Ka-BOOM!

[dude1394]

Damn...I thought for sure there would be a mavdog sighting telling me how bad this is for the US? Guess the economy is not nearly as bad now as it was a month ago. Go figure.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Damn...I thought for sure there would be a mavdog sighting telling me how bad this is for the US? Guess the economy is not nearly as bad now as it was a month ago. Go figure.

"real wages for the typical worker haven't risen that much," says Richard Berner, US economist at the investment bank Morgan Stanley"

with the article you posted mentioning how real wages have declined for the past three years, and with real wage gains not reaching 3% anytime during the current administration's term, nothing further needs to be said...

[dude1394]

Ah all is right with the world. I was beginning to worry.

[Epitome22]

Exactly. The economy is ok at the Macro level, but the lion's share of the gains have gone to the wealthy. Real wages have barely kept pace with inflation. A rising tide lifts all yachts apparantly.

Thankfully with a more competent, grown up congress, dedicated to leadership. These concerns will be addressed.

[dude1394]

Probably...so the first thing they'll do is cut taxes for 100k-500k wage-earners (which I'm okay with by the way) and raise taxes on everyone by letting tax cuts elapse.

Come on back when their first budget is proposed, since they haven't done one in about 4 years so they don't have to make a decision.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Probably...so the first thing they'll do is cut taxes for 100k-500k wage-earners (which I'm okay with by the way) and raise taxes on everyone by letting tax cuts elapse.

Come on back when their first budget is proposed, since they haven't done one in about 4 years so they don't have to make a decision.

there's no tax "cut". do you even understand the amt?

[dude1394]

Yes...

The alternative minimum tax (or AMT) is an extra tax some people have to pay on top of the regular income tax. The original idea behind this tax was to prevent people with very high incomes from using special tax benefits to pay little or no tax. But for various reasons the AMT reaches more people each year, including some people who don't have very high income and some people who don't have lots of special tax benefits. Congress is studying ways to correct this problem, but until it does, almost anyone is a potential target for this tax.

Riddle me this...

Will those wage-earners that we are talking about pay MORE or LESS in taxes once the AMT is abolished?

Have we already begun the "it depends on what the meaning of IS, IS"? Sheesh they haven't even taken the oath of office.

[Mavdog]

the people ar not subject to the tax today. they don't pay the amt.

[dude1394]

Need english here Mavie. ??

[Mavdog]

guess you don't understand it...how is not increasing what one pay's in taxes a tax cut? sure seems to me that to have a tax cut one's taxes would need to be reduced...you know, CUT!

[The Crippler]

Well, strictly speaking for myself, I was poor when Clinton was in charge and now I'm rich as hell...

Because of this, I think W. and his boys have done a fine, fine job. And yes, I'm scoreboarding all the poor people and liberals looking for a handout. Good job me and thanks for making this all possible repubs...

[Drbio]

I've knocked at least 7-10 years off my retirement age during the Bush tenure so call me happy as well.

[chumdawg]

Been doing some reading lately, and before now I never realized that the marginal tax rate under Carter was freakin' NINETY percent! Reagan managed to get that down to where it is now. Thank God.

Who knows where this country would be if Reagan's "supply side" economics hadn't rescued us from economic hell.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Been doing some reading lately, and before now I never realized that the marginal tax rate under Carter was freakin' NINETY percent! Reagan managed to get that down to where it is now. Thank God.

Who knows where this country would be if Reagan's "supply side" economics hadn't rescued us from economic hell.

Tax cuts for the rich.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Been doing some reading lately, and before now I never realized that the marginal tax rate under Carter was freakin' NINETY percent! Reagan managed to get that down to where it is now. Thank God.

Who knows where this country would be if Reagan's "supply side" economics hadn't rescued us from economic hell.

90%? not accurate...

the marginal tax rate peaked a the end of WW2 at 94%. JFK cut the tax rates from the 91% rate when he came to office to 70% in 1964, which was the rate during Carter's term.

the marginal rate was down to 50% before reagan's policies were implemented. it went as low as 28% (only on the 3 quartile of income, the highest quartile paid a lower tax rate!) until the infamous GHWBush tax increase, when it went to 31%.

Clinton's terms had the rate at 39.6%, it's down to 35% for 2006 and is set there until 2010.

The overlooked number is the income level applicable to the highest rate. for instance, even tho the marginal rate under JFK was at 70%, it was applicable at $200K (about $500K in today's $). in 1987 the rate dropped to 28%, but it kicked in at $45K. it's at 35% with the trigger at $350K or so today.

historical tax brackets chart

[dude1394]

Maybe with the dems in there we can finally stop all of this horrible economic news.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks surged on Thursday, driving the Dow industrials to a record closing high on strong earnings from a range of companies such as investment bank Bear Stearns Companies and an improving outlook for both the U.S. economy and corporate profits.

The Dow Jones industrial average was up 98.70 points, or 0.80 percent, at 12,416.20. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was up 12.23 points, or 0.87 percent, at 1,425.44. The Nasdaq Composite Index was up 21.44 points, or 0.88 percent, at 2,453.85.

[purplefrog]

I'm interested in your comments.
______________________________________________
How Dangerous Is the Dollar Drop?
By Christian Reiermann
Der Spiegel
Tuesday 12 December 2006

A currency in decline.

Is an end of an era looming in the foreign exchange markets? The dollar has been depreciating against the euro for weeks. Currency experts and the German government don't yet see this as cause for alarm. The US currency's role as a lead currency isn't as important as it used to be, they say.

Like most central bankers, Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank (ECB), has a penchant for cryptic comments. Injecting a certain degree of incomprehensibility is a signal to the professionals that he's competent. And when it comes to laymen, industry jargon has the desired effect of generating the necessary respect.

Last Thursday the public was treated to yet another example of Trichet's convoluted speaking style. A number of risks, the ECB president said, could jeopardize a generally favorable economic outlook in the euro zone. They included, according to Trichet, "concerns regarding possible uncontrolled developments triggered by global economic imbalances."

What Europe's most powerful protector of the currency was actually saying was this: The gradual decline of the dollar in the foreign currency markets in recent weeks could pose a threat to the economy. What Trichet was also trying to broadcast is that the ECB has recognized and is aware of the threat.

Nevertheless, the European Central Bank in Frankfurt again increased its key interest rate on Thursday by a quarter percentage point to 3.5 percent, which makes the euro more attractive to international investors. The central bankers had no choice but to take the step, having already announced their intentions weeks ago.

Experts have been predicting for some time that the dollar would eventually go into a nosedive, and now that time seems to have come. The US currency has lost five percent of its value against the euro since late October, and 13 percent since the beginning of the year. The euro is currently fluctuating around a value of $1.33, which is only 3 cents away from its all-time high in 2004. And yet Trichet's counterpart Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has done nothing but look on as the dollar plunges.

A sea change appears to be taking place on the international financial markets. For years, global capital flowed in only one direction, with $2 billion going into the United States every day. Investors viewed the world's largest economy not only as a bastion of stability, but also as a place that promised the best deals, the most lucrative returns and the highest growth rates.

The Americans, for their part, welcomed foreign investment. For them, it was almost a tradition to save very little and spend more than they earned - essentially achieving affluence on credit. Foreigners financed the Americans' almost obsessive consumer spending, which spurred worldwide economic growth for years.

Because the US government was unable to fall back on the savings of its citizens, it too was forced to finance its budget deficit with foreign capital. Both consumer spending and the federal deficit kept the dollar high, because the rest of the world was practically scrambling to invest in the United States.

This phase seems to have come to an end, at least for the time being. "There are fundamental weaknesses in the American economy. This could not continue in the long term," says Alfred Steinherr, chief economist at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW).

Investors Pulling Out
Investors worldwide are becoming sceptical and starting to pull their money out of the United States. They have realized that a people and a country cannot live beyond their means in the long term. The US dollar's exchange rate is starting to crumble as a result of this withdrawal.

The depreciation is causing growing concern about what will happen to the global economy if the United States loses its role as an engine of growth. If German cars, machinery and services become more expensive, will the German economic recovery end before it has really started?

The German government isn't worried yet, at least not officially. Nevertheless, experts in the finance and economics ministries have been keeping a close eye on developments. Although they continue to believe that the changes still fall within the scope of long-term averages, they don't rule out that the situation could worsen.

They believe that a first critical threshold for the competitiveness of the German economy will be reached at an exchange rate of about $1.36 per euro, and that Germany could see major difficulties at rates in the neighborhood of $1.50. If there is turbulence in the foreign currency markets, the government in Berlin will find itself in an especially challenging position. In early 2007, Germany will assume the chairmanship of the so-called G8 group of seven major industrialized nations plus Russia.

The G8 has repeatedly engaged in crisis management to deal with problems in the international financial system. It did so in the 1980s, when the combined forces of the G8 were needed to put a stop to the soaring dollar. It stepped in with equal verve a few years to forestall a decline in the American currency with the so-called Louvre Accord.

There are two principal causes behind the most recent development. Both have to do with the fact that Europe is becoming more attractive for international investors compared to the United States. On the one hand, interest rates in Europe and the United States are moving in opposite directions. "The ECB will continue to raise its key rates next year, whereas interest rates appear to have peaked in the USA," says Joachim Scheide, an expert on the economy at the Global Economic Institute (IFW) in the northern German city of Kiel. This means that financial investments denominated in euros are yielding higher interest and are in greater demand internationally, which in turn leads to a rise in the euro.

The prospects for growth are also shifting. The US economy is cooling off. The government recently lowered its 3.3 percent growth forecast for 2007. If Americans consume less as a result of a decline in foreign capital investment, the United States could even face a prolonged period of more modest growth.

Germany Has Shed "Sick Man" Image
By contrast the euro zone economy is robust. Germany, in particular, has surprised many with a stream of good economic news. Unemployment dropped below the psychologically critical threshold of four million in November. The Ifo business climate index, which measures the expectations of businesses, is at its highest point in 15 years, while consumer confidence has reached a five-year high.

In the last quarter of this year Germany, long considered the sick man of Europe, will have transformed itself into an engine of economic growth. According to analysts at Postbank, Germany's annual growth, projected at 3.4 percent, will even exceed that of the United States this year.

This is the kind of news that fuels the expectations of investors who now prefer to invest their money in the euro zone. The result is an increase in the exchange rate for the European Union's common currency. But how will the decline in the dollar's value affect future economic development? Could it cause a major imbalance in the global economy, or will the global economy, and Germany, get off lightly?

Pessimists are quick to come out of the woodwork whenever a major shift in the financial markets approaches. Many economists and bank analysts, especially in the United States, believe that the correction will happen very suddenly, with the dollar depreciating by 10 to 30 percent within a short period of time.

This would inevitably cause an adjustment crisis. Growth rates would plunge worldwide and a global recession, coupled with a drastic jump in unemployment, could follow.

This doomsday scenario is by no means the majority view. Some experts, especially in Germany, are more optimistic. "The US trade deficit has grown in the course of a few years," says IFW expert Scheide. "It will also gradually decline over a period of several years."

Scheide expects the dollar to lose another 10 percent in value against the euro in the next five years, a scenario that would be much easier to handle for the German and European economies. Companies would have sufficient time to adjust to changes in exchange rates. "In that case even an exchange rate of 1.40 wouldn't be disastrous," said DIW analyst Steinherr.

Germany is a good example of how effectively this can work. Despite the fact that the dollar has lost half of its value against the euro since 2002, exports have not been adversely affected. Indeed, they even increased from €651 billion ($861 billion) to €786 billion ($1.04 triilion). The Germany economy exported more than ever before in October.

Another reason is that the dollar zone is no longer as important for German exports as it was only a few decades ago. Leaving aside exceptions such as the auto industry, other regions of the world have long since become more important to the German economy than the United States, where Germany now sells less than one-tenth of its exports. Germany exports more than 40 percent of its goods and services to other countries within the euro zone, 13 percent to eastern Europe and nine percent to Asia. The turbulence surrounding the dollar has had virtually no effect on German exports to neighboring European countries. Most of the EU's new members have tied their currencies to the euro, and exchange rate risks evaporated for western Europe with the introduction of the euro.

The euro even prevents the kinds of major upheavals in Europe that occurred in the past whenever the dollar fell. When that happened, German businesses and consumers were routinely forced to bear a greater burden of adjustment than the economies of neighboring countries. In the past, if the German mark gained 10 percent in value against the dollar, the French franc or the Italian lira would only gain six or seven percent. As a result, the German mark was overvalued relative to other European currencies, which translated into economic disadvantages for the German economy.

This mechanism was eliminated when the euro was introduced. Now all member states carry the same burden.

The consequences of a declining dollar for the German and European economy will be determined in large part by the way other currencies develop relative to the dollar. "It would be fatal if only the euro were to rise," says DIW analyst Steinherr. "Then it would only be the euro zone that would have to bear the burden of adjustment." But the foreign currency markets suggest a different development, as the dollar is also losing value in relation to other important currencies.

The British pound, for example, rose to new highs last week. Even more importantly, the currencies of east Asian growth regions are also appreciating against the dollar. The Thai Baht, for example, gained about 15 percent against the dollar in 2006, while the South Korean Won gained 10 percent. Even the Chinese Yuan, which slavishly followed the dollar in the past, gained more than three percent. Virtually every economy is bearing part of the burden of adjustment.

The decline in the dollar also has its advantages. For Germany, the greatest advantage is that Germans pay less for oil. The oil price is mainly set in dollars worldwide. If the dollar declines, the same amount of oil costs Europe fewer euros, and the money the Europeans save can be spent on other goods.

A similar dynamic applies to exports from the dollar zone. If the decline in the dollar continues, computers, software licenses and machinery from the United States will become less expensive. Both developments would represent a windfall for companies and people in the euro zone, because the same amount of money would buy more goods.

The perils of a currency crash are not nearly as great as they were in the days of the dollar's absolute dominance 30 or 40 years ago. Globalization has led to the development of a number of growth centers in the world economy which share the burden of turbulence. Gone are the days when an American finance minister could boast: "The dollar is our currency, but it's your problem."

--------

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

[dude1394]

I'm not real sure about the consequences of a lower dollar. Surely it will make US anufactured goods more valuable and might increase that type of employment. It might require the US to undergo some strict budget restrictions by the guvment.

Europe has a slight advantage geographically to Asia than the US does, timezone wise. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I would think that most of the investments being talked about here are in money and because of the difference in interest rates that's as big of an issue as any.

I do know however that the europeans are none to happy with the euro experiment in that it increased costs by about 25% immediately. It appears that will continue to be a problem for them.

On matters of economics I many times search out Thomas Sowell as he puts things in terms I can understand. On this one he seems to be punting however. I'll look a little deeper for his opinions.

John Hawkins: Do you think the US would be better off having a strong dollar, a weak dollar, or one just as good as the other? Why so?

Thomas Sowell: Whether a currency is "strong" or "weak" tells very little by itself. These are among the many emotional-laden words used in discussing of international transactions which obscure more than they reveal.

[Drbio]

Must be because of that liberal House and Senate majority.

[dude1394]

THE NUMBERS ARE IN -- AND THEY ARE TERRIFIC Dan Clifton at the American Shareholders Association is all over it:

The debate about the capital gains tax cut is over. When Congress passed the 15 percent reduction on capital gains all we heard from the naysayers is this will produce massive deficits. When Congress extended the 15 percent rate in 2006 we heard the same tired rhetoric - only louder. Now the new leadership want to repeal this tax cut to generate revenue to the federal government. Based on the new data they may want to reconsider whether repealing this tax cut will generate any revenue to the federal government.

Today's CBO report puts the debate to bed. We were told by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) the capital gains tax cut would "cost" the Federal Treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006. Thus, the initial CBO forecast (January 2004) forecasted capital gains revenue to be $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006.

Well in what could now be considered the worst forecast in modern times we find out today capital gains tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006. For 2005 and 2006 collections nearly doubled the initial forecast.

[Usually Lurkin]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...kyMjhhYTkyNzM=
Bush's Bull Market [Larry Kudlow]

On a day when the GDP report came in strong, and the Federal Reserve backed off a bit from its inflation worries to proclaim a balanced economy with growth and contained prices, President George W. Bush became only the 2nd sitting American president to visit the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

As he moved from trading post to trading post, all the floor brokers and their assistants stopped work and started cheering and applauding.

And I mean loud applause and huge cheers.

This is a guy the mainstream media just loves to kick around. This is a guy still battling it out over Iraqi freedom, but subject to sinking polls.

But this is a guy with more character and more faith than almost anyone else in public life.

The last time he was in downtown New York was just after September 11th, when everything was devastated, including the NYSE. Now, more than five years later, Mr. Bush went back to downtown New York with a record-breaking stock market and a strong economic recovery.

That’s why there was loud cheering and strong applause.

[dude1394]

ka..BOOOOM!!

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016657.php

When the history of the Bush administration is written, its unsurpassed stewardship of our economy during what started out as very difficult times (recession and 9/11) will, I hope, get the credit it deserves.

Word to that.

UPDATE: The Dow reached an all-time high today.

[kg_veteran]

I heard on the radio this morning that the Commerce Department is about to release a report suggesting that the savings rate for 2006 was -1%. In other words, Americans, on average, are spending 101% of what they are making.

That can't be good, long term.

[Usually Lurkin]

[snark]kg, why would you save? Doesn't the government do that for you?[/snark]

[kg_veteran]

Ha!

The problem with our economy is that we are consuming at an unsustainable pace. Both the government and the people spend more than they make.

[dude1394]

How is that saving determined? Does it include 401ks and the like or just passport saving stuff?

The savings rate is computed by taking the amount of personal income left after taxes are paid, an amount known as disposable income and subtracting the amount of spending. Since the figure has dipped into negative territory, it means consumers are spending all of disposable income and then some.

Personal income after taxes would not account for 401K savings..just fyi.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394

How is that saving determined? Does it include 401ks and the like or just passport saving stuff?



Personal income after taxes would not account for 401K savings..just fyi.

Thanks for the clarification. Still, it's a somewhat disturbing piece of information.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Thanks for the clarification. Still, it's a somewhat disturbing piece of information.

I can't really figure out what to make of it. I don't "save" a ton of after tax dollars because I put it all in the 401K, or purchase stocks directly. I can borrow against it on a minutes notice, so why stick it in anything taxable.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Ha!

The problem with our economy is that we are consuming at an unsustainable pace. Both the government and the people spend more than they make.

although it's maybe a bit too technical to get into.........

....the reason the government and the people spend more than they make is a product of our monetary system. that is to say, it is mathematically impossible as well as irrational not to spend more than you make given our system of money, and no amount of character or will can change the status quo without a marked change to the monetary system.

it's ultimately a ruinous system, although its impossible to say how long it will be before the worst ramifications manifest themselves.

cheers

*edit...hmmm...perhaps I should have said monetary policy rather than system, even tho our policy (I believe) is inevitably a product of the monetary system.

[dude1394]

Continuing to Ka-Boom...Better cash out the stock market before the dems raise taxes.

WASHINGTON -- Just as many economists were shifting down their estimates of economic growth, the Labor Department blindsided them today with a report of an uncommonly strong job market in March.

Businesses took on 180,000 more workers in March, only slightly short of the 200,000 per month average during the last two months.

The unemployment rate fell by 0.1 percentage point to 4.4%, equaling its level of last October. Joblessness hasn't been lower since May 2001, just before the last recession.

Wages also continued their recent upward march. Average hourly earnings of production workers advanced six cents to $17.22, and have risen 4% over the past year. Average weekly earnings rose even faster -- 4.4% during the year.

[dude1394]

Fred Thomson weighs in on tax cuts. Hmm...maybe there will be a contender besides giulliani.

The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.

In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half.

Remarkably, this has happened despite the financial trauma of 9/11 and the cost of the War on Terror. The deficit, compared to the entire economy, is well below the average for the last 35 years and, at this rate, the budget will be in surplus by 2010. ...

The reason for this outcome is that, because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman. Greater investment has created overall economic strength. Job growth is robust, overcoming trouble in the housing sector; and the personal incomes of Americans at every income level are higher than they've ever been.

Democrats scream!!! Tax the rich!! Tax the rich!! Oh...we are...hmmm.....Tax SOMEONE DAMMIT!

[Mavdog]

I don't believe you are correct on that dude. your distinction is on taxable v non-taxable earnings, the base ignores that and is total wages plus other income less amount consumed.

on consumption, it's what our economic model is based on. the deficit in the savings rate isn't a problem as long as there are inflows of additional capital. so far the rest of the world likes to provide that service for us, and do so at a fairly cheap rate.

on the stock market, its been a good run. you want to give bush credit for that? why?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I don't believe you are correct on that dude. your distinction is on taxable v non-taxable earnings, the base ignores that and is total wages plus other income less amount consumed.

on consumption, it's what our economic model is based on. the deficit in the savings rate isn't a problem as long as there are inflows of additional capital. so far the rest of the world likes to provide that service for us, and do so at a fairly cheap rate.

on the stock market, its been a good run. you want to give bush credit for that? why?

If you are going to give ANY president credit then he gets it one. Secondly he's enacted many pro-growth policies, tax policy as well as capital gains reductions.

[Mavdog]

so you're going to give clinton credit for the 90's , right?

I'm not sure I'd give either credit for their stock market runs. they can be hurt by economic policy, but it is more tied to earnings growth. last time I checked the pres doesn't manage these cos.

[dude1394]

Have to, scoreboard says so. I can't figure out what his economic policies were but he didn't mess it up, so he get cred.

[mcsluggo]

its true, good run. give some credit where it is due... but beware:

Caracas Stocks shrug off threats

Caracas stock shrugged off the threat by the new
Minister of Finance to limit the profits of private
companies by rallying 13.7% during the shortened
week, with the Caracas Stock index closing at a new
all time high of 59,413. The top gainer was Banesco,
which in the first week of the year gained what we
expected it to rise in all of 2007, with the stock gaining
70.7% or Bs. 176 in just a single week to close at Bs.
425. Other strong gainers were Banco provincial which
added another 25.5% this week closing at Bs. 3,000,
Banco Venezolano de Crédito, which rose 15.13% this
week to close at Bs. 4,490, Manpa, up 12.3% at Bs.
210 and Cemex Venezuela I which closed at Bs. 1,345.
All stocks covered by us rose this week, for the second
week in row.

this is my analyst's report on the venezuelan stock-market situation. I would hesitate to give Hugo Chavez the credit for having steered these spectacular returns, with his <shall we say> "peculiar" economic model. Stats are stats. They tell us SOMETHING, but it is not always straightforward pinning down EXACTLY what they are telling us.

[Mavdog]

just read that the savings rate does not include income directed into 401 and ira accounts.

[mcsluggo]

That is just bizzarre. It makes SOME sense, because of accounting NIA (national income accounting) identities, the definitions of all National Income are all set up to net out taxes... but you'd think there would be a hopped-up term to better capture actual savings rates in non-professional settings.

I put $15k a year into a 401-k (like) plan (20k with employer contribution). another 18k into 3 seperate 529 accounts (tax break education savings plans) and the max contribution each year into Roth accounts for me and my wife (I think its $6k/year for EACH of us this year, but I don't remember). That is $50 k of savings, that don't count....? I always thought I was a good saver too!

Still, this definition hasn't changed, and 2005 and 2006 were the ONLY two years other than in the worst period of the great depression that savings rates were negative... it still says something. The normal pattern is for savings to go up in booms, and go down in economic slowdowns.

[dude1394]

More terrible, terrible results from the evil dubya tax cuts. Please stop dubya, we might all get richer.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...cxOGUzMzU0ODA=

At $16.76, average hourly earnings are nearly 20 percent above year 2000 levels, and 44 percent above the $11.65 level in the fifth year of the Papa Bush/Clinton business expansion cycle.This is the fifth year of the GWB cycle.

Even in inflation adjusted terms, real average hourly earnings are slightly higher than the 2000 peak, and nine percent above the 1995 fifth year average level.

By the way, since President Bush’s supply side tax cuts in 2003, adjusted household jobs (a BLS combination of non-farm payrolls and the civilian employment household survey) have grown nearly 3 million per year over the past three years.

Incidentally, looking at strong profits and productivity, economist Mike Darda thinks the unemployment rate will fall below 4 percent.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

More terrible, terrible results from the evil dubya tax cuts. Please stop dubya, we might all get richer.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...cxOGUzMzU0ODA=

Dude, these numbers are not really worth bragging over.

(note: I'm just going to use these numbers, and not suppliment or contradict with any others)

a cumulative increase of 9% since 1995? that translates to an anual growth rate of approximately 0.7%. Less than 1% growth is nothing to crow about ESPECIALLY since the second half of the 1990's saw some really rapid earnings growth... so even averaging that pre-W rapid growth in, we only saw less than 1% anual growth?

Second, I wonder if that number embeds non-wage earnings (ie health insurance, vacation, etc...). I doubt it. And I believe that those non-wage earnings have been stagnant or declining since the 1990s.

Third, a real problem is that the distribution has shifted badly as well. A couple of $300million golden parachutes can mask an awful lot of low-wage earners not seeing ANY increases in their wages.

anyway, my 2c