Fake News Reporting Thread

[Proteus_MST]

Look at the profit curve where it is increasing. Then look at the wage curve in the short run after the increase in profits.

Well, lets look through the peaks:
There is one peak around 1966 ... and it was followed by a peak in wages 4 years later (in 1971)

Then we have 2 peaks in 1975 and 1979 ... even if we would, with lots of fantasy, assume that the stagnation around 1980/81, or the small peak around 1988 (i.e. 9 years after the corporate peak !!) are somehow connected to it, we can still not overlook, that the percentage of wages compared to the GNP is in rapid decline and, in 1988 is 4% lower than 15 years ago.

The peak in 1997 is followed by wage peak around 2001 ... still, compared to the GNP the wages takes still just take around the same percentage as 1980 ... and therefore are in these regards on a ~4% lower niveau than the wages in the 1950s/1960s

And then of course we have a steep rise in corporate profits rom 2006/2007 onwards, where they rose by 5% compüare to the peak from 1997 ... whereas the wages percentage of the GNP fell by another 3-4% compared to the wage peak at 2001 and further fell by another 2% 2 years later

If anything then the curve hints at the steeply rising income inequality / Gini index from the 1970s/1980s onwards

[Kidlicious]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Alsi median wages fell 0.1% last year, moron, despite record corporate profits most years for the last half decade.

Only a NOOB would talk about the median wage and not the employment cost index, which has followed corporate profits just as I claim.

[JohnT]

Well, lets look through the peaks:
There is one peak around 1966 ... and it was followed by a peak in wages 4 years later (in 1971)

Then we have 2 peaks in 1975 and 1979 ... even if we would, with lots of fantasy, assume that the stagnation around 1980/81, or the small peak around 1988 (i.e. 9 years after the corporate peak !!) are somehow connected to it, we can still not overlook, that the percentage of wages compared to the GNP is in rapid decline and, in 1988 is 4% lower than 15 years ago...

(truncated for space)

And, of course, in the field of economics the "short term" (not "short run", Kid) is defined as <= 1 year. Asking us to look for short term variances in a chart which spans 70 years displays a, how shall I put it? Displays a child-like ignorance.

[JohnT]

Only a NOOB would talk about the median wage and not the employment cost index, which has followed corporate profits just as I claim.

No. Your claim was that all cost inputs rise as corporate profits rise. Then you moved the goalposts to claim that wages rise along with corporate profits. Then you moved them again to claim that changes in corporate profits are a leading indicator for future changes in wages. Now you have moved the goal posts again to say you're not talking about wages, but the employment cost index.

These posts have been moved so much I'm convinced we're in a different stadium now.

[Kidlicious]

Well, lets look through the peaks:
There is one peak around 1966 ... and it was followed by a peak in wages 4 years later (in 1971)

Then we have 2 peaks in 1975 and 1979 ... even if we would, with lots of fantasy, assume that the stagnation around 1980/81, or the small peak around 1988 (i.e. 9 years after the corporate peak !!) are somehow connected to it, we can still not overlook, that the percentage of wages compared to the GNP is in rapid decline and, in 1988 is 4% lower than 15 years ago.

The peak in 1997 is followed by wage peak around 2001 ... still, compared to the GNP the wages takes still just take around the same percentage as 1980 ... and therefore are in these regards on a ~4% lower niveau than the wages in the 1950s/1960s

And then of course we have a steep rise in corporate profits rom 2006/2007 onwards, where they rose by 5% compüare to the peak from 1997 ... whereas the wages percentage of the GNP fell by another 3-4% compared to the wage peak at 2001 and further fell by another 2% 2 years later

If anything then the curve hints at the steeply rising income inequality / Gini index from the 1970s/1980s onwards

I don't dispute that income inequality has increased. The goal posts have already been set. I'm only claiming that wages (compensation) will increase because profits are so high. I am not claiming that they will increase faster or even as fast as profits.

I have some ideas about why profits stay so much higher, but don't have any solutions.

[Kidlicious]

No. Your claim was that all cost inputs rise as corporate profits rise. Then you moved the goalposts to claim that wages rise along with corporate profits. Then you moved them again to claim that changes in corporate profits are a leading indicator for future changes in wages. Now you have moved the goal posts again to say you're not talking about wages, but the employment cost index.

These posts have been moved so much I'm convinced we're in a different stadium now.

"My pay is going up, but I don't get wages. I get a portion of the revenue that I create. This is going to trickle to wage workers. That's how the economy works."

Wage workers also get benefits.

[Kidlicious]

No. Your claim was that all cost inputs rise as corporate profits rise. Then you moved the goalposts to claim that wages rise along with corporate profits. Then you moved them again to claim that changes in corporate profits are a leading indicator for future changes in wages. Now you have moved the goal posts again to say you're not talking about wages, but the employment cost index.

These posts have been moved so much I'm convinced we're in a different stadium now.

If you get a graph that isn't share of GNP it's clear.

[JohnT]

Yes, I understood the first time that you're a commissioned sales agent. Irrelevant to the discussion, however.

So, find me such a graph. You're the one making the argument, the burden of proof lies upon you.

[Ming]

Asking Kidiot to actually provide proof of the nonsense that comes out of his ass is like asking the Trumpster to stop tweeting...
It ain't going to happen

[Kidlicious]

Yes, I understood the first time that you're a commissioned sales agent. Irrelevant to the discussion, however.

So, find me such a graph. You're the one making the argument, the burden of proof lies upon you.

Check the peak in 2004 and 2012 and the increase in wages and benefits one year after those peaks.

[JohnT]

#1: Ming -

#2: The charts literally measure different things.

[Kidlicious]

#2: The charts literally measure different things.

This is the worst invalid argument that I've ever seen.

[spambot]

If you're trying to draw conclusions about the long run by looking at the business cycle you're doing something wrong.

[Proteus_MST]

Check the peak in 2004 and 2012 and the increase in wages and benefits one year after those peaks.

As JohnT says, one can hardly see a connection.
I just divided your 2 diagrams into phases:

Corporate (after tax):
2002- Q4 2005 Steady Rise
2006-Q1 2008 Plateau + decline
Q2-Q4 2008 Economic crisis
2009- Q4 2011 Rise
2012+ Plateau

Wage Growth (compared to previous year):
2002 - Q2 2005 Steady Decline
Q3 2005- Q1 2007 Sudden spike
Q2 2007 - Q1 2008 Small decline
Q2 2008 - Q1 2009 Rapid Decline
Q2 2009 - 2017 Steady rise to the values of Q2 2005


So, according to your 2 diagrams, rising corporate profits were met with a decline in percentual wage rises from 2002 - 2005.
Only when the corporate profits were near it peak in the end of 2005, plateaued and then slowly began to fall again, you had a sudden spike in wage rises.
Then, after the economic crisis of 2008 (which also wreaked havoc on the wage growth) we have corporate profits rising again, till 2001 ... and plateauing from the beginning of 2012 onwards.
But the wages don't seem to notice the difference between rise and plateau phase ... they just steadily rise.

The only real thing I can conclude from these 2 diagrams is:
Economic crisis are bad for wage growth, because despite the steady rise of wage growths from 2009 onwards, they only now have arrived at the lowest value from before the economic crisis

[JohnT]

This is the worst invalid argument that I've ever seen.

Not at all, but my point was unclear, I'll grant.

Chart 1 has as its base of measurement absolute dollars of corporate profits. Chart 2 has as its base of measurement percentage change of wage growth.

One is not the other. For any comparison to be valid, you must show the two items (wage growth, profit growth) relating to the same basis of measurement. You know, like the chart I highlighted.

For example: Player one has the highest RBI %. Player two has the most hits. Who is the better hitter? Who knows?! Perhaps player 1 hit .400 on 50 at bats. Perhaps player 2 went to the plate 500 times. But you can't make a determination on that question until you decide on a common basis of measurement.