Consumer spending for February was only 0.2%, down from the 2.7% in January when spending rebounded from the Omicron related "dip" in December.

Personal income rose by 0.5%, but that gain has been erased by Inflation.

Income (after taxes and adjusted for inflation) is now down for its 7th straight month and now at the lowest level since March 2020.

The FED's favorite inflation gauge, the PCE hit a 40 year high in February at 6.4%

Fastest rise since 1982.

This is why Powell has recently changed his tune and started talking about 50 basis point rate increases on multiple occasions.

30 year mortgage rates now at 4.67%
Highest since December 2018.

The share of income needed to cover a mortgage payment has risen from 29% (based on median U.S. income) to 34% over the last twelve months.

For the "Average Joe"

People need to stop talking about a $15 minimum wage, and go back to democratizing power in a way that'll end with $40 an hour wages.

DiabloWags said:

---

Consumer spending for February was only 0.2%, down from the 2.7% in January when spending rebounded from the Omicron related "dip" in December.

Personal income rose by 0.5%, but that gain has been erased by Inflation.

Income (after taxes and adjusted for inflation) is now down for its 7th straight month and now at the lowest level since March 2020.

The FED's favorite inflation gauge, the PCE hit a 40 year high in February at 6.4%

Fastest rise since 1982.

This is why Powell has recently changed his tune and started talking about 50 basis point rate increases on multiple occasions.

30 year mortgage rates now at 4.67%
Highest since December 2018.

The share of income needed to cover a mortgage payment has risen from 29% (based on median U.S. income) to 34% over the last twelve months.

For the "Average Joe"

---

And the villains(per some), the extremely wealthy cruise through same with the safety of their portfolios and or savings. When we watch gov't programs and decisions, it matters not how well meaning the sale of any strategy, it comes back to haunt those who can least afford. Trickle down taxes in many, many ways not warned or anticipated. eg....The removal of tax deductions up to the allowed minimum was meant to hit the rich. Well, it quickly hit just about anyone living in the Bay Area or SoCal coast. Nothing changed in 2020 but tax to Feds sure went up. Then look at the California gas tax, which if you don't drive much during the pandemic is meaningless in one's life, but if you bought an affordable home in Turlock or Temecula and commute to work---sheesh. And who did that? Not the defined rich.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

The President's budget has become a joke over the decades. It's essentially gamesmanship. Biden is hoping that signalling a wealth tax will make him more popular with everyone who isn't loaded, even though you have millions of poor and middle class white people who for whatever reason think that taxing rich people is a mistake.

Biden and his team know very well that his budget isn't going to be the starting point and that his wealth tax doesn't have the support. He didn't genuinely believe that he was going to get it through. He wanted to be able to say "I tried to make the wealthiest in our country pay their fair share, but Republicans got in the way again." It probably won't work but what does he have to lose? Fox News was going to skewer him anyway. Congress controls the purse strings and they will have a lot of mouths to feed that can only be done by spending money.


No one power is ever going to want to balance the budget. That's reality. Just like no one runs for student body president on an austerity platform, no US president is ever going to say "I'm taxing you more and giving you less." No democrat, no republican, no one ever. The only way we balance the budget is by accident, like what's happened in California and it won't be for long.

Our deficit will go down, because it has to without the CARES act and other spending bills repeating, but it will still be historically high. The only hope is for interest rates to come back down because we're going to be royally screwed if we have to pay high interest rates on debt that is growing faster than GDP with no end in sight.

---

Well you are right that the proposed budget is a mess. Nevertheless, BBB spending is dying a slow death with every monthly inflation report, and Congress is not going to let Biden rely on a tax that likely will not pass constitutional muster. But Biden isn't going to say that. That is not how politics works. Biden will concede to Manchin types in his own party and the GOP of much lower spending (and blame them) and in exchange he will get some form of "revenue enhancement" which will optics wise look like it impacts the wealthy. No one said anything about balancing the federal budget. That really is a dead concept these days.

going4roses said:

---

People need to stop talking about a $15 minimum wage, and go back to democratizing power in a way that'll end with $40 an hour wages.

---

Yeah, because that high school girl that is a "greeter" at Rocco's Pizza in WC is $40 an hour productive.
It's pretty clear to me that you never got around to taking a basic Econ class.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

And who did that? Not the defined rich.

---

True.

The most liberal State in the Nation when it comes to spending "other" people's money has a marginal income tax rate of 9.3% starting at $56,085.01

The liberals here just dont get how badly the middle class gets slammed.

going4roses said:

---

People need to stop talking about a $15 minimum wage, and go back to democratizing power in a way that'll end with $40 an hour wages.

---

Our GDP per capita is only about $60k. $40 per hour works out to about $80k per year for a full time job. $40 per hour is also more than double the median wage. So we are quite a ways from the median being $40 per hour let alone getting unskilled laborers anywhere close to that. Simply paying people more isn't the answer.

going4roses said:

---

People need to stop talking about a $15 minimum wage, and go back to democratizing power in a way that'll end with $40 an hour wages.

---

US wages are extremely high compared to rest of world.
Since we live in a world where most everything is transportable (investment capital, raw materials, finished goods), the US must compete with rest of world wages.

Your $40/hr proposal would only kill the US economy and send even more economic activity elsewhere.

For this reason, I'm against even a $15/hr minimum wage.
US wages need to go DOWN, not up.
This is how China is winning the game, long term.
Min wages are short-term gains, short-sighted.

Well, that's one opinion on the matter.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

The President's budget has become a joke over the decades. It's essentially gamesmanship. Biden is hoping that signalling a wealth tax will make him more popular with everyone who isn't loaded, even though you have millions of poor and middle class white people who for whatever reason think that taxing rich people is a mistake.

Biden and his team know very well that his budget isn't going to be the starting point and that his wealth tax doesn't have the support. He didn't genuinely believe that he was going to get it through. He wanted to be able to say "I tried to make the wealthiest in our country pay their fair share, but Republicans got in the way again." It probably won't work but what does he have to lose? Fox News was going to skewer him anyway. Congress controls the purse strings and they will have a lot of mouths to feed that can only be done by spending money.


No one power is ever going to want to balance the budget. That's reality. Just like no one runs for student body president on an austerity platform, no US president is ever going to say "I'm taxing you more and giving you less." No democrat, no republican, no one ever. The only way we balance the budget is by accident, like what's happened in California and it won't be for long.

Our deficit will go down, because it has to without the CARES act and other spending bills repeating, but it will still be historically high. The only hope is for interest rates to come back down because we're going to be royally screwed if we have to pay high interest rates on debt that is growing faster than GDP with no end in sight.

---

Couldn't agree more Unit2.....Paragraph 3 is already in play..Terminology was used to show a big budget surplus while we have monstrously more indebtedness long term to pension promises.

Paragraph 4 is the killer. Any politician has to bring to her/his constituency to survive (aka, spend money). Spending goes up in times of low interest rates and everyone loves the side effects of the drug.

Interest rates rise, we can't pay indebted interest without reducing services. Who gets hurt? Yup, the middle class and the poor mostly.

And yes, balancing the budget is gone.

---

Let me add that with Ukraine, Biden has upped his military budget, and Congress is expected to add more. So expect a lot more guns and far less butter.

I've bolded selected countries.

Rank - Country - Avg. income per year - Avg. income per month
1Monaco $186,080 - $15,507
2Bermuda 112,240 $9,353
3Switzerland 82,620 $6,885
4Luxembourg 80,860 $6,738
5Norway 78,290 $6,524
6Macao 75,690 $6,308
7Ireland 65,620 $5,468
8United States 64,530 $5,378
9Denmark 63,010 $5,251
10Singapore 54,920 $4,577
11Sweden 54,050 $4,504
12Australia 53,690 $4,474
13Netherlands 51,060 $4,255
14Finland 49,780 $4,148
15Hong Kong 48,630 $4,053
16Austria 48,350 $4,029
17Germany 47,470 $3,956
18Belgium 45,750 $3,813
19Canada 43,580 $3,632
20Israel 42,600 $3,550
21New Zealand 41,550 $3,463
22Japan 40,360 $3,363
23United Kingdom 39,830 $3,319
24France 39,480 $3,290
25United Arab Emirates 39,410 $3,284
26South Korea 32,960 $2,747
27Italy32,290 $2,691
28Spain 27,360 $2,280
29Saudi Arabia 21,930 $1,828
30Portugal 21,790 $1,816
31Greece 17,930 $1,494
32Hungary 15,890 $1,324
33Poland 15,240 $1,270
34Romania 12,580 $1,048
35Costa Rica 11,530 $961
36Russia 10,690 $891
37Malaysia 10,570 $881
38China 10,550 $879
39Bulgaria 9,630 $803
40Argentina 9,070 $756
41Turkey 9,050 $754
42Mexico 8,480 $707
43Montenegro 7,900 $658
44Brazil 7,850 $654
45Thailand 7,040 $587
46Belarus 6,360 $530
47South Africa 6,010 $501
48Colombia 5,790 $483
49Ecuador 5,530 $461
50Albania 5,210 $434
51Georgia 4,270 $356
52Indonesia 3,870 $323
53Ukraine 3,570 $298
54Philippines 3,430 $286
55Bolivia 3,180 $265
56Morocco 3,020 $252
57Egypt 3,000 $250
58Iran 2,960 $247
59Vietnam 2,650 $221
60Bangladesh 2,030 $169
61Nigeria 2,000 $167
62Timor-Leste 1,990 $166
63India 1,920 $160
64Cameroon 1,520 $127
65Cambodia 1,500 $125
66Burma 1,350 $113
67Pakistan 1,270 $106
68Sudan 530 $44
69Afghanistan 500 $42

Average income is a useless stat. Tell me what the major industries of the leading countries are.

Banking tax havens?

I don't think this is a meaningless table. Throw out the special cases (which you have highlighted) and just consider the overall trend, combined with my post above about minimum wage and how the US would be economically more prosperous if we lowered wages, not increased them.

The essense of what I'm trying to point to is that the US has to compete with the nations closest to us (easiest transport of goods) and the largest nations (India and China). We price ourselves out of much production because our wages are so high.

How much does a big mac cost in USD in China?
Why?



Surely I am no expert in this subject and am making too simplistic assumptions.
But I know that lots of jobs have left this country because it's cheaper to do them elsewhere.
When we add on minimum wages laws across the board - say, for that 15 year old greeter at Rocco's Pizza at Ygnacio and Oak Grove - then prices go up everywhere.

Certainly, one can't transport Rocco's or said 15 year old to another part of the world, but all the costs of living added up would influence a plant manager to move his factory elsewhere, dontcha think?

concordtom said:

---

Banking tax havens?

I don't think this is a meaningless table. Throw out the special cases (which you have highlighted) and just consider the overall trend, combined with my post above about minimum wage and how the US would be economically more prosperous if we lowered wages, not increased them.

The essense of what I'm trying to point to is that the US has to compete with the nations closest to us (easiest transport of goods) and the largest nations (India and China). We price ourselves out of much production because our wages are so high.

How much does a big mac cost in USD in China?
Why?

---

The point should be whether the US can provide a livable wage to its citizens not whether the US should instead maximize return on capital by minimizing a living wage to its citizens. Such thinking certainly benefits some but also creates a good deal of turmoil as we have seen. The idea that we should cut wages in a country with no other safety nets- health care, family leave, sick leave- is notionally insane

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

The President's budget has become a joke over the decades. It's essentially gamesmanship. Biden is hoping that signalling a wealth tax will make him more popular with everyone who isn't loaded, even though you have millions of poor and middle class white people who for whatever reason think that taxing rich people is a mistake.

Biden and his team know very well that his budget isn't going to be the starting point and that his wealth tax doesn't have the support. He didn't genuinely believe that he was going to get it through. He wanted to be able to say "I tried to make the wealthiest in our country pay their fair share, but Republicans got in the way again." It probably won't work but what does he have to lose? Fox News was going to skewer him anyway. Congress controls the purse strings and they will have a lot of mouths to feed that can only be done by spending money.


No one power is ever going to want to balance the budget. That's reality. Just like no one runs for student body president on an austerity platform, no US president is ever going to say "I'm taxing you more and giving you less." No democrat, no republican, no one ever. The only way we balance the budget is by accident, like what's happened in California and it won't be for long.

Our deficit will go down, because it has to without the CARES act and other spending bills repeating, but it will still be historically high. The only hope is for interest rates to come back down because we're going to be royally screwed if we have to pay high interest rates on debt that is growing faster than GDP with no end in sight.

---

Couldn't agree more Unit2.....Paragraph 3 is already in play..Terminology was used to show a big budget surplus while we have monstrously more indebtedness long term to pension promises.

Paragraph 4 is the killer. Any politician has to bring to her/his constituency to survive (aka, spend money). Spending goes up in times of low interest rates and everyone loves the side effects of the drug.

Interest rates rise, we can't pay indebted interest without reducing services. Who gets hurt? Yup, the middle class and the poor mostly.

And yes, balancing the budget is gone.

---

Odonto voted for Reagan and Bush II who both exploded the deficit

Powell said March 16th that the FED is watching one-month changes in inflation closely to strip away distortions caused by high inflation in the spring of 2021.

I would agree with this approach.
That having been said, real rates are still negative and the FED is terribly behind the curve.
The futures market is already telling us that there will be multiple 50 basis point increases by the Fed.

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Banking tax havens?

I don't think this is a meaningless table. Throw out the special cases (which you have highlighted) and just consider the overall trend, combined with my post above about minimum wage and how the US would be economically more prosperous if we lowered wages, not increased them.

The essense of what I'm trying to point to is that the US has to compete with the nations closest to us (easiest transport of goods) and the largest nations (India and China). We price ourselves out of much production because our wages are so high.

How much does a big mac cost in USD in China?
Why?

---

The point should be whether the US can provide a livable wage to its citizens not whether the US should instead maximize return on capital by minimizing a living wage to its citizens. Such thinking certainly benefits some but also creates a good deal of turmoil as we have seen. The idea that we should cut wages in a country with no other safety nets- health care, family leave, sick leave- is notionally insane

---

IWell said.
And totally agree re the regulations that pertain to environment and health and safety!

I guess my assumption is that if we overprice things, opportunity will go elsewhere and then NOBODY will have a livable wage.

But perhaps I'm thinking about this wrong. I mean, if you can increase per worker productivity like this, then it would be stupid to compare to the per worker wages elsewhere.

Thank you, DiabloWags, for this video from the other thread. Amazing!

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

The President's budget has become a joke over the decades. It's essentially gamesmanship. Biden is hoping that signalling a wealth tax will make him more popular with everyone who isn't loaded, even though you have millions of poor and middle class white people who for whatever reason think that taxing rich people is a mistake.

Biden and his team know very well that his budget isn't going to be the starting point and that his wealth tax doesn't have the support. He didn't genuinely believe that he was going to get it through. He wanted to be able to say "I tried to make the wealthiest in our country pay their fair share, but Republicans got in the way again." It probably won't work but what does he have to lose? Fox News was going to skewer him anyway. Congress controls the purse strings and they will have a lot of mouths to feed that can only be done by spending money.


No one power is ever going to want to balance the budget. That's reality. Just like no one runs for student body president on an austerity platform, no US president is ever going to say "I'm taxing you more and giving you less." No democrat, no republican, no one ever. The only way we balance the budget is by accident, like what's happened in California and it won't be for long.

Our deficit will go down, because it has to without the CARES act and other spending bills repeating, but it will still be historically high. The only hope is for interest rates to come back down because we're going to be royally screwed if we have to pay high interest rates on debt that is growing faster than GDP with no end in sight.

---

Couldn't agree more Unit2.....Paragraph 3 is already in play..Terminology was used to show a big budget surplus while we have monstrously more indebtedness long term to pension promises.

Paragraph 4 is the killer. Any politician has to bring to her/his constituency to survive (aka, spend money). Spending goes up in times of low interest rates and everyone loves the side effects of the drug.

Interest rates rise, we can't pay indebted interest without reducing services. Who gets hurt? Yup, the middle class and the poor mostly.

And yes, balancing the budget is gone.

---

Odonto voted for Reagan and Bush II who both exploded the deficit

---

Choices? Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Albert Gore, John Kerry......Potential for much, much more damage to the budget.

That's a predictably partisan response. No real thought put in to it, just listing a bunch of Democratic politicians. Cuz, ya know, " Dems are bad!"

AunBear89 said:

---

That's a predictably partisan response. No real thought put in to it, just listing a bunch of Democratic politicians. Cuz, ya know, " Dems are bad!"

---

Of course. The reality is that every Republican President since Reagan has raised deficits and every Democratic President has lowered them.

AunBear89 said:

---

That's a predictably partisan response. No real thought put in to it, just listing a bunch of Democratic politicians. Cuz, ya know, " Dems are bad!"

---

The problem with the Biden Administration Budget that was released early last week (which no one here has mentioned yet), is that it was finalized with assumptions made about GDP and INFLATION from back in NOVEMBER of last year.

Obviously, Administration assumptions of 3.8% GDP in 2022 and 2.5% in 2023 and an inflation rate of 4.7% this year and 2.3% the following year are terribly "rosy" and virtually meaningless given what is occurring now.

For example, Goldman Sachs is currently forecasting the CPI rising an average of 7.2% this year and 3.3% next year.

Goldman's median GDP forecast is for 1.9% growth in 2022 and 2.0% in 2023.

The Federal Reserve GDP forecast is for 2.8% growth in 2022 and 2.2% in 2023.

No matter how you slice it, the assumptions made in the Biden Budget are literally worthless.

dajo9 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

That's a predictably partisan response. No real thought put in to it, just listing a bunch of Democratic politicians. Cuz, ya know, " Dems are bad!"

---

Of course. The reality is that every Republican President since Reagan has raised deficits and every Democratic President has lowered them.

---

It's a repetition of the mythical dichotomy that the right spouts: Tax and Spend Democrats and Fiscally Conservative Republicans. Repeat the lie over and over again, and the brain dead masses believe it.

DiabloWags said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

That's a predictably partisan response. No real thought put in to it, just listing a bunch of Democratic politicians. Cuz, ya know, " Dems are bad!"

---

The problem with the Biden Administration Budget that was released early last week (which no one here has mentioned yet), is that it was finalized with assumptions made about GDP and INFLATION from back in NOVEMBER of last year.

Obviously, Administration assumptions of 2.3% GDP in 2022 and 2.5% in 2023 and an inflation rate of 4.7% this year and 2.3% the following year are terribly "rosy" and virtually meaningless given what is occurring now.

For example, Goldman Sachs is currently forecasting the CPI rising an average of 7.2% this year and 3.3% next year.

Goldman's median GDP forecast is for 1.9% growth in 2022 and 2.0% in 2023.

The Federal Reserve GDP forecast is for 2.8% growth in 2022 and 2.2% in 2023.

No matter how you slice it, the assumptions made in the Biden Budget are literally worthless.

---

The problem with the Biden Administration budget is that it is a meaningless exercise done because the Constitution mentions it and isn't even really worth discussing.

dajo9 said:

---

The problem with the Biden Administration budget is that it is a meaningless exercise done because the Constitution mentions it and isn't even really worth discussing.

---

Economic assumptions being made back in NOVEMBER are what makes it not worth discussing.
Garbage in, Garbage out.

wifeisafurd said:

---

The FED considers inflation in the US basically a nothing burger with a 2% inflation target - that may change.

---

It's no longer a nothing burger.

As I've mentioned on several occasions, the FED is terribly behind the curve when it comes to Inflation.
Real rates are still negative and its most likely the reason why the stock market hasnt completely tanked.

The Fed Funds futures market is pricing in 50 basis point rate hikes in May and June meetings and 25-basis point increases the rest of the year., for a December target of 2.50% - 2.75%

Meanwhile, broader measures of "tightening" that are indexes constructed by Goldman Sachs and the Chicago Fed, which take equity and corporate credit markets into account, dont show significant tightening.

In fact, adjusted for inflation, Goldman's index remains easy and suggests that the Fed should tighten even more than the market expects.

AunBear89 said:

---

That's a predictably partisan response. No real thought put in to it, just listing a bunch of Democratic politicians. Cuz, ya know, " Dems are bad!"

---

Those happened to be the opposition to the people elected for whom I was questioned. Much poorer choices.

I get it. You are a strict party line voter. Only candidates with an R after their name.

concordtom said:

---

Banking tax havens?

I don't think this is a meaningless table. Throw out the special cases (which you have highlighted) and just consider the overall trend, combined with my post above about minimum wage and how the US would be economically more prosperous if we lowered wages, not increased them.

The essense of what I'm trying to point to is that the US has to compete with the nations closest to us (easiest transport of goods) and the largest nations (India and China). We price ourselves out of much production because our wages are so high.

How much does a big mac cost in USD in China?
Why?



Surely I am no expert in this subject and am making too simplistic assumptions.
But I know that lots of jobs have left this country because it's cheaper to do them elsewhere.
When we add on minimum wages laws across the board - say, for that 15 year old greeter at Rocco's Pizza at Ygnacio and Oak Grove - then prices go up everywhere.

Certainly, one can't transport Rocco's or said 15 year old to another part of the world, but all the costs of living added up would influence a plant manager to move his factory elsewhere, dontcha think?

---

That's why factories leave California - too costly….what a lot of people forget there a tons of businesses that never make it. Money is lost. If there are no incentives to make money there is no production. We would have what the Russians had in the seventies and eighties… Lada…not Tesla…

OdontoBear66 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

That's a predictably partisan response. No real thought put in to it, just listing a bunch of Democratic politicians. Cuz, ya know, " Dems are bad!"

---

Those happened to be the opposition to the people elected for whom I was questioned. Much poorer choices.

---

Starred for your first sentence. Unsure of the second, but you gave a good response to an idiotic statement flaming you for something you didnt do.

AunBear89 said:

---

I get it. You are a strict party line voter. Only candidates with an R after their name.

---

Negative star here if I could. The poster you are responding to did not indicate they voted strictly on party lines. Your childish insult is poor, much like your others.

The poster has a history of posts that bear out my assumption. Try to keep up and take notes, Junior. It isn't that hard.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

That's a predictably partisan response. No real thought put in to it, just listing a bunch of Democratic politicians. Cuz, ya know, " Dems are bad!"

---

Those happened to be the opposition to the people elected for whom I was questioned. Much poorer choices.

---

Imagine still thinking George W Bush was a better choice for President than any candidate from either major party who ran for President in the last 40 years who isn't named Trump.

wifeisafurd said:

---

At the same time, U.S. inflation has continued to accelerate particularly for food staples, but also for long term items such as housing and heath insurance costs (so much for blaming everything on temporary C-19 shortages), European inflation has skyrocketed. Germany, with its normal stable economy, has had inflation hitting a 40-year high at its most recent reading of producer price inflation just hit a jaw-dropping 25.9 - this before the Ukraine war started and gas prices climbed.

So let's play the US now is In a global economy game. Another concern is that the highest inflation rate in generations abroad could lead to increased inflation expectations, which could create a vicious cycle of higher expectations creating even higher inflation. The FED considers inflation in the US basically a nothing burger with a 2% inflation target - that may change.

---

Amazing how Brandon is also ruining the German economy with his policies!

Goobear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Banking tax havens?

I don't think this is a meaningless table. Throw out the special cases (which you have highlighted) and just consider the overall trend, combined with my post above about minimum wage and how the US would be economically more prosperous if we lowered wages, not increased them.

The essense of what I'm trying to point to is that the US has to compete with the nations closest to us (easiest transport of goods) and the largest nations (India and China). We price ourselves out of much production because our wages are so high.

How much does a big mac cost in USD in China?
Why?



Surely I am no expert in this subject and am making too simplistic assumptions.
But I know that lots of jobs have left this country because it's cheaper to do them elsewhere.
When we add on minimum wages laws across the board - say, for that 15 year old greeter at Rocco's Pizza at Ygnacio and Oak Grove - then prices go up everywhere.

Certainly, one can't transport Rocco's or said 15 year old to another part of the world, but all the costs of living added up would influence a plant manager to move his factory elsewhere, dontcha think?

---

That's why factories leave California - too costly….what a lot of people forget there a tons of businesses that never make it. Money is lost. If there are no incentives to make money there is no production. We would have what the Russians had in the seventies and eighties… Lada…not Tesla…

---

A lot of businesses leave because other states give huge incentives, eg corporate welfare. See the debacle in Wisconsin with Foxconn for what happens when this sort of welfare goes bad (to be clear, this had nothing to do with California). Texas "wins" a lot of business from California in part by giving corporate tax breaks. Whether it will ultimately benefit its citizens remains to be seen but it can generate a race to the bottom. I believe Texas has decided not to reauthorize one of its big tax credits so we'll see if it has an impact on businesses relocating to Texas. So far, California doesn't seem to be missing out given that we seem to be performing quite well. A lot of people (let's be honest, mostly conservatives) don't want to believe it's true, but it's true.

Quote:

---

By adding 1.3 million people to its non-farm payrolls since April last year equal to the entire workforce of Nevada California easily surpassed also-rans Texas and New York. At the same time, California household income increased $164 billion, almost as much as Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania combined, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. No wonder California's operating budget surplus, fueled by its surging economy and capital gains taxes, swelled to a record $75 billion.

If anything, Covid-19 accelerated California's record productivity. Quarterly revenue per employee of the publicly traded companies based in the state climbed to an all-time high of $1.5 million in May, 63% greater than its similar milestone a decade ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The rest of the U.S. was nothing special, with productivity among those members of the Russell 3000 Index, which is made up of both large and small companies, little changed during the past 10 years.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Goobear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Banking tax havens?

I don't think this is a meaningless table. Throw out the special cases (which you have highlighted) and just consider the overall trend, combined with my post above about minimum wage and how the US would be economically more prosperous if we lowered wages, not increased them.

The essense of what I'm trying to point to is that the US has to compete with the nations closest to us (easiest transport of goods) and the largest nations (India and China). We price ourselves out of much production because our wages are so high.

How much does a big mac cost in USD in China?
Why?



Surely I am no expert in this subject and am making too simplistic assumptions.
But I know that lots of jobs have left this country because it's cheaper to do them elsewhere.
When we add on minimum wages laws across the board - say, for that 15 year old greeter at Rocco's Pizza at Ygnacio and Oak Grove - then prices go up everywhere.

Certainly, one can't transport Rocco's or said 15 year old to another part of the world, but all the costs of living added up would influence a plant manager to move his factory elsewhere, dontcha think?

---

That's why factories leave California - too costly….what a lot of people forget there a tons of businesses that never make it. Money is lost. If there are no incentives to make money there is no production. We would have what the Russians had in the seventies and eighties… Lada…not Tesla…

---

A lot of businesses leave because other states give huge incentives, eg corporate welfare. See the debacle in Wisconsin with Foxconn. Texas "wins" a lot of business from California in part by giving corporate tax breaks. Whether it will ultimately benefit its citizens remains to be seen but it can generate a race to the bottom. I believe Texas has decided not to reauthorize one of its big tax credits so we'll see if it has an impact on businesses relocating to Texas. So far, California doesn't seem to be missing out given that we seem to be performing quite well. A lot of people (let's be honest, mostly conservatives) don't want to believe it's true, but it's true.

Quote:

---

By adding 1.3 million people to its non-farm payrolls since April last year equal to the entire workforce of Nevada California easily surpassed also-rans Texas and New York. At the same time, California household income increased $164 billion, almost as much as Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania combined, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. No wonder California's operating budget surplus, fueled by its surging economy and capital gains taxes, swelled to a record $75 billion.

If anything, Covid-19 accelerated California's record productivity. Quarterly revenue per employee of the publicly traded companies based in the state climbed to an all-time high of $1.5 million in May, 63% greater than its similar milestone a decade ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The rest of the U.S. was nothing special, with productivity among those members of the Russell 3000 Index, which is made up of both large and small companies, little changed during the past 10 years.

---

---

I call the people fleeing California to other states, mostly with huge sums of money earned in California, quitters.

They won't be missed.

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

That's a predictably partisan response. No real thought put in to it, just listing a bunch of Democratic politicians. Cuz, ya know, " Dems are bad!"

---

Those happened to be the opposition to the people elected for whom I was questioned. Much poorer choices.

---

Imagine still thinking George W Bush was a better choice for President than any candidate from either major party who ran for President in the last 40 years who isn't named Trump.

---

Gore or Kerry? Yup. Even in retrospect. Even with the stupid entry into the Iraq War. Yup.