Looks like trickle down works after all

[brenthutch 383]

New York (CNN Business)The US labor market keeps getting stronger. 

Employers added 263,000 jobs in April, another surprisingly strong month of hiring. Economists surveyed by Refinitiv expected the economy to add only 185,000 jobs last month.

The unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, the lowest level since December 1969.

Indications of strength of the labor market could be found throughout the report. The average hourly wage was up 3.2% compared to a year ago, well above the 1.9% rise in prices, meaning real gains in the paychecks of average workers.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-factory-activity-at-two-and-half-year-low-points-to-slowing-economy-idUSKCN1S743Q

[brenthutch 383]

That is actually good news, we don’t want the economy to overheat.  Moderate growth, full employment, real wage growth and low inflation, it doesn’t get any better than that.

[gowlerk 1,912]

38 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

New York (CNN Business)The US labor market keeps getting stronger. 

Employers added 263,000 jobs in April, another surprisingly strong month of hiring. Economists surveyed by Refinitiv expected the economy to add only 185,000 jobs last month.

The unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, the lowest level since December 1969.

Indications of strength of the labor market could be found throughout the report. The average hourly wage was up 3.2% compared to a year ago, well above the 1.9% rise in prices, meaning real gains in the paychecks of average workers.

The US economy has become partly an oil economy. This added boost to what was already the world's best and most robust economy is why I believe it will do well for at least the next decade. Barring calamity. No matter which party is in power.

[brenthutch 383]

I agree, unless the party in power is hostile to oil.

[gowlerk 1,912]

29 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I agree, unless the party in power is hostile to oil.

It won't matter. Your fears are overblown. We may reduce the rate of growth of oil and gas consumption. We may eventually even reduce it. But unless batteries become dirt cheap and magically start weighing far less, we will still burn oil for transportation. And we will still need oil for producing thinks like, say, nylon. Take a deep breath. It's going to be Okay. Even AOC is not going to be willing to give up flying and staying warm.

[turtlespeed 212]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It won't matter. Your fears are overblown. We may reduce the rate of growth of oil and gas consumption. We may eventually even reduce it. But unless batteries become dirt cheap and magically start weighing far less, we will still burn oil for transportation. And we will still need oil for producing thinks like, say, nylon. Take a deep breath. It's going to be Okay. Even AOC is not going to be willing to give up flying and staying warm.

That can't be.  She is willing to make ANY sacrifice!!!

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

It won't matter. Your fears are overblown. 

My fear is  another's aspiration.

Edited May 3, 2019 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

Even more interesting it that the wage gains are greatest for lower income earners.

[yobnoc 142]

On 5/3/2019 at 10:11 PM, brenthutch said:

Even more interesting it that the wage gains are greatest for lower income earners.

This is such a misleading statistic.  If I make 1,000,000/year and get a 1% wage increase, it's disingenuous to look someone in the eye who makes 30,000/year who gets a 4% raise and say "hey what are you mad about; you got a bigger pay increase than I did!"

[BIGUN 1,053]

10 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

This is such a misleading statistic.  If I make 1,000,000/year and get a 1% wage increase, it's disingenuous to look someone in the eye who makes 30,000/year who gets a 4% raise and say "hey what are you mad about; you got a bigger pay increase than I did!"

There's many more lower wage earners than there are those making 1 million/annum. So, as a category in the workforce; the wage gains were the greatest.   

[yobnoc 142]

35 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

There's many more lower wage earners than there are those making 1 million/annum. So, as a category in the workforce; the wage gains were the greatest.   

So, the low-wage earners get breadcrumbs and the rich get richer.  Gotya.

[turtlespeed 212]

16 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

So, the low-wage earners get breadcrumbs and the rich get richer.  Gotya.

1 out of 100 is 1%

The one top one percent makes 250K at the low end -

so if your 1%er -  million dollar earner received 1% and is now 1.01million

Total annual raise = 10,000

The rest - from the website 

Say they are ONLY 50% - 

50 out of 100 is 50%

56516 x 50 = 2,825,800

Plus %4 = 2,938,832

Total annual raise = 113,032

 

 

 

Quick Summary: According to U.S. Census Bureau data from 2015, the latest release, the median household income is $56,516. U.S. Census Bureau data takes a sample and extrapolates to the population as a whole, but is accurate enough.

https://wallethacks.com/average-median-income-in-america/

 

 

[brenthutch 383]

14 hours ago, yobnoc said:

This is such a misleading statistic.  If I make 1,000,000/year and get a 1% wage increase, it's disingenuous to look someone in the eye who makes 30,000/year who gets a 4% raise and say "hey what are you mad about; you got a bigger pay increase than I did!"

Replace “wages" with “taxes” and rethink 

Edited May 7, 2019 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Replace “wages with “taxes” and rethink 

Its not his financial burden, so it isn't reality to him.

[yobnoc 142]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Its not his financial burden, so it isn't reality to him.

Which part isn’t my financial burden? I’m intrigued that you presume to know my financial status.

[yobnoc 142]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Replace “wages" with “taxes” and rethink 

The difference is who can afford it and still have basic quality of life needs met. I’m not sorry if someone making $1M/year or more gets taxed at 50%. Oh, you can’t afford that ostrich leather jacket anymore?

[turtlespeed 212]

6 hours ago, yobnoc said:

The difference is who can afford it and still have basic quality of life needs met. I’m not sorry if someone making $1M/year or more gets taxed at 50%. Oh, you can’t afford that ostrich leather jacket anymore?

THAT - is how I know.

[yobnoc 142]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

THAT - is how I know.

I don't have to make 1M a year to be in the top tax bracket, which I am.

[yobnoc 142]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

THAT - is how I know.

See, here's the thing: I get taxed a lot.  I'm solid upper-middle class with just my own income already, and then my wife makes a bit more than I do, so we pay. A lot.  When I say a lot, I mean that in real numbers, not in percentage alone.  10% tax to someone who only has $100 is a lot for that person.  That $10 has more significance for someone who is poor.  the same 10% tax to someone who has 1,000,000 is A LOT MORE, right?  Except that when it comes to meeting basic needs, the 100,000 is less significant to the person who has 1,000,000.  It won't prevent him or her from meeting their basic needs. 

I use that only for a base example to prove my point: If I had to pay another 3% of my income toward federal taxes, and as a result of that, it would provide tuition-free college education, it wouldn't bother me in the least.  The extra money that I'd be paying in taxes wouldn't harm my ability to provide for the basic needs of myself, my wife, or my children.  Hell, we'd still be doing really well.  And that kind of investment in our own country is sorely needed.  The ripples from investing in the grass roots of the country rather than letting it trickle down causes the standard of living to go up for ALL Americans; not just the 1%.  I'm really good with that.  I love my country.  All of it.  Not just the wealthy people.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

See, here's the thing: I get taxed a lot.  I'm solid upper-middle class with just my own income already, and then my wife makes a bit more than I do, so we pay. A lot.  When I say a lot, I mean that in real numbers, not in percentage alone.  10% tax to someone who only has $100 is a lot for that person.  That $10 has more significance for someone who is poor.  the same 10% tax to someone who has 1,000,000 is A LOT MORE, right?  Except that when it comes to meeting basic needs, the 100,000 is less significant to the person who has 1,000,000.  It won't prevent him or her from meeting their basic needs. 

I use that only for a base example to prove my point: If I had to pay another 3% of my income toward federal taxes, and as a result of that, it would provide tuition-free college education, it wouldn't bother me in the least.  The extra money that I'd be paying in taxes wouldn't harm my ability to provide for the basic needs of myself, my wife, or my children.  Hell, we'd still be doing really well.  And that kind of investment in our own country is sorely needed.  The ripples from investing in the grass roots of the country rather than letting it trickle down causes the standard of living to go up for ALL Americans; not just the 1%.  I'm really good with that.  I love my country.  All of it.  Not just the wealthy people.

Then you should aim for equality all around - 

Redistribute your wealth and be equal.

 

[yobnoc 142]

30 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Then you should aim for equality all around - 

Redistribute your wealth and be equal.

 

That's a strawman argument and you should know it.  First, there is no way for private citizens to forfeit extra income individually to the federal coffers, short of being convicted of the crime of tax evasion a la Manafort.  That is why the GoFundMe for the border wall (for example) was so stupid in the first place, and ultimately had to be taken down and the donors got reimbursed their money; all except for the 2.3 Million or whatever that GoFundMe took in fees.  They didn't get that money back.  Really 'owned the libs' there, eh?  Second, no single citizen can solve this problem alone.  The "ultra wealth" tax that Warren is proposing would, however, completely cover the cost of subsidizing higher education, which is a long-term value-add to our economy.  Roughly 50,000 families in America - the richest of the rich - would pay an additional 2% of their income to fund the program. 

Don't sidestep with the juvenile argument of "Go ahead and set the example."  The system doesn't work that way and you come across as snide when you suggest it, though maybe that's what you're aiming for.

[headoverheels 291]

 

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I don't have to make 1M a year to be in the top tax bracket, which I am.

No, you just have to make a bit over $612k on a joint return.

Below that, I am also pleased that Trump kept his promise to eliminate the marriage penalty for dual earners.  We were paying about $13k/year extra federal income tax, just because we got married rather than staying single.  Now retired, and unfortunately the marriage penalty still exists for social security.

[brenthutch 383]

Don’t you understand that the main driver of out of control education costs is government subsidizes?

To paraphrase a wise man, “if you think college is expensive now, just wait until it’s free”

[yobnoc 142]

20 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

 

No, you just have to make a bit over $612k on a joint return.

Below that, I am also pleased that Trump kept his promise to eliminate the marriage penalty for dual earners.  We were paying about $13k/year extra federal income tax, just because we got married rather than staying single.  Now retired, and unfortunately the marriage penalty still exists for social security.

You must be referring to the break-point for AMT?  Because the top tax rate of 24% starts to apply to income much, much lower than the number you referenced.