Slashdot Mirror

[This entire post regards the United States]

Uh, 5% unemployment at historically-high labor force participation rates? We're not at peak, but we're above the 59% historical labor force maximum participation rate.

See US Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate which is currently 62.9%, down from a peak of just over 67% 1998-2000, now back to a level reached in mid-1977. It has been flatlined for about 2 years.

But yes, the labor force participation rate is higher than when women worked in the kitchen barefoot & pregnant...

You might be thinking of the Civilian Employment-Population Ratio which is at 59.9%, a level equivalent to Dec. 1984. It has been rising since July, 2011.

Regarding wages, Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Total Private is currently at an all-time high, $21.84/hour.

If you'd like to adjust for hours worked and inflation, and look at a median instead of an average, Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over is also at an all-time high of $348 1982-84 CPI Adjusted Dollars, but frankly that isn't too much higher than $335 in 1979, but above the lowest point of $309 in 1981.

Over the last 10 years, the following costs are up: food, health care, child care, vehicle maintenance, and college is way up. On the other hand these prices have fallen slightly: housing, personal care, clothing, cell phone service, and these are much less expensive: toys, computers, televisions.

Unemployment was 0.1% higher in January 2017 than December 2016--no surprise, there's always that slump.

At least the total number of jobs has been increasing since March, 2010.

[This entire post regards the United States]

Uh, 5% unemployment at historically-high labor force participation rates? We're not at peak, but we're above the 59% historical labor force maximum participation rate.

See US Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate which is currently 62.9%, down from a peak of just over 67% 1998-2000, now back to a level reached in mid-1977. It has been flatlined for about 2 years.

But yes, the labor force participation rate is higher than when women worked in the kitchen barefoot & pregnant...

You might be thinking of the Civilian Employment-Population Ratio which is at 59.9%, a level equivalent to Dec. 1984. It has been rising since July, 2011.

Regarding wages, Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Total Private is currently at an all-time high, $21.84/hour.

If you'd like to adjust for hours worked and inflation, and look at a median instead of an average, Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over is also at an all-time high of $348 1982-84 CPI Adjusted Dollars, but frankly that isn't too much higher than $335 in 1979, but above the lowest point of $309 in 1981.

Over the last 10 years, the following costs are up: food, health care, child care, vehicle maintenance, and college is way up. On the other hand these prices have fallen slightly: housing, personal care, clothing, cell phone service, and these are much less expensive: toys, computers, televisions.

Unemployment was 0.1% higher in January 2017 than December 2016--no surprise, there's always that slump.

At least the total number of jobs has been increasing since March, 2010.

[This entire post regards the United States]

Uh, 5% unemployment at historically-high labor force participation rates? We're not at peak, but we're above the 59% historical labor force maximum participation rate.

See US Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate which is currently 62.9%, down from a peak of just over 67% 1998-2000, now back to a level reached in mid-1977. It has been flatlined for about 2 years.

But yes, the labor force participation rate is higher than when women worked in the kitchen barefoot & pregnant...

You might be thinking of the Civilian Employment-Population Ratio which is at 59.9%, a level equivalent to Dec. 1984. It has been rising since July, 2011.

Regarding wages, Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Total Private is currently at an all-time high, $21.84/hour.

If you'd like to adjust for hours worked and inflation, and look at a median instead of an average, Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over is also at an all-time high of $348 1982-84 CPI Adjusted Dollars, but frankly that isn't too much higher than $335 in 1979, but above the lowest point of $309 in 1981.

Over the last 10 years, the following costs are up: food, health care, child care, vehicle maintenance, and college is way up. On the other hand these prices have fallen slightly: housing, personal care, clothing, cell phone service, and these are much less expensive: toys, computers, televisions.

Unemployment was 0.1% higher in January 2017 than December 2016--no surprise, there's always that slump.

At least the total number of jobs has been increasing since March, 2010.

[This entire post regards the United States]

Uh, 5% unemployment at historically-high labor force participation rates? We're not at peak, but we're above the 59% historical labor force maximum participation rate.

See US Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate which is currently 62.9%, down from a peak of just over 67% 1998-2000, now back to a level reached in mid-1977. It has been flatlined for about 2 years.

But yes, the labor force participation rate is higher than when women worked in the kitchen barefoot & pregnant...

You might be thinking of the Civilian Employment-Population Ratio which is at 59.9%, a level equivalent to Dec. 1984. It has been rising since July, 2011.

Regarding wages, Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Total Private is currently at an all-time high, $21.84/hour.

If you'd like to adjust for hours worked and inflation, and look at a median instead of an average, Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over is also at an all-time high of $348 1982-84 CPI Adjusted Dollars, but frankly that isn't too much higher than $335 in 1979, but above the lowest point of $309 in 1981.

Over the last 10 years, the following costs are up: food, health care, child care, vehicle maintenance, and college is way up. On the other hand these prices have fallen slightly: housing, personal care, clothing, cell phone service, and these are much less expensive: toys, computers, televisions.

Unemployment was 0.1% higher in January 2017 than December 2016--no surprise, there's always that slump.

At least the total number of jobs has been increasing since March, 2010.

We have multiple vacant homes for every homeless man, woman, and child in this country, as a result of the mortgage scam bailout.

Most recent data on US home vacancy rates is 1.8% in 2015, down from a max of 2.8% in 2008. Current home vacancy rates are no different than they were in say 1989 or 2001. Thus, I suspect that your theory on mortgage bailouts is probably not correct.

That said, your numbers are right - average nightly homelessness in the US is about 500,000, whereas there are probably 2.2 million vacant homes. 1.56 million people are homeless at some point in a year.

Purchase Only House Price Index for the United States is at an all time high now, after recovering from a bottom in 2011, suggesting little slack in the housing market.

But yes, I am sure there are some places like Detroit where you can't even give away a house. But we don't have enough housing built where people can have high-productivity jobs.

We have multiple vacant homes for every homeless man, woman, and child in this country, as a result of the mortgage scam bailout.

Most recent data on US home vacancy rates is 1.8% in 2015, down from a max of 2.8% in 2008. Current home vacancy rates are no different than they were in say 1989 or 2001. Thus, I suspect that your theory on mortgage bailouts is probably not correct.

That said, your numbers are right - average nightly homelessness in the US is about 500,000, whereas there are probably 2.2 million vacant homes. 1.56 million people are homeless at some point in a year.

Purchase Only House Price Index for the United States is at an all time high now, after recovering from a bottom in 2011, suggesting little slack in the housing market.

But yes, I am sure there are some places like Detroit where you can't even give away a house. But we don't have enough housing built where people can have high-productivity jobs.

What figures are you using?

U6.

My mom is a 64 year old Uber driver.

If your mom is underemployed (not working full time, for example), then she counts as unemployed in the U6 statistics.

Get a clue. Anyone can cherry pick high cost items and ignore the ones that have gotten cheaper.

Food is cheaper
Clothing is cheaper
Furniture is cheaper
Electronics are cheaper
Gas is cheaper

After adjusting for inflation all the day-in-day out stuff is cheaper.

Companies have never stopped building in America. In the past few years, they've had to build and modernize a lot of facilities to get the production back to its current record levels without rehiring the workers lost in the 2009 time frame. Yet the net increase in factory jobs has been negligible. Here's a great chart showing what has happened.

That will continue. Actually, it would be surprising if we don't start seeing the jobs go lower while output goes up.

The difference is that now, all of those projects will be highly publicized and touted as due to Trump so that Trump can reward them with tax breaks they weren't getting before for the same thing.

Exactly, where are these automated factories that are displacing workers. They must be in China because all we have here is dilapidated and abandoned industrial buildings.

US manufacturing output is at an all-time high. Presumably these dilapidated and abandoned industrial buildings are more productive than whatever it is that they replaced?

Arguing about long-term economic trends like incomes going up or down requires a long-term context

Except you're the one who switched to a long-term context when your previous argument wasn't going so well. TFA is talking about a month-to-month report. That's inherently a short-term context.

How much inflation do you suppose happened--or was even measured--between October and November?

November's numbers aren't out out. Here's September 2016 to October 2016. While that's CPI and not a percentage, you'll note it is going up, not down. So a drop in wages would mean a reduction in purchasing power.....if that chart was the same months. We'll be able to make a new chart in a week or so.

For that matter, with holiday sales, wouldn't inflation over a few weeks be negative, if you picked the right weeks?

Consumer goods are only a part of the CPI "basket". There's lots of other things that also fluctuate wildly - food, gasoline, whatever you use for heating, and so on.

It's unreasonable to assume an economics discussion about the general state of the US economy is a short-term discussion

When the story is about the change between October and November, it's inherently a short-term discussion.

If the discussion were meant to be in a one-month total context, then OP and GP are just morons [...] have some sort of pathological mental illness and exhibit defense mechanisms that look an awful lot like, but are distinct from, schizophrenia.

Psst....you wrote the grandparent post.

U3 never has included them.

However, U6 always has included those workers. Here's U6. It's also down.

hat ratio is 59.7% at the moment, which is barely one percentage point above the lows it hit in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. The whole "economic recovery" and the "unemployment rate" which has gone from 8-9% down to 4.9% is an illusion. The real economy and real employment situation still suck.

Here's the employment/population ratio going back several decades. Please provide the statistics showing the US economy was terrible in the 1950s and 1960s, when the employment/population ratio was significantly lower than it is today.

People fall into this category when their unemployment benefits run out, but they're still unemployed.

This is wrong. Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with unemployment statistics. Unemployment statistics are created by surveys, not by counting people receiving unemployment benefits. U3 (the unemployment number in headlines) includes plenty of people who do not get unemployment benefits. Such as contract employees who have reached the end of their contract and people who got fired.

If you're really worried about people being left out, you can use U6. U6 includes people in U3, as well as people who are currently employed but want to work more hours, as well as people not actively looking for work but would take a job if they could find one.

Actually, I think an even more interesting metric would throw kids into the equation. They need to be supported too. In that case, we've got a country where ~152 million people are supporting 320 million people, so the unemployment rate is really 52.5%

So how long should newborns wait before taking their first job? Do they have to leave the hospital first? 'Cause the statistic you just came up with implies they should get a job about the same time their umbilical cord is cut.

hat ratio is 59.7% at the moment, which is barely one percentage point above the lows it hit in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. The whole "economic recovery" and the "unemployment rate" which has gone from 8-9% down to 4.9% is an illusion. The real economy and real employment situation still suck.

Here's the employment/population ratio going back several decades. Please provide the statistics showing the US economy was terrible in the 1950s and 1960s, when the employment/population ratio was significantly lower than it is today.

People fall into this category when their unemployment benefits run out, but they're still unemployed.

This is wrong. Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with unemployment statistics. Unemployment statistics are created by surveys, not by counting people receiving unemployment benefits. U3 (the unemployment number in headlines) includes plenty of people who do not get unemployment benefits. Such as contract employees who have reached the end of their contract and people who got fired.

If you're really worried about people being left out, you can use U6. U6 includes people in U3, as well as people who are currently employed but want to work more hours, as well as people not actively looking for work but would take a job if they could find one.

Actually, I think an even more interesting metric would throw kids into the equation. They need to be supported too. In that case, we've got a country where ~152 million people are supporting 320 million people, so the unemployment rate is really 52.5%

So how long should newborns wait before taking their first job? Do they have to leave the hospital first? 'Cause the statistic you just came up with implies they should get a job about the same time their umbilical cord is cut.

Guess what? BLS doesn't only count U3. In fact, they have a statistic called U6 which covers the people you are claiming BLS ignores. The Shadowstats article you linked even talks about U6, so it's kinda odd you forgot about it when making your post.

Here's U6.

And the owners of Shadowstats would like to thank you for your efforts at generating more subscribers to their website.

Nope. There are 6 unemployment statistics. The one that shows up in newspaper headlines is U3. U6 covers people who would take a job if they could find one, or want to work more hours than they already are. Here's U6. You'll note it is also down.

To get a better idea of just how misleading that headline from Zerohedge is, here's the employment/population ratio for the last few decades. That is down from it's peak, but well above where it was during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s. You'll also note we have never gotten remotely close to 100%, yet the breathless story from Zerohedge implies something is wrong with less than 100%.

There are lots of reasons someone does not have a paid job. Some of the most common are retirement, going to school, and caring for a loved one. And they are all "not in the labor force".

Nope. There are 6 unemployment statistics. The one that shows up in newspaper headlines is U3. U6 covers people who would take a job if they could find one, or want to work more hours than they already are. Here's U6. You'll note it is also down.

To get a better idea of just how misleading that headline from Zerohedge is, here's the employment/population ratio for the last few decades. That is down from it's peak, but well above where it was during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s. You'll also note we have never gotten remotely close to 100%, yet the breathless story from Zerohedge implies something is wrong with less than 100%.

There are lots of reasons someone does not have a paid job. Some of the most common are retirement, going to school, and caring for a loved one. And they are all "not in the labor force".

But the reality is total number of workers no longer in the work force, which is 95,055,000. Really, 50% unemployment?

Employment/population ratio does not work like you are trying to claim. Because lots of people do not work because they don't want to and do not have to. Students, taking care of loved ones, independently wealthy, retired, disabled, etc.

Here's the employment/population ratio for the last several decades. You note it never got remotely close to 100%, even during economic booms.

Real median income (in inflation-adjusted dollars) is higher today than it was at any time during the Reagan Administration.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

If you're looking for reputable statistics on economics, FRED has fantastic data and a very nice graphing system. Here's the employment/population ratio, for example.

Isn't the number of people who are not working a more important number?

No. Because there are some people who are not "working" and do not want a job. The retired, independently wealthy, people caring for their children or elderly family members, etc.

When the BLS runs their survey for "unemployment", they produce several different statistics. The one that gets printed in headlines is called U3.

People who would work if they could find a job, or are working fewer hours than they would like, are included in U6. Here's U6.

You are talking about the employment/population ratio. A high employment/population ratio is not necessarily a "good" economy, and a low one is not necessarily a "bad" economy. Here's the employment/population ratio. You'll note that during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s, the employment/population ratio was lower than it is today.

Isn't the number of people who are not working a more important number?

No. Because there are some people who are not "working" and do not want a job. The retired, independently wealthy, people caring for their children or elderly family members, etc.

When the BLS runs their survey for "unemployment", they produce several different statistics. The one that gets printed in headlines is called U3.

People who would work if they could find a job, or are working fewer hours than they would like, are included in U6. Here's U6.

You are talking about the employment/population ratio. A high employment/population ratio is not necessarily a "good" economy, and a low one is not necessarily a "bad" economy. Here's the employment/population ratio. You'll note that during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s, the employment/population ratio was lower than it is today.

People who have given up looking for jobs are included in U6. Here's U6.

a reduction in the labor force participation rate at this time equals an increase in the actual unemployment rate, as defined by the number of people seeking employment

Actually, it's nowhere near that simple. For example, my wife is a "stay-at-home mom". Thus she's on the "bad" side of the labor force participation rate. She's doing this because 1) we think it's better for our younger-than-school-age kids, and 2) she can't make enough to pay for the daycare we would have to buy.

When the BLS measures the "unemployment rate", they actually produce several different statistics. These statistics are produced by surveying households, not just people receiving unemployment benefits. The number printed in newspaper headlines is U3. The people you are talking about when you say "actual unemployment rate" are in U6. Here's a graph of U6.

If you're going to claim a low employment/population ratio always demonstrates an awful economy, you're going to have to explain why the 1950s/1960s "boom" had a lower employment/population ratio than we have today.

a reduction in the labor force participation rate at this time equals an increase in the actual unemployment rate, as defined by the number of people seeking employment

Actually, it's nowhere near that simple. For example, my wife is a "stay-at-home mom". Thus she's on the "bad" side of the labor force participation rate. She's doing this because 1) we think it's better for our younger-than-school-age kids, and 2) she can't make enough to pay for the daycare we would have to buy.

When the BLS measures the "unemployment rate", they actually produce several different statistics. These statistics are produced by surveying households, not just people receiving unemployment benefits. The number printed in newspaper headlines is U3. The people you are talking about when you say "actual unemployment rate" are in U6. Here's a graph of U6.

If you're going to claim a low employment/population ratio always demonstrates an awful economy, you're going to have to explain why the 1950s/1960s "boom" had a lower employment/population ratio than we have today.

Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office

Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office.

The Employment-population ratio is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.

Please stop using facts. They don't apply in today's world of the alt-truth.

Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office

Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office.

The Employment-population ratio is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.

Please stop using facts. They don't apply in today's world of the alt-truth.

"They don't exist. Shut up."

There is more than one measure of "unemployment". The number printed in the headlines is U3. The people you are talking about are counted in U6. Here's a graph.

Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office

Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office.

The Employment-population ratio is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.

Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office

Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office.

The Employment-population ratio is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.

A service based economy cannot survive in the long run. You must create/produce something of value.

Fortunately, US manufacturing output is at an all-time high. The value added by U.S. factories is more than $2 trillion a year, equal to the next three countries (Japan, Germany and South Korea) combined.

No. I mean that US manufacturing output is at the highest level its ever been. Its up like 70% since NAFTA passed, and yet manufacturing employment is down 30% for the same time period. That's not jobs in mexico or china, that's automation.

Sure there are some decent jobs in mexico and some mostly shitty jobs in china. But, if they were forced to relocate to the US, that would be just the opportunity needed to build brand new factories with state of the art automation. So most of those jobs would just disappear into the machines. Mexico wouldn't have them anymore, but neither would the USA. Lose, lose.

No. I mean that US manufacturing output is at the highest level its ever been. Its up like 70% since NAFTA passed, and yet manufacturing employment is down 30% for the same time period. That's not jobs in mexico or china, that's automation.

Sure there are some decent jobs in mexico and some mostly shitty jobs in china. But, if they were forced to relocate to the US, that would be just the opportunity needed to build brand new factories with state of the art automation. So most of those jobs would just disappear into the machines. Mexico wouldn't have them anymore, but neither would the USA. Lose, lose.

> People say we're one of the top countries in manufacturing output, but the reality is that this is due to high dollar items like airplanes and weapons systems.

In 2015, US manufacturing generated $2.17 trillion.
Total 2015 defense and aerospace revenue (domestic and foreign sales) was less than one third of that at $682 billion.

Since NAFTA passed, US manufacturing output has increased by 70%. So even if we completely toss out all defense and aerospace and pretend there was zero such spending in 1990, that's still 16% growth.

> t I would definitely like to see all the manufacturing come back

It is coming back, reshoring has been a growing trend since the great recession. But much of it is automated, the industry is coming back but the jobs are not. Or more accurately, the jobs that are coming back require more education than the jobs that left since NAFTA.

Furthermore, to back up the previous statement here is the Fed's graph for the Velocity of M2 Money Stock. Velocity measures the rate at which money changes hands, so if it's low that means everyone is hoarding any money they might have. Looking at the graph you will see that we are at the lowest it has ever been in the 60 years they've been charting this metric...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

Anecdotally, I have a family member who is a small business owner, and she has stated to me this is the worst year she has ever seen in the 15 years she has been doing business.

Umm, before you jump to any conclusion it's important to realize that we are heading into a major recession. According to the Buffet Indicator the value of the Market is over 2 standard deviations above the mean. This means we are in a bubble, and according to the Federal Reserve the bubble is presently in the process of popping...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

The 1% of what? If you're implying all output of all the extra automation is never seen by 99% of the population, then 1% is a number you're pulling out of your ass.

Real prices in most sectors have gone down. Though this is hard to pinpoint because of the rampant monetary inflation that has been pursued (and this does negatively impact the working class disproportionately!). Prices that have gone up are usually sectors where there's subsidized credit or third-party-payers... particularly housing, education, and healthcare.

Here's the very most favorable data point I can find for you, real median personal income. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

That is to say, take everyone's income, adjusted for inflation, and we still find with the exception of two years, decade-over-decade, a person in the very middle of the pack (so as to exclude very-rich outliers on a long tail, someone making $30k/yr now), has still gotten richer.

Where did the Federal Reserve get the money they used to purchase $2.4 TRILLION in US treasury securities?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

If the answer isn't "out of thin air" you are kidding yourself.

Germany shows that it is not that bad, they have been heavily into automation for a while

Yes but Germany is part of the harmonised trade system of the EU, and it is just as open to Chinese imports as the United States.

Germany percent of workers involved in manufacturing has been going down of course.

Unemployment statistics don't tell you everything. You can have 5% unemployment with 40% of the nation working jobs that pay so badly they can't hardly live off the salary and have to take extra jobs only to find that this still isn't enough.

US "Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over" are at an all-time high.

Also US "Nonfarm Business Sector: Real Compensation Per Hour" is also at an all time high.

So in the US, unemployment rates are low by modern OECD and even historical US standards, and earnings are at all time highs. Even some of the poorest people in the US have access to the entire knowledge of the planet on Wikipedia on phones that are more powerful than supercomputers of 20 years ago.

Unemployment statistics don't tell you everything. You can have 5% unemployment with 40% of the nation working jobs that pay so badly they can't hardly live off the salary and have to take extra jobs only to find that this still isn't enough.

US "Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over" are at an all-time high.

Also US "Nonfarm Business Sector: Real Compensation Per Hour" is also at an all time high.

So in the US, unemployment rates are low by modern OECD and even historical US standards, and earnings are at all time highs. Even some of the poorest people in the US have access to the entire knowledge of the planet on Wikipedia on phones that are more powerful than supercomputers of 20 years ago.

Prime age is a better metric. We are at 81% there, which it not far from historical maximums. There are those who choose to be stay-at-home, or who cannot work due to disabilities, so even saying the "true" number is 19% is disingenuous to all but the tinfoil hat brigade who won't trust any government statistic unless it can be warped to their narrative.

https://research.stlouisfed.or...

College grads over 25 are down at a 2% unemployment rate (2008 and 1996 levels).

https://research.stlouisfed.or...

Prime age is a better metric. We are at 81% there, which it not far from historical maximums. There are those who choose to be stay-at-home, or who cannot work due to disabilities, so even saying the "true" number is 19% is disingenuous to all but the tinfoil hat brigade who won't trust any government statistic unless it can be warped to their narrative.

https://research.stlouisfed.or...

College grads over 25 are down at a 2% unemployment rate (2008 and 1996 levels).

https://research.stlouisfed.or...

Prime age (25-54) participation is a better metric, as it factors out the very young and the very old who muddy the waters. We are back to 2012, or 1985 levels at about 81%. At worst the USA is at 19% unemployment, but there are a decent number of people who are stay-at-home by choice, or who simply cannot work. I think the official metrics of ~5% are far more accurate that the tinfoil brigade will ever admit to.

https://research.stlouisfed.or...

Far more important is that we have large swaths of the burger flipping set that are counted as full time employed, but make far far too little to reasonably live a healthy life one.

Real unemployment (as measured by taking the inverse of the labor participation rate) is at levels not seen in this country since the great depression.

Uh, it looks like it's at 1980s levels, to me

I think you need to talk about all Federal taxes together. Income tax, capital gains tax, social security, tariffs... They all have an impact on the GDP growth of the country. And if Hauser's law continues to hold (over the long term - on a decade or more basis - it's been quite accurate) then the best way to increase revenues is to increase GDP growth.

The OECD has a report that deals with taxation and GDP growth, and their conclusion is that lowering high marginal tax rates (and our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world) helps grow the GDP considerably. That would mean an increase in total Federal revenues - and we've seen that manifest and confirmed by President Obama for at least capital gains taxes.

President Reagan dramatically slashed the top tax rates and many have said we paid a steep price for it. However, looking at the actual Federal receipts as a percent of GDP (where we would see if the cuts stimulated the economy enough to offset revenue) we see that the average Federal take was higher for the 1980s than any decade since WWII. President Clinton kept the tax rates pretty low, and we see that the Federal receipts continued to increase.

I would argue that we try for a flatter, simpler, lower tax rate but with fewer deductions. Many point to the 1950s/1960s as our "golden years" when the top statutory rate was 90%! But at the same time, the Federal Government, per capita and adjusted for inflation, was taking in HALF what it does today. Those top statutory tax rates were fantasies because of the deductions allowed. The actual, effective tax rates people paid in the 1950s and 1960s was half what they pay today.

Personally, I'd cut it down to a single personal income tax rate: 15%. And it's a flat rate, paid by everyone on every penny of earned income. No deductions, not adjustments, not exclusions. EVERYONE pays. The current average tax rate for all earners is 13%; this 15% actually represents a tax increase for everyone, on average. And I would completely eliminate the corporate tax rate - set it to zero for all US domiciled and based companies. The catch: to qualify as US domiciled and based, at least 75% of all worldwide corporate profits must be repatriated to the US, and at least 51% of all executives at the VP level and higher - as well as 51% of all board members - must reside within the US for at least 183 days a year (meaning they are subject to US taxation). That would not only bring back the trillions held overseas (for investment in the US) it would make the US the world's greatest tax haven. And there would be a flood of upper-income earners (those execs) who would necessarily pay 15% of their income to the Federal Government.

I would also raise our tariffs and simplify - a flat 5% on all goods imported. Historically our tariffs have been a lot higher - dropping below 5% only after 1975. Simplifying the tariffs, and leveling them across all industries (they vary all over the place now) would make doing business easier, and it may drive out some industries in the US. However it would also greatly expand many industries, such as high tech. Right now China has a 4% export tariff on high tech goods, and the US has a ~1% import tax on those same goods. Raising the tariff on electronics, and combining it with the tax advantages of being based in the US (no taxation) would definitely give many companies a reason to relocate their assembly factories to the US. Google built the Moto X in the US for about the same labor cost as an iPhone in China. Costs stay about the same, tariffs are lower (hence selling price becomes more competitive) and profits taxation is gone (zero corporate income tax) and there is a VERY compelling argument to move manufacturing back domestically.

Anyw

Well, of course, sometimes government can help and should help -- natural disasters like the drought, for example -- but we need to look to a future where there's less, not more, government in our daily lives. It's that philosophy that brought us the prosperity and growth that we see today.

Interesting that you point that out. Looking at U.S. economic growth rates since 1947 shows that the net rate of economic growth has declined since the start of the Reagan era. But hey, FREEDOM!

That's true, there WERE people stuffing those bills into envelopes, earning $1/hour for it. Median home size was 1/3 of today. Aren't you glad that's not us.

Here's the official data on real disposable income from the BEA:
https://research.stlouisfed.or...

You'll notice real disposable has tripled since the 1960s. With all of that extra money, we've been buying huge homes (compared to then), dining out six times as much, etc.

So you understand all that, great. Sorry if that came across as wrong (I can't think of the word for it). I guessed that you might be a younger person who had mostly been hearing some socialist/communist ideas, but wasn't interested enough to really learn a lot about the US economy. In such cases, starting with the socialist ideal and showing that a workable implementation is through the joint-stock company can sometimes be very effective and informative. Obviously you aren't coming from quite that viewpoint.

Let's address what you call your "central point":

> Compared to somebody in the '60s, for example, their pay is likely less, their expenses more, so fewer than ever can manage that 10% - except that it needs to be closer to 20%.

In fact, compared to the 1960s, median home size is almost three times as large. Spending 20 times as much buying Starbucks coffee instead of making it at home is now common. Here's the big bottom line number, real disposable income since 1960:

https://research.stlouisfed.or...

In fact real disposable income has tripled. And we dispose of it, buying $600 ipads, $8 cups of coffee, and multiple cars.

We could, if we chose to, live on just TWICE as much real income as our parents or grandparents did, as invest 30% of our income, retiring at age 40 or 50. Most of us don't, because in 1960 people had one car per family, not two cars, a motorcycle, and a jetski. We'd have keep a TV set for 15 years (they kept one for 20). Most of us prefer to replace LCD HD with OLED 4K after five or ten years. That's a personal choice, so I won't say it's wrong. We can, however, instead choose to have a house only twice as big as our parents' house when we're younger, and invest 30% or more of income so we can be rich later.

Your facts are woefully wrong.

America is shedding jobs at an epic rate

No, it isn't: https://research.stlouisfed.or...

The only reason these corps "can't afford" a higher minimum wage is because they need to protect their obscene profits

These restaurants are franchises, so the profit margin of the corporation isn't relevant to minimum wage; what matters is the profit margin of the franchise itself. Franchise profits are often just a few percent.

http://www.heritage.org/multim...

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs...