U.S. economy adds 263,000 jobs, unemployment rate falls to 3.6%

Answer: Cut spending.

 

Even just restrain the rateof growth as we did it the mid to late 1990's.

 

Wages and salaries rising especially for the middle and lower income groups with little inflation. What's your gripe?

 

According to the Social Security Administration, 50% of Americans make $30,000 a year or less. In addition, Only 39% of Americans have enough savings to cover a $1000 emergency.

 

And we are seeing wage growth we haven't seen in years and the middle and lower income groups growing faster than those at the top.

Growth and the Working Class
Wages are growing faster for the less skilled than for supervisors.

It’s a good time not to be “privileged,” to borrow the political vernacular of our progressive friends. Friday’s labor report showed employers added 263,000 jobs in April as the unemployment rate dropped to 3.6%, the lowest in five decades. The best news is that the biggest beneficiaries of this tight labor market are the folks who struggled during the slow-growth Obama years.....

...Meanwhile, in April the month-over-month hourly average wage gain for production workers was 0.3% versus 0.2% for all workers including supervisors. The 12-month gain was 3.4% for production workers compared to 3.2% for all workers. Production worker wages have increased by 7.5% in mining, 4.4% in leisure and hospitality and 4.3% in retail over the last year compared to 2.3% for employees in finance. Roustabouts are getting fatter raises than bankers.

Believe it or not—and liberals won’t want to admit it—the evidence is that the faster economic growth of the last two years is reducing income inequality. We await Joe Biden’s explanation for that one on the campaign trail.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/growth-and-the-working-class-11556920504

 

You are forgetting a few factors - first of all, higher labor demand creates a strong pressure on wages, so shrinking labor numbers are beneficial to employees. Meaning their pay is higher. I personally see it myself, as my wage went up > 30% last year. But if you want a raise you should stick with same old employer - labor market is great now, I bet you can find something better and closer home + higher pay.
Another factor - let’s say higher wages don’t cover the losses of all retirees. That means that the money that would have been spent on those employees and benefits went into employers profits - from which corps pay income tax and then recipients of the dividend will pay tax as well (double taxation). The leftover cash is used for reinvestment - building or buying new affiliate locations, improving employee benefits (employee retention is a major problem these days), improving lunchrooms and providing perks.

 

Maybe so, but what's really great about Trump's incredible ability to create jobs democrats said were never coming back is that it makes the radicals and socialists who call themselves democrats cry. Say good bye to 2020. Dems have nothing and with this economy, even less.

 

Incredible ability? Laughable. I'd agree though about 2020. Incumbents always win reelection if the economy is doing well no matter if they had anything to do with it or not.

 

Minimum wage was just raised to $8.46 per hour. A WSJ Op Ed is not going to advocate for the interests of workers.

 

Well, let's assume we had an EXTRA 304,000 employed, thus, an opposite trend, and considering the fact retirees do not pay FICA taxes, and near 70% of OASI recipients do not pay federal taxes;

Total employed FEB 2019; 156,949,000
Total employed APR 2019; 156,645,000
DOWN 304,000

Total employed FEB 2019; 156,949,000
Total employed APR 2019; 157,253,000
UP 304,000

THE MATH using (MEDIAN WAGE; $35,000)

FICA withholding; 304,000 X $35,000 X 15.2% = $1.6 billion
Income taxes withholding, $23,000 taxable income X10% = $2,300
304,000 X $2,300 = $700 million

Total withholding; $2.3 billion



Thus, what's better? More or less employed? duh!

 

All VERY true. Even the lowest wage earners have seen and average wage increase of 6% across all sectors while inflation and interest rates remain at historic lows. Workers who aren't "feeling" it, as Crazy Uncle Joe tries to tell them, is completely out of touch with reality.

 

Again, you are ignoring corporate income taxes, as well as taxes on dividends. The loss in personal tax income will be offset by increase in corporate tax revenue.

 

Perhaps, but MORE EMPLOYED is economically/fiscally better than LESS EMPLOYED, considering the fact retirees do not pay FICA taxes, and a majority do not pay Federal/State income taxes.

Agree or disagree?

 

Hmmm? Bookkeeping could be your thing. It's one of those job categories that is being replaced by automation but what the hay, give it a try. You might not see conditions like these for another 50 years.

 

Depends on how you look at it.
Less employed means higher wages. More employed - lower wages. Unions produce the same effect but artificially.
From nationwide perspective it doesn’t matter - you either have a whole bunch of people spending, or you have corporations increase their spending due to investment of excess cash. Whether 100 joes go to Walmart and buy a TV or a corporation buys another vehicle - it’s the same thing for the economy.

 

These days it’s stupid to have a bookkeeper do payroll manually - ADP costs about $50 per payroll run which will cover any small to medium size company and will prevent costly errors.

 

Indeed, but can they fudge numbers as good as he can?

 

If you are concerned about majority not paying income taxes at all then you should be siding with less employed, as that means labor savings for employers will turn into profits.

Look, the economy is like an enclosed bubble that has partially separates spaces. Money don’t just disappear. If an employer spends less then the employer pays more in income taxes and if the employer is a corporation then the shareholders will pay taxes on dividends, which corporation should almost always pay. The stock value is pretty much a present value of perpetual future dividend payments. That’s why corporate earnings influence daily/hourly stock valuations of publicly traded corporations. If employer spends more in labor then employer pays the part of their taxes + employees pay taxes.
If you look at it from global perspective - it’s a zero sum game. Government will have the money regardless of which stage these money comes from - whether employees paychecks or employer income tax. And the type of tax doesn’t matter either - FICA/Income - same ****, different name and government easily shifts funds around internally.

 

As someone who was a bookkeeper, Controller and director of finance, I can assure you that owners always want accurate data to make decisions about their companies.
In larger companies, as my new employer, where owners don’t run the company and have a CEO things become a bit different as CEO sometimes insists on treating certain transactions in a manner he preferred, not you. But usually owners (the board) know top accounting staff personally, which creates a situation where top accountants can reach directly to the board if they see serious violations.

Usually you see problems in two cases - top accounting staff have inadequate skills and experience, causing unintended errors that violate laws, or accountants are stealing themselves.

The first case is the aftermath of what I’m dealing with right now at my new employer.

 

Less employed mainly due to retiring boomers and restrictive immigration policies = higher wages......let's make it UNIVERSAL.

However, will a 2%, 3%, 4%, or 5% wage increase offset the fiscal demands of our boomers?

 

Corporate tax rate is 21%. That’s higher than FICA.
At first you made the impression of being good at math. What happened?

 

Total employed APR 2019; 156,645,000
Total employed APR 2018: 155,216,000
Total employed APR 2017: 153,150,000

What's better?

 

The lower income groups income are the fastest rising and we have full employment, all of which the ESJ advocates. What is your disagreement?

 

Answer my question;

Will a 2%, 3%, 4%, or 5% wage increase offset the fiscal demands of our boomers?

 

Probably no, but government revenue does not come from just personal income taxes and FICA.