Balta1701

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 12:39 PM) Yes I cited ones who said 5-6% because that further proves the point that 4% is low. If you want to prove something is low (imo) the best way would be to show people who thought it could never even get there. I think wage increase etc is much more complicated and a lot of it depends on how easy it is to hire people outside of the US or replace them with automation. A big part of the reason why there isnt huge wage increases is that I can hire someone from another country far cheaper or I can get a machine to do it. For example, McDonalds now has kiosks to take your orders. Those kiosks compete with the workers for the cashier job, if the cashiers start making too much money, you start replacing more of them with the kiosks. Then, as I said - we'd start seeing a boost in productivity, that's literally how that is defined - doing more business with the same number of workers. That has been remarkably low for a decade as well, and there may only be some hints of it ticking up the last few months.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 12:29 PM) The key word was "thought". Its just like saying "Many scientists thought the Earth was flat." Im not sure if its purposeful or not, but the crux of the post was that currently unemployment is low. And the support for that was many economists thought sustained 4% unemployment may not even be possible. Now maybe your saying 3% is the floor? I dont know, but the entire point was that there is an unemployment floor and that the US economy is around that floor. Well you specifically cited ones who "thought" the range was in 5-6%. I totally agree there is a floor, I think we're approaching it but not there yet, and that's why I think there will still be some stimulative effect from this tax cut, for example. We'll know we're close to the floor when we have a much stronger spike in earnings because companies will be paying higher wages to attract workers. We may also see an increase in productivity, after a very long time, if the labor market gets tight enough that companies look for other ways to improve output without having to hire. I also think, if there are economists out there who are saying the floor is several percent higher than it was 98-2000, that we need better economists, and it's not worth citing ones who said that there's now a 5% floor to U3 once we've passed that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 12:23 PM) If youre going to say something is "laughable" at least have the courtesy of commenting on the actual quote, which is supported by fact. You have yet to bring in all of these other economists who think 4% unemployment isnt low. Or have yet to bring in any articles etc where economists dont talk about a range of unemployment floor. I need to bring in other economists to prove that something that is happening right now can happen?

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 01:02 PM) There is still slack, but there will be shocks industry by industry. Construction and Restaurants feeling it now. Quit rates getting higher in construction. I still don't see us at full employment yet, partially because of the restructuring from retail to other industries. The simplest and 100 most obvious, textbook level signal that "unemployment can't go any lower" would be wage pressure. Maybe added in with productivity growth as well since that has been so badly depressed along with the job market since 08. We might finally have some hints of that the last few months, but that is completely different from the "economists said unemployment couldn't get this low" thing that I'd still call laughable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 12:38 PM) Does EPI's "missing workers" get captured in any of the other BLS U-rates? Or is this their own metric? Because while U-6 isn't at the lowest point it's ever been, it is the closest we've been since the late 90's. This is their own metric, but yes the U3 unemployment rate is at levels seen in the late 90s but the U6 rate is not. That right there tells you there is still additional slack in the job market - and notably, the late 90's were the only time we saw broad wage growth in the last 30 years. So yeah, that gap widened in 2008 and it still has not come back down.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 12:42 PM) Balta, What you posted actually works into the idea of why unemployment will never be 0. No it doesn't. The spike in workers who are no longer in the labor force occurred starting in 2008. That spike has yet to be fully removed.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 11:32 AM) If youd like more I can gladly pull them. But its not really a controversial statement. Ok, i'll accept. I'll also say these people are fools. This was easily done because there is still a large portion of workers who have left the job market - here's an EPI version with some interactive graphics summarizing. Also worth noting that the opiod epidemic is probably at this point large enough to matter.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 11:10 AM) I agree to an extent. By my problem is the double standard here - people complaining about how this tax cut screws the poor while they do nothing. If you want to pay more in taxes, go for it. Take the tax cut you're going to get and give it back to the government. Nothing is stopping you. I'll save mine up for 2025 when the Middle Class tax increase part of this kicks in, fair enough?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 11:03 AM) Many economists thought it was impossible to get unemployment this low. 4% unemployment is really low. Right now there are actually more low paying jobs than workers. Um, who are these economists and why are people still listening to them? Unemployment was lower than this in 1998 and there is still a large pool of people who left the labor force after 2008 and haven't yet been drawn back.

QUOTE (Quin @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 11:15 AM) I still think Harris will have momentum going into 2020. But really, we won't know until the dust settles in 2018 I think if she wants in she will mount an impressive campaign. I don't live in CA anymore so I don't know how she is on things like dealmaking or policy, but every time I've seen her on TV she just is a rockstar.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 09:10 AM) So I will be making about half of the deductions I usually make once this is in effect. What is particularly disheartening is taking away tax deductions for charitable contributions. Does this also hammer tax deductions for giving to churches?

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:26 AM) Where is the thread to talk about 401ks and advice and such? Is this the proper venue? You can always ask here even if it's not perfeclty on subject but here's an old thread that's bumpable on that.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 11:14 PM) I think Warner / Schiff would be a good 2020 ticket Do we really need affirmative action for white dudes in our party just because we're scared our country hates everyone else?

A bunch of the torch carrying guys in the Charlottesville rally got fired afterwards because they weren't smart enough to wear white hoods while doing it.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 01:20 PM) Cameron wrote an article today suggesting the Indians go after Machado and move Ramirez back to 2B. That would be ideal for us IMO, subtract from their future years when we'll be competitive. With Kipnis being moved to replace Santana? I guess. With the number of 1b available someone like Abreu via trade or Logan Morrison via FA might seem to make more sense than a forced position switch.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 12:58 PM) Of course they do. That way it is all hidden from the public. Like 10 pages back I posted more of the details, it's even worse than that. There's like 10 different steps where a person filing a complaint has to sit in the room and have someone lecture them about how they shouldn't file the complaint and it isn't worth it, and each step is covered by nondisclosure agreements. Edit: found the link. and oh yeah it had one of those "Mandatory arbitration clauses" that I hate thrown in.

There are at least 2 more congresspersons who have used a slush fund account provided by the US taxpayer for paying out sexual harassment claims, since 2012, whose identities we do not currently know.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 11:18 AM) In the primaries? Great. More power to you. In a general, that sounds a lot like Bernie or Bust-ism. By the way, Cory Booker isn't white. Though my dream team is O'Malley/Bustos I had legitimately no idea who Bustos was. But O'Malley counts under my description.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 11:11 AM) It costs us right now, vs Trump, in this scenario. We're not as evolved as a country as we all made ourselves believe over the last decade. We will get to the point where a woman becomes President. It will happen in our lifetimes. It's not vs. Donald Trump, unfortunately. As of right now Gillebrand and Harris look like the two strongest candidates to me and I'm totally happy with that. We'll see where that goes in 2 years. I'm not voting for an inferior man just because of some fear that the country demands inferior white men as their leaders.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 11:07 AM) But it does in the real world. If in the real world "being a woman" is going to cost us elections because people won't vote for women then our party is just going to have to lose elections. We cannot be someone other than who we are just because a bunch of the country is misogynists.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 10:54 AM) Yes, I am more in favor of keynesian model, but the George W. Bush explanation of giving back surplus back to tax payers is a more understandable argument than a deficit tax cut when unemployment is at 4%. The key to to your response is the bolded however. We aren't in a surplus, and they aren't giving the "surplus" amount back. They are doing a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit cut. Even when we got to a "Surplus" in 2000 we still had a large outstanding debt that could have been partially paid down and large expenses for retirees on the horizon.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 11:03 AM) I can promise you the nominee will be none of those four. It's going to be someone most of us aren't talking about. Biden and Bernie are way too old, and unfortunately, a woman would be tough vs. Trump. Absolutely a woman for VP though. This thinking should not matter at all.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 10:21 AM) I would qualify this. If it was a different situation and the economy was so great that revenue was shooting up and we had a surplus, I think there is a more understandable case to make a tax cut. But, if the economy is so great and everyone is making a ton, why do corporations and the wealthy need a deficit-funded tax cut? I think what you just outlined is backwards, actually. Revenue actually is sort of shooting upwards - the deficit has dropped dramatically since the 2009 near collapse. It has not yet balanced expenses, in part because some of the 2001/2003 tax cuts were kept on the books during the Obama administration. When revenue is shooting up and the economy is healthy is the time that monetary policy is becoming more strict - the federal reserve is raising interest rates already to slow down the economic expansion. Ideally speaking, you'd want fiscal policy by the government to do the same thing as monetary policy - when the fed tries to keep things under control by raising rates, they are going to fight against any effort to expand the economy done via fiscal policy. When the fed is dropping rates to prop up the economy - that's the time you want expansionary fiscal policy also, that's the time you want to be adding to the debt to do things. Right now, a handful of industries will get their tax cuts and spend money, and a handful more will invest in bitcoin or stock buybacks. But as that money makes its way out into the economy, the Fed will raise rates more rapidly to keep it from turning into inflation - thus hurting other industries.

QUOTE (pablo @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 11:37 AM) I'd have to think more as well but I'm conflicted - but recent players (Darvish and JD Martinez) dealt for half of a season have come with varying prices. JD had his red flags - health and no defense - so I would expect Machado to fetch the Darvish package or more. At least as of right now, how many teams that think they are contenders have obvious holes at 3b/SS? That's knocking some of the market out. The teams that don't have those positions filled don't think that a 1 year player will push them into the playoffs, and most of them are right.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2017 -> 05:53 PM) They're throwing 13M people off of insurance tomorrow and crippling the individual markets nationwide. They've let CHIP expire and appear to be in absolutely no hurry to do anything about that. Well, I think it would be fair to add an "estimated" to the 13 million because frankly we don't know what it will be like to have the ACA enacted where you can freeload but no individual mandate. It could well be a lot smaller and wind up turning out that this provision saves far less money because people want to be insured when given the choice. (That would blow a much more massive budgetary hole I believe)