Cal_79 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Last year, only 5 States had no minimum wage law while 2 states had minimum wage below federal levels (GA and WY).

---

This is a bit misleading since there are ~15 states that set their minimum wage to the federal level. So roughly half the states have minimum wage at $7.25 per hour. They aren't all tiny states either - we're talking Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Indiana, etc. There are a handful of other states with minimum wage slightly higher than federal level but still sub $10.

You're being quite dismissive of g4r.

---

As you know, I posted a FACT.
It's not misleading to post a FACT.

And the reason I didnt go one step further and explain what you just posted above is because the federal minimum wage level has essentially been rendered meaningless by the same people that Going for Roses hates..... Corporate America.

I can assure you that no one in Georgia is driving a Fed-Ex truck for only $7.25 an hour.
And Fed-Ex is one of the most soulless companies you could ever care to work for.
Ask me how I know.

---

Facts without context can be misleading. You know this. I posted context which showed your facts were misleading, whether accidentally or otherwise.

Referencing those 7 states in this conversation could cause people to believe that the other 43 states have higher minimum wages which is obviously not true. You are correct that employers can pay whatever wage they want so long as it is at least minimum wage, but that doesn't mean that the level is meaningless. It's certainly not meaningless to the unskilled wage earners (with no bargaining power) who are still stuck earning $7.25 an hour.

---

Wonder how much of an impact being unskilled has to do with the wages one earns...

---

Individually - a lot. As a group - not that much?

Interesting article from the Economist from October showing how income growth (on a percentage basis) was higher for lower quartiles. Of course it's not true that they are playing "catch up" on an absolute basis, but it's nice to see increasing wages for the people who need it most.

One thing to note is that the article explicitly credits rages in minimum wage for some of the growth.

Quote:

---

The pandemic has served up a reminder, as if any were needed, of how deeply unequal America is. Billionaires have seen their wealth explode over the past year and a half thanks to a huge stockmarket rally, especially in the tech sector. At the opposite end of the spectrum, millions of mostly low-wage workers have lost their jobs, while also facing a higher risk of death from covid-19. But against this gloomy backdrop, there is some good news: the incomes of poor Americans have grown more quickly than those of richer ones.

The earnings out-performance for poorer Americans started in 2018. JPMorgan Chase Institute, a think-tank within the bank, parsed data on more than 7m households. Early in the 2010s, as the American economy recovered from the global financial crisis, the top quartile of income earners reaped the fastest income gains and the bottom quartile brought up the rear. However, a few years ago, their positions flipped. And over the course of the pandemic the gap has widened, such that, by May, incomes for the lowest earners were growing by about 7% annually, compared with 4.5% for the highest earners (see chart).

What explains the shift in fortunes? Some of the credit goes to policymakers' willingness to run a hot economy in the years prior to the pandemic. Traditionally, economists have worried that if growth booms, unemployment may dip too low, pushing up wages and, by extension, inflation. But the pre-pandemic evidence is that the "too low" level of unemployment may be considerably lower than previously assumed. Even with jobless rates below 4%, inflation remained subdued. At the same time, wage growth was most pronounced at the lowest rungs of the income ladder (given an additional boost in some states by higher minimum wages). This relationship was first observed by Arthur Okun, an American economist, in a paper in 1973 about how "high-pressure" economies tend to promote upward labour mobility as companies pay more for workers.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Last year, only 5 States had no minimum wage law while 2 states had minimum wage below federal levels (GA and WY).

---

This is a bit misleading since there are ~15 states that set their minimum wage to the federal level. So roughly half the states have minimum wage at $7.25 per hour. They aren't all tiny states either - we're talking Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Indiana, etc. There are a handful of other states with minimum wage slightly higher than federal level but still sub $10.

You're being quite dismissive of g4r.

---

As you know, I posted a FACT.
It's not misleading to post a FACT.

And the reason I didnt go one step further and explain what you just posted above is because the federal minimum wage level has essentially been rendered meaningless by the same people that Going for Roses hates..... Corporate America.

I can assure you that no one in Georgia is driving a Fed-Ex truck for only $7.25 an hour.
And Fed-Ex is one of the most soulless companies you could ever care to work for.
Ask me how I know.

---

Facts without context can be misleading. You know this. I posted context which showed your facts were misleading, whether accidentally or otherwise.

Referencing those 7 states in this conversation could cause people to believe that the other 43 states have higher minimum wages which is obviously not true. You are correct that employers can pay whatever wage they want so long as it is at least minimum wage, but that doesn't mean that the level is meaningless. It's certainly not meaningless to the unskilled wage earners (with no bargaining power) who are still stuck earning $7.25 an hour.

---

Wonder how much of an impact being unskilled has to do with the wages one earns...

---

Individually - a lot. As a group - not that much?

Interesting article from the Economist from October showing how income growth (on a percentage basis) was higher for lower quartiles. Of course it's not true that they are playing "catch up" on an absolute basis, but it's nice to see increasing wages for the people who need it most.

One thing to note is that the article explicitly credits rages in minimum wage for some of the growth.

Quote:

---

The pandemic has served up a reminder, as if any were needed, of how deeply unequal America is. Billionaires have seen their wealth explode over the past year and a half thanks to a huge stockmarket rally, especially in the tech sector. At the opposite end of the spectrum, millions of mostly low-wage workers have lost their jobs, while also facing a higher risk of death from covid-19. But against this gloomy backdrop, there is some good news: the incomes of poor Americans have grown more quickly than those of richer ones.

The earnings out-performance for poorer Americans started in 2018. JPMorgan Chase Institute, a think-tank within the bank, parsed data on more than 7m households. Early in the 2010s, as the American economy recovered from the global financial crisis, the top quartile of income earners reaped the fastest income gains and the bottom quartile brought up the rear. However, a few years ago, their positions flipped. And over the course of the pandemic the gap has widened, such that, by May, incomes for the lowest earners were growing by about 7% annually, compared with 4.5% for the highest earners (see chart).

What explains the shift in fortunes? Some of the credit goes to policymakers' willingness to run a hot economy in the years prior to the pandemic. Traditionally, economists have worried that if growth booms, unemployment may dip too low, pushing up wages and, by extension, inflation. But the pre-pandemic evidence is that the "too low" level of unemployment may be considerably lower than previously assumed. Even with jobless rates below 4%, inflation remained subdued. At the same time, wage growth was most pronounced at the lowest rungs of the income ladder (given an additional boost in some states by higher minimum wages). This relationship was first observed by Arthur Okun, an American economist, in a paper in 1973 about how "high-pressure" economies tend to promote upward labour mobility as companies pay more for workers.

---

And how much of the growth in wealth during the pandemic was the result of policymakers picking winners and losers? Especially in the first months when small businesses and stores were being forced to close, but big chains were allowed to continue operating? As an investor, how could you have put investment dollars into smaller businesses after they'd been forced to shutdown? If we learned anything about the economy during the shutdowns (the consequences of which are still being felt today, unfortunately), it's that central planning doesn't work. A goup of people sitting around a table and deciding to treat the economy like a light swithch that can be flipped off, and then flipped on again, doesn't work.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/business/economy/racial-wealth-gap.amp.html

https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Derenoncourt.Proposal.pdf

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/other-wealth-gap-racial-wealth-rift-no-one-talking-about

https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2020/12/13/whats-behind-the-racial-wealth-gap/

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdrsPQPt/
Is she wrong ?

Inflation is different from the past - Axios


https://www.axios.com/high-cost-bringing-down-inflation-8a6547ee-5f5f-4b90-8c61-2b1344a13f40.html

bearister said:

---

Inflation is different from the past - Axios


https://www.axios.com/high-cost-bringing-down-inflation-8a6547ee-5f5f-4b90-8c61-2b1344a13f40.html

---

I pretty strongly believe the Fed is going to drive us into recession which is unnecessary and avoidable. I think the reduction of fiscal spending already in place will probably bring inflation down to a manageable level all by itself. When the recession does come, look for long term Treasury rates to be lower than they are now and look for the Fed balance sheet to be larger than it is today. The Fed is the tail, not the dog.

The Axios article is not highlighting anything new.
It's been pretty obvious that there have been supply constraints (from weather to labor) that have increased the rate of inflation.

It's also fairly obvious that there is a RISK that those supply constraints (such as the supply of semi-conductor chips) winds up disappearing quite quickly with all of the latest capital spending by chip companies (in the Billions) just as the economy starts to cool off as consumer spending pulls back due to higher prices and no more free stimulus money. - - - People like Cathie Wood (ARK) have been arguing this case for awhile, and have actually gone so far as to declare that we are on a path to Deflation. But then again, she needs a flatter yield curve in order to stop the slide in her growth stock portfolio which has been decimated by higher rates and rotation into economically sensitive cyclicals.

What will be not so obvious is how the FED navigates their tightening cycle.
It will be most interesting to watch how the yield curve responds going forward.
But I'm not in the Dajo Camp that says that the FED is going to drive us into a Recession.

They've definitely been late to the party as far as pulling the punch bowl away . . . but they probably erred on trying to get the job market back to full-employment and pre-Covid levels. In doing so, they changed their policy and they literally said that they'd be fine with the inflation rate being sustained above 2% for a period of time. The problem is, is that once the genie is out of the bottle . . . it's hard to grab a hold of the genie and get her back in the bottle. - - - And as I've mentioned on numerous occasions, the FED has not shown itself to be very good at engineering "soft" landings.

That having been said, I'm not convinced right now that Jerome Powell and Company will be tightening as much as they have been hawkishly implying since their mid-December meeting.

They are clearly aware of the supply constraints out there. Thus far, there has been an awful lot of "jawboning" which is what the FED loves to use to move the market to where it wants, without having to really do anything. The comment by SF Fed President Mary Daly a few Friday's back about using another tool (shrinking the balance sheet) is exactly what I'm talking about. Sure, this is one of the FED's tools, but it seemed as though her statement had more to do with moving the market. I really didnt think this comment was necessary, especially given her boss's hawkish comments just two days earlier. She was most likely "jawboning".

It will be interesting to see where the economy is by the end of March when the taper will be finished.
Powell will be as data-dependent as ever and so will the yield curve.

Most would argue that you've got to get the Fed Funds rate back up to 1% in order to have more ammunition on hand (to lower it) when you need to ease. Theoretically, it wouldnt make sense just to raise Fed Funds 1/4 of a point, twice and then be done tightening. But again, I'd like to think that Powell is street smart enough to avoid some of the obvious economic risks and be driven by the data, rather than some kind of pre-planned "cut in stone" tightening policy.

Interesting times.

DiabloWags said:

---

The Axios article is not highlighting anything new.
It's been pretty obvious that there have been supply constraints (from weather to labor) that have increased the rate of inflation.

It's also fairly obvious that there is a RISK that those supply constraints (such as the supply of semi-conductor chips) winds up disappearing quite quickly with all of the latest capital spending by chip companies (in the Billions) just as the economy starts to cool off as consumer spending pulls back due to higher prices and no more free stimulus money. - - - People like Cathie Wood (ARK) have been arguing this case for awhile, and have actually gone so far as to declare that we are on a path to Deflation. But then again, she needs a flatter yield curve in order to stop the slide in her growth stock portfolio which has been decimated by higher rates and rotation into economically sensitive cyclicals.

What will be not so obvious is how the FED navigates their tightening cycle.
It will be most interesting to watch how the yield curve responds going forward.
But I'm not in the Dajo Camp that says that the FED is going to drive us into a Recession.

They've definitely been late to the party as far as pulling the punch bowl away . . . but they probably erred on trying to get the job market back to full-employment and pre-Covid levels. In doing so, they changed their policy and they literally said that they'd be fine with the inflation rate being sustained above 2% for a period of time. The problem is, is that once the genie is out of the bottle . . . it's hard to grab a hold of the genie and get her back in the bottle. - - - And as I've mentioned on numerous occasions, the FED has not shown itself to be very good at engineering "soft" landings.

That having been said, I'm not convinced right now that Jerome Powell and Company will be tightening as much as they have been hawkishly implying since their mid-December meeting.

They are clearly aware of the supply constraints out there. Thus far, there has been an awful lot of "jawboning" which is what the FED loves to use to move the market to where it wants, without having to really do anything. The comment by SF Fed President Mary Daly a few Friday's back about using another tool (shrinking the balance sheet) is exactly what I'm talking about. Sure, this is one of the FED's tools, but it seemed as though her statement had more to do with moving the market. I really didnt think this comment was necessary, especially given her boss's hawkish comments just two days earlier. She was most likely "jawboning".

It will be interesting to see where the economy is by the end of March when the taper will be finished.
Powell will be as data-dependent as ever and so will the yield curve.

Most would argue that you've got to get the Fed Funds rate back up to 1% in order to have more ammunition on hand (to lower it) when you need to ease. Theoretically, it wouldnt make sense just to raise Fed Funds 1/4 of a point, twice and then be done tightening. But again, I'd like to think that Powell is street smart enough to avoid some of the obvious economic risks and be driven by the data, rather than some kind of pre-planned "cut in stone" tightening policy.

Interesting times.

---

It's fine that we disagree and we are making economic projections which could easily be wrong. These things are all too complex to completely model - it's not like a chemistry experiment.

These are the debates this country should be having. Not fighting over the survival of republican form of governance, and yet here we are.

dajo9 said:

---

It's fine that we disagree and we are making economic projections which could easily be wrong. These things are all too complex to completely model - it's not like a chemistry experiment.

These are the debates this country should be having. Not fighting over the survival of republican form of governance, and yet here we are.

---

As you know, the FED was literally given autonomous power by Congress via the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

Its been pretty clear that the FOMC is rarely a matter of applying partisan prescriptions to generate FOMC positions.
It's decision-making involves technocratic, macroeconomic policy expertise.

And yes, this is not like a chemistry experiment.
It's very complicated and full of risk.

And that's precisely why our elected officials would not be very good at it.
Contrary to theory, lawmakers seldom sacrifice short-term interests for the longer view.

During one of the Cal hoop broadcasts, Bill Walton recommended the book Kingfish, which I am reading now. I figured this was the appropriate thread to park this 1:31 min. video:

How many poor people exist in America?

How many millions ?

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdrnPB3n/

Why…

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdrTFa92/

Sorry bro.
No one watches your Tik Tok posts.
But its funny that you think it moves the "needle"

I'm sorry, but when someone exclusively communicates via surrogates to support their position, using Tweets and Tik Tok, and completely refrains from any interest in genuinely discussing the topic in question, they are nothing but a Troll to me.

pic.twitter.com/iLogYFyLzL

— KevinDCrumJr.MA.Ed. (@KevinDCrumJr) January 28, 2022

TSLA has lost $400 Billion in value since January 4th.

Wealth Gap is shrinking.

Liberals must be ecstatic!

DiabloWags said:

---

TSLA has lost $400 Billion in value since January 4th.

Wealth Gap is shrinking.

Liberals must be ecstatic!

---

Conservatives routinely show they don't understand the issue

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

TSLA has lost $400 Billion in value since January 4th.

Wealth Gap is shrinking.

Liberals must be ecstatic!

---

Conservatives routinely show they don't understand the issue

---

DiabloWags is parroting views that certainly seem widely held amongst progressives, obviously not his own. They point to the existence of extreme wealth, in and of itself, as a negative for society. Elon and Bezos' extreme wealth has been reduced by ~$20B each in the recent market dump, so why won't that be perceived as a positive by many liberals?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

TSLA has lost $400 Billion in value since January 4th.

Wealth Gap is shrinking.

Liberals must be ecstatic!

---

Conservatives routinely show they don't understand the issue

---

DiabloWags is parroting views that certainly seem widely held amongst progressives, obviously not his own. They point to the existence of extreme wealth, in and of itself, as a negative for society. Elon and Bezos' extreme wealth has been reduced by ~$20B each in the recent market dump, so why won't that be perceived as a positive by many liberals?

---

Really, I'm disappointed in you Unit2. Liberals want the middle class to have a bigger slice of a growing pie. Asset volatility (which by itself is exacerbated by wealth inequality) is not good news. Maybe burn-it-down types like anarchistbear and Yogi are happy, but not liberals.

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

TSLA has lost $400 Billion in value since January 4th.

Wealth Gap is shrinking.

Liberals must be ecstatic!

---

Conservatives routinely show they don't understand the issue

---

DiabloWags is parroting views that certainly seem widely held amongst progressives, obviously not his own. They point to the existence of extreme wealth, in and of itself, as a negative for society. Elon and Bezos' extreme wealth has been reduced by ~$20B each in the recent market dump, so why won't that be perceived as a positive by many liberals?

---

Really, I'm disappointed in you Unit2. Liberals want the middle class to have a bigger slice of a growing pie. Asset volatility (which by itself is exacerbated by wealth inequality) is not good news. Maybe burn-it-down types like anarchistbear and Yogi are happy, but not liberals.

---

What liberals? WIAF and I have both written a lot about this so I'm transparent about my position. I'm all for a discussion of how to help address those who need it, but that's now the conversation that has taken over the public sphere. The entire conversation has been driven by criticism of the accumulation of extreme wealth. I don't see a lot of nuanced conversation from progressives about this (or practical policies that would boost middle class income and wealth), but I do see a lot of salacious headlines.

Just a few examples below but they are legion.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/extreme-inequality-kills-one-person-every-four-seconds-oxfam-53718

Quote:

---

Extreme inequality kills one person every four seconds: Oxfam

World's ten richest men, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, made $1.3 billion a day during Covid-19 pandemic while 160 million more people fell into poverty.

Inequality in global wealth distribution contributes to the death of 21,000 people a day, the equivalent of one person every four seconds, says a new report by the global NGO Oxfam.

...
If these ten men were to lose 99.999 percent of their wealth, they would still be richer than 99 percent of all the people in the world, and would still have six times more wealth than the poorest 3.1 billion people.

---

https://www.salon.com/2022/01/18/billionaires-had-a-terrific-pandemic-as-inequality-millions-report_partner/

Quote:

---

Billionaires "had a terrific pandemic" as inequality killed millions: report

Entitled "Inequality Kills," the new report states that intense global inequality is "contributing to the death of at least 21,000 people each day"approximately one person every four secondseven as ultra-billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, and a handful of others grow richer and richer with each passing hour.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/29/rich-poor-gap-wealth-inequality-bernie-sanders

Quote:

---

The rich-poor gap in America is obscene. So let's fix it here's how BY BERNIE SANDERS

The United States cannot prosper and remain a vigorous democracy when so few have so much and so many have so little. While many of my congressional colleagues choose to ignore it, the issue of income and wealth inequality is one of the great moral, economic and political crises that we face and it must be dealt with.

The unfortunate reality is that we are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society, where a handful of billionaires have enormous wealth and power while working families have been struggling in a way we have not seen since the Great Depression. This situation has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-billion-dollar-question-can-you-be-too-rich/

Quote:

---

The billion-dollar question: Can you be TOO rich?

The wealth gap has reached stratospheric levels. According to Federal Reserve data, the richest one percent of Americans now has almost 13 times the wealth of the bottom 50 percent.
It's led some to consider: maybe you CAN be too rich.

Professor Ingrid Robeyns, who teaches philosophy and ethics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, has been promoting a concept called "limitarianism."

"Limitarianism is just a word for the thought that there should be a moral limit to how much wealth you can accumulate," Robeyns told Whitaker. "So, it's the idea that it's fine to be well-off. But at some point, one has too much."

...
So, where to draw the bottom line on wealth?

Robeyns said, "In America you now have this saying, 'There shouldn't be any billionaires. Every billionaire is a policy failure.' And my initial reaction is, 'No, a billion is way too much.'"

"So, whatever your line would be, it would be under a billion?" asked Whitaker.

"Yes! Absolutely. I think you can have a fully flourishing life and do all the things you want with, well, perhaps not with $10 million, but then with $20 million. I don't think you need a billion."

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

TSLA has lost $400 Billion in value since January 4th.

Wealth Gap is shrinking.

Liberals must be ecstatic!

---

Conservatives routinely show they don't understand the issue

---

DiabloWags is parroting views that certainly seem widely held amongst progressives, obviously not his own. They point to the existence of extreme wealth, in and of itself, as a negative for society. Elon and Bezos' extreme wealth has been reduced by ~$20B each in the recent market dump, so why won't that be perceived as a positive by many liberals?

The entire conversation has been driven by criticism of the accumulation of extreme wealth. I don't see a lot of nuanced conversation from progressives about this (or practical policies that would boost middle class income and wealth), but I do see a lot of salacious headlines.

---

Bingo!

"There simply aren’t enough yachts available" https://t.co/K4M9sv9JXC

— Bloomberg Wealth (@wealth) February 1, 2022

Big C said:

---

Unit2Sucks has "evolved" into a higher tax bracket the past several years, hence the ideology shift. You know, it's like what helltopay1 often says, "When you're young, blah blah blah liberal , , , when you're old, blah blah blah conservative . . . "



(UTS, I 'm just pullin' your chain, for fun! Luv ya, man!)

---

I can take it. Seriously though, my views haven't changed that much. I think our government can do a better job by shifting its priorities away from the military toward domestic success without massive funding increases. My views haven't really been impacted by my personal tax situation since I've felt this way since I was a student. Get rid of special interests and reform campaign finance and we might actually have a chance. Probably not but "what do we have to lose". I do know the dancing around we are doing between the parties is unlikely to move the needle.

Lol excuses for everything

What group of people were tortured(whipped/maimed),starved or murdered for trying to read and educate themselves? Then substandard schooling …

That vile behavior has lasting effects through the present day for both groups of people.

going4roses said:

---

What group of people were tortured(whipped/maimed),starved or murdered for trying to read and educate themselves? Then substandard schooling …

Lol excuses for everything

---

When was the last time you were "tortured, whipped, maimed, and starved" for trying to educate yourself?
What's your excuse for having poor financial literacy?

Beveridge(sp) curve ?

Is he correct ?

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdkLPvDN/

dajo9 said:

---

"There simply aren’t enough yachts available" https://t.co/K4M9sv9JXC

— Bloomberg Wealth (@wealth) February 1, 2022

---

What I found fascinating about this story is that Bezos's new Superyacht (code-named Y721) is so big, that in order for it to reach the ocean, the Koningshavenbrug "De Hef" lift bridge in Rotterdam will have to be disassembled.

De Hef's central span can be raised more than 130 feet in the air, but it still wont be enough for the 417 foot long sailing yacht to get through given the yacht's 3 giant masts.

So the city has agreed to temporarily take apart the bridge's central section this summer in order for Bezos's yacht to pass through. - - - Looks like Bezos will be creating more jobs in Rotterdam this summer.

Jeff Bezos's Yacht to Force Dismantling of 130-Foot High Dutch Bridge - Bloomberg

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdkyudjR/

Working 80 hours a week wasn't enough ?
Hmm

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdkGpvQT/
Can't afford to get to work ?

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdkGsg8F/
Workers can't quit to take other jobs paying more ?
Can we say slavery !!!!