Does ageing explain America’s disappointing wage growth?

Circular? In what way?

 

True. Trickle down never made sense. They took, for example, simplistic labour supply analysis and twinned it with guff like the Laffer Curve. This was a deliberate attempt to sideline fiscal policy. And the outcome? Ideological success in inflaming inefficient inequalities, with macroeconomic reality generating a sense of irony: wasteful application of Military Keynesianism.

 

The top 10% have gotten all the growth in the economy. Ergo, without them there would be no growth. Because all the growth in the economy has gone to the top 10%.

The fact that all growth has gone to the top 10% does not imply that there would be no growth otherwise.

And if fact, historical empirical data shows otherwise. Prior to the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, we had growth that was as strong if not superior, but middle class working people shared in that growth.

 

I don't think the Laffer curve is bunk as originally posited. The Laffer curve posits that at some point, you can change the effective tax rate so that it is either so low or so high that it negatively effects the gross tax revenues produced. As originally posited by Laffer, he made no claim as to what rates that shift (to negative effect on gross tax revenue) occurrs, nor did he attempt to describe what the curve was shaped like.

But conservatives and RW propaganda morphed that theory into meaning that cutting taxes always increases revenues -- to justify tax cuts for wealthy Americans. Laffer never made such a claim, to my knowledge. And empirical evidence has show that is not the case.

 

A quick google tells me that the average college credit cost is $594 per credit, so $1,782 for a three credit class. I understand that's high. If you'd like, I will offer a three credit course in any math or comp sci course for, say $200 per credit.

Oh wait. I can't, because government.

 

If the top 10% have have been the only contributors to the nation's income, then if they hadn't made that contribution, the nation's income wouldn't have grown by that amount.

 

Unfounded and inaccurate premise. The top 10% are not the only working people in the country.

 

I never claimed that the top 10% are the only working people in the country.

You said that only the to 10% have made significant increases in their contribution to the nation's income. You said that the bottom 90% have not increased their contribution to the nation's income.

I'm not stating a premise. I'm simply commenting that, based on your information about who is contributing to the nation's income, I'm glad someone has increased their contribution.

 

Maybe. But companies will also close a facility at the asinine drop of a hat for a short term solvable problem that adds a little expense upon the next quarterly earnings per share statement. The outlook is 90 days.

 

Yeah, you did: "If the top 10% have have been the only contributors to the nation's income ..."

The top 10% are not the only contributors to the nation's income. Everyone who works and produces contributes.

Please quote and cite my post where I stated that.

You premise is now based on a false characterization of my what I said and my information. You are also making the unsupported and unjustified inference that an increase in income necessarily correlates with contribution.

 

Good catch. That's my bad. I meant to say, "If the top 10% have been the only contributors to the growth in the nation's income.

Hopefully that will change your reaction to my post.

Here's what I'm talking about:

I'm glad that the top 10% have generated virtually all the growth in the nation's income. Thank goodness for them, or the nation's income would not be growing nearly as much as it has.

 

The problem is how it was integrated with labour supply analysis to generate a false work incentive narrative.

If it exists in any coherent form then it is multipeaked and therefore of no value to policy analysis.

 

I could care less about charts? No chart is going to change a person's situation. You can label and blame forever and never solve anything!

Every person makes 100% of the decisions in their life. Therefore, it is every person's responsibility to make decisions in their life that provide whatever it is they desire. Those who don't understand will be left wanting and blame others for their failure...

 

All diatribe...no reality...you dispute the fact that each person controls their life. Whining does not solve problems! Blaming everything else does not solve problems!

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...this is the root of everything...

 

The beauty of the free market is that is a person wants to go from the 1st quintile to the 5th quintile, there is nothing stopping her from doing so. Well, maybe except the government.

 

I assume you were looking in the mirror when you made your last statement...

 

You made some sense until you blamed government?

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...the root of everything!

 

I would like to braid my neighbors hair to make some money. Doh! Government.

 

So you are admitting you don't know how to start a small cottage business? You feel you can enter commerce while ignoring government and society? Excuses!

 

The beauty of the free market is that is a person wants to go from the 1st quintile to the 5th quintile, there is nothing stopping her from doing so. Well, maybe except the government.

One can't ignore government. They will eff you up. And apparently everyone's fine with that.

 

The responsibility is on both sides, and blaming one side or the other never solved any problem.

 

I would like to braid my neighbor's hair to make some money. The government won't allow me to.

What are the two sides here?

 

Bollocks ...

 

In the US, in many states, one needs a license to braid hair. Do you think that's "bollocks"?

 

I got my first Datsun then so obviously there were many other critical things going on then like UAW workers putting tennis balls on the antennas of cars moving down the assembly lines that were being purchased by UAW workers.