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

So the same economic trend which started in 2010 has continued to 2019. So........thanks Obama for starting it, and thanks trump for not yet ****ing it up.

 

Agree, however, corporate income tax receipts are DOWN $100 billion, and it's the main reason why we nearly have a ZERO revenue growth rate.

 

Agree, however, corporate income tax receipts are DOWN $100 BILLION, and it is the main reason why we nearly have a ZERO revenue growth rate.

Thus, your offsetting factors are THEORITICAL.

 

how about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to increase market participation?

 

Today, more tax payers/contributors is better.

 

"Wages in the United States increased 4.19 percent in March of 2019 over the same month in the previous year. Wage Growth in the United States averaged 6.20 percent from 1960 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 13.78 percent in January of 1979 and a record low of -5.88 percent in March of 2009."

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth

Again, most economic indicators are below historical averages, however, due to different factors and conditions, we may have to settle for less, in other words, forget the 90's.

Example; "When Clinton's GOP Congress lowered taxes, we had double digit revenues"

PLEEEEEEASE

 

PLEEEEEEASE what? We did hit a double digit revenue increase, Clinton's tax rate increase acutally slowed revenue growth, and the Republicans balanced the budget.

 

How about a thirty dollar or a fifty dollar? You really think we grow the economy by raising the minimum wage? Folly.

 

Quote: "We did it a double digit revenue increase"

Of course we did! However, past performance is not indicative of future results, and due to different factors and conditions, we may not see double digit revenues for a very long time, thus, forget the 90's as we may have to settle for less.

 

Past performance and policies can certainly point to future policies. Did the huge demand side policies of the Democrats work? No. Are the policies of the Rpeublicans working as they did in the 1990's and early-mid 2000's yes.
Why would we want to go back to those Democrat policies?

 

3.2% wage growth is ok but not great. The problem is that it is often not high enough above inflation to deliver string wage growth. Great wage growth is more like 4%. While the jobs situation is definitely improving like it did under Obama, the percent of the population employed is still well below pre-recession levels. I think the problem here is that there is this huge skills gap and a lot of people have these skills that aren't very marketable and Trump hasn't even mentioned this problem. Another problem is that the estimated deficit for FY 2020 we are in is 1.1 trillion. This is working like an artificial debt-fuelled economic stimulus but is absolutely unsustainable and is going to have serious consequences for us in the future.

 

It's very good and very solid and inflation is almost non-existent. And yes as I have repeatedly stated we need to work on the LFPR and the first step is to go back to pre-Obama welfare work requirements and time limits.

 

yes, we can; and, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

Heck let's make $100/hr and just think how great will be the economy.

 

I just landed a good job. So there is that.

 

great, then we can afford a green new deal.

 

Inflation is almost 2% not almost non-existent. And these good numbers are probably being helped by this 1.1 trillion deficit which is acting like a huge economic stimulus that can't be sustained.

I don't think welfare is the biggest reason people aren't entering the workforce. We can reform welfare, but that will only be a part of the solution. I think its the fact that the majority of the population has these skills that aren't well paying and aren't marketable, and we have a massive shortage of skilled jobs. This means that wages and jobs aren't good for the majority of the population and many just don't want to be in the workforce.

 

Irrelevant partisan bickering. The fact is; Clinton's tax hikes (Fuel/Top 5%) and his marginal tax rates were kept on the books until Bush became POTUS. Also, back then, FICA excess contributions were historically high, and today, they've vanished. In other words, Clinton's GOP Congress were awash with extra revenues, in today's dollar; over $360 billion, PLUS their budget restraints balanced the budget, and generated surpluses.

In addition, do you really believe Trump's OMB would revise their estimated deficits downward, thus, starting today, lower the deficit on an annual basis VERSUS lowering the deficit effective 2025? NOT A CHANCE.

 

We have no inflationary worries and wages beating inflation by more than a point is solid wage growth. It's a problem with our LFPR. Skill building is available both from the government and private companies but the person has to have the motivation to go and take advantage of the. Companies are BEGGING for people for trainable jobs which pay good wages and provide good benefits. If they are able bodied and don't want to be in the workplace fine with me but no government benefits.

 

Clinton's capital gains wasn't and we saw a huge increase in those revenues and of course that effects the economy in a good way as far as employment and wages and salaries. The fact remains Clinton's tax rate increase slowed a strong revenue uptick and it got back on track after the Republicans tax rate cut. And then under Bush income tax rates were cut along with another cut in the capgains rate and revenues EXPLODED to a 15% increase by 2015 and they brought the deficit down to a paltry $161B.

I believe the OMB is a non-partisan division.

 

Quote: I believe the OMB is a non-partisan division

Really?

What about OMB's Director Mick Mulvaney, is he non-partisan/impartial?

 

Quote: The fact remains Clinton's tax rate increase slowed a strong revenue uptick

The fact remains; Clinton's tax hikes stayed on the books until Bush became POTUS, thus, the GOP Congress were awash with extra revenues before and after they've lowered capital gains tax rates.

The fact remains Clinton's lowest revenue growth rate was 4%, and today, we nearly have a ZERO revenue growth rate, thus, why do you keep whining about the past when you should be conversing about today's dismal revenue growth rates?

 

Staffed by career officals. But are you going to go on record saying the OMB is not a source of unbias'd accurate information? We can just discount the history of our budgets and taxes as false data?

 

Not the capital gains and the fact remains his rate hike slowed and strong uptick in revenue growth where it hit 9% and them slowed to 7%. The Republicans kicked that back in gear and hit double digits. Then when the economy slowed and we went into a recession they cut income tax rates and capital gains rates again and helped get us into a full recovery and we hit a 15% revenue increase in 2005. At the Republican 15% rate we collect double the revenus as Clintons 15% rate. With that and the Republican budgets and welfare reform the Republicans balanced the budget and produced the surpluses.

Yes Clinton came into office of a STRONG recovery and revenue growth, growth which he slowed with his policies. We just had a one year accelerated depreciation and repatriation which effected corporate tax revenues, a fully expected reductions with that accelerated depreciation.

It is SPENDING we need to address and at least Trump has started that. Convince me there is a candidate on the Democrats side that will cut or even slow the rate of spending increase.

 

I'm sure there is a software developer out there that would be more than willing to give you a bump over your existing employer. Granted, it also depends what market you reside in. Not sure if your in Des Moines, IA (as an example) that there is a huge software developer market there.. but who knows.