Reply With Quote
It's relevant again!!
And apparently that didn't even work post-Ronnie since the bottom 90 percent flatlined. The trend was also quite clear post-New Deal before women entered the labor market en masse.
It. Does. Not. Trickle. Down.
It's relevant again!!
Well the growth slowed post Ronnie which was the point.
Also took a look at the PopEcon article where it claimed when women enter the workforce, wages just magically rise. They don't.
Nathan also tried to connect this study to the post-New Deal/pre-Reagan economic climate, crediting women entering the workforce as one reason for the post-New Deal boom, when the study only examined the effects of increasing female workforce participation from 1980-2010.This increase is significant, as 40% of the cities in our sample experienced no real wage growth in these three decades — in other words, the median worker in 40% of cities is no better off in 2010 than they were in 1980. This deserves a brief side note: Despite increases in GDP per capita, real wages for many workers have been stagnating in recent decades. The gains in economic growth have been disproportionately accruing to the top of the income distribution, as broader economic trends (such as globalization and technological change) have led to increasing inequality in the U.S. and a hollowing out of middle-skill jobs. These trends have particularly hurt men, such as those in manufacturing, while women have largely benefited from the growing service sector. Most cities, about 60% of our sample, experienced some real wage growth despite these national trends, due in part to higher FLFPR.
Nathan89 has a poor understanding of his own sources and tragically overrates himself. His grim sagacity and solemn self-regard as would be merely pathetic were they not so amusing.
See my latest post. But I'll reiterate. Did you even read the study you cited or are just parroting the headline? Women entering the workforce doesn't equate to an automatic wage increase. It's city and region dependent. The study found no median wage growth in 40% of the cities where there was increased female participation. The study also found that as the US transitioned more from a producer economy to a service economy, women's wage growth rose with the transition, since women are naturally more suited to those jobs and faced less compe ion.
The service sector wasn't anywhere near as robust in the 40s and 50s.while women have largely benefited from the growing service sector.
Also, the study only examined the period from 1980-2010. It had nothing to say about the post-New Deal/pre-Reagan era. You're also skipping around the primary point. Again, supply side economics is an absolute in the sense that its theory is centered on the idea that more money/less taxes for rich=good for all. So why did we not see any bottom-90% wage growth post-Reagan? There are no excuses you can make, because the post-Reagan economic climate satisfied the parameters of trickle down theory. The rich got wealthier and enjoyed reduced taxes. If the theory worked like advertised, you'd see the bottom 90% line in the graph I posted conform to the red line.
Yep.Did you even read the study you cited or are just parroting the headline?
I try to be classy in discussion and hope to change minds. I changed my mind about Libertarianism, so it's possible. The data simply flies in the face of what trickle down is supposed to theoretically do. It perhaps works better on the micro-small business level, but not at the Fortune 500 level.
Best of luck with that.
Just curious, did you change your own mind, or did someone change it for you?
You clutchin' your pearls, psychopav.you have no idea what that phrase means.
dumbass
Changed it myself. But credit to the people who collect the data and examine these issues for helping me along.
What do you think that phrase means, derp?
Give your definition.
If you're not afraid, that is....
He and Derp are about as Dunning-Kruger as it gets.
Stop. This has been covered. Triteness won't get you W's.
lol, thinking a 6% decrease is "slight"
imagine tomorrow they hiked all tax brackets by 6%
not to mention, the income gap has only widened
State of Working America
Wages 2018
Wage inequality marches on—and is even threatening data reliability
Rising wage inequality and sluggish hourly wage growth for the vast majority of workers have been defining features of the American labor market for nearly four decades, despite steady productivity growth.
most workers are experiencing moderate wage growth and even workers who have seen more significant gains are just making up ground lost during the Great Recession and slow recovery rather than getting ahead.
The data show not only rising inequality in general, but also the persistence, and in some cases worsening, of wage gaps by gender and race.
while wages are growing for most workers, wage growth continues to be slower than would be expected in an economy with relatively low unemployment.
policymakers should try to keep labor markets as tight as possible for as long as possible to see if wage growth lost during the Great Recession can be clawed back, and to see if wage disparities by gender and race can be reduced.
https://www.epi.org/publication/stat...L_CAM%E2%80%A6
"keeping Labor markets tight" is exactly the opposite of what Capitalists (the banker's tool aka the Fed) want.
Capital requires, dictates excess Labor to keep wages down.
It hasn't been covered.
What do you think it means?
Oh. If we are talking about context then, let's do that dance.
Then benefits of our economy over the last 30 years have flowed almost overwhelmingly to the top.The Gini index or Gini coefficient is a statistical measure of distribution developed by the Italian statistician Corrado Gini in 1912. It is often used as a gauge of economic inequality, measuring income distribution or, less commonly, wealth distribution among a population. The coefficient ranges from 0 (or 0%) to 1 (or 100%), with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing perfect inequality. Values over 1 are theoretically possible due to negative income or wealth.
The majority of human beings in our country are one $400 bill away from economic disaster, and the ones that trip up, cost society vastly more than simply helping them.
clutching pearls implies outrage at something.Clutching your pearls again.
The phrase pearl clutching, which means being shocked by something once-salacious that should now be seen as commonplace, like sex, is ubiquitous on blog posts,
Mockery =/= outrage
It's been covered, psychopav.
Show me where you covered it.
What do you think it means?
It's been covered. Are you saying it hasn't been covered?
Not by you.
What do you think it means?
Did I say it was?
So cover it yourself.
What do you think it means?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
