Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 06 2018, @09:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the positive-news dept.

Marketwatch brings good news for the USA: American workers are finally reaping the benefits of the lowest unemployment rate and best jobs market in decades: Wages and benefits are rising at the fastest pace in a decade. Firms have sought to fill openings by offering better benefits such as more vacation time or flexible hours. When push comes to shove, they are offering higher pay. While bigger paychecks are great for workers, the US Federal Reserve is watching closely to see if rising compensation is stoking inflation. The Federal Reserve could increase U.S. interest rates if it becomes a big worry, but so far inflation remains relatively mild.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @07:49PM (12 children)

    If they're not earning their keep, yes. That doesn't mean we should allow them to but it is absolutely what they deserve. That's what deserve means.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Pav on Monday August 06 2018, @09:12PM (11 children)

    by Pav (114) on Monday August 06 2018, @09:12PM (#717984)

    Game theory calls bullshit on that statement, specifically positive-sum negotiation between entities of unequal (economic) power. If that's too conceptually difficult, try the game of Monopoly. The game of Monopoly was originally invented to show how an economy becomes inherently unstable if there are low taxes and no regulations against monopolies. It also shows how "fun" that rollercoaster to hell is for the "winners" (because they're insulated from the negativity until noone else has any money and the economy crashes).

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @10:10PM (10 children)

      You're very limited in your thinking there. I'd love to have you as a business competitor. The negotiation between the entities in question is absolutely unequal but it's the employers who are actually at the disadvantage at the moment. Let me know if you can ever figure out why I believe so.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @10:24PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @10:24PM (#718009)

        Cause you're not paying attention to reality.

        What do I win?

      • (Score: 2) by Pav on Monday August 06 2018, @11:16PM (5 children)

        by Pav (114) on Monday August 06 2018, @11:16PM (#718031)

        Considering median income purchasing power has gone backwards since 1977 that's hardly an achievement.

        Before the Trump tax cuts economists predicted a short term economic boost and a (not much) longer term crash. Without tax redistribution the real economy will inevitably be starved of cash again... and even worse than before. Most human capital will be wasted in poverty, and social mobility will further decline meaning the productive capacity of the USA will continue to be managed inefficiently by those who inherited their wealth ie. a largely talentless group.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:56AM (4 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:56AM (#718182) Homepage Journal

          Try listening to all the economists, not just the ones you agree with.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:55PM (3 children)

            by Pav (114) on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:55PM (#718453)

            The ones that have been getting certain important stuff wrong? In late 2007 I read that Richard Stallman(!) was predicting a big crash. The guy might be a bit crazy, but he's also a genius whos opinions are at least carefully considered so I looked into it, and also developed an interest in economics around this time as a result. Turns out the few dissenting economic opinions had a history of being right on other issues eg. particularly Steve Keen about economic matters in my own country... I THINK Peter Schiff... but I can't remember. Not sure who else, but their reasoning seemed sound, as did their track records, so I went as far as advising my father and a friends father to get out of the stock market and/or to buy gold. "You can't be that pessamistic". They didn't do what I said, but at least were a little more conservative so weren't burnt too badly. Subsequently I saw predictions about China, the mining boom in my country, the effects of certain economic policies etc... and refined and updated which voices to listen to and my own (limited layman) understanding.

            How do you judge which economists to take seriously?

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:22AM (2 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:22AM (#718555) Homepage Journal

              They ALL get a lot of important stuff wrong. If you don't see this, you're paying selective attention.

              How do you judge which economists to take seriously?

              I take them (mostly) all seriously but I judge their assessments based on the merits of their argument and my own analysis of it. It's entirely possible to be quite brilliant and horribly, unbelievably wrong at the same time. If you need an example of that, consider who you're talking to.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:50AM (1 child)

                by Pav (114) on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:50AM (#718615)

                Yes, all economists get it wrong... but it matters how they get it wrong.

                Economic models are just vast oversimplifications with explanatory power, but I particularly like Steve Keens modelling because he actually makes use of chaos and complexity theory to get around the limitations in determinant neoclassical (ie. mainstream) models. Speaking of the neoclassical economists - how can they away with models in which banks or money don't exist, nor non-equillibrium trade, nor non-rational economic actors? Their (determinant) models simply can't deal with these things. If they include them they end up with zeroes and infinities. So what do they do? They just pretend these things don't exist! It's certainly undeniable that neoclassical models have value eg. explanatory power for many economic phenomena, but 2008 simply couldn't have happened according to those models and its not the first time they've failed either eg. the Asian Financial Crisis. Even in retrospect with correct numbers the models fail to predict disaster. That's a problem. Still, the neoclassicists aren't calling for painful readjustments or shouting that the sky could fall at any second, so they remain popular... and that's unfortunate.

                Steve Keen has also famously failed. He failed to predict that the Australian housing bubble would continue for as long as it has, therefore losing a public bet, and had to walk from Canberra to Mt Kosciusko! (The realestate industry has continued to remind people of this fact for their own reasons). BUT, for those that actually paid attention, it wasn't a failure of Keens models. It was his failure to predict a variable ie. the influx of cash from China which resulted in the realestate market remaining inflated. In retrospect, with the right numbers Keens models hold up. Neoclassical models, even in retrospect with correct starting conditions, have failed to predict this certain type of financial disaster.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:04AM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:04AM (#718620) Homepage Journal

                  What I find really interesting about the whole subject is how some people can just play it by ear and be right significantly more often than not. It's not independently reproducible but after a certain percentage of reliability you can't discount it either. Funny thing, the human brain. It can catch a baseball without remotely stressing itself but then it goes and chooses to watch reality television.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.