$15 here we come

From the Star Ledger:

N.J. minimum wage set to rise to $10 in July and $15 by 2024 after big votes

The Democrat-controlled state Legislature on Thursday gave approval to an historic increase in New Jersey’s minimum wage to $15 an hour over five years, with a $1.15 raise coming this July.

The votes seal the deal reached earlier this month by Gov. Phil Murphy, state Senate President Stephen Sweeney and state Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin — all Democrats — on a bill to boost the Garden State’s minimum wage by 70 percent for most workers while putting agricultural, seasonal and small business employees on a slower path to $15.

The bill passed the Assembly 52-25 and the Senate 23-16 on Thursday.

Murphy said he will sign the bill Monday, putting the trio of Democrats within striking distance of a major progressive policy achievement.

“History has shown us that raising the minimum wage is actually good for the business community, it’s good for New Jersey, and most importantly it’s good for the people that benefit from it,” Coughlin, D-Middlesex, said before the Assembly vote.

Under the bill, the minimum wage for most workers would increase to $10 an hour on July 1, to $11 on Jan. 1, 2020, $12 an hour on Jan. 1, 2021, $13 in 2022, $14 in 2023 and $15 in 2024.

New Jersey Policy Perspective, a liberal Trenton think tank, estimated more than 1 million workers will benefit from the wage hike. But about 10 percent of those employees will be put on a slower path.

This entry was posted in Economics, New Jersey Real Estate, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to $15 here we come

  1. dentss says:

    First

  2. 1987 Condo says:

    Jobs Report:

    +304,000

    UE 3.9%

  3. 1987 Condo says:

    Wages up 3.2% yoy

    UE adjusted to 4.0% some issues with shutdown

    3 month jo average 241k

  4. 1987 Condo says:

    jo = job

  5. 1987 Condo says:

    63.2 participation rate….continues to rise

  6. Fast Eddie says:

    Jobs Report:

    +304,000

    Not what democrats want to hear.

  7. 1987 Condo says:

    December revised DOWN 90,000 jobs…

  8. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Booker running for president.

    Job market keeps chugging along despite the haters thinking otherwise.

  9. Fast Eddie says:

    What would Ocasio-Cortez say about the jobs report?

  10. 1987 condo says:

    Christie on CNBC…1% of NJ Taxpayers pay 58% of NJ Income tax.

    I’d be nice to those folks.

  11. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Yup.

    At the same time, Nj is ground zero for income inequality. Look how much power they hold over everyone else…..talk about having the state by the balls. The answer definitely is not to tax them more, but they have to figure out a way to share the wealth a little more. One percent of the population should not be covering 58% of the income tax….it’s an obvious sign of money highly concentrated at the top.

    1987 condo says:
    February 1, 2019 at 8:45 am
    Christie on CNBC…1% of NJ Taxpayers pay 58% of NJ Income tax.

    I’d be nice to those folks.

  12. grim says:

    New Jersey is ground zero for income inequality?

    What kind of idiotic nonsense is that?

    NJ doesn’t even make the top 10 if you are looking at it from a GINI equality perspective.

    Not to mention, NJ is among the best states in the US for upward economic mobility.

  13. grim says:

    Push to $15 is going to increase income inequality in NJ, not reduce it.

    Until, at least, the unemployable decide to leave, in which case the numbers will improve.

  14. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Well, almost 60% of the income tax comes from 1%…..

    grim says:
    February 1, 2019 at 9:28 am
    New Jersey is ground zero for income inequality?

    What kind of idiotic nonsense is that?

  15. Juice Box says:

    income inequality and the supposed cure death by taxes will cost the Dems 2020..People rich and poor vote with their wallets.

    I was listening to a radio program on Wednesday and it seems some NY Dems want to run a Primary Challenger against AOC in 2020. Some names were floated as that they might make the move to establish residency there now (Bronx/Queens district).

    Seems that some feel she needs to wait her turn….

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/primarying-aoc-wont-teach-progressives-to-wait-their-turn.html

  16. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    When we finally get to income equality, what will be the identical (and equal) income that every person will earn?

  17. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    When we finally get to income equality, what will be the identical (and equal) income that every person will earn be given?

  18. Ottoman says:

    Top marginal tax rates during the MAGA days of the 1950s were 70-91%. Whether it’s through legislation or guillotine, will get back there.

    When Teen Vogue calls for a general strike, you know winter is coming for the 1%.

  19. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    I’m sure a lot of wealthy folks would love to share the wealth. Unfortunately, the state is so business unfriendly that they won’t invest in businesses to hire people.

  20. Ottoman says:

    Should be more.

    The Great Pumpkin says:
    February 1, 2019 at 9:43 am
    Well, almost 60% of the income tax comes from 1%…..

  21. Fast Eddie says:

    $15/hour is not too bad if you’re newly retired and want to look for 20 to 25 hours per week to supplement the income and keep busy. I would think an employer that’s going to pay $15/hour is going to want someone consistent and trustworthy over a younger tatted, vegan dude reeking of gonja. Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with that but $15/hour is going to command a better worker I would think. It will be interesting to see the dynamics of the job environment in 2024 or a few years beyond.

  22. Fast Eddie says:

    When Teen Vogue calls for a general strike, you know winter is coming for the 1%.

    It’ll be hard to take from the 1% when the opposition is being riddled with bullets.

  23. Fast Eddie says:

    Top marginal tax rates during the MAGA days of the 1950s were 70-91%. Whether it’s through legislation or guillotine, will get back there.

    Real men earn. Puss1es look for handouts.

  24. No One says:

    I see Ottoman is seething with envious bloodlust for the 99% that are his superiors in wealth, intelligence, and p3n1s length. Fantasizing that AOC will be his Robespierre, and whacking off to Teen Vogue. What a loser. Maybe if you got a life you’d stop being such a hater. Probably too late for that now, so you’re all in on nihilism.

  25. 1987 Condo says:

    You can play games with income tax rates to a degree within States, but folks can certainly move to other states. Changing rates in US is “better” in tha it is harder to leave the country.

    Note that when we had higher rates folks abused or found many loopholes.

    Maybe just go with a national sales/consumption tax, with various exemptions for food and basic transportation.

  26. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    Do we honestly believe anyone was actually sending Uncle Sam 90 cents on the dollar ever in the history of the country?

  27. The Great Pumpkin says:

    The answer is not to attack the rich. The answer is to work together to make this economy and country work better for everyone. Everyone needs to be in the discussion, so all perspectives can be heard. Let’s listen to some ideas from billionaires like Gates below. Let’s give it an experiment, let’s try a progressive tax on consumption. If it doesn’t work, let’s at least see why, and evolve from there.

    Just throwing an unrealistic high percentage tax on high incomes is not the answer. That’s not good for the country either. They should not be targeted just because they are ultra rich. Don’t want to target productive behavior. You do want to target unproductive behavior like buying 100 million dollar homes and private jets. If the rich still want to spend their capital on this nonsense, still their choice, but they will be penalized for this consumption that helps no one but themselves. Think Gates is pretty on point with this. It’s not forcing a higher tax on anyone, but if you want to consume nonsense, pay the price….if you can’t be more effective with your huge surplus of capital in the economy, the govt will assist you.

    “While billionaire Bill Gates agrees with much of the discussion in Piketty’s book, he proposes an alternative solution. “Rather than move to a progressive tax on capital, as Piketty would like, I think we’d be best off with a progressive tax on consumption,” Gates wrote in a 2014 blog post. “Think about the three wealthy people I described earlier: One investing in companies, one in philanthropy, and one in a lavish lifestyle. There’s nothing wrong with the last guy, but I think he should pay more taxes than the others.””

  28. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Marginal tax. It forces them to invest the money back into the economy instead of paying a 70% tax on anything over 10 million. So it provides an incentive to not bank any profits over 10 million, and instead re-invest it in the company and workers.

    So yes, you are correct, it does what it is supposed to do.

    Blue Ribbon Teacher says:
    February 1, 2019 at 11:15 am
    Do we honestly believe anyone was actually sending Uncle Sam 90 cents on the dollar ever in the history of the country?

  29. No One says:

    This quote from “Atlas Shrugged” just came to mind:
    You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you’re incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others—that you’re unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler—that you’re unable to earn your living by use of your own intelligence, but able to judge politicians and vote them into jobs of total power over arts you have never seen, over sciences you have never studied, over achievements of which you have no knowledge, over the gigantic industries where you, by your own definition of capacity, would be unable successfully to fill the job of assistant greaser

  30. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Absolutely, their accountants and lawyers do a hell of a job hiding income.

    Ottoman says:
    February 1, 2019 at 10:54 am
    Should be more.

    The Great Pumpkin says:
    February 1, 2019 at 9:43 am
    Well, almost 60% of the income tax comes from 1%…..

  31. GdBlsU45 says:

    Two nasty unintended consequences of this are of course the boon it will be for illegals. Cash businesses who can hire illegals Will. It will also crush new business startup. Ask some from Europe about starting a small business there and they will tell you not to bother

  32. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “Conclusion
    The rise in inequality experienced in the United States over the past four-plus decades is not just a story of those on Wall Street, in Hollywood, or in the Silicon Valley reaping outsized rewards. While we find a large share of national top 1 percent income concentrated in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, IRS data also make clear that rising inequality and increases in top 1 percent incomes affect every part of the U.S. Between 1973 and 2007, the top 1 percent of families in all states captured an increasing share of income. And from 2009 to 2015, in the wake of the Great Recession, top 1 percent incomes in most states once again grew faster than the incomes of the bottom 99 percent.

    The rise between 1973 and 2007 in top 1 percent incomes relative to the bottom 99 percent represents a sharp reversal of the trend that prevailed in the mid-20th century. Between 1928 and 1973, the share of income held by the top 1 percent declined in every state except Alaska (data for Alaska are not available for 1928). This earlier era was characterized by a rising minimum wage, low levels of unemployment after the 1930s, widespread collective bargaining in private industries (manufacturing, transportation, telecommunications, and construction), and a cultural, political and legal environment that kept a lid on executive compensation in all sectors of the economy.

    Today, unionization and collective bargaining levels are at historic lows not seen since before 1928 (Freeman 1997; Bivens et al. 2017). The federal minimum wage purchases fewer goods and services than it did in 1968 (Cooper 2017). Meanwhile CEO pay has gone from 20 times greater than typical workers’ pay in 1965 to 271 times greater in 2016 (Mishel and Schieder 2017).27

    Policy choices and cultural forces have combined to put downward pressure on the wages and incomes of most Americans even as their productivity has risen (Bivens and Mishel 2015; Levy and Temin 2007). As a result, CEOs and executives at the commanding heights of the private economy have appropriated a rising share of the nation’s expanding economic pie, setting new norms and expectations for high-level compensation that are being emulated among nonprofit hospital executives, college presidents, surgeons, and lawyers.

    The gains of those at the top have come at the expense of the vast majority of working families. The Economic Policy Institute’s The State of Working America, 12th Edition, found that between 1979 and 2007, had the income of the middle fifth of households grown at the same rate as overall average household income, it would have been $18,897 higher in 2007—27.0 percent higher than it actually was (Mishel et al. 2012).28

    Yet more troubling, the rapid rise in top incomes in this new gilded age—which started as a rise in labor income for top executives—has, since 2000, been driven by capital income derived from the ownership of assets (Piketty, Saez, and Zucman 2018a). The idle rich in America are in ascendance at a time when—more than in most other advanced countries—the children of affluent parents typically grow up to be affluent, and the children of the poor remain poor (Corak 2012). Today at elite colleges more students come from families in the top 1 percent of the income distribution than from the bottom 50 percent (Chetty et al. 2017). Meanwhile U.S. public colleges have become increasingly unaffordable, further limiting opportunity for children of lower-income households (Huelsman 2018).

    Federal policy in the last year has also changed in ways that are likely to further increase income inequality. The Trump administration has abandoned a rule that would have expanded automatic eligibility for overtime to 12.5 million workers, ensuring that they would be paid time-and-a-half when they work more than 40 hours in a week (Shierholz 2017). The administration has delayed the implementation of the fiduciary rule, which requires investment advisers to act in their clients’ best interests (Shierholz and Zipperer 2017). The administration has also sided with corporate interests seeking to permit companies to force workers to sign arbitration agreements with class action waivers—forcing workers to give up their right to file class action lawsuits, taking them out of the courtrooms and into individual private arbitration when their rights on the job are violated (McNicholas 2017). Finally, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December 2017 is expected to distribute 83 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent (TPC 2017). All of these actions are a step in the wrong direction if the country is going to shrink the gap between those at the top and everyone else.

    Reinventing America as a land of widespread opportunity requires economic policy that aims to ensure every child has access to adequate food, shelter, health care, child care, and education—whether that child is the daughter of a janitor or the son of a real estate tycoon. Parents working in any occupation must be able to count on a living-wage job; they must be given a voice—either individually or collectively with others—to participate in regulating the conditions of their work; and they must have opportunities to participate in the democratic institutions that govern the affairs of their communities.

    We hope these data on income inequality will be useful for starting conversations in your community about steps you and your neighbors can take to lift up workers; to increase opportunities for children as well as for people seeking a second chance in life; to increase participation in elections and community governance; and, finally, to reaffirm that an important purpose of work is to provide for our families and build up our communities—and that the abundant fruits of workers’ labors should be spread much more widely than they are now. In short, making America great is about making the economy serve the lives of the many, not the narrow interests of the gilded few.”

    https://www.epi.org/publication/the-new-gilded-age-income-inequality-in-the-u-s-by-state-metropolitan-area-and-county/#epi-toc-10

  33. Juice Box says:

    re: “winter is coming for the 1%”

    People with their short memories. Here is a flash back to 2011, an ancient memory now for the twitter-verse these days.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

  34. Juice Box says:

    Vice is cutting back on staff. Seems their dream of getting the millennials to watch TV news again is failing.

    Live free to Tweet or die folks….

  35. The Great Pumpkin says:

    If you don’t read that entire conclusion….pay attention to this piece.

    “The rise between 1973 and 2007 in top 1 percent incomes relative to the bottom 99 percent represents a sharp reversal of the trend that prevailed in the mid-20th century. Between 1928 and 1973, the share of income held by the top 1 percent declined in every state except Alaska (data for Alaska are not available for 1928). This earlier era was characterized by a rising minimum wage, low levels of unemployment after the 1930s, widespread collective bargaining in private industries (manufacturing, transportation, telecommunications, and construction), and a cultural, political and legal environment that kept a lid on executive compensation in all sectors of the economy.”

  36. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    Marginal tax. It forces them to invest the money back into the economy instead of paying a 70% tax on anything over 10 million. So it provides an incentive to not bank any profits over 10 million, and instead re-invest it in the company and workers.

    So yes, you are correct, it does what it is supposed to do.

    When you “bank your profits”, the bank still loans out that money you’ve deposited 10 fold.

  37. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    But of course, in your world, there’s no place for posting a profit as a business, just a perpetual net loss as you continue to reinvest ad infinitum.

  38. Joe says:

    The only reason we could get away with taxes that high in the 1950s was because the rest of the world was destroyed after ww2. We had a monopoly on manufacturing.
    Try to raise taxes that high in this global environment and it will crash the economy. It is no coincidence that taxes had to go down as global competition started again

    “Ottoman says:
    February 1, 2019 at 10:51 am
    Top marginal tax rates during the MAGA days of the 1950s were 70-91%. Whether it’s through legislation or guillotine, will get back there”

  39. leftwing says:

    “Marginal tax. It forces them to invest the money back into the economy instead of paying a 70% tax on anything over 10 million. So it provides an incentive to not bank any profits over 10 million, and instead re-invest it in the company and workers.”

    “When you “bank your profits”, the bank still loans out that money you’ve deposited 10 fold.”

    Blue, why do you even debate with a fool who doesn’t understand the difference investment and expenses have on effective taxes? The argument is pointless since he doesn’t have a basic grasp on the facts.

  40. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Then why has income inequality come down every year between 1928 1973, and then has increased every year since as the tax rates went down and unions lost their bargaining power? Just a coincidence, right? You clearly don’t understand my point, but keep thinking that depositing money in the bank solves inequality.

    Hey everyone, all we need to do to solve the inequality in the economy is have all 1%ers deposit money in the bank…..problem solved! The banks will loan out the money 10 fold and redistribute it.

    Do you really believe this crap?

    Blue Ribbon Teacher says:
    February 1, 2019 at 11:54 am
    Marginal tax. It forces them to invest the money back into the economy instead of paying a 70% tax on anything over 10 million. So it provides an incentive to not bank any profits over 10 million, and instead re-invest it in the company and workers.

    So yes, you are correct, it does what it is supposed to do.

    When you “bank your profits”, the bank still loans out that money you’ve deposited 10 fold

  41. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Blah, blah, blah……never gives substance to the debate, only calls the person he is debating names. Yes, I am unable to comprehend your side of the argument that you failed to present.

    “Blue, why do you even debate with a fool who doesn’t understand the difference investment and expenses have on effective taxes? The argument is pointless since he doesn’t have a basic grasp on the facts.”

  42. The Great Pumpkin says:

    This is a myth. Stop spreading it. You are telling me no one else was working in the world? Stop spreading this nonsense, it’s simply not true.

    Joe says:
    February 1, 2019 at 12:20 pm
    The only reason we could get away with taxes that high in the 1950s was because the rest of the world was destroyed after ww2. We had a monopoly on manufacturing.
    Try to raise taxes that high in this global environment and it will crash the economy. It is no coincidence that taxes had to go down as global competition started again

  43. Joe says:

    You are the myth so stop with your ignorant crap and start to understand how the global economy works.

    Stop spreading your ignorance.

  44. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “2) Banks “lend reserves”.

    This myth derives from the concept of the money multiplier, which we all learn in any basic econ course. It implies that banks who have $100 in reserves will then “multiply” this money 10X or whatever. This was a big cause of the many hyperinflation predictions back in 2009 after QE started and reserve balances at banks exploded due to the Fed’s balance sheet expansion. But banks don’t make lending decisions based on the quantity of reserves they hold. Banks lend to creditworthy customers who have demand for loans. If there’s no demand for loans it really doesn’t matter whether the bank wants to make loans. Not that it could “lend out” its reserve anyhow. Reserves are held in the interbank system. The only place reserves go is to other banks. In other words, reserves don’t leave the banking system so the entire concept of the money multiplier and banks “lending reserves” is misleading.”

    https://www.pragcap.com/biggest-myths-in-economics/

  45. Bystander says:

    No one,

    Does the “great” Atlas shrugged address trust fund babies and generational control of assets / wealth. There are lots of those useless f$ckheads too. Just because great, great grandpappy achieved does not mean 100 years later his cushioned, lazy progeny should pay lawyers and accountants to exploit trading and tax loopholes to retain their wealth to infinitude..all while the progeny sits on the board “for fun”. See that idiot Seagrams heiress backing that elite hollywood s#x cult.

  46. The Great Pumpkin says:

    So let me get this straight. If the world lost all its factories during WWII, and America became the only source of production, how do you explain this? Joe, care to enlighten me? Data doesn’t lie. Go look at the graphs on this website.

    “Industrial production kept pace until 1910, but after that services pulled ahead and never looked back. Since 1950, the share of output produced in the industry has steadily declined, falling from about 40 percent of output to about 25 percent today.”

    “Since World War II, the share of private employment in goods production (including manufacturing) has steadily declined from just short of 50 percent to just fewer than 20 percent.

    The output data look much like the employment data. Just like employment, the share of goods production (including manufacturing) in GDP has steadily declined while the share of services in GDP has steadily risen.”

    https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/history-lessons-understanding-decline-manufacturing/

  47. Joe says:

    You really are a stupid person if this is your take away from what I said.

    “You are telling me no one else was working in the world? ”

  48. Yo! says:

    https://careers-njeda.icims.com/jobs/1364/senior-vice-president—real-estate-%26-development/job

    NJEDA searching for new real estate development honcho with focus on Fort Monmouth. I doubt much gets done on Fort Monmouth, given declining demographics of Monmouth County (population growth turning negative, aging population who spend their retirements blocking real estate projects) and numerous bureaucracies (state, count, municipal) who can’t get out of developers’ way.

  49. Joe says:

    I told you already and it is global competition.

  50. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    Yeah, it’s a myth. They simply pay you interest for the privileged of storing money while it sits idle.

  51. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    Blue, why do you even debate with a fool who doesn’t understand the difference investment and expenses have on effective taxes? The argument is pointless since he doesn’t have a basic grasp on the facts.

    You know…I fully realize you can’t convince him of anything. On some level, I enjoy the twisted attempt at logic in his own mind. I’ve resulted to one liners. I can’t be tasked with wasting more than 15 seconds of my time with him.

  52. GdBlsU45 says:

    Idiot doesn’t spread ignorance. He’s too conspicuous of a fool to be able to accomplish that. He more like excretes it.

  53. The Great Pumpkin says:

    I give you guys data and evidence to support my position. You resort to attacking me. Says a lot.

  54. 3b says:

    I am sure Africa and Asia were booming with manufacturing jobs in the 1940s and 50’s!

  55. leftwing says:

    Investment is not (immediately) deductible. Raising marginal income tax rates therefore has minimal effect on investment since investment is not an effective shield. For investment to be an effective shield (ie, produce the result of high marginal rates changing behavior from saving to investing) one would have to make investment immediately deductible. While done for certain items on a limited basis in the past doing so creates its own distortions in the economy. Ever wonder why every landscaper had a fully tricked out $80k pickup early in the decade? Were such deductibility expanded broadly to investment the ensuing commercial property bubble would make the housing bubble of last decade look absolute punk.

    On the other hand, expenses are immediately deductible. For one to believe, however, that increasing marginal rates will incentivize business owners to spend more on employees then one has to believe that such owners would prefer to to make an unnecessary expenditure of 100% to save 70% on taxes which, is of course, foolhardy.

    High marginal tax rates strongly encourage one and only one type of behavior with the highest level of certainty – tax avoidance/tax evasion.

  56. The Great Pumpkin says:

    So explain why we didn’t see hyperinflation from Q.E. by the fed? Banks just loan into infinite, correct?

    What’s funny, you get mad when banks resort to reckless lending, yet that’s exactly the position you are taking with this debate. That they should just loan out ten fold any capital they receive.

    Blue Ribbon Teacher says:
    February 1, 2019 at 1:51 pm
    Yeah, it’s a myth. They simply pay you interest for the privileged of storing money while it sits idle.

  57. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    Banks just loan into infinite, correct?

    I love this

  58. leftwing says:

    It’s pointless…intellectual and analytical capabilities permanently stunted at the level of an average 13 year old…..

  59. leftwing says:

    You probably have more academic rigor x2 in your classroom. After a massive party weekend. Early on monday morning. In June. While sunny and 80 outside.

  60. The Great Pumpkin says:

    You are not seeing this correctly. You think if the business owner can reinvest money in his own community, business, or workers, or have the government take almost all of it, you are not understanding this correctly.

    “On the other hand, expenses are immediately deductible. For one to believe, however, that increasing marginal rates will incentivize business owners to spend more on employees then one has to believe that such owners would prefer to to make an unnecessary expenditure of 100% to save 70% on taxes which, is of course, foolhardy.”

  61. The Great Pumpkin says:

    It’s no different than with the housing law and capital gains. Reinvest it, and pay no taxes, or pay up.

    Lefty, you need to stop being such an elitist prick.

  62. The Great Pumpkin says:

    You stated earlier: “When you “bank your profits”, the bank still loans out that money you’ve deposited 10 fold.”

    So if all the billionaires banked their money like you were stating, as opposed to taxes forcing them to invest, how would the bank loan all that money out? To who? Legions of poor that can’t qualify for a loan? Are they just going to loan back out to the billionaires? Sorry, banks are not effective at redistributing money in the economy. They are only good at redistributing money from the poor to the wealthy.

    Blue Ribbon Teacher says:
    February 1, 2019 at 2:09 pm
    Banks just loan into infinite, correct?

    I love this

  63. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    Today’s math lesson. Ten is less than infinity. My 5 year old knows this.

  64. The Great Pumpkin says:

    I should have chose better wording. You clearly misunderstood what I said and twist it into something else.

    “So explain why we didn’t see hyperinflation from Q.E. by the fed? Banks just loan into infinite, correct?”

    When I said I infinite, I was referring to the massive money injected into the banks. They did not loan it all out, why? They have to have a customer capable of qualifying for said loan, hense, can’t loan into infinite despite having massive reserves.

    Blue Ribbon Teacher says:
    February 1, 2019 at 3:01 pm
    Today’s math lesson. Ten is less than infinity. My 5 year old knows this.

  65. Joe says:

    You give nothing but ignorance and you only see what you want to see.

    “The Great Pumpkin says:
    February 1, 2019 at 1:58 pm
    I give you guys data and evidence to support my position. You resort to attacking me. Says a lot.”

  66. Juice Box says:

    Pumps – are you talking about trash for cash? That 13 trillion under Obama was done to save the world. Why are you complaining? Your double wide in the sticks of Passaic county would be a pile of rubble by now if they did not bail out the banks, so stop being such an ingrate! You got your bailout too, no stifle yourself and pay your mortgage dammit! While you are at it go out tonight and spend some money you tightwad, and make sure you charge it on Mastercard or Visa!

  67. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    I should have chose better wording. You clearly misunderstood what I said and twist it into something else.

    Actually, I’m pretty sure you took what I said and turned it into something else. I just made fun of you for it.

  68. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Juice,

    I was never complaining. I support the fed over the last 10 years. They have done a brilliant job of guiding the economy.

    I was simply pointing out the following:
    “Marginal tax. It forces them to invest the money back into the economy instead of paying a 70% tax on anything over 10 million. So it provides an incentive to not bank any profits over 10 million, and instead re-invest it in the company and workers.”

    I was then told you don’t need a tax to do this, they simply bank the profit, and the bank lends it out 10 fold. So no difference in the impact on the economy according to blue. My entire posts today were based on calling out the fallacies that have been indoctrinated over decades.

    I hope you guys would do the same for me when you see a position I take that is based on bs. Instead people just call me fool or idiot, and never give evidence to what I’m seeing wrong. That says a lot when you attack the character as opposed to the position being debated.

  69. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Says the guy claiming high marginal tax rates of the 50s were simply due to the idea that the USA was the entire factory for the world. I used to believe the same bs, but then I researched and opened up my eyes. I don’t know how that crap has become fact to the general population over decades, but it’s dead wrong. I showed you the data from manufacturing jobs to prove it…data straight from our labor statistics provided by the govt.

    How the hell did our percentage of manufacturing jobs go down every year since 1950 if we were producing all the goods for the entire world….it’s bs.
    Joe says:
    February 1, 2019 at 4:38 pm
    You give nothing but ignorance and you only see what you want to see.

  70. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Joe,

    I don’t know why I didn’t think of this earlier to debunk that myth, but take a look at the GDP. Look at the gdp from the 1930s to 1960s…..now tell me exactly when we became the manufacturing base for the entire world. I see no growth in the gdp that says we suddenly took on the manufacturing for the entire world, or even just for Europe. Data doesn’t lie.

    It’s disgusting that information gets pushed around as fact and the source of this bs is politics. Partisan hacks pushing crap that eventually becomes fact.

    https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

  71. Joe says:

    Your data proves nothing

  72. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    Exports of US manufactured goods increased 1000% from the 1930s to the 1950s. That’s 10 times as much.

    https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/imts/Historical%20data%201900-1960.pdf

Comments are closed.