Wages TANK After Trump's Wealthy Tax Cut

a reply to: DoubleDNH

That’s true and I proposed a solution.

Fake News. Actually, Annual US Worker Pay Gains Rose at Fastest Pace Since 2008. Although the ATS motto is "Deny Ignorance," you really can't trust anything that is posted here.

originally posted by: schuyler
Fake News. Actually, Annual US Worker Pay Gains Rose at Fastest Pace Since 2008. Although the ATS motto is "Deny Ignorance," you really can't trust anything that is posted here.

You can’t help the biased.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
You never know the long term affect of an economic decision based on what happens immediately afterward. Dropping tariffs had wonderful short term economic outcomes when it happened in the late 90's.

If you can't know, then there's no point in any economic theory, because the response will always over or under state any particular action. As such, there is no economic basis for any decision government makes, and the whole think is based on emotion over facts.

Which if that's true, means government can tax and spend as much as it wants without consequence.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Right.. Except that isn't how the American welfare system works.

If it were reformed it could work that way though. Nothing is preventing that except for Republicans.

originally posted by: Aazadan
The trouble with the switching jobs thing is you're telling people to invest in gaining a skill set, and then when it doesn't work out, invest in another skillset, and then when that doesn't work out, invest in another..........

Or... leverage what you already know and increasingly specialize throughout your life. Specialized tasks are harder to automate, have less competition, have a higher barrier to entry, and prevent the need to constantly start over from scratch.

You only have 80 years to live. If we were immortal, then spending 20+ years learning 5 or 6 different trades, it would eventually pay off in the long run.

If you spend 20 years learning, assuming you start right after high school that puts you at 38. Given modern medicine, that's a 40 year career to put that knowledge to use before you retire.

Where's the issue?

But as mortal humans? There is no long run. It doesn't exist. You live and then you die.

Learn to the point where you can lead your field.
Contribute to the collective body of human knowledge.
Make the next generation slightly better.

If you can't invent or at least contribute meaningful new information to your field, you're not knowledgeable enough in it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

You only have 80 years to live. If we were immortal, then spending 20+ years learning 5 or 6 different trades, it would eventually pay off in the long run.

If you spend 20 years learning, assuming you start right after high school that puts you at 38. Given modern medicine, that's a 40 year career to put that knowledge to use before you retire.

Where's the issue?

Retire at 78? And have 2 years to spend my whole pension?

But as mortal humans? There is no long run. It doesn't exist. You live and then you die.

Learn to the point where you can lead your field.
Contribute to the collective body of human knowledge.
Make the next generation slightly better.

If you can't invent or at least contribute meaningful new information to your field, you're not knowledgeable enough in it.

Only the top few percent ever master something to that point. That's like if you had to be Shaquile O'niel to earn a living at basketball. Or well.... actually you do.

But then you see my point? You're proposing we live in a world where the only career path that has any hope is the "NBA dream" path. Maybe it's not exactly basketball. Maybe it's IT, but only the Shaquile Oneil of IT would get paid a living wage?

Shall 95% of the world live in squallor just so the remaining 5 can quote good GDP stats to their Congressional Economic committee?

OP... did you even READ everything you posted?

The linked articles can't seem to make their minds up if it is the tax cut or the trade tariffs issue... although it leans towards tariffs as the cause.

With everyone hysterical about the tariffs and tit for tat between the U.S. China and other "trading partners", I'm just wondering who will explain how this is a GOOD thing:

Chinese goods entering the U.S. = 2.5% Tariffs

U.S. goods entering China = 25.00% tariffs

Okay... someone explain to me why us paying 10 times what China pays, for "reciprocal access" to markets is a good thing, or fair thing:

GO!

I totally agree with this thread... I was appalled by my $39k bonus especially after I only took home $23k after taxes. F U state of California for taking an extra fat share. I love my job selling Air Conditioning. I'm hoping global warming is true because you make my job easier. #GoDuctless

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Retire at 78? And have 2 years to spend my whole pension?

Life expectancy goes up, retirement is what you do to prepare for death. I don't see a problem.

Only the top few percent ever master something to that point. That's like if you had to be Shaquile O'niel to earn a living at basketball. Or well.... actually you do.

But then you see my point? You're proposing we live in a world where the only career path that has any hope is the "NBA dream" path. Maybe it's not exactly basketball. Maybe it's IT, but only the Shaquile Oneil of IT would get paid a living wage?

No, I think everyone should be paid a living wage as part of UBI. I think that if you want a good wage though, you need to
actually be good at what you do. When you call someone a good mechanic, what are you implying? The implication is that they're adequate, what it should mean is that they're the best person within 100 miles. But, the world is making everything easier, thus the bar to be good is constantly going up. Within 10 years there's going to be glasses mechanics wear, that will outline on a computer exactly how to fix every single issue. Good means being better, smarter, and faster than that.

a reply to: Aazadan

retirement is what you do to prepare for death

No, it isn't

Retirement is what you do when you want to enjoy your life after putting in 30 years on the job. Some of us actually were responsible adults, saved money/made good financial decisions and now we're financially secure: able to retire without fretting about money

THAT is the point of retiring.

As far as the OP goes? Garbage hoax. This is NOT a wealthy tax cut, your figures are misleading and ONLY APPLY AFTER 2027 (assuming a bigger and better cut doesn't come along before that).

Maybe we'll get lucky and the income tax will be properly ruled unconstitutional due to its direct violation of the apportioned tax clause

Not sure if this is accurate but...

It would make sense that wages would tank in the big picture wouldn't it? I mean this is simple mathematics...

If the unemployment rate is dropping to record lows, that would suggest many more people are working every day... but mostly minimum wage jobs.

So if you get a huge amount of new minimum wage positions opening up and getting filled, of course you'd see wage drops in the larger scope... because sheer number of new lower paying jobs would drive down the average.

But more people are working and making $$$

I don't think this is a bad thing, pretty sure it's just a trend that must happen if more people are going to work.

Not sure if this is accurate but...

It would make sense that wages would tank in the big picture wouldn't it? I mean this is simple mathematics...

If the unemployment rate is dropping to record lows, that would suggest many more people are working every day... but mostly minimum wage jobs.

So if you get a huge amount of new minimum wage positions opening up and getting filled, of course you'd see wage drops in the larger scope... because sheer number of new lower paying jobs would drive down the average.

But more people are working and making $$$

I don't think this is a bad thing, pretty sure it's just a trend that must happen if more people are going to work.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JameSimon
a reply to: Alien Abduct

It still doesn't change the facts: they work because they are allowed to. A lot of them also pay taxes. So the problem really is that most Americans are not willing to work on certain areas and your businessman, as the ones in my home country Portugal, are not willing to pay people a reasonable wage. It's a cultural problem.

Americans want Y, employers are paying X. Others are happy to work for X, so they do. The ones who want too much money get pushed out of the system. That's the market at work.

That is 100% what the free market, that these people claim to support, is supposed to do. It's supposed to funnel money away from the ordinary worker, because being average means being uncompetitive.

Welcome to capitalism. Maybe it's time you join the rest of us in discussing a better system?

But if people who have NO RIGHT TO BE HERE AT ALL take jobs from people because the don't belong here and are willing to work for less, they hurt the job market for THOSE WHO DO BELONG.

That is the real story the communistic antifa supporters don't want to admit. If they admit that part of laws that went out to protect our freedom they have to let go of their open borders policy.

The idea is to make and keep us strong. If we are strong and free, we bring the world up with us. Tear us down like the commies are trying so despicably to do to the people of the US and that plan dies. There are lots of tyrannical leaders of men and women in the world who would like us out of their way so they can kill any group they hate and gain more lands and power. The OPEN BORDERS makes the tyrannical leaders happy.

originally posted by: Throes
I wonder how this happened? This kind of goes against the title of this thread:

www.cnbc.com...

Wages going up instead of down according to BSNBC and the fascist on the left are still byatching about lower average wages? pfftt

a reply to: Justoneman

They make up their realities to suit.

originally posted by: Justoneman
But if people who have NO RIGHT TO BE HERE AT ALL take jobs from people because the don't belong here and are willing to work for less, they hurt the job market for THOSE WHO DO BELONG.

Not true. Existence creates needs and wants. Any wage above subsistence creates a demand for more work than a single person provides. You could move the entire worlds population to the US and demand for work would rise, and unemployment would fall.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Retire at 78? And have 2 years to spend my whole pension?

Life expectancy goes up, retirement is what you do to prepare for death. I don't see a problem.

You probably would if it were your problem. Or if you yourself are free of the problem, but you had a lot of friends, and suddenly realize that only something like 5% of them will make the cut. And here we will assume that your (unfortunately not super talented) friends are people you do, in fact, care about.

Only the top few percent ever master something to that point. That's like if you had to be Shaquile O'niel to earn a living at basketball. Or well.... actually you do.

But then you see my point? You're proposing we live in a world where the only career path that has any hope is the "NBA dream" path. Maybe it's not exactly basketball. Maybe it's IT, but only the Shaquile Oneil of IT would get paid a living wage?

No, I think everyone should be paid a living wage as part of UBI. I think that if you want a good wage though, you need to
actually be good at what you do. When you call someone a good mechanic, what are you implying? The implication is that they're adequate, what it should mean is that they're the best person within 100 miles. But, the world is making everything easier, thus the bar to be good is constantly going up. Within 10 years there's going to be glasses mechanics wear, that will outline on a computer exactly how to fix every single issue. Good means being better, smarter, and faster than that.

I'm just wondering what you mean by a "good" wage? A wage above subsistence?

At this point in history, with the tech we have, it probably only takes 10 to 15% of our labor force to provide basic necessities to all 100%.

So if wages were flatly distributed, subsisting would only require 15% of your wage, leaving you free the spend the rest on whatever you want (or save it to invest, or maybe just work 2 years and take 8 years off, then work 2 years.... etc...)

Flatly distributing would not work out so well, but horribly skewed wages has problems too, and is unnecessary. A mild skewing will probably be enough to motivate everyone to follow their talents.


Unfortunately what we have right now is pretty horrible skewing. And to what end? I would like to see great mechanics get paid more, sure. But a mediocre mechanic can still fix my car well enough so it runs most of the time.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
You probably would if it were your problem. Or if you yourself are free of the problem, but you had a lot of friends, and suddenly realize that only something like 5% of them will make the cut. And here we will assume that your (unfortunately not super talented) friends are people you do, in fact, care about.

My view is that you have to compete for wages. I'm not a very competitive person, but I do recognize our system for what it is and it's a system where you have to out perform others if you want to succeed. That doesn't always mean being the most talented, but it does mean being the most marketable, which is a combination of desired wage, personality, contract negotiation, skills, and so on.

I'm just wondering what you mean by a "good" wage? A wage above subsistence?

A wage that gives a person financial freedom. The ability to drive the car they want, have the house they want, the financial resources to turn down a job if they don't like it, the ability to cover any unexpected expenses, the ability to send their children to college, experience the things in life they want, and live life without stress from financial pressure.

That would be a start to what I consider a good wage.

a reply to: Aazadan

My view is that you have to compete for wages. I'm not a very competitive person, but I do recognize our system for what it is and it's a system where you have to out perform others if you want to succeed. That doesn't always mean being the most talented, but it does mean being the most marketable, which is a combination of desired wage, personality, contract negotiation, skills, and so on.

Do you think that it is right that American citizens have to compete for wages with illegal immigrants that shouldn’t even be in the United States in the first place?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Do you think that it is right that American citizens have to compete for wages with illegal immigrants that shouldn’t even be in the United States in the first place?

Yes. If we're supposed to be a country made up of the best and brightest (which American Exceptionalism claims we are), then every single person should be challenged for their spot at all times so that we constantly maintain the best people.

It's not their fault that our citizens are incapable of competing.

originally posted by: schuyler
Fake News. Actually, Annual US Worker Pay Gains Rose at Fastest Pace Since 2008. Although the ATS motto is "Deny Ignorance," you really can't trust anything that is posted here.

This is great news, so the average American is now benefiting from all these gains, this is fantastic news , everyone deserves to benefit right ?