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png


Bit of a stretch(specifically the last part) but comparable.

Nobody thought the USSR was going to overtake the west in 1979. This was the period when the sclerotic Brezhnev was in charge, the super-state started its precipitous (relative) decline and the west started an unprecedented economic expansion.
 
Nobody thought the USSR was going to overtake the west in 1979. This was the period when the sclerotic Brezhnev was in charge, the super-state started its precipitous (relative) decline and the west started an unprecedented economic expansion.

I recall other posters here saying otherwise. I always thought that was a bit fishy since the beginning of the end of Communism was the mid-70's.
 

Chichikov

Member
Nobody thought the USSR was going to overtake the west in 1979. This was the period when the sclerotic Brezhnev was in charge, the super-state started its precipitous decline and the west started an unprecedented economic expansion.
Dude, what?
That was pretty much what Reagan campaigned about in 1980 ("being 2nd best is deadly", the window of vulnerability, the missile gap and all that crap).

Oh, and when you're ready for some historical outrage, go read about Team B.

Most of the conservative wing of American politics was freaking out over the Soviets in the 80s.
Boy, they are just always right about everything, aren't they?
 

Clevinger

Member
I just heard that Romney zinged Jimmy Carter, saying "even he would have made the call."

This fucking guy. CARTER DID MAKE THAT CALL, you fucking twerp. It failed, and it cost him dearly while your piece of shit party politicized it then and has ever since, the same way you and your piece of shit party would have done to Obama if this operation failed.

god damn my blood pressure
 

leroidys

Member
Dude, what?
That was pretty much what Reagan campaigned about in 1980 ("being 2nd best is deadly", the window of vulnerability, the missile gap and all that crap).

Oh, and when you're ready for some historical outrage, go read about Team B.

Most of the conservative wing of American politics was freaking out over the Soviets in the 80s.
Boy, they are just always right about everything, aren't they?

Yes, but right wingers gunna military industrial complex. I'm not talking about political discourse. Americans did not think that the soviet way of governance was the right one to emulate.

Of course why Reagan did things like go off on the "Evil Empire" and "tear down this wall" tirades and challenged soviet backed governments and even soviet military all over the globe was precisely because he didn't fear the might of the soviet machine, not the other way around.


I just heard that Romney zinged Jimmy Carter, saying "even he would have made the call."

This fucking guy. CARTER DID MAKE THAT CALL, you fucking twerp. It failed, and it cost him dearly while your piece of shit party politicized it then and has ever since, the same way you and your piece of shit party would have done to Obama if this operation failed.

god damn my blood pressure

I had the same thought. The comment absolutely doesn't make sense. Something like "even Chamberlain would have made that call!" might be a better statement? I don't know. But like you pointed out Carted did make the call, and it was incredibly ballsy and essentially ended his chances at re-election.
 
Yeah, I was pretty offended by him bringing up Carter like that. I guess it plays to the faux narrative on the right. But Carter did make that call . . . and brave servicemen died. But I guess Romney forgot about all that? How soon we forget.

Reading up on Operation Eagle Claw (the failed hostage rescue attempt), it sounds like such a poorly-planned mission from the military, with a very post-Vietnam Pentagon mindset. Obama actually determined the nature of the mission far more than Carter did, but Obama somehow deserves no credit and Carter is blamed for sandstorms.
 
That was Jon Stewart being merciful and going easy on em. Anybody with more than one functioning brain cell can imagine this situation in the reverse and call out the hand-wringing for the history denying bullshit farce that it is.

For too long 9/11 was politics, it was all there was, and all there was flew a Republican banner. There was no unified America, at least not for very long. It soon transformed into "True Americans" and everybody else, that fifth column that sought only to criticize and undermine our nation.

Good thing I find sustenance from crocodile tears and can appreciate that bullshit makes flowers grow.
 
Reading up on Operation Eagle Claw (the failed hostage rescue attempt), it sounds like such a poorly-planned mission from the military, with a very post-Vietnam Pentagon mindset. Obama actually determined the nature of the mission far more than Carter did, but Obama somehow deserves no credit and Carter is blamed for sandstorms.
It was a crazy-ambitious plan . . . there is no way it would have gone smoothly since there were so many hostages. I wonder what the alternate history would have been if they didn't have those problems out in the desert. I can't see how they would have got everyone out quickly and then transported everyone to the soccer stadium. It might have actually ended up much uglier than it did.
 
It was a crazy-ambitious plan . . . there is no way it would have gone smoothly since there were so many hostages. I wonder what the alternate history would have been if they didn't have those problems out in the desert. I can't see how they would have got everyone out quickly and then transported everyone to the soccer stadium. It might have actually ended up much uglier than it did.
Its a good idea to put this idea out into the public consciousness. One that is so soon to forget impactful decisions and their consequences. Throw aside the Republican vs Democrat contest for a moment and just consider the risks involved in these operations, not just from physical threats, but from bureaucracy stepping over itself, the role of egos clashing to get their piece of the action, political fallout, so-called collateral damage, and the guys who go directly into the fire for both noble and disturbing reasons.

Its a conversation long overdue since the choice was publicly made to include a little more "dark side" into our operations.
 
I don't have to go into work until a bit later tomorrow, so I can answer some of these:

Er...tax rates have certainly been very high in times of high economic growth and activity in the past

All right, I'll try to briefly describe some US history (in way that it's rarely described): by the turn of century, the great scientific discoveries of the mid and late 19th century begin or continue to take commercial form, thus new technologies create new industries, which need workers to operate and new demand for new products, which expanding- requiring more workers. The country booms in the 1920s and Americans jump ahead all other countries in standard of living by a wide margin. However, very poor investing strategies, lack of market government regulation, lack of a basic safety net, and lack of international accepting of American debt lead to the Great Depression. FDR->New Deal->slight employment rate increase->second wave of the Great Depression->WWII->massive demand for war necessities and investments in technology->much of the male population forgoe secondary/tertiary education->WWII ends-> much the (male) population have equal education levels, yet even more technological improvements lead to more industries and jobs created->these, with cheap land prices and a large population growth lead to massive economic (GDP... GNP at the time) growth rates-> many of today's large tech, energy, manufacturing, retail, financial, pharmaceutical, etc were started or greatly expanded during this period. The very high tax rates of the 1950s/1960s only applied to the top .1% or so the population and tax rates were far more stratified than today. Around 90% of the US budget during these went to the defense budget, which funded (and still funds) the largest blue-sky R&D high-end technology projects in the world (most of NASA's fundamental tech comes from initial "defense spending").

Today, the rate of new industry (not new company) growth is not and will likely never be not the same as the 1950s. General technology advancement is approaching a the upper logarithmic portion of an "S" curve, and such slower new industry growth will likely continue for many decades. There's a reason why you're not flying around in... "flying cars." It's not because "those evil corporations haven't put enough money into 'R&D;' it's because getting a couple tons of metal airborne requires a shit ton of energy and that jet fuel and jet engines aren't cheap and will not be for many, many decades. Without a liquid/solid fuel source or a small reactor, flight on this planet and beyond are essentially impossible. Anyway, the internet boom of the 1990s was probably the last large new industry we'll see until space mining in the 2100s/2200s. While I do not think 4+%/year GDP growth is impossible for the US in the coming decade, it'll require government (federal, state, and local) to tread very carefully, and at least not set the country up for massive future debts.



Why have worker wages stagnated? You might have a case for CEO-worker income disparity but not the lack of wage growth overall.

While income has grown considerably beyond the rate of inflation since 1979, absolute income, ultimately, is irrelevant. The important thing is what one can purchase with one's income. How does Warren Buffett having $100+ billion negatively you or me? Are we not able to seek a raise or obtain a job with a higher salary with Buffett currently in possession of so much "wealth?" The reality is that the US economy is so massive and that no single very wealthy person or millions of very wealthy people can prevent one from obtaining a higher income. In fact, the US has by far the most leeway for printing money- the pie massively expands every year. Even EV would agree that the US has massive monetary leeway, it's just he believes that this leeway will be constant and eternal, which in reality, as the developing world becomes richer and more powerful, the globe's acceptance of US' (and Europe's and Japan's) debt will shrink.



Why does it have to be jealousy? Why can't it be pragmatism? There is no industrialized, first world country on the planet that doesn't have a system where the rich are expected to have a higher tax burden than everyone else.

There's a difference between legislating upon income inequality and controlling debt/maintaining social entitlement programs. On the federal level, the US already has a progressive tax code (states differ). However, the questions of very specific federal income tax rates are good ones. The debate shouldn't whether taxes should be "higher or lower," but which taxes at which rate for which time periods. This is a massive optimization problem, which I don't think any developed nation has solved correctly given their population trends and their standard of living expectations.




I don't have a subscription to springerlink (I did have access while at school). But, for your IMF blog link dealy, the authors write suspiciously similar to yourself- long-winded, repetitive, avoiding specifics, and constantly making the usual human mistake of correlation = causation. Anyway, income inequality causes lack of labor specialization?... Haha, more like, the reverse (which isn't a bad thing). Continuing as I said above, as technological improvements increased, more industries required more more specialized labor. The WWII generation had relatively greater income equality because their education and later workforce skills were more equal. The more educated Boomers led to greater specialization, and thus higher demand skills and greater income inequality. Gen X and Gen Y may create even further income inequality. In a technologically advanced and growing society, income inequality is inevitable.

For Brazil, they say economic growth occurred when income inequality decreased. All right, for most previously considered "third world countries", the wealthy and the authoritarian government (which were very extremely interlocked- far beyond any degree in any current developed nation) maintained an overwhelming percentage of the country's GDP, while much of the rest of Brazil was quite poor. This was nothing like the US in the 1980s-today- it's more comparable to the US in the 1870s-1890s. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not hold candle to the robber barons of the US' past (which for those two is particularly unfair considering their massive global altruistic efforts). Brazil's GDP and middle class rose due to its opening of economy, foreign investment, and relative security in its legal system. Income equality has next to nothing to do with those- Brazil's income inequality is likely rising from recent year's past, yet the middle class continues to become richer and richer.

Keeping with Latin America, how has the difference between the middle classes of Chile and Argentina changed over the recent years? Why has the Argentinian economy continued have many rises followed by quick busts, while the Chilean economy has steadily outpaced their neighbor/futball rival?




I'm not going to even get on you for the tax part. But this right here is dumb. It's not like the US is the only country in the world with multinational corporations. You could look at companies in South Korea, Japan, and Europe whose CEOs don't make as high a ratio in income compared to their workforce.

And why focus on sending that money back to the workers. It could also be spent on R&D or buying assets to improve the company. Hell, AT&T could improve their network, or Massey Energy could improve their mine safety standards. What I don't like is that giving all this money to a few is a waste of resources. All that capital is concentrated at the top and there is no way those few individuals can spend it all. This holds back growth, demand, and numerous other things. That is why we have taxes. It takes money that is languishing in bank accounts and redistribute it to more worthwhile things. You know that an educated workforce, a stable interstate infrastructure, and the health of the nation requires all of us to chip in. I don't want to go back to Charles Dickens/The Jungle times. Sorry.


Taking your AT&T example (after a very quick internet search), in 2011, AT&T's revenues were roughly $125 billion, while it's CEO's (Randall Stephenson) total compensation was $18.7 (it apparently could have been $20+ million, but the flubbed T-Mobile merger had some ramifications... yeah, I know, boo-hoo). So, (18.7*10^6)/(125*10^9) *100= 0.0156%... wow, look at how much AT&T could have saved there from not paying their CEO anything. They could have maybe built a single cell phone tower there!... So, you guys may want to reevaluate how much CEO compensation "hold back" the US economy. But, as I said before, this doesn't mean, upper federal income tax rate should not increase, it means don't use "income inequality" as some populist scapegoat. Just hammer Republicans on the very real math for reducing the deficit. And don't listen to EV (jeez, perhaps that's why you take such ridiculous stances- to be referred as your own abbreviation in a large internet message board), that deficits don't matter. You become little Cheney minions if you do.

[I'm not checking for spelling or grammar mistakes, so if you see some glaring ones (I've been drinking too much while on adderall, hence why I'm bothering to type this shit).... so... ...suck it.]
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Minnesota is pretty interesting

CNN projected delegate count:
Santorum: 25
Paul: 9
Romney: 2
Newt: 1

What actually happened:
Santorum: 2
Paul: 20
Romney: 1
Newt: 0

Woops.


And of course, lols all around


In Massachusetts, the state where Mr. Romney served as governor, Paul loyalists over the weekend helped block more than half of Mr. Romney’s preferred nominees from being named delegates at state party caucuses — even though Mr. Romney won his home state’s primary with 72 percent of the vote. Many state GOP establishment figures, including longtime state Republican National Committee member Ron Kaufman, won’t be going to Tampa in August as official delegates.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/1/paul-supporters-create-delegate-mischief/

More lols

Before the Paul surprise coup in Massachusetts, for example, the RNC had assigned the Marriott Hotel in Tampa overlooking the convention center for the delegation representing the likely nominee’s home state. The hotel is considered the nicest in the vicinity — and now the Paul delegates will be able to enjoy the top-floor views.

Romney reminds me of the vice presidents of sweetums that tried to run a campaign.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I wonder how they change primary rules...

The question then becomes, regarding Ron Paul, how much of a mess can he create. Furthermore, what response will happen by the GOP. Romney is the "presumed" nominee. However, I've never seen a party so unenthusiastic about their Candidate before. This could very well end up creating a considerable number of laughs at the convention, clouding what has been in recent years a predeclared event.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Okay, the David Barton interview is finally up on TDS's website:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/#tool_tip_1

Okay, so I can't seem to link to Part 2, but that's the one I'm curious about. Watch the clip starting from 4:00 when Jon Stewart starts talking about muslims in Dearborn, Michigan.

Can someone explain to me what the fuck Barton is trying to say? I watched that portion a few times, but I'm still not understanding what he's trying to get at.
 

Tim-E

Member
SomethingWicked said:
[I'm not checking for spelling or grammar mistakes, so if you see some glaring ones (I've been drinking too much while on adderall, hence why I'm bothering to type this shit).... so... ...suck it.]

This would explian your wall of inane nonsense and most of your posts around here.
 
I don't have to go into work until a bit later tomorrow, so I can answer some of these:



All right, I'll try to briefly describe some US history (in way that it's rarely described): by the turn of century, the great scientific discoveries of the mid and late 19th century begin or continue to take commercial form, thus new technologies create new industries, which need workers to operate and new demand for new products, which expanding- requiring more workers. The country booms in the 1920s and Americans jump ahead all other countries in standard of living by a wide margin. However, very poor investing strategies, lack of market government regulation, lack of a basic safety net, and lack of international accepting of American debt lead to the Great Depression. FDR->New Deal->slight employment rate increase->second wave of the Great Depression->WWII->massive demand for war necessities and investments in technology->much of the male population forgoe secondary/tertiary education->WWII ends-> much the (male) population have equal education levels, yet even more technological improvements lead to more industries and jobs created->these, with cheap land prices and a large population growth lead to massive economic (GDP... GNP at the time) growth rates-> many of today's large tech, energy, manufacturing, retail, financial, pharmaceutical, etc were started or greatly expanded during this period. The very high tax rates of the 1950s/1960s only applied to the top .1% or so the population and tax rates were far more stratified than today. Around 90% of the US budget during these went to the defense budget, which funded (and still funds) the largest blue-sky R&D high-end technology projects in the world (most of NASA's fundamental tech comes from initial "defense spending").

Today, the rate of new industry (not new company) growth is not and will likely never be not the same as the 1950s. General technology advancement is approaching a the upper logarithmic portion of an "S" curve, and such slower new industry growth will likely continue for many decades. There's a reason why you're not flying around in... "flying cars." It's not because "those evil corporations haven't put enough money into 'R&D;' it's because getting a couple tons of metal airborne requires a shit ton of energy and that jet fuel and jet engines aren't cheap and will not be for many, many decades. Without a liquid/solid fuel source or a small reactor, flight on this planet and beyond are essentially impossible. Anyway, the internet boom of the 1990s was probably the last large new industry we'll see until space mining in the 2100s/2200s. While I do not think 4+%/year GDP growth is impossible for the US in the coming decade, it'll require government (federal, state, and local) to tread very carefully, and at least not set the country up for massive future debts.
Wow. You completely danced around the data refuting your "high taxes...lead to a stagnant economy" argument, and instead go off on a tangent about technologies.
 
Anyone see David Barton on the Daily Show?

Couldn't be bothered to watch the extended----this is apparently Rage Inducement week for guests. Barton has always been a jackass agitator in terms of supposed Christian Persecution----I simply take him as an embodiment of distortion given the form of a man, something like a sentient chain email/post to facebook wall/etc.
 

Tim-E

Member
Wow. You completely danced around the data refuting your "high taxes...lead to a stagnant economy" argument, and instead go off on a tangent about technologies.

When one spends the evening partaking in the Rick Perry Cocktail, you can't expect them to make much sense.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-02/adp-says-u-s-companies-added-119-000-workers-in-april.html

Companies added the fewest number of U.S. workers in seven months in April, a reminder the job market will take time to strengthen, a private report based on payrolls showed today.
Employment increased by 119,000 following a revised 201,000 gain the prior month, according to figures from Roseland, New Jersey-based ADP Employer Services. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 170,000 advance.

Not good...not good at all.
 
I don't have a subscription to springerlink (I did have access while at school). But, for your IMF blog link dealy, the authors write suspiciously similar to yourself- long-winded, repetitive, avoiding specifics, and constantly making the usual human mistake of correlation = causation.

It's a blog entry describing their research, not their research itself.

Continuing as I said above, as technological improvements increased, more industries required more more specialized labor. The WWII generation had relatively greater income equality because their education and later workforce skills were more equal. The more educated Boomers led to greater specialization, and thus higher demand skills and greater income inequality. Gen X and Gen Y may create even further income inequality. In a technologically advanced and growing society, income inequality is inevitable.

(1) In a technologically advanced and growing society, income inequality is not inevitable. The amount of income inequality that will be tolerated is always a social choice made through spending, tax and other (e.g., regulative) policy.

(2) You have essentially given the skill-biased technological change explanation for rising inequality. This explanation, at best, only explains part of the rise in inequality. This is because most of the rise in inequality has not occurred between the educated and the non-educated, but it has occurred between the top 1% and everybody else. And there is no real difference in education or technological skill that can explain that. Indeed, non-English speaking countries that saw comparable technological advancements in their societies did not see increased inequality anywhere near the degree as, e.g., the US.
 
That's the ADP number not Labor Department. I believe that revision in ADP is also a downward revision.
You're not making any sense, man. So there's a bit of good news in there and you shrug it off as "it's not the Labor Department," and how is it downward revision to 201K when the gains for March sat at 111K (or something close to it)?
 
You're not making any sense, man. So there's a bit of good news in there and you shrug it off as "it's not the Labor Department," and how is it downward revision to 201K when the gains for March sat at 111K (or something close to it)?

March Numbers:
Original ADP - 209000
ADP Revised - 201000
Labor Department Number - 120,000
Economist Expectation - 205,000

April Numbers:
ADP - 119,000
Economist Expectation - 170,000

The ADP Report is not the same as the official government figures.
 

GhaleonEB

Member

A poor sign, but remember that the initial ADP report has a very poor record of predicting the BLS. Last month was revised down, but only from 209k to 201k. Often what happens is they will be disconnected initially, and ADP revises theirs in the direction of the BLS numbers, closing the gap. The revision holding steady at 201k might be a good sign for the March BLS revision.

Still, it's another sign the employment report on might disappoint.
 

RDreamer

Member
Bah, I can't say I'm surprised... I thought my dad would be a bit better than this. I got this response to my email this morning:

Nice lefty talking point letter. But in the real world it’s different.


I’m going to send your answers to our representative (Mr. Ron Johnson) see what his answers are.


I really hate when he does this. It's not like I just copied my answers from some leftist blog or something. They came from a few of you guys helping, and from me reading the actual government website and interpreting things the way they are.

Good luck getting Ron Johnson to answer. Bastard hasn't answered anything I've sent him.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Bah, I can't say I'm surprised... I thought my dad would be a bit better than this. I got this response to my email this morning:

I really hate when he does this. It's not like I just copied my answers from some leftist blog or something. They came from a few of you guys helping, and from me reading the actual government website and interpreting things the way they are.

Good luck getting Ron Johnson to answer. Bastard hasn't answered anything I've sent him.

It's always frustrating when people reject reality and substitute it with their own, especially when they're in your own family. Seems he's made his mind up and facts aren't going to change it.
 

Tim-E

Member
It happens all the time, unfortunately. When fact contradicts belief, it's like many plug their ears and shout so that they don't hear anything you say because it's right. They don't like having their ideas challenged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom