Bloomberg article says American Paychecks Growing at Fastest Pace in 5 years...

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
"Americans' paychecks in the first half of 2012 grew at the fastest pace in five years, pointing to an improvement in purchasing power that may help propel the economic expansion.

Wages and salaries for all employees increased at a 4.8 percent annual pace from January through June after adjusting for inflation, the most since March 2007, according to calculations by Harm Bandholz, chief economist at UniCredit Group in New York, based on data from the Commerce Department. The pickup contrasts with last week's Labor Department report that showed the smallest gain in average hourly wages on record.

"What matters to people is the size of the paycheck," said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Pierpont Securities LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. "How much money you get in the bank, that's what I care about."

The Commerce Department figures take into account the total number of people holding jobs and the length of the workweek, which is what shows up in Americans' paystubs. The recent gains indicate consumers have the means to boost spending and shield the U.S. from any global slowdown as Europe's debt crisis lingers and Asia cools.

Stocks declined as worse-than-expected Chinese trade data intensified concern that the global economy is slowing. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 0.2 percent to 1,399.98 at 10:22 a.m. in New York. Treasury securities climbed, sending the yield on the benchmark 10-year note down to 1.64 percent from 1.69 percent late yesterday.



Global Slowdown

China's export growth collapsed and imports and new yuan loans trailed estimates in July, the country's customs bureau reported today. Concern about Europe's debt crisis also grew as French industrial output stagnated in June, the latest sign that the euro area's second-largest economy may be heading for its first recession in three years.

An increase in hours worked in the first half of this year and the drop in fuel costs is what gave U.S consumer buying power the additional boost, making up for gains in payrolls that have been too small to reduce unemployment. The jobless rate climbed to 8.3 percent in July, a five-month high.

Employers took on 896,000 additional workers from January through June, little changed from the 875,000 gain in the final six months of 2011. Nonetheless, the average workweek for all employees increased by 6 minutes in the first half of the year from the previous six months, which represents 2.6 hours of extra pay for the six-month period. When spread over the 111 million employees on company payrolls who made $23.39 an hour on average, that represents an additional $6.75 billion pumped into the economy.



Inflation Ebbs

Inflation also ebbed. The Commerce Department's price gauge tied to consumer spending patterns climbed 1.5 percent in the year ended June after rising 2.6 percent in 2011.

"By most measures, real incomes look better over the past several months," said Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist in New York for Barclays Plc, referring to the inflation-adjusted figures. "We expect that'll translate into better consumer spending as we move through the year."

Maki and Stanley agree that because they take total employment gains and the length of the workweek into account, the Commerce Department's income numbers are broader, more significant, measures of the health of the American consumer. That may help dispel concern raised by Labor Department data released last week.

Hourly earnings for production workers, or non-management staff, climbed 1.3 percent on average in the 12 months through July, the worst performance in figures dating back to 1965, the Labor Department's jobs report showed. The increase for all workers, which has a shorter history, was 1.7 percent, matching the smallest gain since the series began in 2007.



Purchasing Power

"It is not as bad as people think," said UniCredit's Bandholz. "Paychecks are doing better than the payrolls numbers suggest. The slowdown in the labor market hasn't reduced purchasing power as much as it seems."

Labor Department hourly earnings data do have a time advantage, being the first income measure released each month as part of the payrolls report. They are at a disadvantage because, as an average measure, they can be weighed down by increases in hiring at lower-paying jobs at the expense of higher earners like construction and factory workers.

"Hourly wage growth is pretty muted but we're seeing decent income growth mainly because we've had reasonable job gains and on top of that there's been some lengthening of the workweek," Stanley said.



Adding Shifts

Drew Industries Inc. (DW), a White Plains, New York-based supplier of fixtures and parts such as vinyl doors and ramps for recreational vehicles, is among companies adding shifts. It hired 1,000 employees in the last six months to meet demand.

"Typically, we're running a one-shift operation, or a one- shift operation of 45 or 50 hours, but we've run some secondary shifts and even some third shifts at some of our plants with the explosive growth we've had," Jason Lippert, chief executive officer of Drew's subsidiaries, Lippert Components and Kinro, said on a conference call with analysts on Aug. 2.

How workers are faring will take added significance as the presidential election nears, with President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney each trying to convince voters their policies will best revive the economy.

Barclays' Maki, a former Federal Reserve economist, also likes to track another labor-income proxy -- hourly earnings multiplied by the total hours worked -- in making short-term predictions on consumer spending patterns. Longer term, his money is on total wage-and-salary figures.

"If I had to bet on one month or one quarter, then average hourly earnings or the payroll proxy might give the best signal," Maki said. "But if one wants to look at what's going to happen over the next year, I'd tend to lean toward the broader measure, wages and salaries."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/growing-paychecks-boost-americans-purchasing-142407952.html
 
Last edited:

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Well, with the way food prices are about to explode they better go up.

I forget, how is this Obama's fault and why should I not vote for him?
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,938
1,605
126
Well, with the way food prices are about to explode they better go up.

I forget, how is this Obama's fault and why should I not vote for him?

hilarious....don't you mean "how is this not bush's fault?"
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Well, with the way food prices are about to explode they better go up.

That's what I was thinking... with the worsening drought conditions it looks like the corn production is going to be down at least 17%, which means you can expect the cost of just about all food and drink to rise significantly for at least the next year. Given that most families spend at least 15% of their budget on food or drink, it's safe to say the average family is about to get hammered.

I forget, how is this Obama's fault and why should I not vote for him?

This is not directly obummer's fault, but you still should definitely not vote for him ;)
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
If the economy improves, it's Obama's fault. If it goes down, it's Bush's.

Bush - 11 years of Presidency and counting.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,780
560
126
Well, with the way food prices are about to explode they better go up. I forget, how is this Obama's fault and why should I not vote for him?

Because Al Gore tried to call peoples' attention to climate change.

In accordance with the "kill the messenger" theory Al Gore and anyone associated with his political party must be punished for the drought which they obviously caused by making up the climate change hypothesis during a drunken night of snorting cocain from strippers/hookers.

I mean it's obvious? isn't it? :p
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
IIRC, I read article that said spike in food prices because of destruction of corn crop will be a more serious issue next year, rather than this.

Soybean crop may be in danger if they don't get rain by September, and soybeans are major U. S. export to China. Serious food inflation there could possibly lead to political instability there.

Morningstar economist Bob Johnson said that 4% inflation is what typically will kill off a recovery, and we got very close to that last spring. I think official numbers are below 2% now and trending down (concerns about dysinflation because of what is happening in Europe and possible need for QE3 (hopefully not) at some point down the road?)
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,019
9,465
146
I can't keep all this straight. No wonder righties love Foxnews.

Easiest way to remember is bad things happen because of Obama, good things happen in spite of him OR because the numbers are faked. have a look historically you should see that play out in every case.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
If the economy improves, it's Obama's fault. If it goes down, it's Bush's.

Bush - 11 years of Presidency and counting.

You forget where he inherited a roaring economy from Clinton. Since the dotcom burst in 2000 before he "officially" became President I always assume that he secretly assumed the Presidency in 1998 in return for not actually impeaching Clinton. This is also why Democrats blame Bush for deregulating the Financial industry (see repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999).

So Bush -14 years of Presidency and counting :D
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,821
4,350
136
You forget where he inherited a roaring economy from Clinton. Since the dotcom burst in 2000 before he "officially" became President I always assume that he secretly assumed the Presidency in 1998 in return for not actually impeaching Clinton. This is also why Democrats blame Bush for deregulating the Financial industry (see repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999).

So Bush -14 years of Presidency and counting :D
|
Except you forgot Washington was the first president and got the ball rolling..so...

So Washington - 226 years of Presidency and counting :D
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Well, with the way food prices are about to explode they better go up.

I forget, how is this Obama's fault and why should I not vote for him?

It was Obama that stated he would take the deficit of 10T and cut if in half. Did me?

It was Obama that stated that if he could not cut the deficit; he desired to be a one term president. Then why is he running?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,780
560
126
You forget where he inherited a roaring economy from Clinton. Since the dotcom burst in 2000 before he "officially" became President I always assume that he secretly assumed the Presidency in 1998 in return for not actually impeaching Clinton. This is also why Democrats blame Bush for deregulating the Financial industry (see repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999).

Sorry many people in these forums know who signed Graham-Leach-Blighly into law. It was one of President Clinton's top three policy blunders imo.

You also tend to forget that the recession form the dot com bubble was also short lived and relatively mild as recessions go.

Most recessions that occurred during periods when the top marginal tax rates have been relatively higher prior to the recession have been. Interesting correlation and worth looking at along with the possible benefits of reinstating Glass-Steagall.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
It was Obama that stated he would take the deficit of 10T and cut if in half. Did me?
He's a waffler just like Romney and Kerry. The budget can be fixed either by increasing taxes or by drastically reducing spending. He took office when the economy crashed so cutting spending is not the right thing to do at this time. Did he raise taxes? No - he cut taxes for most people. He's either a liar or he's an idiot. Given his impressive credentials and the fact that he's a politician I would go with liar. Same with Romney - he's a liar but he's not stupid.

Does it even matter which party wins? Obama has Obamacare which is based on Romney's medical plan. Romney wants to repeal Obama's plan and replace it with basically the same plan. Both candidates are extremely supportive of Israel. Neither of them would dare touch medicare or social security. The only difference between them is that one is white and one is black. They probably even wear the same brands of clothing.

It was Obama that stated that if he could not cut the deficit; he desired to be a one term president. Then why is he running?
He was probably a bit too enthusiastic as most new people are. Everybody thinks they're going to change the world. Everybody wants to be that one teacher who inspires the class of misfits. Within a couple months they realize it's not possible and they become just as jaded as all the other teachers.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
You also tend to forget that the recession form the dot com bubble was also short lived and relatively mild as recessions go.

Most recessions that occurred during periods when the top marginal tax rates have been relatively higher prior to the recession have been.

We have only had one recession where the top marginal rates were lower than they were in the dot-com recession and that is the current one.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,780
560
126
We have only had one recession where the top marginal rates were lower than they were in the dot-com recession and that is the current one.

You have posted utter stupidity about this odd correlation before. I suggest you go do more research.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
We have only had one recession where the top marginal rates were lower than they were in the dot-com recession and that is the current one.

The tax rates have absolutely nothing to do with market crashes. The taxes could be 10% or 90% and the same exact things would happen every time. The booms and crashes are caused by a lack of lending regulations. The market naturally explodes when people rush into something like .com companies or real estate. People start to invest using borrowed money. That's what needs to stop. Maybe reduce the amount that can be borrowed for investing. Being able to put down $10 to make a $1000 investment should be against the law. It creates giant debt bubbles that pop every time.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
You have posted utter stupidity about this odd correlation before. I suggest you go do more research.

Excuse me. I wasn't counting the early 90's recession. That makes 2.

Late-2000s recession - Top marginal rate 36%
Early 2000s recession - Top Marginal Rate 39%
Early 1990s recession - Top Marginal Rate 28%
Recessions 1980 & 1981 - Top Marginal Rate 70%

Unless you want to count before the 30's every other recession had a top marginal rate of 70% and up.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
The tax rates have absolutely nothing to do with market crashes. The taxes could be 10% or 90% and the same exact things would happen every time. The booms and crashes are caused by a lack of lending regulations. The market naturally explodes when people rush into something like .com companies or real estate. People start to invest using borrowed money. That's what needs to stop. Maybe reduce the amount that can be borrowed for investing. Being able to put down $10 to make a $1000 investment should be against the law. It creates giant debt bubbles that pop every time.

Tell that to blank slate.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
Yeah, let's get this clown out of office so everyone can suffer another 2008 collapse again.

/sarcasm
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,780
560
126
The tax rates have absolutely nothing to do with market crashes. The taxes could be 10% or 90% and the same exact things would happen every time. The booms and crashes are caused by a lack of lending regulations. The market naturally explodes when people rush into something like .com companies or real estate. People start to invest using borrowed money. That's what needs to stop. Maybe reduce the amount that can be borrowed for investing. Being able to put down $10 to make a $1000 investment should be against the law. It creates giant debt bubbles that pop every time.

I said there was a correlation. I also think that other factors definitely played into it.

The firewall between investment and commercial banks played a role as well.

tax-rates-vs-recessions.jpg


Nice job Matt but it doesn't change the fact that you still posted utter stupidity about it before.

In case you forget....

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33759693&postcount=59

How about 1937 when the upper tax rate was 79% and good job comparing a $15 Trillion economy with Canada's $1.7

Nevermind the fact that you off from the start of the depression by some 8 years if you look at the date of the initial event that set things off.
 
Last edited: