Trump and China call cease fire on tariffs

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
I dont know WTF youre talking about. According to the Beaureu of Labor wages are up, especially lower income sector:

0313GS.png
Yeah, hourly wages are up, like a percent over inflation, from last year.... super cool. It's still flatline from a fucking decade ago.
Shall we walk back a bit further?
1557516656999.pngAw fuck me we look terrible since the 80's.
That's okay i'm sure the rest of the money earners have been doing poorly too...
1557516765704.png
Aw fuck there's the dow jones, and that's logarithmic. Welp i guess there's just nothing to be said as to why someone's making a fucking fortune but wages look like they're flatlining. Let's just claim the economy is great and wait until the next D is in office to harp about how bad things are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Talks are over and no new ones scheduled. I presume Trump and Co think China will come back to the table by themselves. China also hasn't specified what their retaliation will be yet.

Since it's likely that China is going to run out of goods to retaliate on I'd expect some more creative strategies to emerge that will harm US companies doing business in/with China.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I'm talking about the United States government, those are the numbers I quoted you after all.

Labor force participation rate for prime aged population is still significantly below historical averages, suggesting there are still quite a few more people available to join the work force who have not.

fredgraph.png


I'll notice that you completely dodged the central question though, probably because you can't answer it. If companies have a shortage of labor why has the real price of labor increased at the same or even lower rate that it was in 2015, a time when no one would have argued we had a shortage of labor? Shouldn't that be econ 101 if we really have a labor shortage? Is your answer somehow that companies are both desperate for labor and unable to meet their requirements but also unwilling to pay more for it?

I don't know why you're trying to insult me, claim I'm 'spinning', or claim that I can somehow 'believe what I want to believe' when everything I'm telling you is based on publicly available, audited statistics from our government. The only explanation I can think of is that this contrary information is making you angry and you don't want to believe it.

And I dont know why you refuse to not accept numbers from our own government about those unemployed. Your diversion into labor participation rate is not a simple thing, because there are so many variables that go into that rate. Heres one for you: baby boomers are retiring. One of the largest groups of persons arent working, because theyre retiring. How about use straight unemployed vs open jobs? You simply said youre refuting the claim that there are more open jobs than unemployed according to government numbers, when in fact I just showed you that IS true. So I dont know WTF youre thinking.

Also, your assertion that a labor shortage means higher wages...just because that was the model historically, doesnt mean thats how it is now. That said, wages ARE up in many industries. One example I posted a post or two ago. So again, I dont know WTF youre talking about.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
And I dont know why you refuse to not accept numbers from our own government about those unemployed. Your diversion into labor participation rate is not a simple thing, because there are so many variables that go into that rate.

It's not a diversion, they are literally part of each others' calculations. If labor force participation rate goes down, unemployment goes down.

Heres one for you: baby boomers are retiring. One of the largest groups of persons arent working, because theyre retiring.

This shows me you aren't paying attention to what I'm showing you and you're looking for ways not to believe it. Either that or you don't understand the terms under discussion.

The data I showed you was explicitly PRIME AGE workers, meaning 25-54 years old. The boomers retiring will have no meaningful effect on that number because very few people retire by 54.

How about use straight unemployed vs open jobs? You simply said youre refuting the claim that there are more open jobs than unemployed according to government numbers, when in fact I just showed you that IS true. So I dont know WTF youre thinking.

Because people move into and out of the labor market based on incentives, primarily wages, and the unemployment rate is directly affected by it. We've had a very low unemployment rate for years now but that doesn't mean our labor market was actually great. The unemployment rate in 2015 was lower than it was in parts of 1997 and the unemployment rate now is better than it was at any time in the 1990's. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the average American worker thinks the current labor market is better than the mid to late 90's? If not, it would sure seem like your fundamental thesis has a problem.

Also, your assertion that a labor shortage means higher wages...just because that was the model historically, doesnt mean thats how it is now.

So in other words your claim is that the economy is great for workers, it just so happens that over the last year or two the labor market just so happened to decouple from supply and demand economics. Does that sound like a very good argument?

That said, wages ARE up in many industries. One example I posted a post or two ago. So again, I dont know WTF youre talking about.

We already covered this, wages are increasing at approximately the same rate (slightly lower overall) than they were in 2015. Do you think the US was in the grips of a huge labor shortage in 2015?

I'm working in reality, not with anecdotes.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,960
8,191
136
Maybe someone took a box of crayons to a meeting with Trump and explained in very simple terms, with pictures, that China is not paying the tariffs, but American consumers are the one's paying the tariff.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
It's not a diversion, they are literally part of each others' calculations. If labor force participation rate goes down, unemployment goes down.



This shows me you aren't paying attention to what I'm showing you and you're looking for ways not to believe it. Either that or you don't understand the terms under discussion.

The data I showed you was explicitly PRIME AGE workers, meaning 25-54 years old. The boomers retiring will have no meaningful effect on that number because very few people retire by 54.



Because people move into and out of the labor market based on incentives, primarily wages, and the unemployment rate is directly affected by it. We've had a very low unemployment rate for years now but that doesn't mean our labor market was actually great. The unemployment rate in 2015 was lower than it was in parts of 1997 and the unemployment rate now is better than it was at any time in the 1990's. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the average American worker thinks the current labor market is better than the mid to late 90's? If not, it would sure seem like your fundamental thesis has a problem.



So in other words your claim is that the economy is great for workers, it just so happens that over the last year or two the labor market just so happened to decouple from supply and demand economics. Does that sound like a very good argument?



We already covered this, wages are increasing at approximately the same rate (slightly lower overall) than they were in 2015. Do you think the US was in the grips of a huge labor shortage in 2015?

I'm working in reality, not with anecdotes.


The labor participation rate has been pretty steady for the last 30 years. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
The labor participation rate has been pretty steady for the last 30 years. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060.

Haha, no it hasn't - you're playing with scale to obscure the differences I highlighted. It's about 2 percentage points lower now than it was in the 90's, which is millions fewer workers.

Do you have any economic model for why the labor market has decoupled from supply and demand? That's pretty central to your thesis, after all.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Haha, no it hasn't - you're playing with scale to obscure the differences I highlighted. It's about 2 percentage points lower now than it was in the 90's, which is millions fewer workers.

Do you have any economic model for why the labor market has decoupled from supply and demand? That's pretty central to your thesis, after all.

Look. I jumped in defending the fact we do have a labor shortage. Not the theories of decoupled markets, wages vs real wages, inflation, and all the other shit. Ive proven we have more jobs than unemployed so Im not going to continue derailing this thread. Start another if you want to talk about it. And, if you want to continue thinking we dont have a labor shortage despite numbers from our government, youre free to do that. I mean, look at the crazy shit die hard Trump supporters believe. People believe all kinds of nonsense.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Look. I jumped in defending the fact we do have a labor shortage. Not the theories of decoupled markets, wages vs real wages, inflation, and all the other shit. Ive proven we have more jobs than unemployed so Im not going to continue derailing this thread. Start another if you want to talk about it. And, if you want to continue thinking we dont have a labor shortage despite numbers from our government, youre free to do that. I mean, look at the crazy shit die hard Trump supporters believe. People believe all kinds of nonsense.

All I want to know is why if employers are so desperate for labor why they aren't willing to pay more for it. Here's a radical thought: maybe wages aren't increasing very quickly at the moment because we don't actually have a labor shortage, not because this is the year the laws of economics stopped applying.

I'll let you decide who is believing nonsense here, the guy who says that the unemployment rate is probably missing some people or the guy who says supply and demand no longer applies to labor markets. ;)
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
All I want to know is why if employers are so desperate for labor why they aren't willing to pay more for it. Here's a radical thought: maybe wages aren't increasing very quickly at the moment because we don't actually have a labor shortage, not because this is the year the laws of economics stopped applying.

I'll let you decide who is believing nonsense here, the guy who says that the unemployment rate is probably missing some people or the guy who says supply and demand no longer applies to labor markets. ;)

Maybe you can explain your idea to expert economists since youre so confident and you know something they dont?

Noah Smith, writing for Bloomberg, believes, "Together with the evidence on minimum wage, this new evidence suggests that the competitive supply-and-demand model of labor markets is fundamentally broken."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Maybe you can explain your idea to expert economists since youre so confident and you know something they dont?

Are you just desperately Googling for something to support your point? I feel you must be because you clearly didn't read your own link as it supports my point, not yours.

The article argues that people who would have been counted as unemployed in the past are now 'underemployed', picking up part time work. This means they don't count as unemployed in the government statistics but are what we would have previously considered unemployed. ie: the unemployment rate isn't accurately capturing the true amount of slack in the labor market, which explains stagnant wages.

Dude seriously, stop digging.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Are you just desperately Googling for something to support your point? I feel you must be because you clearly didn't read your own link as it supports my point, not yours.

The article argues that people who would have been counted as unemployed in the past are now 'underemployed', picking up part time work. This means they don't count as unemployed in the government statistics but are what we would have previously considered unemployed. ie: the unemployment rate isn't accurately capturing the true amount of slack in the labor market, which explains stagnant wages.

Dude seriously, stop digging.

Fair enough. Im done.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
View attachment 6217

Too stupid to live. Too dumb to die. RIP moronic argument.

Can you get an ounce of human decency to just realize that he's making a sound argument which simply resulted in a simple disagreement? ]

Posts like this serve zero purpose - which is pretty typical with certain posters here.... because that's all you ever post.


I like how black angst was basically arguing we need to let more people come to the country.

Plenty of people (including myself) on the right are completely in favor of immigration.

The problem is you liberal snowflakes FUCKING LOOOOOOOOVE to conflate illegal immigration with legal. There is a difference.

I'm in favor ramping up our legal immigration 3-fold.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Can you get an ounce of human decency to just realize that he's making a sound argument which simply resulted in a simple disagreement? ]

Posts like this serve zero purpose - which is pretty typical with certain posters here.... because that's all you ever post.




Plenty of people (including myself) on the right are completely in favor of immigration.

The problem is you liberal snowflakes FUCKING LOOOOOOOOVE to conflate illegal immigration with legal. There is a difference.

I'm in favor ramping up our legal immigration 3-fold.

Then you support the wrong party.

Republican Senators Introduce Bill To Cut Legal Immigration in Half

"A trio of Republican senators reintroduced the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act (RAISE) Act last week, which seeks to reduce legal immigration by 50 percent.

Spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) with support from Sens. David Perdue (R–Ga.) and Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), the bill would establish a merit-based point system that prizes those with lucrative job offers, U.S.-recognized college degrees, domestic financial holdings, and English language skills. It also aims to undercut White House Adviser Jared Kushner, who has pushed a plan in recent months that would give temporary visas to migrant workers.

President Trump lauded the RAISE Act when it was first unveiled in July 2017, characterizing the current immigration setup as "a terrible system where anybody comes in," particularly "people that have never worked" and "people that are criminals."

https://reason.com/2019/04/16/republican-senators-introduce-bill-to-cut-legal-immigration-in-half/


Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/trump-immigration.html