PDA

View Full Version : Employers are hiring, but wage growth remains soft



Captain Obvious
01-09-2015, 09:58 AM
Reality is usually somewhere in the middle.

Progressives/liberals will refuse to acknowledge this just like wingnuts generally refuse to acknowledge a slow but steady recovery which is douchebaggery because the truth I believe is truly somewhere in between.

This sort of proves my stance too and I've said as much, yes we are hiring but there's a shift from FT to PT and benefits are being cut. Pay is stagnant. I've said this hundreds of times.

Just like I've said "minimum wage increase - great, people will now be laid off, higher pay rates reduced and benefits cut" because the progressive mind is incapable of understanding reality and anything beyond bureaucratic stats and rhetoric - high overhead unskilled labor businesses must make up the additional cost somewhere to survive, and they will.

So let's all just keep our heads up or collective asses and believe what we want to believe.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/employment-report-u-s-added-252k-jobs-in-december/


A missing piece of the puzzle in 2014, and in the recovery overall, was stronger earnings growth. Average hourly wages fell 0.2 percent in December, to $24.57, the Labor Department said Friday. For the year wages rose a meager 1.7 percent -- that's down from 1.9 percent in 2013.

Following a typical recession, wage growth should reach 3 percent or higher. Weak pay hikes are keeping workers' real income only slightly ahead of inflation, damping their purchasing power. Consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of economic activity in the U.S., so an uptick in wages is vital to broader growth.

"Overall, there has been a clear acceleration in job growth since last summer, a faster decline in the unemployment rate, but few signs of faster wage growth," said Paul Dales, senior U.S. economist with Capital Economics, in a note.

Cigar
01-09-2015, 10:14 AM
Obama's Fault ...

Next Up ... Minimum Wage Increases ... half of America isn't waiting for the GOP.

Common
01-09-2015, 11:14 AM
Of course they dont want to pay, they want to pocket their employees money

del
01-09-2015, 11:26 AM
there were two increases in the minimum wage in the 90's and we all know how badly the economy sucked then.

Cigar
01-09-2015, 11:47 AM
Elizabeth Warren Explains the Failure of Trickle-Downhttp://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2015/150109-elizabeth-warren-explains-the-failure-of-trickle-down.jpg

Captain Obvious
01-09-2015, 11:47 AM
http://americandigest.org/120503-left-wing-style-guide.jpg

iriemon
01-09-2015, 04:28 PM
Reality is usually somewhere in the middle.

Progressives/liberals will refuse to acknowledge this just like wingnuts generally refuse to acknowledge a slow but steady recovery which is douchebaggery because the truth I believe is truly somewhere in between.

This sort of proves my stance too and I've said as much, yes we are hiring but there's a shift from FT to PT and benefits are being cut. Pay is stagnant. I've said this hundreds of times.

Just like I've said "minimum wage increase - great, people will now be laid off, higher pay rates reduced and benefits cut" because the progressive mind is incapable of understanding reality and anything beyond bureaucratic stats and rhetoric - high overhead unskilled labor businesses must make up the additional cost somewhere to survive, and they will.

So let's all just keep our heads up or collective asses and believe what we want to believe.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/employment-report-u-s-added-252k-jobs-in-december/

I've acknowledged it all along. Tell your Republican reps to stop obstructing Obama's jobs programs, stop the austerity, and reverse 'trickle down", and start focusing on rebuilding the middle class instead of pandering to the 1% if you want to see wages grow.

But you really don't want that, do you?

What do you mean by "a shift from FT to PT"? I'm smelling more RW propaganda.

Peter1469
01-09-2015, 05:31 PM
I've acknowledged it all along. Tell your Republican reps to stop obstructing Obama's jobs programs, stop the austerity, and reverse 'trickle down", and start focusing on rebuilding the middle class instead of pandering to the 1% if you want to see wages grow.

But you really don't want that, do you?

What do you mean by "a shift from FT to PT"? I'm smelling more RW propaganda.

What austerity? We are spending ~$.5T more than we collect in revenue. If you think that is austerity you should not be allowed to express an public opinion.

iriemon
01-09-2015, 05:56 PM
What austerity? We are spending ~$.5T more than we collect in revenue. If you think that is austerity you should not be allowed to express an public opinion.


Austerity:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm


See the difference?

lynn
01-09-2015, 06:00 PM
They are probably hiring all these newly immigrants that just got their license.

Bob
01-09-2015, 06:09 PM
Obama's Fault ...

Next Up ... Minimum Wage Increases ... half of America isn't waiting for the GOP.

Jim Rohn taught ...

For things to change, YOU must change.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDazFiCXtaw

Captain Obvious
01-09-2015, 06:12 PM
I've acknowledged it all along. Tell your Republican reps to stop obstructing Obama's jobs programs, stop the austerity, and reverse 'trickle down", and start focusing on rebuilding the middle class instead of pandering to the 1% if you want to see wages grow.

But you really don't want that, do you?

What do you mean by "a shift from FT to PT"? I'm smelling more RW propaganda.

These are real world terms for "full time" to "part time".

If/when you ever venture out of the basement and look around, you'll find out that many employers are using strategies like moving FTE's (google it) from FT to PT to get them at lower benefits levels (ie: less cost). Or they're outsourcing/automating labor. See McDonalds, I predicted this too, they're revamping their dollar menu to get rid of high labor items and focusing on lower labor products.

Most of the large businesses in my area employed a strategy like this, because they have to in order to offset the mounting healthcare benefit costs and labor cost.

Now go dig up some charts that you have no real-time exposure to and tell me how I'm wrong.

Bob
01-09-2015, 06:13 PM
Austerity:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm


See the difference?

This is the only truth.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

Bob
01-09-2015, 06:21 PM
Debt per taxpayer today is $789,109

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

iriemon
01-09-2015, 06:30 PM
This is the only truth.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

Of course it isn't.

But if you really care about the debt, and your not just flapping your gums for political purposes as conservatives are wont to do, then write your Republican reps and tell them to compromise with a tax increase on the wealthy as part of a budget deal to get the deficit down.

They need to hear from people like you.

iriemon
01-09-2015, 06:32 PM
These are real world terms for "full time" to "part time".

If/when you ever venture out of the basement and look around, you'll find out that many employers are using strategies like moving FTE's (google it) from FT to PT to get them at lower benefits levels (ie: less cost). Or they're outsourcing/automating labor. See McDonalds, I predicted this too, they're revamping their dollar menu to get rid of high labor items and focusing on lower labor products.

Most of the large businesses in my area employed a strategy like this, because they have to in order to offset the mounting healthcare benefit costs and labor cost.

Now go dig up some charts that you have no real-time exposure to and tell me how I'm wrong.

Anything other than anecdotal stories and you own baseless say-so to back it up?

Captain Obvious
01-09-2015, 06:39 PM
Anything other than anecdotal stories and you own baseless say-so to back it up?

Sure, I posted an article the other day talking about how employers are now experiencing huge increases in out-of-pocket plan costs directly related to the ACA mandates. I'm not going to tear the forum apart for you to just disregard it either, if you're interested in educating yourself, you go find it.

You're not interested in discussing topics, you're thing is that you like to argue data. It's crystal clear that beyond the raw data you have no operational knowledge because you just simply argue data. That's idiocy in my book but if that's what you need to do to pump up your ego, then that's on you.

If you're a young kid, I'm not sure of your demographics then at some point in your life all this shit will start to click when you start seeing it in reality. Or it won't and you'll stagger down life's path being blissfully ignorant like you are now.

I can tell from your demeanor that you have no interest in learning but have all the interest in the world in arguing and showing everyone who knows better how much you really don't know shit about shit.

So if you want to go find that article then come back and discuss how the ACA is reducing benefits for already covered employees and increasing out-of-pocket costs and what "cost control" and "utilization control" are and how they drastically differ, then I'm interested. But if you're just going to throw darts and post data and charts that you have little or no practical understanding of then one of the forum monkeys can keep you busy, I don't engage in pure idiocy.

Captain Obvious
01-09-2015, 06:42 PM
Oh yeah, this article is another one - the OP.

Not sure if you're interested in discussing it or throwing data at it.

Peter1469
01-09-2015, 07:40 PM
Your base line is off.

Give me a run down based of revenue. If you spend over revenue and tell me it is austerity, I will pull the liar card. And I will be correct.
Austerity:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm


See the difference?

iriemon
01-09-2015, 07:43 PM
Sure, I posted an article the other day talking about how employers are now experiencing huge increases in out-of-pocket plan costs directly related to the ACA mandates. I'm not going to tear the forum apart for you to just disregard it either, if you're interested in educating yourself, you go find it.

I'll pass. What does that have to do with your claim about the shift to part time employment?


You're not interested in discussing topics, you're thing is that you like to argue data. It's crystal clear that beyond the raw data you have no operational knowledge because you just simply argue data. That's idiocy in my book but if that's what you need to do to pump up your ego, then that's on you.

Argue with data is idiocy in your book got it. Consistent with most conservatives I've come across.

I haven 't seen any data from you. Just your baseless say-so.


If you're a young kid, I'm not sure of your demographics then at some point in your life all this $#@! will start to click when you start seeing it in reality. Or it won't and you'll stagger down life's path being blissfully ignorant like you are now.

LOL, not from baseless, unsupported blather, I assure you.


I can tell from your demeanor that you have no interest in learning but have all the interest in the world in arguing and showing everyone who knows better how much you really don't know $#@! about $#@!.

See above. Were you saying something about flame bait?


So if you want to go find that article then come back and discuss how the ACA is reducing benefits for already covered employees and increasing out-of-pocket costs and what "cost control" and "utilization control" are and how they drastically differ, then I'm interested. But if you're just going to throw darts and post data and charts that you have little or no practical understanding of then one of the forum monkeys can keep you busy, I don't engage in pure idiocy.

I'll pass. If you can't back up your assertions, that's all I need to know,

iriemon
01-09-2015, 07:45 PM
Your base line is off.

Give me a run down based of revenue. If you spend over revenue and tell me it is austerity, I will pull the liar card. And I will be correct.

Fascinating opinion, but I'm not particularly interested in your made up definitions.

Captain Obvious
01-09-2015, 07:47 PM
I'll pass. What does that have to do with your claim about the shift to part time employment?



Argue with data is idiocy in your book got it. Consistent with most conservatives I've come across.

I haven 't seen any data from you. Just your baseless say-so.



LOL, not from baseless, unsupported blather, I assure you.



See above. Were you saying something about flame bait?



I'll pass. If you can't back up your assertions, that's all I need to know,

Ergo you're incapable of discussing the points in the articles that I already cited.

I already knew that about you.

Dismissed.

iriemon
01-09-2015, 07:51 PM
Ergo you're incapable of discussing the points in the articles that I already cited.

I already knew that about you.

Dismissed.

Your own baseless blather isn't citing anything. Bye.

Peter1469
01-09-2015, 08:46 PM
Fascinating opinion, but I'm not particularly interested in your made up definitions.

Oh sure. But I didn't make any definitions.

Keep spending above revenues and pat yourself on the back for doing a good job. :wink:

iriemon
01-10-2015, 08:52 AM
Oh sure. But I didn't make any definitions.

Keep spending above revenues and pat yourself on the back for doing a good job. :wink:

It's how you use the word austerity, which is inconsistent with any definition (for economic austerity) that I've seen including the 5 different ones I've posted.

Yes, I think going from a $1.4 trillion deficit to a $485 deficit is a good job (in fact IMO it was too good of a job). It is certainly a better job than going from a surplus to a trillion + deficit, doncha think?

Peter1469
01-10-2015, 08:58 AM
It's how you use the word austerity, which is inconsistent with any definition (for economic austerity) that I've seen including the 5 different ones I've posted.

Yes, I think going from a $1.4 trillion deficit to a $485 deficit is a good job (in fact IMO it was too good of a job). It is certainly a better job than going from a surplus to a trillion + deficit, doncha think?

Austerity as you are using it is a catch phrase to advocate for increased spending. That is why I say there is no austerity. $485B is an unbelievable figure. To claim that is good is completely insane. Oh, and the $485B number is a lie. I demonstrated it somewhere else on the board. The Administration cooked the books and held off on large spending until the new fiscal year. Your figures are about $200B short.

iriemon
01-10-2015, 08:59 AM
Austerity as you are using it is a catch phrase to advocate for increased spending. That is why I say there is no austerity. $485B is an unbelievable figure. To claim that is good is completely insane. Oh, and the $485B number is a lie. I demonstrated it somewhere else on the board. The Administration cooked the books and held off on large spending until the new fiscal year. Your figures are about $200B short.

Austerity as I used it was consistent with the 5 different definitions I gave you.

Peter1469
01-10-2015, 09:45 AM
Austerity as I used it was consistent with the 5 different definitions I gave you.

Right, a catch phrase to advocate for increased debt spending. No thanks. Forgive me when I call you out. :smiley:

iriemon
01-10-2015, 09:47 AM
Right, a catch phrase to advocate for increased debt spending. No thanks. Forgive me when I call you out. :smiley:

No, you don't.

texan
01-13-2015, 12:07 PM
Get off of it, everything is Rosy the democrats told me so, said he should be considered Ronald Reagan for his work.

The Xl
01-13-2015, 12:09 PM
It's all low level shit. The recovery is a hoax, a fraud.

lynn
01-13-2015, 08:09 PM
Many people that I know got their hours reduced to part time, others over 50 lost their job altogether. I do not see any recovery as there is still many empty business buildings in Arizona.

Peter1469
01-13-2015, 08:10 PM
A lot of the wages are eaten up in health care, taxes, and regulatory compliance costs.

iriemon
01-13-2015, 08:34 PM
A lot of the wages are eaten up in health care, taxes, and regulatory compliance costs.

Skyrocking profits.

Peter1469
01-13-2015, 08:43 PM
Skyrocking profits.


Regulatory uncertainty.

zelmo1234
01-13-2015, 08:57 PM
Of course they dont want to pay, they want to pocket their employees money

I have yet to charge any of my employee's to work for me.

But if times get any worse, maybe that is a good Idea :grin:

zelmo1234
01-13-2015, 09:00 PM
Austerity:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm


See the difference?

What was the spending increase between 2008 and 2009????

Just wondering? Statistics and all? I believe that it was about a trillion dollars?

zelmo1234
01-13-2015, 09:13 PM
Skyrocking profits.

They are not really profits they are paying down debt and there is nothing to invest in that is worth the return on investment.

that is the stagnation that we are in! The ACA actually threatens my little company with over a million dollars in added costs if they ever enact that employer mandate. So I have to stock pile money.

That is not going to help me grow the business. is it?

iriemon
01-14-2015, 11:19 AM
Regulatory uncertainty.

If that were eating up the increase in growth, we wouldn't be seeing skyrocketing profits.

iriemon
01-14-2015, 11:21 AM
What was the spending increase between 2008 and 2009????

Just wondering? Statistics and all? I believe that it was about a trillion dollars?

Feel free to do your own research and report back to us. I even gave you the link for expenditures.

What I'm showing is the spending and employment trends during the recoveries.

iriemon
01-14-2015, 11:24 AM
They are not really profits they are paying down debt and there is nothing to invest in that is worth the return on investment.

How are corporate profits not really profits?


that is the stagnation that we are in! The ACA actually threatens my little company with over a million dollars in added costs if they ever enact that employer mandate. So I have to stock pile money.

That is not going to help me grow the business. is it?

If that is the problem, and not lack of demand, how come we don't have shortages of goods and products?

We don't have a production problem. We have a consumption problem.

Because the great engine of spending, the middle classes, have been gutted since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/100902_gd_part1_pikettysaez-fig1.gif?w=600

Peter1469
01-14-2015, 03:58 PM
If that were eating up the increase in growth, we wouldn't be seeing skyrocketing profits.

Profits are being sat on rather than used to expand businesses because they are not sure how the new many regulations will turn out.