Thread: Rick Perry's Texas jobs boom: The whole story

ah yes the working poor....this does not help GDP one bit

Have I asked you before what you would do about GDP?

Rick Perry = Bilderberg Group

Originally Posted by Curt James

Have I asked you before what you would do about GDP?

* increasing the minimum wage to levels in accordance with guide-lines/recommendations in the 2008 and 1010 ILO Global Wage Reports

* higher corporate tax rates and taxes on capital and ridiculously high import tariffs that will force industrial and manufacturing sectors to move back into the US.

* higher percentage of GDP going to social protections

unfortunately none of these would will ever be done as the tanking of the US economy is intentional to benefit bondholders.. most US citizens are not financially prepared for what is in the future of the US...none if it good at all and all of it caused by the "job creators" and wall street banks and the FRB.

Minimum wage jobs are not for people who support a family. They are for high school kids college kids in people starting out In the workforce. Raising minimum wage only causes inflation. Raise the minimum wage all you want and your burgers and fries will just become more expensive.

Originally Posted by returnofthdragon

Raising minimum wage only causes inflation. Raise the minimum wage all you want and your burgers and fries will just become more expensive.

according to what economic data? inflation is caused my monetary policy not from rising wages.

Originally Posted by LAM

according to what economic data? inflation is caused my monetary policy not from rising wages.

Common sense. The fast food owner isn't going to lose money because someone Forced him to raise his wages. He's going to raise prices. Liberals never can see the big picture. My electric bill is now higher because of new EPA regulations. Another place where the consumer eats the cost not the big business.

Also, raising the required minimum wage is monetary policy.

He also created 40,000 government jobs. Like him or hate him, he is NOT a small government republican. He will be the same Bush.

Originally Posted by returnofthdragon

Common sense. The fast food owner isn't going to lose money because someone Forced him to raise his wages. He's going to raise prices. Liberals never can see the big picture. My electric bill is now higher because of new EPA regulations. Another place where the consumer eats the cost not the big business.

Also, raising the required minimum wage is monetary policy.

lol you have not a clue about economics. monetary policy deals with the money supply that is it.

wages and inflation are interrelated there is no direct correlation....

#1 - inflation is the loss of purchasing power of currency it has nothing at all to do with an increase in wages WHEN an employer can afford to pay higher wages, it simply causes higher payroll which can reduce profits and stock prices.

#2 - the EPA regulations did not cause your power bill to go up. the power bill went up because the utility company wanted to make up for lost profits due to increasing EPA regulation. the power company simply could have eaten it and not raised your rates, that was their choice.

#3 - you have not a clue even what the term liberal even means. an economic liberal is one of the main components of classical liberalism from the 19th century in Europe and is one of the MAIN components of capitalism. economic liberals are the keepers of TRUE CAPITALISM not the fascism in US that is sold to the sheep as capitalism...

It's because they have a Wal-E World in every small town from El Paso to Houston and Brownsville to Perryton.... That's why most are minimum wage...

Originally Posted by LAM

lol you have not a clue about economics. monetary policy deals with the money supply that is it.

wages and inflation are interrelated there is no direct correlation....

#1 - inflation is the loss of purchasing power of currency it has nothing at all to do with an increase in wages WHEN an employer can afford to pay higher wages, it simply causes higher payroll which can reduce profits and stock prices.

#2 - the EPA regulations did not cause your power bill to go up. the power bill went up because the utility company wanted to make up for lost profits due to increasing EPA regulation. the power company simply could have eaten it and not raised your rates, that was their choice.

#3 - you have not a clue even what the term liberal even means. an economic liberal is one of the main components of classical liberalism from the 19th century in Europe and is one of the MAIN components of capitalism. economic liberals are the keepers of TRUE CAPITALISM not the fascism in US that is sold to the sheep as capitalism...

You may consider adding an E to your name. Your #2 explains most of what I was talking about. It doesn't just happen in utilities, it's also anywhere profits decrease due to government regulations such as increasing minimum wage. The other two are either evasive B.S. or just ignorance.

Sad to say most people will just hear that he created jobs and not do their due diligence to see what kind of jobs he created.

The country needs Ron Paul!

Originally Posted by returnofthdragon

You may consider adding an E to your name. Your #2 explains most of what I was talking about. It doesn't just happen in utilities, it's also anywhere profits decrease due to government regulations such as increasing minimum wage. The other two are either evasive B.S. or just ignorance.

where is the data to support your statement? because the 2008 Global Wage Report & the 2010 Global Wage Reports from the ILO do not support your "lame" argument from data collected from the past 30 years from over 100 countries.

low wages in the US is a continuing contributing factor to each recession since the 70's. the US has the highest percentage of low paid workers in the OECD at 25% of the labor force. We also have the most recessions in the OECD, what a shocker, surely no direct correlation there.

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pub...cms_145265.pdf

Page 68

"In recent years, the latter view appears to have become dominant. In 2006, over 650 economists, including five Nobel prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economic Association, issued a statement in which they made the proposition that increasing the minimum wage in the
United States “can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed” (EPI, 2006). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Low Pay Commission stated that: ten years ago, as the minimum wage was about to be introduced, it was just this fear of job losses that dominated discussion. … In fact, since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, the Low Pay Commission
has been at the forefront of the search for evidence of any damage caused by the minimum wage to the economy or to jobs. So far we have not found any significant negative effects, either in the work we have done ourselves or in the work we have commissioned from others. (Low Pay Commission, 2008, pp. vi–vii) More recently, the OECD (2010) also concluded from a sample of OECD countries that “the ratio of the statutory minimum wage to the median wage is associated with no significant alteration of gross worker flows” and that “taking also into account the micro-economic literature, this suggests that statutory minimum wages have at best second-order impacts on labour reallocation” (p. 197). "

Page 80.

"Another emerging concern is the fact that wage stagnation before the crisis may actually have contributed to the crisis and also weakened the ability of economies to recovery quickly. Although there are many other factors involved in triggering the global financial and economic crisis, one view is that the crisis had its structural roots in the decline in aggregate demand that preceded the crisis. Redistribution from wages to profits and from median-wage earners to high wage earners reduced aggregate demand
by transferring income from individuals with a high propensity to spend to people who save more. Before the crisis, some countries were able to maintain household consumption through increased indebtedness, while other countries based their economic growth mainly on exports. This model, however, has proved to be unsustainable. In the future, countries may find it in their interests to base their economic growth on stronger household
consumption, and on household consumption that is anchored in earned income rather than based on increasing debt. Our report argues that wage policies can make a positive contribution towards a more sustainable economic and social model. Both collective bargaining and minimum
wages can help to achieve a more balanced and equitable recovery by ensuring that working families and households on low wages obtain a fair share of the fruits of every single percentage point of economic growth. Our previous Global Wage Report 2008/09 showed that the connection between wages and productivity is stronger in countries where collective bargaining covers more than 30 per cent of employees, and that minimum wages can reduce inequality in the bottom half of the wage distribution. Our current report shows that collective bargaining and minimum wages can also
contribute to reducing the share of workers on low pay. At the same time, there are considerable challenges still facing unions trying to reach out to vulnerable workers and in the establishment of an effective system of minimum wage."

Good OP article.

Like most of the rest of the country, the new jobs created are low-paying service sector jobs, with little or no benefits.

This is the way it is and will be in Texas, and the rest of the nation in the many years to come.

Originally Posted by LAM

* increasing the minimum wage to levels in accordance with guide-lines/recommendations in the 2008 and 1010 ILO Global Wage Reports

* higher corporate tax rates and taxes on capital and ridiculously high import tariffs that will force industrial and manufacturing sectors to move back into the US.

* higher percentage of GDP going to social protections

unfortunately none of these would will ever be done as the tanking of the US economy is intentional to benefit bondholders.. most US citizens are not financially prepared for what is in the future of the US...none if it good at all and all of it caused by the "job creators" and wall street banks and the FRB.

Pretty sure one of more of these actions was responsible for the great depression.

Higher oil prices created jobs in Texas - not Governor Good Hair.

Please please Republicans do not nominate this intillectual lightweight.

He also thinks SS and Medicare are unconstitutional
Rick Perry Says Social Security And Medicare Are Unconstitutional | ThinkProgress

He is going to lose a large, elderly conservative base ( who have lost sight of the fact that these large social programs were largerly liberal inventions anyway...)

Originally Posted by billfred

Pretty sure one of more of these actions was responsible for the great depression.

none of them were the cause...

the Great Depression was caused by mass immigration from foreigners (non-whites and blacks) that were brought into the big cities (metro areas) to work in factories, mining, etc.

at that period of time the US financial system was extremely fiscally conservative and had tight money policies that had been in place since the late 1800's. saving rates and investment was high but credit and consumption was low. birthrates from immigrants exploded in the metro areas, when combined with low wages they were no longer able to afford the goods they needed, factories then started to lay of workers when demand for goods dropped, it was a viscous cycle.

Are we all keeping it civil? Because I know talking politics can make people want to drive stakes through other peoples skulls.

...

Should that be "peoples' skulls"?

And what about this? There was a columnist, someone was telling me, who wrote encouraging the government to create another public works type scenario where the government creates a bunch of jobs for our unemployed workers putting bridges back together, restoring roads, infrastructure-type work.

Yeah, no link. I'll see if I can find something.

Originally Posted by Curt James

And what about this? There was a columnist, someone was telling me, who wrote encouraging the government to create another public works type scenario where the government creates a bunch of jobs for our unemployed workers putting bridges back together, restoring roads, infrastructure-type work.

Capital projects would put a lot of people to work but there are no monies due to decades of a low national savings rate. the build america bonds program was part of the ARA Act of 2009 and it would have put a lot of people and businesses in construction to work. but the program was allowed to expire, the US economy is intentionally being tanked for a variety of reasons.

Originally Posted by LAM

* increasing the minimum wage to levels in accordance with guide-lines/recommendations in the 2008 and 1010 ILO Global Wage Reports

Increased cost to business - forced wages instead of market wages. Overall - reduces employment to the lowest level wage earner. Very few businesses employ minimum wage workers and the ones that do, do not need addition cost during a downturn economy.


* higher corporate tax rates and taxes on capital and ridiculously high import tariffs that will force industrial and manufacturing sectors to move back into the US.

Currently one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, causing companies to move headquarters overseas. Increase in tax rates will accelerate this process and increase unemployment.

Higher tarrifs will result in retaliatory tariffs from trading partners. Increasing the cost of consumer products in the US that we have no factories to produce and increasing the cost of our raw materials (oil) while reducing our exports. Brilliant.

* higher percentage of GDP going to social protections

Exact oposite, reduce social protection - welfare and unemployment insurance and more people will become mobil and look for work. I live in an area where unemployment is below 5% and most if the work force is immigrant labor. Nobody for the North is coming this way because they would rather collect unemployment

Back to the great depression, tarrifs were increased setting off a trade war. From a three year period starting in 1930 US exports dropped 65%.

unfortunately none of these would will ever be done as the tanking of the US economy is intentional to benefit bondholders.. most US citizens are not financially prepared for what is in the future of the US...none if it good at all and all of it caused by the "job creators" and wall street banks and the FRB.

I think you need to read more history books. All have been tried in the past and failed miserably.

He's been saying some very controversial things to kick off his campaign and gain some attention. Once the attention is gained, can the negative kickoff be forgotten?

Originally Posted by billfred

I think you need to read more history books. All have been tried in the past and failed miserably.

your assessment is mostly incorrect...

US corps are sitting on trillions and profits with no place to invest them. the CPI is manipulated to keep wages low, this is US economic history 101. if profits were low and wages were increased THEN it would cause price inflation but that is not reality.

having the highest tax rates on paper doesn't mean squat, it's how much is paid that matters. last year US corps pulled in 1.7T in profits and paid 90B in taxes that is 5%. US company's did move overseas because of taxes they moved overseas to take advantage of higher interest rates. the easy money policy from the FRB is the cause of this.

higher tariffs prevent high rates of imports, this is a good thing. country's with lower rates of imports have higher national savings rates.

unemployment benefits have nothing at all with the economy. the US currently spends the least amount in terms of a percentage of GDP on social protections. higher levels of social protections keeps more money in the economy by giving it to those that spend vs those that have an excess of income that are savers.

when Hoover raised the level of tariffs it helped to create the great depression but was not the sole cause. the japanese lowered the yen to protect it's level of exports.

Originally Posted by LAM

#2 - the EPA regulations did not cause your power bill to go up. the power bill went up because the utility company wanted to make up for lost profits due to increasing EPA regulation. the power company simply could have eaten it and not raised your rates, that was their choice.

Holy contradiction Batman!!!

Originally Posted by LAM

your assessment is mostly incorrect...

US corps are sitting on trillions and profits with no place to invest them. the CPI is manipulated to keep wages low, this is US economic history 101. if profits were low and wages were increased THEN it would cause price inflation but that is not reality.

having the highest tax rates on paper doesn't mean squat, it's how much is paid that matters. last year US corps pulled in 1.7T in profits and paid 90B in taxes that is 5%. US company's did move overseas because of taxes they moved overseas to take advantage of higher interest rates. the easy money policy from the FRB is the cause of this.

higher tariffs prevent high rates of imports, this is a good thing. country's with lower rates of imports have higher national savings rates.

unemployment benefits have nothing at all with the economy. the US currently spends the least amount in terms of a percentage of GDP on social protections. higher levels of social protections keeps more money in the economy by giving it to those that spend vs those that have an excess of income that are savers.

when Hoover raised the level of tariffs it helped to create the great depression but was not the sole cause. the japanese lowered the yen to protect it's level of exports.

You are so wrong on Tarrifs - I have lived in countries where tarrif's are 100% and there is still very little produced locally. As long as countries are trading on equal terms - free trade is the best for all economies.

The key to surviving as a manufacturer is by beign efficient enough to produce high quality goods at lower prices. I don't think the US will ever get back to the point of doing that with pure labor but they will with investment in automation and a tax/regulatory environment that encourages those investments.

Originally Posted by billfred

You are so wrong on Tarrifs - I have lived in countries where tarrif's are 100% and there is still very little produced locally.

Which countries? I ask because so many people compare very small, very geographically different, countries to the USA. A lot of apples to oranges stuff.

Haven't read most of the posts here or the OP.

But I can tell you in one word:
Fracking.

Oil boom.

Originally Posted by billfred

You are so wrong on Tarrifs - I have lived in countries where tarrif's are 100% and there is still very little produced locally. As long as countries are trading on equal terms - free trade is the best for all economies.

The key to surviving as a manufacturer is by beign efficient enough to produce high quality goods at lower prices. I don't think the US will ever get back to the point of doing that with pure labor but they will with investment in automation and a tax/regulatory environment that encourages those investments.

I didn't say that high tariffs are guaranteed but they do help substantially. many countries in the OECD that have much higher tariffs than the US also have substantially higher national savings rates.

that is one of the problems as the US doesn't trade equally with anyone. the US has sustained unbalanced trade relationships for decades with countries even with our 2 highest trading partners Mexico and Canada.