Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, April 25, 2018

The latest Employment Situation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows weekly employee earnings have grown $75 since tax reform passed, well short of the $4,000 to $9,000 annual increases projected by President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). During the three months following passage of the tax bill, the average American saw a $6.21 increase in average weekly earnings. Assuming 12 weeks of work during the three months following passage of the corporate tax cuts, this equates to a $75 increase. Assuming a full 52 weeks of work, the $6.21 increase in weekly earnings would result in a $323 annual increase, nowhere near the minimum $4,000 promised and $9,000 potential annual increases projected by President Trump and Speaker Ryan if significant cuts were made to corporate tax rates.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Isn't the GOP rule that we have to wait fifty years to decide this?

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2018-04-25 11:52 AM | Reply

Now, go pull out the fries before they burn.

#6 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-04-15 11:47 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

You told me you like them well-done.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2018-04-25 11:53 AM | Reply

"Some will go to shareholders."

Once again, Rex proves he doesn't understand the equation.
money.cnn.com

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-25 11:55 AM | Reply

"Most tax cuts in US history have been done to help boost poor employment numbers and a stagnant economy."

$50.00 post by Rex. Your employers will love that one. It's utter b.s. but who cares if you get paid, right?

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-25 11:56 AM | Reply

You told me you like them well-done.
#12

Like a delicious TrumpSteak!

#5 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-04-25 12:04 PM | Reply

The author of this opinion piece pretends that either Trump or Ryan said that the $4000 raise would be happening this year.
The Council of Economic Advisers report cautions that "these are the long-run, recurring values measured in 2016 dollars; households would receive these benefits each year once the changes in the corporate tax have been fully absorbed by the economy."

In other words, you likely won't be getting that extra money until several years from now.

Dishonest reporting is dishonest.

#6 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-04-25 12:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is the author of this opinion piece so stupid that he doesn't understand that contracts are negotiated on an annual basis? With a strong employment picture and higher earnings, that is when wage growth will occur.

#2 | POSTED BY REX_BUYT

Really? Because most blue collar and low level white collar workers don't have contracts.

Now explain to me why a company would voluntarily pay their workers more when they don't have to.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-25 12:08 PM | Reply

"once the changes in the corporate tax have been fully absorbed by the economy."

A rather blurry finish line, yes?

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-25 12:11 PM | Reply

Thems some fancy words to say trickle down.

#9 | Posted by bored at 2018-04-25 12:20 PM | Reply

Recked_butt is still toting the party line I see.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-25 12:27 PM | Reply

A rather blurry finish line, yes? - #18 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-25 12:11 PM
Which is why pretending that they'll be this year is dishonest.

#11 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-04-25 12:52 PM | Reply

"Which is why pretending that they'll be this year is dishonest."

Then give a date certain. You don't get a No True Scotsman option here.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-25 12:57 PM | Reply

Is the author of this opinion piece so stupid that he doesn't understand that contracts are negotiated on an annual basis? With a strong employment picture and higher earnings, that is when wage growth will occur.

#2 | POSTED BY REX_BUYT AT 2018-04-15 10:26 PM | REPLY

Corporate earnings and profits have been rising steadily for 40 years and it hasn't happened yet. Why would this fraction of the pot be passed on to employees when they havent done it before?

In fact some corporations used the recession as an excuse to cut pay while simultaneously collecting record profits.

www.wsws.org

www.taxpayer.net

www.nytimes.com

#13 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-04-25 01:01 PM | Reply

The author of this opinion piece pretends that either Trump or Ryan said that the $4000 raise would be happening this year.

So at the rate of $1.50 per week, it will be 51 years? See there is the magic "It takes 50 years to pass judgement unless the POTUS is a Democrat, then it is an instant failure" illogic of the right.

#14 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-25 01:04 PM | Reply

GOP Tax Scam was always meant to work this way:

CEO's and 1% get their payoff now.

The workers get their raises...errrr...errrr...how about never? Never is good.

#15 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-25 01:06 PM | Reply

If you can boost your pitiful wages by shilling for the GOP on a web site like this then you got a raise.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-25 01:23 PM | Reply

Studies have proven that corporations take the free tax money from tax cuts and pass it to shareholders
=============
Some will go to shareholders. But a cut this drastic and across the board in the face of a historically low unemployment rate is unprecedented so your studies lack validity. They also seem to ignore that those workers also have 401k programs that benefit as shareholders. The only workers that will not benefit are the low skilled workers competing with illegals due to supply still outstripping demand and the fact that those jobs not having a meaningful 401k program.
At the end of the day, you cannot state that you are both for middle class jobs and open borders.
#4 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-04-15 11:09 PM

Over 90% of "profits" goes to shareholders, closer to 98%. This bilking process needs to stop. Dishonest arrangements encourage this "shareholder profit at all cost" and it's ridiculous. Those who are employed at the company should be making more than a shareholder. Profits are almost never re-invested and instead go offshore. You are hoping that money will "repatriate" - it simply won't and never has. It doesn't go to the workers either. It goes offshore and doesn't return. The end.

#17 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-04-25 03:46 PM | Reply

a meaningful 401k program.

#4 | POSTED BY REX_BUYT AT 2018-04-15 11:09 PM | REPLY |

401(k)s are just ATMs for rich people.

Including 401(k)s and mutual funds just 52% of Americans own stocks. That is down from a high of 72% in 2007

1/4 of all stocks are owned by foreign investors
retirement accounts own 37% but 88% of that amount is in the retirement funds of 1.3% of the population the remaining 98.7% of the population collectively share 12% of 37% or roughly 4.4% of the stocks split 317 million ways

#18 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-04-25 04:43 PM | Reply

Including 401(k)s and mutual funds just 52% of Americans own stocks.

-----------------

Yes - that % pretty much mirrors the % that does not pay any income taxes, about 50%. However, they do indirectly own them. This 50% of households is completely reliant on the productive 50% of the population that does pay taxes and then they get their pound of flesh through transfer payments and various subsidies and grants. The productive 50% have capital gains, which are then taxed, which is then redistributed to the non-productive households. The better the stock market and household wealth of the productive households, the more transfer payments to the non-productive.

1/4 of all stocks are owned by foreign investors
-----------------
What has this got to do with the price of tea in China?

You see, my solution to this is to stop illegal immigration so wages at the unskilled level go up (simple supply and demand), which has a ripple effect up the wage scale. This allows families to earn a living wage and, yes, have a job that offers a 401k programs. If you are a non-illegal in the US and have never had a chance to participate in a 401k program, that is not the government holding you down. This is the result of horrible, continuing life decisions.

#19 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-04-26 01:33 AM | Reply

You see, my solution to this is to stop illegal immigration so wages at the unskilled level go up (simple supply and demand), which has a ripple effect up the wage scale. This allows families to earn a living wage and, yes, have a job that offers a 401k programs. If you are a non-illegal in the US and have never had a chance to participate in a 401k program, that is not the government holding you down. This is the result of horrible, continuing life decisions.

#29 | POSTED BY REX_BUYT

And your plan has an ice cube's chance in hell of working.

First, we honestly don't have enough workers. Unemployment is already low.
Second, it would drive up the cost of goods cancelling out any wage gains. That's a ripple effect.
Third, it would cripple US business that already has issues finding workers. That's a ripple effect.
Fourth, are you really suggesting that companies will start offering low level blue collar employees 401(K) packages if we get rid of illegal immigrants?
Fifth, unless the job pays at least $18 an hour, exactly how much money do you think they can put in a 401(k)?
Sixth, for many people like you, they simply don't have the intelligence to get good jobs and are stuck in menial labor. This won't change that.
Seventh, do you have any idea how much it would cost to get rid of all the illegal immigrants in this country?

But I do love how you think you can magically snap your fingers and get rid of illegal immigrants or illegal immigration. Or that we will magically have enough people in the workforce even though unemployment is below 5%. Or how employers will pay someone $15 an hour and offer a 401K to harvest a field, mow lawns or handle other unskilled labor. The dream world you live in sounds fantastic.

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-26 02:44 AM | Reply

Some will go to shareholders. But a cut this drastic and across the board in the face of a historically low unemployment rate is unprecedented so your studies lack validity. They also seem to ignore that those workers also have 401k programs that benefit as shareholders. The only workers that will not benefit are the low skilled workers competing with illegals due to supply still outstripping demand and the fact that those jobs not having a meaningful 401k program.
At the end of the day, you cannot state that you are both for middle class jobs and open borders.
#4 | Posted by Rex_Buyt

Well, that's the biggest load of -------- you've posted in a while.

First, this tax cut isn't anywhere near the largest in the last 30 years. Take your nose out of Trump's ass and stop living off his tweets.
Second, that would make it something less than "unprecedented" and easily compared to various studies. Welcome to economics 101.
Third, workers 401Ks are spread out through a large number of different stocks, bonds, etc. They will see pennies, not real money.
Fourth, the fact that workers have 401Ks won't change their actual wages.
Fifth, there really aren't workers competing with illegals in low skilled jobs. We actually don't have enough workers as is in many areas.
Sixth, no one said they were for open borders. Stop lying. Open borders means anyone can come in. No one said that was a good idea.
Seventh, you haven't presented a single argument as to how workers benefit substantially from this tax cut: We aren't seeing wages increase and the market isn't exactly jumping either to boost 401Ks as you stated.
Eighth, most of the money is going to stock buy backs.

The leaps in logic and the ignorance of basic facts by you is astounding. You sound EXACTLY like Trump saying his crowd was the biggest in history when it barely covered half the law. This type of garbage post might fit nicely on Fox & Friends, but anyone with at least a 3rd grade education knows its complete garbage and you just wasted five minutes of our lives that we will never get back. In fact, just reading it probably killed a couple brain cells of any poster who stumbled upon it.

#21 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-26 02:54 AM | Reply

First, we honestly don't have enough workers. Unemployment is already low.
--------------

We have a labor participation rate of 62.9%. We have had a rate over 67% in recent memory. What we have is people opting out of the labor force because jobs at the low skill levels have horrible pay for the work required - so, they choose government benefits or going on disability. Saying we don't have enough workers is laughable. Second, higher wages at the lower skill positions because of supply and demand would encourage further automation. This increases our long term competitiveness and provides higher paying jobs designing and maintaining the automation.

Second, it would drive up the cost of goods cancelling out any wage gains. That's a ripple effect.
--------------
Funny. I don't seem to recall you stating that in the "Fight for $15" but now you seem to think there is a direct opposite effect for raising pay at the low end and pricing. Strange to say the least.

Third, it would cripple US business that already has issues finding workers. That's a ripple effect.
--------------
Exactly which businesses are those? The way I see it, having them pay non-living wages and/or importing illegals are simply hiding their true cost to me as I will have to pay more in taxes to support their businesses. Either cover your costs or your company simply does not deserve to exist. Many jobs actually fit this description (landscaping, etc).

Fourth, are you really suggesting that companies will start offering low level blue collar employees 401(K) packages if we get rid of illegal immigrants?
--------------
Yes Sparky. Companies will be forced to actually recruit low skilled workers vs. picking and choosing now. To attract them, they will offer better pay and benefits. Again, simple supply and demand. You will probably study that fall semester junior year in high school so just wait a bit.

Fifth, unless the job pays at least $18 an hour, exactly how much money do you think they can put in a 401(k)?
--------------
If the company matches, quite a bit. As an individual, that is almost $40K/year and $80K as a couple.

Sixth, for many people like you, they simply don't have the intelligence to get good jobs and are stuck in menial labor. This won't change that.
--------------
I am a business owner, this will hurt me financially but I am willing to do it for the good of the country. As to those stuck in menial jobs (this will help you move from fries to cashier), a lot is dependent on simply being reliable. Show up and you will move up regardless of the company.

Seventh, do you have any idea how much it would cost to get rid of all the illegal immigrants in this country?
--------------
I would say about $12B on the wall which you can recover by taxing all Mexican remittance payments without proof of a valid work permit and then about $10-$12M in prison costs for tossing in their first couple CEO's found guilty of knowingly hiring illegals....after that, it will stop. Second, you can implement a true guest worker program like and other country. Workers welcome, no wife and kids included. You do a crime, you are tossed from the country. You have a kid, you leave the country. pretty simple if we just follow what the rest of the world already does.

Or how employers will pay someone $15 an hour and offer a 401K to harvest a field, mow lawns or handle other unskilled labor. The dream world you live in sounds fantastic.
#30 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
--------------
Better get your lib talking points in order because that is exactly what the 'fight for $15' assumes.

#22 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-04-26 03:13 AM | Reply

"We have a labor participation rate of 62.9%. We have had a rate over 67% in recent memory."

What's your "fix" for that, abolish the minimum wage? Bringing in more participation at the bottom isn't going to move the distribution upwards...

Some of those "labor non-participants" are just counting their Bitcoins. What kind of wage do you think you can lure them back with, Fight for Fifteen?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-26 03:24 AM | Reply

"Fifth, unless the job pays at least $18 an hour, exactly how much money do you think they can put in a 401(k)?
--------------
If the company matches, quite a bit. As an individual, that is almost $40K/year and $80K as a couple."

$18.hr is only 40k/yr if you don't pay any taxes on it.
If you work for a company that is offering you a 401(k), they're going to be withholding taxes too.
What's your guess on how many people currently earning $18/hr have access to a 401(k) with employee match. If it's over half I'd be surprised.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-26 03:28 AM | Reply

"We have a labor participation rate of 62.9%. We have had a rate over 67% in recent memory."
What's your "fix" for that, abolish the minimum wage?
-----------------
You truly cannot read and comprehend, can you? My entire postings up to this point have clearly laid out my plan. Stop illegal immigration and wages rise (supply and demand). Increased wages will bring people back to the labor force. I don't see what is so difficult for you to understand.

Bringing in more participation at the bottom isn't going to move the distribution upwards.
-----------------
Actually, it does exactly that. Take your job for instance. Right now, you manager is probably making $12-$14/hour while you are stuck at $9/hour working the fryer. The added work, responsibility for your manager is what justifies the added $3-$5/hour. So, if your wage as a fry cook goes up to $14/hour, your manager would either demand a raise or he would take the easier job while making the same money. And up the wage scales it goes.

Some of those "labor non-participants" are just counting their Bitcoins.
-----------------
Yeah, that accounts for about 20 of the 50,000,000 Americans that are currently choosing not to work.

What kind of wage do you think you can lure them back with, Fight for Fifteen?
#33 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

-----------------
I think $15/hour brings a ton of people back to the workforce given the knock-on effect on wages. But, this does not work if you implement it by putting in a price floor ($15/hour of labor) - a price floor would lead to mass unemployment. You get it by controlling the supply by stopping mass, unskilled, illegal immigration.

-----------------------

#25 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-04-26 05:22 AM | Reply

$18.hr is only 40k/yr if you don't pay any taxes on it.
------------
Taxes on $40K would be about 10% federal. Getting off pretty easy.

If you work for a company that is offering you a 401(k), they're going to be withholding taxes too.
------------
And?

What's your guess on how many people currently earning $18/hr have access to a 401(k) with employee match. If it's over half I'd be surprised.
#34 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
------------
Not many I would guess as there is a huge surplus of supply at the low skill level in the economy due to mass unskilled, illegal immigration. You only change that equation if you can adjust the supply/demand mix.

#26 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-04-26 05:25 AM | Reply

The right wing talks about 401(k) like its IN ADDITION to pay. It is a REDUCTION in pay. It incentivises saving but does not increase pay. At the end of the day people who did not make enough wages to set aside savings before cannot participate in 401(k)s either. As a result only 55% of the American workforce has the option to participate in 401(k)s and only 38% do. WHen 40% of the workforce is paid $10/hr or less and the median rent for a one bedroom apartment nears $1000/month most people dont have the luxury of setting aside money. I find it laughable that we give corporations credit for some kind of largesse for allowing their employees to buy stock with their wages. Next thing you know they will allow us to use our wages to pay rent and buy food. What largesse!

www.financialsamurai.com

#27 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-04-26 05:59 AM | Reply

The latest Employment Situation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows weekly employee earnings have grown $75 since tax reform passed, well short of the $4,000 to $9,000 annual increases projected by President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

$75/week = $3900/year which is not "well short" of the projection. After reading that the rest of the article lost all credibility.

#28 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-04-26 04:19 PM | Reply

If it was the Dem's $3900, they be claiming that 'millions of lives are being saved".

"Children can buy pencils", "Mothers can buy baby milk", "Grandmas can afford yarn now".

#29 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-26 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

...Becky can afford a third abortion!

#30 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-04-26 04:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"$4,000 to $9,000 annual increases projected by President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan"

After doing over 400 people's tax returns, the average I saw was about half that.

Of course, if you look at ten people, and all $750 goes to one guy while the other nine get nothing, the average wage has risen $75/week.

Since the bulk of the money--even up front--goes to the top of the scale, it's a safe bet to say the median worker IS NOT seeing a $75 a week increase in wages.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-26 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Since the bulk of the money--even up front--goes to the top of the scale...

#41 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

If that's the case, why are so many rich liberals in blue states screaming bloody murder about the SALT cap?

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-26 05:16 PM | Reply

"why are so many rich liberals in blue states screaming bloody murder about the SALT cap?"

Because there are some losers, too...in four blue states: MD, NY, NJ and CA, all losing billions.

But back to my point...do you agree, if the bulk goes to the folks at the top (it does), and the average gain is $75 a week, that the median worker is MOST DEFINITELY NOT getting $75 a week?

IOW, can we at least agree on the Macro Math?

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-26 05:27 PM | Reply

--If that's the case, why are so many rich liberals in blue states screaming bloody murder about the SALT cap?

Because they want taxpayers in other states to subsidize their sky-high state and local taxes. The idea of actually reducing taxes is a non-starter in Moonbeam's California.

#34 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-04-26 05:32 PM | Reply

"Because they want taxpayers in other states to subsidize their sky-high state and local taxes."

You know, that thing that's only been in place since 1913: the concept of not paying taxes on money you've paid in taxes.

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-26 05:35 PM | Reply

Because there are some losers, too...in four blue states: MD, NY, NJ and CA, all losing billions.

I think that is the first time that you have admitted that some of the rich are getting taxed more under tax reform, which I thought, from the Democratic Party's standpoint, is something that isn't happening.

The problem for the Dems and as noted by Priorities USA in their messaging memos, the people getting hit under SALT are a reliable voting bloc for the Dems, so messaging on the SALT reduction is not advised.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-04-26 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think that is the first time that you have admitted that some of the rich are getting taxed more under tax reform"

You've missed my posts, in that case.

But it's not due to the code in toto, it's due to specific pockets where the authors purposely chose to hurt "blue" states and "blue" causes. Steven Moore and John Feehrey (-sp?), two consultants on the tax bill, admitted as much.
www.vanityfair.com

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-26 05:45 PM | Reply

"messaging on the SALT reduction is not advised."

Who needs it?

Just let folks know the average family of four borrowed $44,000, and ask them if it was worth it.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-26 05:47 PM | Reply

I just paid my mansion off....now I owe $44K?

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2018-04-26 05:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

".now I owe $44K?"

$11,000 per income-tax taxpayer, of today or tomorrow. If you and your wife have 3 kids, $55,000. And that's over and above all the debt we've rung up from 1776 to today. Wanna see my math?

Although back to the big news...Congrats on paying off the house! The bride and I got the notice this past year, on our anniversary.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-26 06:55 PM | Reply

"In other words, you likely won't be getting that extra money until several years from now."

If you actually believe that's what they were saying from the outset, you're an idiot.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-26 11:31 PM | Reply

President thanos cares not for working Americans.

#42 | Posted by Tor at 2018-04-27 01:29 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort