41–50 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you should be looking at is total compensation. Wages plus non-wage benefits. It’s been growing over the last few decades and out pacing inflation. The down side is a lot of that is medical insurance where most people don’t see a benefit from the higher expenditure.
Given that so much of it is medical insurance, why is that what you should be looking at?
Thoughts? https://www.businessinsider.com/wages-growth-is-weak-due-to-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you should be looking at is total compensation. Wages plus non-wage benefits. It’s been growing over the last few decades and out pacing inflation. The down side is a lot of that is medical insurance where most people don’t see a benefit from the higher expenditure.
Given that so much of it is medical insurance, why is that what you should be looking at?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve been trying to learn a little about economics. Do you have any favorite economists, etc that you follow? I’m trying to learn more about the interaction of QE, rising fed rates, growing deficits, etc. Basically, I’d like to move beyond the headlines and the spin. [Update] Here are some people I try to follow: Jan Hatzius - Goldman Economist Robert Schiller Stephen Roach - Yale Economist https://www.project-syndic…
Great question, thanks for asking! I like Nikolai Kondratiev, Pettis, Alfred Marshall, Carmen Reinhart, and Bill Gates (read his recent stuff on software economics) I don't like Krugman and Greenspan.
I tend to ignore Krugman when he's talking politics (eg. his prediction of a Trump recession). However, when he goes through the process of laying out the assumptions of an economic model (happens in many of his blog posts labeled 'wonkish'), his discussion of economic consequences of various policies seems to map very well with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wage data is well-tracked and is shown to be growing more slowly than inflation. It's possible the high growth in nominal wages are engendering some good feelings, but actual purchasing power is dropping. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/business/2018/07/12/i...
While it's true that wage growth has been slower during since 2009 than in previous business cycles, it's false that real wages have actually gone down (it's up about 1-4% since the end of the last recession depending on how you measure[1]). Additionally, benefits have grown quite a bit over the long term, which makes looking at just wages misleading. If you look at total compensation, we've seen a 60% increase since…
I had read an article claiming that the major source of government transfers were due to a much larger percentage of people being on Social Security disability. The causes are a mix of improvement in the enrollment process and a loss of jobs in regions that experience lower migration. I could be misremembering aspects of this so I won't be shocked if someone disputes this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, he did. It's amazing how inheriting a thriving economy, and then lowering taxes, while increasing government spending, can result in a strong economy. Unfortunately the national debt is going up and up, too.
US economy is strong enough that it rebounds after a crash like in 2008. The recovery under Obama was the worst in a long time [1] Stock markets ( which are a rough proxy for investor confidence ) went up on the eve of election results [2], so it is an awfully specific time for the "inherited economy" to improve [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/01/obama-... [2] https://www.businessinsider.in/Her…
In reality, the chief executive has a small possible impact on the economy in the positive direction, and an unbounded opportunity for plunging its economy. Claiming Obama is responsible for the recovery is disingenuous (beyond some good Federal Reserve and Treasury appointments).
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/188185/percent-chance-fr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My theory is that people are moving up to better jobs, after years of job training, education, and depressed demands, after 2008. Which would explain the low unemployment rate. Thus even though the wages for some industries are stagnating/declining, people are moving to better job positions, and thus have more money to spend.
Probably has nothing to do with all the credit consumers and businesses are running up: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/consumer-debt-is-set-to-reac... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/beware-the-m...
Unlike the fake boom of 2004-2008, this one isn't built on a large expansion of household debt. Businesses have levered up some, however business profits are at an all-time high and debt accumulation began to decline in the most recent quarter (the tax changes + Fed rate policies should continue to push toward a decline; companies like Microsoft, Apple and others took on immense debt temporarily to use it to pay out profits to shareholders via debt rather than repatriate their cash at a high tax rate).
In fact, the single most interesting thing about this economic expansion, is that we haven't seen a big increase in household debt accumulation vs income, compared to the prior three major expansions (late 1980s, mid to late 1990s, and mid 2000s). That either implies consumers are skittish about unnecessarily taking on debt (trauma from the great recession, very plausible), or there's another very big leg left in this expansion (which would be fueled by debt).
"With personal disposable incomes at a $15.46 trillion annual rate in the quarter, the debt-to-income ratio dipped to 86%. That’s the lowest, by an admittedly small amount, since the fourth quarter of 2002. At the height of the credit bubble in 2008, debts topped at 116% of disposable income."
Household debt service payments as a share of disposable income is extremely low, near the lows of the last 40 years:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TDSP
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/households-in-best-positio...
The challenge of the next 10 years will be housing. We are not building nearly enough. A fraction of what we need even to slow price growth. We still have these quaint subdivisions built in the 60s and 70s full of nimbyism and voting down all development. We need a big move here.
No amount will ever be enough if we all try to cram into the most fancy spot. Americans don't have many kids now. There are lots of empty towns all across the country. We thus have plenty of housing. We could stop building today and be fine for decades.
But the empty towns also don't have jobs. It's not fine even now.
I haven't seen US economy this versatile and powerful in a long time, maybe since the 80s. This economy is diversified - manufacturing jobs used to be 32% in the 60s, now it is around 9% currently, but it is growing fast this year. We now have new jobs in every sectors growing, from finance (NY), college (Boston), healthcare (east coast), government (Washington DC), entertainment (Los Angeles), oil and gas (Texas), i…
I’ve been trying to learn a little about economics. Do you have any favorite economists, etc that you follow? I’m trying to learn more about the interaction of QE, rising fed rates, growing deficits, etc. Basically, I’d like to move beyond the headlines and the spin. [Update] Here are some people I try to follow: Jan Hatzius - Goldman Economist Robert Schiller Stephen Roach - Yale Economist https://www.project-syndic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No amount will ever be enough if we all try to cram into the most fancy spot. Americans don't have many kids now. There are lots of empty towns all across the country. We thus have plenty of housing. We could stop building today and be fine for decades.
>Americans don't have many kids now. There are lots of empty towns all across the country. We thus have plenty of housing. We could stop building today and be fine for decades. But the empty towns also don't have jobs. It's not fine even now.
It should be even easier now, given that a little remote office can be easily connected to the rest of the world.