Kimberley Clark, great profits, better tax position, LAYOFFS

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... ing-profit

Walmart payrises, but also 63 locations closed

And now tariffs on solar which will probably cost jobs before it leads to any increase in domestic manufacturing.

danivon wrote:Kimberley Clark, great profits, better tax position, LAYOFFS

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... ing-profit

Walmart payrises, but also 63 locations closed

And now tariffs on solar which will probably cost jobs before it leads to any increase in domestic manufacturing.

Re your 1st 3 bullets: Home Depot announced employee bonuses; JP Morgan to build more banks. You won't win on the anecdotal evidence.

Re your last point, I couldn't agree more ... Trump is flirting with disaster. There are more people employed as solar installers than manufacturers anyway.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:Kimberley Clark, great profits, better tax position, LAYOFFS

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... ing-profit

Walmart payrises, but also 63 locations closed

And now tariffs on solar which will probably cost jobs before it leads to any increase in domestic manufacturing.

Re your 1st 3 bullets: Home Depot announced employee bonuses; JP Morgan to build more banks. You won't win on the anecdotal evidence.

I am not trying to "win on anecdotal evidence" I am pointing out where the tax cuts have helped companies to shed jobs. The overall effect will not be seen immediately, especially as the other impacts on taxes for lower-middle income taxpayers kick in.

Re your last point, I couldn't agree more ... Trump is flirting with disaster. There are more people employed as solar installers than manufacturers anyway.

And quite a few in manufacturing are reliant on supply chain imports.

This is a big concern for me with Brexit, if we leave the Single Market and see tariffs come in, it will impact supply chains.

X-Box Player: "Dude, did you see where DF said we were, like, low-skilled?"
X-Box Player2: "No way! It takes serious skills to be a great video game player, man."
X-Box Player: "He acts like we are not doing anything! I am in training to be on the professional video gaming tour in Asia..."
X-Box Player2: "That's like totally going to happen, man. You're a wizard with the Box.!"
X-Box Player: "Yep. We got like careers and stuff. Can you pass me the joint?"
X-Box Player2: "Sure. Just because we're on a couch in a basement all day playing video games...that don't mean we're, like, losers."
X-Player: "Right on."

Danivon:

I am pointing out where the tax cuts have helped companies to shed jobs.

Are you suggesting causation? The reality is that closing stores is a feature of capitalism, not a bug.

freeman3 wrote:X-Box Player: "Dude, did you see where DF said we were, like, low-skilled?"
X-Box Player2: "No way! It takes serious skills to be a great video game player, man."
X-Box Player: "He acts like we are not doing anything! I am in training to be on the professional video gaming tour in Asia..."
X-Box Player2: "That's like totally going to happen, man. You're a wizard with the Box.!"
X-Box Player: "Yep. We got like careers and stuff. Can you pass me the joint?"
X-Box Player2: "Sure. Just because we're on a couch in a basement all day playing video games...that don't mean we're, like, losers."
X-Player: "Right on."

Sadly, I know these guys.

rayjay

Are you suggesting causation? The reality is that closing stores is a feature of capitalism, not a bug

The reality is that the wage increases by Wal-MArt, store closings and everything else being brought up as anecdotal evidence to support or bash the recent tax changes were all planned a few months ago. They are pretty much all reactions to market conditions.
Wal-Mart is closing stores that weren't operating profitably. And they are rising wages and conditions because they were losing market share to other retailers. Their research showed that it was because the shopping experience was rated as poor at many Wal-Mart locations . Empty shelves, inability to find help, etc. All caused by too few staff and an unhelpful, poorly motivated staff.
WalMart has a new CEO who is changing things to be competitive with the ever evolving retail space.
I know that changes to StarBucks compensation plans were all planned months ago too. Again because as employment reaches full in some markets, they need to compete to keep employees they value.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

Are you suggesting causation? The reality is that closing stores is a feature of capitalism, not a bug

The reality is that the wage increases by Wal-MArt, store closings and everything else being brought up as anecdotal evidence to support or bash the recent tax changes were all planned a few months ago. They are pretty much all reactions to market conditions.
Wal-Mart is closing stores that weren't operating profitably. And they are rising wages and conditions because they were losing market share to other retailers. Their research showed that it was because the shopping experience was rated as poor at many Wal-Mart locations . Empty shelves, inability to find help, etc. All caused by too few staff and an unhelpful, poorly motivated staff.
WalMart has a new CEO who is changing things to be competitive with the ever evolving retail space.
I know that changes to StarBucks compensation plans were all planned months ago too. Again because as employment reaches full in some markets, they need to compete to keep employees they value.

And, would it have happened even if we kept drifting toward socialism?

It's funny, the same people who said Trump would kill the economy now give him no credit for what's happening. If Obama's recovery was "strong," then Trump's is miraculous.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

For me, Obama's recovery was weak and Trump's is more in line with what we should expect.

There is no way that Trump did anything to cause an enhanced recovery. There are two options:

(1) the recovery was just a continuation of the recovery under Obama and had nothing to do with Trump, or
(2) There is a better recovery based on confidence (in Trump), with no underlying basis for it.

I'll assume that it's the second factor. Then we'll eventually get a large correction when reality sets in.

freeman3 wrote:There is no way that Trump did anything to cause an enhanced recovery. There are two options:

(1) the recovery was just a continuation of the recovery under Obama and had nothing to do with Trump, or
(2) There is a better recovery based on confidence (in Trump), with no underlying basis for it.

I'll assume that it's the second factor. Then we'll eventually get a large correction when reality sets in.

Huh. So, governmental regulation, talking down America, and higher taxes were good for the economy?

I'm calling this the "Krugman Effect." Paul said things would crash after Trump's election. So . . .

freeman3 wrote:There is no way that Trump did anything to cause an enhanced recovery. There are two options:

(1) the recovery was just a continuation of the recovery under Obama and had nothing to do with Trump, or
(2) There is a better recovery based on confidence (in Trump), with no underlying basis for it.

I'll assume that it's the second factor. Then we'll eventually get a large correction when reality sets in.

The regulatory changes have been huge and have had a big pro-business effect. (Not all have been necessarily good, but it has had a huge impact on business decision-making this year. We are also seeing fundamental changes as a result of the new tax law.

You may be right about a large correction ... even if we get regulatory policy, and tax policy right, if we mess up on trade policy, who knows what will happen.

Ok...but what regulations? And how have they changed business decisions? And how have those changes increased economic growth? I am willing to be convinced if I see the evidence...but I need to see linkage between changes in regulation and economic growth before I subscribe.

freeman3 wrote:Ok...but what regulations? And how have they changed business decisions? And how have those changes increased economic growth? I am willing to be convinced if I see the evidence...but I need to see linkage between changes in regulation and economic growth before I subscribe.

I google and get articles like, "Trump Administration Cutting Hundreds of Planned Regulations." If you want to think you can regulate business to prosperity, the burden is on you.

While the effectiveness of different rules can vary, this regulatory accumulation is hurting the U.S. economy. A study in the June issue of the "Journal of Economic Growth" – authored by John Dawson of Appalachian State University and John Seater of North Carolina State University – estimates that federal regulations have reduced economic growth by about 2 percent per year between 1949 and 2005. They find that if federal regulations were still at levels seen in the year 1949, current GDP would be $38.8 trillion higher. While that number seems extraordinarily high, a number of other studies have similarly concluded that regulatory accumulation slows down economic growth.

Part of the reason is that regulations act as a hidden tax on individuals. If the Department of Transportation sets a higher fuel efficiency mandate for cars, then cars become more expensive, just as if the government imposed a new tax on vehicle purchases.

Another unintended consequence is the stifling of entrepreneurship. Regulations can create barriers to people interested in selling goods or services or starting a small business. For example, 17 states require an individual to earn a license to do hair braiding. To obtain a license in Pennsylvania, you have to train for 300 hours, pass a practical and theoretical exam and then pay a fee. Barriers such as these give consumers fewer choices, and with fewer practitioners offering their services in a particular field, customers may face higher prices.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/ec ... of-dollars

This gives you an early list. http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/23/11-wa ... -100-days/

It's just not that simple. Regulations help to make sure cars are safe and not defective, airlines are safe, food is safe to eat, water is not contaminated, regulations also ensure that business do not impose negative externalities on the environment that we have to pay for. When we go into most businesses noawadays we know that the business is regulated to some degree. That promotes business because if it was a free for all people are more reluctant to buy things because they don't know the products they are buying will work or are safe. Regulations that protect workers also prevent businesses from imposing costs on the rest of us for exposing workers to toxic chemicals and the like. Of course regulations protect the environment as well. Regulations that protect consumers from being scammed also promote business.

The example...that the link cites about raising gas efficiency is instructive. First of all, raising gas efficiency lowers pollution. That means our air is better. It also means someone buying the car pays less for gas, meaning they have more money to spend on other things. And if someone gets their hair-braided in Pennsylvania they know that they are getting someone who is well-trained to do it. We want people to be badly trained to do hair-braiding as an option? How about lawyers? Anyone can put out a shingle and do business? How about doctors? Anyone can do surgery? Engineers? Anyone can build a bridge? How about driving a truck? Shouldn't need a commercial driver's license to drive a truck?

In a complex modern-day economy you need a lot of regulations for it to run smoothly. Too few regulations and you are going to impede the economy because consumers will be tentative about buying products in an unregulated economy. This idea that regulations are inherently bad is some kind of article of faith on the right and is basically absurd. A certain level of regulation is required and beneficial. The question is when regulations get too onerous. The fact that Trump imposed a get rid of two regulations for every new one implemented tells me that he has a simple-minded view of the issue.

Get rid of unnecessary regs and try to make sure business is not over-regulated. But just hacking away at regulations...that's not the answer.

freeman3 wrote:It's just not that simple. Regulations help to make sure cars are safe and not defective, airlines are safe, food is safe to eat, water is not contaminated, regulations also ensure that business do not impose negative externalities on the environment that we have to pay for. When we go into most businesses noawadays we know that the business is regulated to some degree. That promotes business because if it was a free for all people are more reluctant to buy things because they don't know the products they are buying will work or are safe. Regulations that protect workers also prevent businesses from imposing costs on the rest of us for exposing workers to toxic chemicals and the like. Of course regulations protect the environment as well. Regulations that protect consumers from being scammed also promote business.

The example...that the link cites about raising gas efficiency is instructive. First of all, raising gas efficiency lowers pollution. That means our air is better. It also means someone buying the car pays less for gas, meaning they have more money to spend on other things. And if someone gets their hair-braided in Pennsylvania they know that they are getting someone who is well-trained to do it. We want people to be badly trained to do hair-braiding as an option? How about lawyers? Anyone can put out a shingle and do business? How about doctors? Anyone can do surgery? Engineers? Anyone can build a bridge? How about driving a truck? Shouldn't need a commercial driver's license to drive a truck?

In a complex modern-day economy you need a lot of regulations for it to run smoothly. Too few regulations and you are going to impede the economy because consumers will be tentative about buying products in an unregulated economy. This idea that regulations are inherently bad is some kind of article of faith on the right and is basically absurd. A certain level of regulation is required and beneficial. The question is when regulations get too onerous. The fact that Trump imposed a get rid of two regulations for every new one implemented tells me that he has a simple-minded view of the issue.

Get rid of unnecessary regs and try to make sure business is not over-regulated. But just hacking away at regulations...that's not the answer.

Agreed re blindly doing so, but he's not.

The mileage regs are often nothing more than a tax, and sometimes nothing less than a sham.

No one is saying "Get rid of all regulations. Poison the air and water. Kill people."

So, let's not introduce hysteria.