05 Jun 21
@averagejoe1 saidEven before the pandemic, the US had 7 million unfilled jobs. https://www.jpmorgan.com/commercial-banking/insights/why-us-has-millions-of-unfilled-jobs
It would be refreshing, given the state of affairs, to have discussions and posts about the present problems we face in this country, which of course include the presidential administration. We would deal with comments made by the president or his administration, but not about past administrations. It would be more interesting and more current, don’t you think? We could ...[text shortened]... t there. Can you begin the discussion by telling us what he means and if that is a logical statement
Of course, there are always going to be a certain number of unfilled jobs due to normal labor turnover; if someone quits or retires the job doesn't get filled the next hour as AJ seems to think. However, here's something that shouldn't be a surprise:
"the job vacancy rate is decreasing relatively quickly in industries with high-skilled, high-wage positions".
So if employers want more workers they are going to have to improve the quality of their jobs i.e. raise wages, provide benefits, have fairer work rules (in the restaurant sector for example it is common practice to "cut" employees during their shift if business isn't what was expected that day/night).
05 Jun 21
@vivify saidWorkers are going to be needed to repair highways, bridges and other infrastructure, aren't they?
That's not an honest thing to say.
Trump still has a stronghold on the Republican party and the GOP makes moves with Trump in mind. For example, they recently blocked a bipartisan---I repeat, *bipartisan*---investigation into the Jan 6th riots caused by Trump supporters. They are doing this, obviously, to protect Trump, who may run again in 2024.
Also, the same pol ...[text shortened]... p to become old news and move on; but sadly, that's not realistic because Trump still rules the GOP,
@vivify saidI agree with what you say, mainly because they are facts. As stated by you, there are many facets, not easily discussed in a post. Many many facets. So all I ws saying above is, that if discussing Biden, which I began in this thread, then a discussion of Biden should ensue. I absolutely HATE his handing out money in a booming economy. So I state that. That would be the issue of the post.
That's not an honest thing to say.
Trump still has a stronghold on the Republican party and the GOP makes moves with Trump in mind. For example, they recently blocked a bipartisan---I repeat, *bipartisan*---investigation into the Jan 6th riots caused by Trump supporters. They are doing this, obviously, to protect Trump, who may run again in 2024.
Also, the same pol ...[text shortened]... p to become old news and move on; but sadly, that's not realistic because Trump still rules the GOP,
For some reason I do not understand, simply put, many posters here will respond to my comment, and to the caption of this post, by writing about Trump, or Republicans, or Jan 6. My question is so simple that a 7th grader would understand it. Biden's administration is handing out money. I am asking if that makes sense. How in the WORLD do you extrapolate to what you write above?
Why can't you just say, " Yes, it does not make sense for a society that is booming to hand out money ." I think that the ingrained cynicism is so great with the libs on this forum that extrapolation is your go-to defense. Go for it, but it sure waters down some nice discussions.
Next, Andy will chime in and ask ..'what is the question'. I can understand why he would, if he is reading all of the responses after I made the question.
@no1marauder saidDoes this answer the question? I think not.( And your accompanying post does not) .All you do is agree that the 7M jobs are out there, which is my point. (i.e., why hand out money)
Even before the pandemic, the US had 7 million unfilled jobs. https://www.jpmorgan.com/commercial-banking/insights/why-us-has-millions-of-unfilled-jobs
Of course, there are always going to be a certain number of unfilled jobs due to normal labor turnover; if someone quits or retires the job doesn't get filled the next hour as AJ seems to think. However, here's somethi ...[text shortened]... practice to "cut" employees during their shift if business isn't what was expected that day/night).
Your last para is stuff for another thread i would think. At LEAST after this thread-question is answered. Whew.
05 Jun 21
@averagejoe1 saidIt's a waste of time responding to your posts since you basically ignore any response.
Does this answer the question? I think not.( And your accompanying post does not) .All you do is agree that the 7M jobs are out there, which is my point. (i.e., why hand out money)
Your last para is stuff for another thread i would think. At LEAST after this thread-question is answered. Whew.
My posts are directly relevant to your question, which obviously isn't a serious one.
05 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidNo, they are not at all. The question I asked, which is quite a fair question, given it is in the news daily, calls for a yes or a no. You have done neither. Surely you are not going to let me win another one!!!!!
It's a waste of time responding to your posts since you basically ignore any response.
My posts are directly relevant to your question, which obviously isn't a serious one.
@averagejoe1 saidNo, it doesn't as it is a false question to begin with. As I pointed out already the US economy is "recovering" not "booming"; we'll reach pre-pandemic levels of GDP by the end of this month only if GDP grows by 10.4% in the second quarter (a highly optimistic assumption). https://www.businessinsider.com/economic-outlook-us-gdp-growth-estimate-atlanta-federal-reserve-forecast-2021-5
No, they are not at all. The question I asked, which is quite a fair question, given it is in the news daily, calls for a yes or a no. You have done neither. Surely you are not going to let me win another one!!!!!
And the government isn't "giving money away"; it's providing benefits under programs that have existed for almost 85 years. Even at that I gave a perfectly good reason for why the government might provide added benefits during an economic recovery i.e. because it will go to consumers and consumer spending is the bulk of the economy and increases in it are necessary for growth.
So you don't get to ask a question based on false premises and then insist on a "yes or no" answer. And you can claim you "won" a hundred more times if you want; no rational person here takes such blowhard claims seriously.
@vivify saidI thought you fellers were into equality (though AOC is discounting that and replacing it with Equity....Keep your eyes on THAT one!).
Pay attention: Trump gave $1.3 Trillion in tax breaks to the rich; why don't Republicans complain about giving money to those who don't need it, if they are against giving help to people who actually do?
This is Republican logic:
Government giving money to rich = good
Government giving money to poor = bad.
How does this make sense?
Yet, you suggest here that the rich (the job creators) should NOT get a tax break, but that the middle class SHOULD get a tax break??? I cannot even begin the logic in that.
Vivify, i have a feeling that you would think nothing of killing a goose that lays golden eggs. Shut down the rich folk, and the wages (the golden eggs) will stop coming . Idiots!!!! I would ask Marauder what he thinks about that, but he, though maybe responding, will not answer.
I think I will read that fable to my grandson tonight. I am definitely teaching them right!
@averagejoe1 saidYour "trickle down" economic theory has been tried for four decades and failed. Cutting the rich's taxes doesn't lead to higher growth but to economic instability.
I thought you fellers were into equality (though AOC is discounting that and replacing it with Equity....Keep your eyes on THAT one!).
Yet, you suggest here that the rich (the job creators) should NOT get a tax break, but that the middle class SHOULD get a tax break??? I cannot even begin the logic in that.
Vivify, i have a feeling that you would think nothing ...[text shortened]... er.
I think I will read that fable to my grandson tonight. I am definitely teaching them right!
Economic growth isn't based on the rich getting richer (they spend too high of a percentage on non-productive paper chasing and luxury goods) but on workers and consumers, the real job creators, having higher incomes. Until you get that basic truth through your head, you will continue to regurgitate economic nonsense.
05 Jun 21
"Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.
The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes.
Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found.
But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.
"Based on our research, we would argue that the economic rationale for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment.""
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/
05 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidNo, we are booming. You watching MSNBC?
No, it doesn't as it is a false question to begin with. As I pointed out already the US economy is "recovering" not "booming"; we'll reach pre-pandemic levels of GDP by the end of this month only if GDP grows by 10.4% in the second quarter (a highly optimistic assumption). https://www.businessinsider.com/economic-outlook-us-gdp-growth-estimate-atlanta-federal-reserve-for ...[text shortened]... won" a hundred more times if you want; no rational person here takes such blowhard claims seriously.
Any way, the question is any country, if it is booming. Any country. Move the goalposts, but we are watching!
05 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidSo Reagan wrong, Trump wrong, but a lot of money was made by all classes during their terms. Complicated, isn't it. Just read Trump's (the hated, foul, Trump) numbers, Im not going to look them up, but the middle class picked up increase of about $5500/family in income, etc etc.
Your "trickle down" economic theory has been tried for four decades and failed. Cutting the rich's taxes doesn't lead to higher growth but to economic instability.
Economic growth isn't based on the rich getting richer (they spend too high of a percentage on non-productive paper chasing and luxury goods) but on workers and consumers, the real job creators, having highe ...[text shortened]... ntil you get that basic truth through your head, you will continue to regurgitate economic nonsense.
Watch what happens to them under Biden, who started by canceling the Trump tax break, and will follow with more, like making us no longer energy independent. And you think I regurgitate economic nonsense?
05 Jun 21
@averagejoe1 saidActually median household income grew at a lower percentage per year in Trump's first 3 years than in Obama's last 3 years. https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/6009573002
So Reagan wrong, Trump wrong, but a lot of money was made by all classes during their terms. Complicated, isn't it. Just read Trump's (the hated, foul, Trump) numbers, Im not going to look them up, but the middle class picked up increase of about $5500/family in income, etc etc.
Watch what happens to them under Biden, who started by canceling the Trump tax break, and ...[text shortened]... more, like making us no longer energy independent. And you think I regurgitate economic nonsense?
And we know you don't want to talk about 2020.