Jobless claims lowest since December 1969

[Bormio]

At 203,000.

December 1969 - the month Texas beat Arkansas 15-14 to win the national title.  In other words, a very long time ago.

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

When are wages going to start rising?

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

When are wages going to start rising?

They have 

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

1 minute ago, HSFBfan said:

They have 

With inflation? Show me.

They haven't gone up with inflation since the 80s.

[HSFBfan]

2 minutes ago, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

With inflation? Show me.

They haven't gone up with inflation since the 80s.

Oh your talking with inflation than yea your right but they have gone up

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/economy/pay-is-rising-for-these-lower-wage-jobs.amp

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

Just now, HSFBfan said:

Oh your talking with inflation than yea your right but they have gone up

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/economy/pay-is-rising-for-these-lower-wage-jobs.amp

Rising does little if it doesn't AT MINIMUM keep up with inflation.

Jobs are great, but if wages don't climb and costs continue to soar, nothing really changes.

[Bormio]

8 minutes ago, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

When are wages going to start rising?

Well before Folsom beats DLS

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

Just now, Bormio said:

Well before Folsom beats DLS

The devil must be never mentioned. They are as awful as those never increasing wages.

When will wages rise with inflation? Its been what 30 years? With all this winning, we could expect it soon right?

[HSFBfan]

2 minutes ago, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

Rising does little if it doesn't AT MINIMUM keep up with inflation.

Jobs are great, but if wages don't climb and costs continue to soar, nothing really changes.

I agree with you completely. Me and my parents were having this conversation last night. I dont believe its gonna happen though under any administration or whatever. Businesses want their profits. The more things that are gonna hurt their bottom line the more they are gonna cut. That just my belief.

[HSFBfan]

Do u know what the true minimum wage would be to keep up with inflation? I dont but If I had to guess it would have to be close to 20 an hour

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

Just now, HSFBfan said:

I agree with you completely. Me and my parents were having this conversation last night. I dont believe its gonna happen though under any administration or whatever. Businesses want their profits. The more things that are gonna hurt their bottom line the more they are gonna cut. That just my belief.

Ya, but wasn't the massive tax cuts to big corporations supposed to trigger some trickle down wages? That was what was promised.

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

Just now, HSFBfan said:

Do u know what the true minimum wage would be to keep up with inflation? I dont but If I had to guess it would have to be close to 20 an hour

The AVERAGE American workers makes over $20 per hour right now.

[HSFBfan]

3 minutes ago, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

Ya, but wasn't the massive tax cuts to big corporations supposed to trigger some trickle down wages? That was what was promised.

And they are paying more but not enough to ever keep up with real estate taxes and the like. Colleges have actually started cutting costs because they know they are unaffordable at this time. Idk what you are looking for but the people like the baby boomer generation than used real estate as a profit making tool hurt the next generation

[HSFBfan]

4 minutes ago, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

The AVERAGE American workers makes over $20 per hour right now.

The average income in America is 35k a year so what you said is false. Look at the 50 percent. You need to make 29999 to be in the 50 percent of earners 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wallethacks.com/average-median-income-in-america/amp/

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

A good article written today below.

"If workers are making more money in this economy, you have to squint to see it.

Widely followed measures of wage growth, such as median real weekly earnings, have been basically flat over the past year. That's puzzled economists, who figure that workers should get paid more as the unemployment rate sinks to historic lows, and prompted many theories about what could be depressing paychecks.

But the White House's Council of Economic Advisers argued in a report Wednesday that there's no puzzle — traditional metrics just aren't fully reflecting how much Americans are being compensated by their employers.

The report finds that wages have actually grown by 1.4% over the past year, by incorporating data on benefits, taxes, a different measure of inflation, and how earnings differ across age brackets. For the average American family, that comes out to roughly an additional $1,000 per year.

Much of the White House's analysis is built on other scholarly work, and has been noted in other economic commentary.

For example, the council's report emphasizes the importance of factoring in the departure of older people from the labor force, which drags down the average since people tend to retire when they're earning near their peak salaries.

Would you rather have more perks, like time off and better healthcare, or a pay raise? Tell us about it.

The Federal Reserve Board of Atlanta's wage growth tracker adjusts for age as well. Although it shows higher average wage growth than the Bureau of Labor Statistics' typical measures, that rate of growth has still been on a downward trend since October 2016.

The council also notes a decade-long trend toward non-wage forms of payment — such as paid leave, health care, retirement contributions and other benefits — that is reflected in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employer Costs for Employee Compensation metric, which is released monthly.

It's not as clear whether gaining more in benefits at the expense of a fatter paycheck represents a win for workers. Hassett said that employees value benefits "just as much as cash," but surveys by groups such as the Society for Human Resource Management have only found that most workers value their benefits, without asking whether they would trade them for more pay.

Another adjustment: The Council of Economic Advisers uses after-tax compensation, rather than pre-tax, to reflect what workers actually get to take home. Jason Furman, who served as the council's chair under President Obama, took issue with that idea on Twitter. "Wages are meant to be a measure of labor market outcomes not an overall indicator of well-being," he wrote.

Finally, the report proposes changing the measure of inflation used to figure out how much purchasing power workers have as prices increase.

Despite all of these adjustments, going from flat wage growth to 1.4% over the past year isn't a huge difference — especially in contrast to how well employers are doing. Last week, the Commerce Department reported that after-tax corporate profits increased by 16.1% in the second quarter of 2018 over the quarter a year ago, due in large part to the large reduction in the corporate tax rate that went into effect this year.

Hassett said he expects wage growth to pick up in the second half of the year as corporations start using all the equipment they've bought with their extra cash, which he says should make workers more productive and thus justify higher pay.

Many economists, however, say there are more direct ways to funnel more money to workers than giving it to their employers through lower taxes.

"We changed the incentives on the margin, but also gave a big gift to company owners that didn't require any change in behavior," says Aaron Sojourner, a labor economist at the University of Minnesota. "And maybe it'll pay off for workers down the road. But in the past, similar policy changes have had less than promised results."

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

1 minute ago, HSFBfan said:

The average income in America is 35k a year so what you said is false. Look at the 50 percent. You need to make 29999 to be in the 50 percent of earners 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wallethacks.com/average-median-income-in-america/amp/

Bureau of Labor Statistics

[HSFBfan]

Just now, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

A good article written today below.

"If workers are making more money in this economy, you have to squint to see it.

Widely followed measures of wage growth, such as median real weekly earnings, have been basically flat over the past year. That's puzzled economists, who figure that workers should get paid more as the unemployment rate sinks to historic lows, and prompted many theories about what could be depressing paychecks.

But the White House's Council of Economic Advisers argued in a report Wednesday that there's no puzzle — traditional metrics just aren't fully reflecting how much Americans are being compensated by their employers.

The report finds that wages have actually grown by 1.4% over the past year, by incorporating data on benefits, taxes, a different measure of inflation, and how earnings differ across age brackets. For the average American family, that comes out to roughly an additional $1,000 per year.

Much of the White House's analysis is built on other scholarly work, and has been noted in other economic commentary.

For example, the council's report emphasizes the importance of factoring in the departure of older people from the labor force, which drags down the average since people tend to retire when they're earning near their peak salaries.

Would you rather have more perks, like time off and better healthcare, or a pay raise? Tell us about it.

The Federal Reserve Board of Atlanta's wage growth tracker adjusts for age as well. Although it shows higher average wage growth than the Bureau of Labor Statistics' typical measures, that rate of growth has still been on a downward trend since October 2016.

The council also notes a decade-long trend toward non-wage forms of payment — such as paid leave, health care, retirement contributions and other benefits — that is reflected in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employer Costs for Employee Compensation metric, which is released monthly.

It's not as clear whether gaining more in benefits at the expense of a fatter paycheck represents a win for workers. Hassett said that employees value benefits "just as much as cash," but surveys by groups such as the Society for Human Resource Management have only found that most workers value their benefits, without asking whether they would trade them for more pay.

Another adjustment: The Council of Economic Advisers uses after-tax compensation, rather than pre-tax, to reflect what workers actually get to take home. Jason Furman, who served as the council's chair under President Obama, took issue with that idea on Twitter. "Wages are meant to be a measure of labor market outcomes not an overall indicator of well-being," he wrote.

Finally, the report proposes changing the measure of inflation used to figure out how much purchasing power workers have as prices increase.

Despite all of these adjustments, going from flat wage growth to 1.4% over the past year isn't a huge difference — especially in contrast to how well employers are doing. Last week, the Commerce Department reported that after-tax corporate profits increased by 16.1% in the second quarter of 2018 over the quarter a year ago, due in large part to the large reduction in the corporate tax rate that went into effect this year.

Hassett said he expects wage growth to pick up in the second half of the year as corporations start using all the equipment they've bought with their extra cash, which he says should make workers more productive and thus justify higher pay.

Many economists, however, say there are more direct ways to funnel more money to workers than giving it to their employers through lower taxes.

"We changed the incentives on the margin, but also gave a big gift to company owners that didn't require any change in behavior," says Aaron Sojourner, a labor economist at the University of Minnesota. "And maybe it'll pay off for workers down the road. But in the past, similar policy changes have had less than promised results."

Heres a thought.....get rid of healthcare.....employers wont have to pay for it....use that premium and gove everyone a raise 

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

[HSFBfan]

Just now, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

It's amazing you can look at different articles and the numbers are all over the place. 

[HSFBfan]

Just now, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

It's amazing you can look at different articles and the numbers are all over the place. 

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

Just now, HSFBfan said:

It's amazing you can look at different articles and the numbers are all over the place. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics tells you the numbers. It is now 22.65 per hour, AVERAGE.

[HSFBfan]

Just now, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

Bureau of Labor Statistics tells you the numbers. It is now 22.65 per hour, AVERAGE.

That's still horrible. As u stated that 800 a week. After taxes that's about 750 or so. That's just taxes. Take out your medical if you have it. That's another 200. So your down to 550 for the week. That's about 2100 take home for the month. Your rent let's say is 1200. Car insurance car payment cell phone etc etc. Your broke 

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

10 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

That's still horrible. As u stated that 800 a week. After taxes that's about 750 or so. That's just taxes. Take out your medical if you have it. That's another 200. So your down to 550 for the week. That's about 2100 take home for the month. Your rent let's say is 1200. Car insurance car payment cell phone etc etc. Your broke 

It's not all that bad, if inflation and the costs of everything wasn't so bad.

That is why I always question the health of the economy with wage growth and everyone goes running for the hills.

[HSFBfan]

4 minutes ago, ServiteTier6Irrelevant said:

It's not all that bad, if inflation and the costs of everything wasn't so bad.

That is why I always question the health of the economy with wage growth and everyone goes running for the hills.

It's bad. I just pointed out that it's bad. Basically the AVERAGE that you stated should actually be close to minimum wage. But that wont happen. If it did you would see unemployment go up as companies would get rid of people to save money. I'm not saying what the company would do is right or wrong but just what I believe they would do. Like I said get rid of the healthcare premiums thats companies have to pay and give everyone a raise. I know that is flawed as well

You wanna help people let housing prices crash. You would see baby boomers shit their pants 

[ServiteTier6Irrelevant]

Just now, HSFBfan said:

It's bad. I just pointed out that it's bad. Basically the AVERAGE that you stated should actually be close to minimum wage. But that wont happen. If it did you would see unemployment go up as companies would get rid of people to save money. I'm not saying what the company would do is right or wrong but just what I believe they would do. Like I said get rid of the healthcare premiums thats companies have to pay and give everyone a raise. I know that is flawed as well

I think it puts in perspective for most people for when a company offers you 12 dollars an hour and makes you feel like they are doing you a favor.