Tax cuts = more jobs

Another Google challenged person. What are the odds ??

 

Who's talking about Q3 ??

 

That's pitiful. You can't refer to one source...

 

I have provided at least one source which shows that wages & income are a lagging indicator. You've looked at it.

 

do you not get embarrassed when you get caught making **** up? do you think nobody can see that you are incapable of supporting your position with any data at all?

 

Tone deaf, eh?

 

He's a conclusion seeking premises.

If the economy falters, he'll support Trump for other reasons. Or he may buy whatever excuse for economic problems Trump cooks up. So far, the Bloviator-in-Chief has been going after the Fed.

 

That's not true. You referred to a guff site that only referred to how incomes are affected by employment lags (i.e. before layoffs, firms will eliminate overtime and then reduce hours).

Wages in an ARDL analysis are just as likely to be a lead factor (as firms react to a pickup in orders). You've been caught out making a pathetic error.

 

It's the start of the growth trend after the Trump tax reforms were implemented.

 

Wage increases lag business growth upticks.

 

Wage is not a lag indicator. It can be a lead one , such as for manufacturing.

I'll ask again. So far you have provided a source that only confirms what I've said (incomes suffer because employment is a lag indicator). Present one that supports your position or simply admit that you are incapable of achieving that slice of obvious.

 

You said the economy has been growing at 4% since Q2.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/tax-cuts-more-jobs.546488/page-26#post-1070042481​

You're tripping over your own feet.

 

Why is the fed raising interest rates in the Trump economy whilst maintaining basically zero interest during the Obama economy ?? Trump's economy also has a the quantitative tightening drag chute ($50B per month) slowing things down whilst Obama benefited (??) from ~ $3.5T of quantitative easing.

My conclusions are based on data and history.

 

Sorry you are having trouble with this basic concept.

 

4.2 + 3.5 / 2 = ~ 3.9

 

I've not only educated you, I have also shown how the source presented agreed with what I said. And, when asked to provide source in support of your ridiculousness, you hide. Probably a good idea mind you...

 

no it isn't. it is a cherry picked single data point. When you use it, your conclusion will be incorrect, as evidenced.

 

That’s the trouble with university economics. Can’t see the forest for the trees. It’s obvious that wage increases lag economic growth increases. Why would employers give monthly pay raises ??

 

Too funny.

 

University education is needed to highlight the importance of being able to support your.own argument!

This is cretinous on two levels. First, lag and lead indicators refer to GDP. Second, you seem to be suggesting that the laws of supply and demand do not hold in labour markets. Economics? It's not for right wingers.

 

another post of yours, devoid of any substance. It's amusing watching you play this game. When you get your ass handed to you by actual data, you seem to mentally and psychologically shut down and fling these moronic one liners, as if they somehow change the fact that your argument has been embarrassingly demolished.

 

There you go again. The original statement made by myself and others is that wages lag economic upturns. This is absolutely the case in the real world. But the university trained economists go spinning off into the celestial ether.

 

The comedy continues.

 

This is the real world which you can't refer to, isn't it? An economic upturn just refers to GDP growth. Your own source informed you that I was right: it's employment that lags. This is known across different types of analysis. For example, we'd expect problems linking GDP and crime (Given, if you do believe in deterrence theory, you have to factor in how the quality of labour first falls because of hours reductions).

 

Keep digging.