Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Speaking of pounds...
We've got pounds of silver... He's got pounds of paper...
Time will show who wins
Minimum Wage Would Be $21.72 If It Kept Pace With Increases In Productivity
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
We've got pounds of silver... He's got pounds of paper...
Time will show who wins
Obviously you hadn't edited it when I posted that, so why are you attacking me for doing it...?
Your article is an opinion piece by a hedge fund manager.
Do you not realize this is a list of the largest employers that happens to be by a magazine called The Economist? Does it not seem strange to you that the Department of Defense, with only a million soldiers, would have 3.2 million economists?
You think it's cute to refer to me as a girl? I don't understand, is it supposed to be insulting?
I never told people to buy stocks or to invest in CDs. We've already been over that bullshit, so you know you're lying. I said I wasn't buying ANYTHING right now with the market at record highs, and I said CDs had beat inflation HISTORICALLY. But when you have a penchant for taking me out of context, misstating what I said, and outright lying about it, what else would we expect?
Because you felt the need to attack me when you looked foolish for ignoring the first lines of text in a post you had already responded to, and then telling me to "go cry" when I would purportedly realize I never made such a request? Yeah, I think that's far more likely.
I would expect a hedge fund manager to say things that benefit the positions of his hedge fund. Indeed, this is what hedge fund managers are typically doing when they express their "opinions." This opinion piece talks about trillions of dollars in damages, hundreds of billions in fines, and the possible collapse of a bank. You think this guy might be short bank stocks?
I wouldn't know, I've never eaten a Big Mac.
I haven't been proven wrong. I gave you all the uses of headline CPI by the government and you haven't given us a single use of core CPI. And I didn't call the source into question either--all I did was point out that you hadn't even bothered to accurately evaluate your source. I'm sure The Economist has a very reliable list of the largest employers.
You told us core CPI excluded housing, so what the fuck do you know? Housing is the biggest component of core CPI!
When did I make an assertion about who the largest employer of economists was? I never did.
Not that I think it matters. The government doesn't use core CPI for anything. The fact that economists want to have academic debates about it doesn't mean that social security or food stamp payments are adjusted with it.
I only stepped in to clarify that headline CPI--used for everything the government uses CPI for--includes everything. I'm not defending claims by anyone else about what the index means, because I don't agree with them.
TARP is secret and we have no idea where the money went?
Comex gold futures contracts are settled in cash and not by physical delivery?
Core CPI excludes housing?
I think we know who is consistently proven wrong, and it's not me.
Most economists don't study inflation, so I think you're running into a logical fallacy there.
Regardless, give us a single example of the government using core CPI. Just one, that's all I want. Thanks.
I'm not evading. I just told you the Big Mac index is about purchasing power parity and not inflation. I completely agree with that.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter. You can find the report on TALF right here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf. It shows exactly where every dime of the money went.
Maybe you should read your own links so you don't look like a moron so often, because I was immediately struck by this first line: "This chapter is limited in application to Silver futures." Your link could not possibly make your point.
I've already posted the CME's rules on gold settlement and no one had anything to say about them.
The idea of core CPI originated in an academic paper in the 1970s that called for excluding food and energy prices from inflation calculations. As far as I'm aware, housing was not up for exclusion and never was excluded. If you can prove otherwise, by all means, I will happily concede it to you.
The idea that housing was only included because of the housing crisis is yet another inflation myth. Housing has always been in headline and core CPI and has always been the largest component of both. Period.
Why are we taking my word for it? Let's hear it straight from the horse:
"Has the BLS removed food or energy prices in its official measure of inflation?
No. The BLS publishes thousands of CPI indexes each month, including the headline All Items CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the CPI-U for All Items Less Food and Energy. The latter series, widely referred to as the "core" CPI, is closely watched by many economic analysts and policymakers under the belief that food and energy prices are volatile and are subject to price shocks that cannot be damped through monetary policy. However, all consumer goods and services, including food and energy, are represented in the headline CPI. Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social security and federal retirement benefits are updated each year for inflation by the All Items CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Individual income tax parameters and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) returns are based on the All Items CPI-U."
Indeed, here's what you're probably actually thinking of in saying that core CPI excluded housing:
"The CPI used to include the value of a house in calculating inflation and now they use an estimate of what each house would rent for -- doesn't this switch simply lower the official inflation rate?
No. Until 1983, the CPI measure of homeowner cost was based largely on house prices. The long-recognized flaw of that approach was that owner-occupied housing combines both consumption and investment elements, and the CPI is designed to exclude investment items. The approach now used in the CPI, called rental equivalence, measures the value of shelter to owner-occupants as the amount they forgo by not renting out their homes.
The rental equivalence approach is grounded in economic theory, receives broad support from academic economists and each of the prominent panels, and agencies that have reviewed the CPI, and is the most commonly used method by countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Critics often assume that the BLS adopted rental equivalence in order to lower the measured rate of inflation. It is certainly true that an index based on home prices would be more volatile, and might move differently from other CPI indexes over any given time period. However, when it was first introduced, rental equivalence actually increased the rate of change of the CPI shelter index, and in the long run there is no evidence that the CPI method yields lower inflation rates than some other alternatives. For example, according to the National Association of Realtors, between 1983 and 2007 the monthly principal and interest payment required to purchase a median-priced existing home in the United States rose by 79 percent, much less than the rental equivalence increase of 140 percent over that same period."
There are articles about what core CPI is. Neither describes the government using core CPI to do anything, like setting cost of living adjustments, tax brackets, or food stamp rates.
Try giving me what I asked for instead of something that doesn't make your point.
I've actually worked with a lot of economists, have you? Evidently you have absolutely no idea what they do...
WillyBagseed
Active Member
Why do average wages follow productivity up all the way into the early 80's and then go flat and in some cases down?
One of your answers is.....
Compare upper management compensation to the same productivity increase. It goes up the same as an average workers into the early 80's and then , instead of going flat it starts to spike.
Profit that was once used to pay employees a little better is being taken by owners , upper management and CEO's instead of the employees.
Why people can't do simple math is beyond me , the money is there. It is just where it is going that is all fucked up... another small issue that started in the 1980's and bobblehead , dementia Reagan.
*I hope nobody is talking about chicago school idiots , why does everybody hate on everything chicago including the President and turn around and try to say the chicago school rocks..... lol
*inside joke (sorta ) to a friend here.
One of your answers is.....
Compare upper management compensation to the same productivity increase. It goes up the same as an average workers into the early 80's and then , instead of going flat it starts to spike.
Profit that was once used to pay employees a little better is being taken by owners , upper management and CEO's instead of the employees.
Why people can't do simple math is beyond me , the money is there. It is just where it is going that is all fucked up... another small issue that started in the 1980's and bobblehead , dementia Reagan.
*I hope nobody is talking about chicago school idiots , why does everybody hate on everything chicago including the President and turn around and try to say the chicago school rocks..... lol
*inside joke (sorta ) to a friend here.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Are they the same guys that smoke pipes and wear leather patches on their sport coats? Oh wait, THOSE are academics. Sorry, I get my self inflated know it all dipshits confused sometimes.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If there weren't so much regulation, people that don't like the wage structure of working for others could chose to start their own business. Protectionism creates captive markets and allows for theses things you rail against to exist. A free market allows competition. A regulated market protects cronies.
Reagan was a dipshit, but he nor any other President has any business intervening in free commerce. It's not a left / right thing. It's a logic / illogic thing.
Nice assumption. Unfortunately for you, I'm not talking about academics but professional economists.
(For the record, I tend to despise academics.)
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Ahh, you clean their toilets is it?