SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Wages and Benefits are Rising at the Fastest Pace in a Decade
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 100 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If condition persists, consult your physician.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:22AM (2 children)
They ALL get a lot of important stuff wrong. If you don't see this, you're paying selective attention.
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)
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
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.