truthiness

.
I am glad it is going up. Here is a quote from your article in the Times:

"..The faster growth at the bottom is probably being fueled in part by recent minimum-wage increases in cities and states across the country. Research from the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal-leaning think tank, found that over the past five years, wages for low-wage workers rose 13 percent in states that raised their minimum wages, compared with 8.4 percent in states that did not."

I guess you forgot to read the entire article or maybe you agree with an increase in the minimum wage for low wage workers.

EconomistDon

I said JOBS are up; we were not talking about wages. Pay attention Truthandlies.

You are probably too young to remember the decades when America was great. Of course, for lefties, if they didn't see it or live it, it didn't happen; right thruhandlies? America was great through the 1960s. We still had a "national" economy. That means that nearly everything we consumed was made in America by American workers. It was an even playing field for businesses competing for consumer dollars. They all paid pretty much the same wages, so those with the best production model or best technology got the sales. America's middle class thrived on booming factory jobs. The nation's unemployment rate fell to 3.0 percent by the end of the 1960s. The 1950s and 1960s were probably the best of the century as the middle class bought cars and moved into their own homes in the suburbs.

But trouble hit the economy in the 1970s. Thanks to improved transportation, Japan flooded our markets with goods made with cheap labor. First it was cars and then steel. Later, they began to steal our technology and made our gadgets cheaper than we could. Then Taiwan and Indonesia flooded our markets with cheap clothing. And a few decades later, China got into the act. All these countries buried us with cheap goods because they paid their workers 25 cents on the dollar. America's factories went bankrupt and our middle class virtually disappeared.

Thanks to Trump, we are working our way back to the greatness of the past. Unemployment rates are approaching 3.0 percent. Unfortunately, too many of today's jobs are in low-pay industries like retail trade and other services. Factory jobs have a long way to come back, but Trump is working on it.

That's your economic lesson for today.

truthiness

I guess you forgot to include the proof data.

Radiance3

==================
I understand that corporations are owned by investors. But corporations are distinct and separate from shareholders. The shareholders own the shares of stocks of the corporation. Whoever has the greatest shares makes more money. When corporate profits are earned every year, dividends are distributed according to the agreed upon rate provided. Therefore, the highest owners of shares get more dividend income.

But remember this.
Every time dividend is distributed, they are also taxed according to the individual tax rates that they are required. Even when they use the dividend to buy back shares.

Dividend is taxed according to individual tax rate based on income. So there is still revenue created by the Federal Government.

Even when they buy back the shares with their corporate dividend, the money paid for the buy back shares was the dividend which is taxed at individual rate. So, any income earned is taxed. When more revenue or dividend is generated, and distributed to the share holders, they are obligated to pay the individual tax. Because dividend is income to them.

Individual rates are higher than corporate rates. We could not escape. Every time we receive income, we pay our taxes. The higher income requires higher rates.

Please note: Corporation is an artificial being distinct and separate from the shareholders. They can sue and be sued. Their tax rate is separate from the tax rates of the shareholders.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

And you forget reality.
Wages earned for entry-level employees is of no concern to me.
It will work out eventually.
The higher minimum wages raise more automation and fewer jobs for entry-level employees.
The minimum wage goes to $100.00 an hour only hurts workers looking to better themselves.

EconomistDon

Please tell us what you don't like about what Trump is doing to our country. Would you rather have higher unemployment? Would you rather have more people on welfare and collecting food stamps? Would you rather continue giving billions of valuable tax dollars to foreign countries who don't deserve it, especially countries like Iran who HATE us? Would you rather return to the race riots of Obama's administration?

WHAT???

All I hear is unjustified hatred from the left. Russia collusion --- ooops, debunked. Entering a recession --- ooops, not. Racism --- ooops, that's lefties, not Trump.

truthiness

...
Thanks for the eco lesson, Don.

Actually I probably remember the 60's better than you since I was around in the 40's.

Yes, I noticed you said jobs. But workers are more interested in wages, especially in full employment. If a person has to work two jobs to make ends meet (especially in full employment), he is more interested in wages.
Based on the party in office, it is hard to bless or blame party for your Golden Age of 1950s-1960s.
1950-1952: D
1953-1960: R
1961-1968: D
1969-1976: R
1977-1980: D

Here is a another version of eco history from a source you will probably not castigate https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-tumultuous-history-with-tariffs/

...
Then came the Great Depression and the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which raised duties on some 20,000 imported goods, in some instances to record levels. Many economic historians believe this legislation deepened and lengthened the Great Depression.

If so, it also contributed to the political eclipse of the Republican Party and its traditional protectionism. With Democrats now enjoying a commanding position in American politics, tariff rates began a steady decline that would last for decades. A free-trade consensus prevailed, even among Republicans. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was established in 1947 to reduce trade barriers and promote unfettered trade among capitalist nations. In 1995, that organization became the World Trade Organization. This regimen of open markets and low tariffs dominated worldwide commerce through the postwar era, including the period following the collapse of Soviet communism.

But protectionist sentiments bubbled up from time to time, most notably in the 1980s when Japanese industrial production battered various American manufacturers, starting with electronic appliances and eventually slamming U.S. automakers and their workers. It was a serious matter, both politically and economically. U.S. factories were being shut down, workers laid off, industrial towns and cities devastated. Labor unions clamored for some kind of protection.

President Reagan, far more deft on far more issues than he has received credit for, crafted an approach that precluded the blunt instrument of the old-fashioned tariff. Instead he worked towards voluntary restrictions based on import quotas arrived at through diplomatic agreements (not unlike McKinley’s reciprocity concept). As the Wall Street Journal’s Holman W. Jenkins Jr. wrote the other day, Reagan “slapped import quotas on cars, motorcycles, forklifts, memory chips, color TVs, machine tools, textiles, steel, Canadian lumber and mushrooms. There was no market meltdown.” There also were no trade wars.

That was before, as Jenkins notes, the rise of China (far more ominous than Japan’s industrial emergence in the 1970s and ‘80s) and before “the globalization of the world’s assembly line.” But Reagan’s approach reflected an appreciation for the sensitive nature of the trade issue and the need to mesh the imperatives of international commerce with the requirement of assuaging domestic political anger. That required finesse.

The fluctuating history of U.S. trade policy demonstrates that, while this issue may seem settled for extended periods, it will never remain under control indefinitely. The decline of industrial America, and the devastation it has wreaked in so many heartland areas of the country, has spawned a powerful backlash that contributed to the election of Donald Trump.

Whether Trump’s old-fashioned tariff approach can reverse that devastation and revive America’s industrial capacity remains an open question. But it seems clear that, if he can’t find a way to incorporate some of the reciprocity thinking of William McKinley and Ronald Reagan, he will almost surely fail.
...
Are we in the process of reincarnating Smoot-Hawley?
This history seems to indicate that what is needed is a nuanced thinker like Reagan---nuance and finesse are hardly Trump's suits.
This conservative history ends with the conclusion (last paragraph) that is not nearly as enthusiastic about Trump's approach as you seem to be.

truthiness

...

"How cheap" seems to be the mantra of US CEOs who take their companies to Mexico or overseas to produce higher profits. Certainly those CEOs are not Democrats.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

US stocks rally on resumed trade talk optimism with China, strong US job numbers
US stocks jumped on Thursday after the US and China announced the two countries would renew trade talks in early October and the US reported strong job numbers.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/money-wealth/article/3025950/us-stocks-rally-resumed-trade-talk-optimism-china-strong-us

America 1 Loc: South Miami

"Certainly those CEOs are not Democrats."
Just for kicks what CEO's are as you say,
certainly not Democrats?
Democrats opposed to higher profits?
Hard to believe any Democrat has an interest in higher profit.

truthiness

...
Wenn du mitten in Angst wandelst, go back to the beginning title of the thread for direction.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

Good news/bad news: Bright spots offset today's jobs report
Sep. 6, 2019
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3497738-good-news-bad-news-bright-spots-offset-todays-jobs-report

US stocks rally on resumed trade talk optimism with China, strong US job numbers
Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 1.4 per cent after jumping to a one-month high in morning trading, while the Nasdaq composite and S&P 500 both closed up
US payrolls surged by 195,000 in August, well above Wall Street estimates
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/money-wealth/article/3025950/us-stocks-rally-resumed-trade-talk-optimism-china-strong-us

Radiance3

===============
These democrat candidates are interested in huge government takeover, shrink your assets to expand theirs. Be aware that their mentality is to control yours, and dictate how we go own with our lives. As they extort all what we have sweat and earned, while they distribute to those who don't want to earn but handout. That is the essence of Socialism. Until the country is bankrupted, and all the haves been exploited and looted what are left on them. Now, they are using all rants to give the people free everything to live on. This is their sales talk. Free, free, free for all!

While the elites, their families and cronies, enjoy what they have extorted from the people. They will build mansions with security systems, and walls around, buy airplane for their travel, or luxury cars, and live like kings at the expense of the stupid people they fooled around serving them. But yet, its proven that blocks away from them are thousands of homelessness, living in rat infestations, drug addictions, hunger, and their children no place to lay their heads. Then they accuse the republicans of no compassion for sorting the tens of millions of illegals crossing the borders.

All those radical 20 Dem candidates have similar programs. Likewise all those radical DEMS in Congress synchronize with them. Appoint radical judges that do not follow the constitution but follow their political ideologies. That's the radical DEMS agenda. Don't be carried away by their lures.

Do you know of any socialist countries where the people succeeded? They became subjects exploited and left to decay. Now all their people are running o America.
And you radical DEMS want to emulate them? How stupid, but what motivates you is your GREED, and hunger for corruptions. You are famous for that. Shame on all of you, Hillary and Barack, Biden and Bernie Sanders, and Warren!

EconomistDon

First, let me say that you redeemed a great deal of respect with your support of Reagan. He was the most brilliant and successful President of my lifetime which began with Truman. Reagan was a silver-tongued communicator. He worked closely with Gorbachev to end the Cold War. And he understood economics and how to make it work. His policies pulled us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment and inflation were at double digits when Reagan took office. His supply-side economic expansion became the longest, strongest expansion in history.

Reagan's import restrictions were very helpful, and could be pressed into service today. It is China's primary defense against us. Many American goods are banned from import to China. But tariffs also work. I do not agree that Smoot-Hawley played much of a role in the Great Depression. There were too few goods being imported at that time to have much effect.

The boom years of the 50s and 60s had nothing to do with political parties. It had everything to do with pent-up demand following the Depression when people didn't have money to buy things followed by the war when rationing prevented people from buying things. After the war, factories hummed and people bought things that they needed for years. And all that purchasing went to American producers, not foreign producers. America's middle class flourished.

EconomistDon

Ich habe kein Angst! Du hast Angst.

My response to the whining about $1000 ----- BUY AMERICAN!