The New Gilded Age

[Pyperkub]

So would you agree that the federal government should have used fiscal policy instead of monetary policy? Paul Krugman has long argued the limits of monetary policy and that government spending on infrastructure projects was the preferable policy option, despite the opposition of the Republican party to "increasing the deficit."

Somewhat. QE is a nice short term shock tool, not something you should do long term (more than a year or two) IMHO. I would have liked to see them spend a little less and yes to have spent most of what was spent on infrastructure and/or creating true wealth over paper wealth. If you ask me QE is nothing but trickle down theory in another wrapper. Fooled us twice if you will.

Most of what was spent was on Tax Cuts - which don't create as many jobs as infrastructure spending.

[Rip]

So would you agree that the federal government should have used fiscal policy instead of monetary policy? Paul Krugman has long argued the limits of monetary policy and that government spending on infrastructure projects was the preferable policy option, despite the opposition of the Republican party to "increasing the deficit."

Somewhat. QE is a nice short term shock tool, not something you should do long term (more than a year or two) IMHO. I would have liked to see them spend a little less and yes to have spent most of what was spent on infrastructure and/or creating true wealth over paper wealth. If you ask me QE is nothing but trickle down theory in another wrapper. Fooled us twice if you will.

Most of what was spent was on Tax Cuts - which don't create as many jobs as infrastructure spending.

Most of what was spent was created from nothing. QE isn't much different than starting the printing presses and just handing the money to the wealthy hoping that they use it to make more money and it trickles down. They did and it didn't.

Tax cuts are/were a triffle when compared to the amount of capital involved in QE. The ironic thing is that we have just emerged from a giant bank bailout where the banks were pretty much crooks, and now we are printing mountains of cash and handing it to them expecting them to do the right thing. It is nothing short of insanity.

Several rounds of QE in America have increased the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet—the value of the assets it holds—from less than $1 trillion in 2007 to more than $4 trillion now.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... explains-5

[hepcat]

I'm just glad I don't live in The New Gelded Age.

[Pyperkub]

So would you agree that the federal government should have used fiscal policy instead of monetary policy? Paul Krugman has long argued the limits of monetary policy and that government spending on infrastructure projects was the preferable policy option, despite the opposition of the Republican party to "increasing the deficit."

Somewhat. QE is a nice short term shock tool, not something you should do long term (more than a year or two) IMHO. I would have liked to see them spend a little less and yes to have spent most of what was spent on infrastructure and/or creating true wealth over paper wealth. If you ask me QE is nothing but trickle down theory in another wrapper. Fooled us twice if you will.

Most of what was spent was on Tax Cuts - which don't create as many jobs as infrastructure spending.

Most of what was spent was created from nothing. QE isn't much different than starting the printing presses and just handing the money to the wealthy hoping that they use it to make more money and it trickles down. They did and it didn't.

Tax cuts are/were a triffle when compared to the amount of capital involved in QE. The ironic thing is that we have just emerged from a giant bank bailout where the banks were pretty much crooks, and now we are printing mountains of cash and handing it to them expecting them to do the right thing. It is nothing short of insanity.

Several rounds of QE in America have increased the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet—the value of the assets it holds—from less than $1 trillion in 2007 to more than $4 trillion now.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... explains-5

I'd argue that it was short of insanity, as it did what couldn't be done politically yet needed to be done, but ok. I just want to see this same rationale applied when a GOP President runs us into the trough again. If we end up in another Middle East war, there better be some kind of sacrifice to pay for it, and not just putting it on the adults' credit card like last time, while cutting income.

[LordMortis]

I'd argue that it was short of insanity, as it did what couldn't be done politically yet needed to be done, but ok. I just want to see this same rationale applied when a GOP President runs us into the trough again. If we end up in another Middle East war, there better be some kind of sacrifice to pay for it, and not just putting it on the adults' credit card like last time, while cutting income.

I was against free money to wall street and tax cuts going all the way back to Bush the Younger. Does that count? I also have been in favor of increase spending for infrastructure as a means injecting money into the economy going all the way back to Clinton.

Of course, I've somehow learned to dislike the republican party more than democratic party over the last 16 years or so.

[Pyperkub]

Yes.

The main point is an honest discussion based on merits and not just knee jerk politics.

Not spreading FUD, but rather constructive arguments.

There are some things you can't afford NOT to do. Afghanistan was one, so too was the bailout IMHO . Could they both have been done better? Yup, but there was a clear necessity for action there.

[Pyperkub]

An interesting look at how the 1% are being subsidized in the financial industry:

The International Monetary Fund has estimated that the big US banks received possibly more than all of their profits from the implicit subsidies associated with being “too important to fail”, as opposed to actually producing anything of value.

That supports Andy Haldane’s hypothesis that the supposed post-1980 productivity miracle in finance, which was calculated by blindly trusting the big banks’ reported profits, was simply the result of greater risk-taking — and therefore larger hidden transfers from the rest of society — rather than any genuine value creation.

For perspective, the financial sector contributes about a fifth of total US corporate profits. That share has grown tremendously since the late 1970s, and is a big reason why overall US corporate margins are so much higher now...

...Pair these findings on worker pay with Haldane’s research into the true value added by the big banks and it becomes quite easy to imagine that a significant chunk of the increase in inequality is due to the massive hidden subsidy of artificially cheap leverage measured by the IMF.

[Kraken]

Small pool of rich donors dominate election giving

Fewer than 400 families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 presidential campaign, a concentration of political donors that is unprecedented in the modern era.

...

Just 130 or so families and their businesses provided more than half the money raised through June by Republican candidates and their super PACs.

“The question is whether we are in a new Gilded Age or well beyond it — to a Platinum Age,” said Michael J. Malbin, president of the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks the flow of campaign money.

[Pyperkub]

I murdered my father - where are my damn yoga classes!

The man currently in custody for allegedly killing his hedge fund founder father wants to take yoga classes: A Rikers staff told the Daily News that Thomas Gilbert Jr., 30, "kept asking for yoga. He thought he was in some resort.” It's worth noting that this is not such a fanciful request, as yoga classes are an option for some inmates at Rikers

[Pyperkub]

A Trump-ism which belongs here:

"I do whine because I want to win, and I'm not happy about not winning, and I am a whiner, and I keep whining and whining until I win," he said on CNN.

That seems apropos for our new Gilded Age...

[Rip]

http://www.businessinsider.com/money-pr ... on-2015-12

So this global binge of QE has caused inflation, a lot of it, but not consumer price inflation. It has caused rampant asset price inflation, with stocks, bonds, real estate, classic cars, art ... all skyrocketing over the years.

Just about the only major asset class that didn’t experience gains is the commodities sector. There, prices have collapsed. And we’ll get to that in a moment.

So why has QE caused rampant asset price inflation but little consumer price inflation? Because the money never went to consumers — in the form of wages. They would have spent most of it, thus driving up demand that could have created some inflationary pressures in consumer prices. But they never got this money.

OK, there has been confiscatory inflation in parts of the consumer price spectrum, for example in healthcare and college expenses. This chart by Advisor Perspectives shows that since 1991 college tuition and fees have soared 338% and medical care 167%. Increases have accelerated since 2001, through heck or high water.

So why has QE not caused a big bout of consumer price inflation? Because the money has been channeled to big financial and corporate entities, and they plowed it into financial and other assets (including share buybacks and other forms of “financial engineering”), thus pushing up asset prices.

As asset prices jumped, people holding these assets got richer and invested their gains, thus propagating the asset price booms. These already wealthy people didn’t need to spend their gains (what Bernanke called the “wealth effect”) because they already were spending all they wanted to spend. So the asset price boom had little impact on consumption and thus didn’t create inflationary pressures from consumers (however, some luxury items like yachts did see a spurt of activity).

[Isgrimnur]

Tell me something I didn't know.

The 2008 crisis was precipitated by, and required action to shore up, the machinery of the economy. While everyone has forgotten the tax rebates one-shot, they were there. But of course, most household spending doesn't directly benefit the failing economic powerhouses that had driven themselves into the ground and risked taking the economy with it.

Of course, I don't hear anyone advocating for more rebates to stimulate demand.

[Pyperkub]

This is a really interesting piece, on how your opportunities are very much related to your parents' success, but I really, really wish that they had also charted the data over time, as I suspect we would see a strong correlation with tax policy changes:

On Friday, a team of researchers led by Stanford economist Raj Chetty released a paper on how growing up in poverty affects boys and girls differently. Their core finding: Boys who grow up in poor families fare substantially worse in adulthood, in terms of employment and earnings, than girls who grow up in the same circumstances. (The Washington Post has a good write-up of the paper and its implications.)

But beyond its immediate conclusions, the paper, like much of Chetty’s recent work as part of his Equality of Opportunity Project, points to a deeper truth: In the U.S., where you come from — where you grow up, how much your parents earn, whether your parents were married — plays a major role in determining where you will end up later in life.

[noxiousdog]

This is a really interesting piece, on how your opportunities are very much related to your parents' success, but I really, really wish that they had also charted the data over time, as I suspect we would see a strong correlation with tax policy changes:

On Friday, a team of researchers led by Stanford economist Raj Chetty released a paper on how growing up in poverty affects boys and girls differently. Their core finding: Boys who grow up in poor families fare substantially worse in adulthood, in terms of employment and earnings, than girls who grow up in the same circumstances. (The Washington Post has a good write-up of the paper and its implications.)

But beyond its immediate conclusions, the paper, like much of Chetty’s recent work as part of his Equality of Opportunity Project, points to a deeper truth: In the U.S., where you come from — where you grow up, how much your parents earn, whether your parents were married — plays a major role in determining where you will end up later in life.

And now... separate that from genetics.

[Captain Caveman]

This is a really interesting piece, on how your opportunities are very much related to your parents' success, but I really, really wish that they had also charted the data over time, as I suspect we would see a strong correlation with tax policy changes:

On Friday, a team of researchers led by Stanford economist Raj Chetty released a paper on how growing up in poverty affects boys and girls differently. Their core finding: Boys who grow up in poor families fare substantially worse in adulthood, in terms of employment and earnings, than girls who grow up in the same circumstances. (The Washington Post has a good write-up of the paper and its implications.)

But beyond its immediate conclusions, the paper, like much of Chetty’s recent work as part of his Equality of Opportunity Project, points to a deeper truth: In the U.S., where you come from — where you grow up, how much your parents earn, whether your parents were married — plays a major role in determining where you will end up later in life.

And now... separate that from genetics.

That's what adoption studies attempt to do. On some characteristics that are heavily influenced by biology (temperament, personality, intelligence), kids adopted at birth resemble their biological parents more than their adopted ones. But they are more likely to resemble their adopted parents in other characteristics that are more culturally determined like values, faith, language, and political ideology. Economic opportunities of adopted kids are likely to be much more similar to their heir adopted parents than their biological ones given that they'll have all of the economic and cultural resources of their adopted family at their disposal. An interesting comparison would be to compare how well they take advantage of these opportunities relative to their siblings who are the biological kids of the parents. A discrepancy in life outcomes and accomplishments might indicate the unique role of genetics above and beyond the environmental influence.

[LordMortis]

So I was reading about last nights debate and I'm at a loss

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

This goes on but starts

Longer Hours for Less Pay?

Sanders repeated his talking point that “millions of Americans … are working longer hours for low wages.” (Typically, he says “lower wages,” as he did in a Dec. 29, 2015, Facebook post, a Jan. 14 tweet, and a campaign ad that began airing in November.)

Sanders: Millions of Americans are giving up on the political process. And they’re giving up on the political process because they understand the economy is rigged. They are working longer hours for low wages. They’re worried about the future of their kids, and yet almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.

Let’s look at the official figures. The trend for the average weekly hours of production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector has declined — from a high point of 38.8 hours a week in May 1965 to 33.7 hours a week in December 2015, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average weekly hours dropped to a low of 33 in June 2009, at the official end of the Great Recession, and have gone up a bit to 33.7, where weekly hours also were in January 2008.

For all employees in the private sector, BLS data are only available since 2009, showing a small increase in weekly hours from 33.8 hours to 34.5 hours on average.

At the same time that average weekly hours for production and nonsupervisory employees were going down, the average weekly earnings also declined. BLS numbers show average weekly earnings for those employees in May 1965 were $320.69, in 1982-84 dollars, compared with $307.94 in December 2015. That’s a drop in inflation-adjusted earnings of 4 percent, during a time period in which the hours worked declined 13 percent.

So that’s lower earnings for fewer hours worked.

I know that what I observe is not necessarily indicative of the whole, but does any one know of normal full time employees working less than 40 hours? In my industry, in my area, the standard work week has become 45 hours and no one works "only" 45 hours. Of course we get paid as if we work a 40 hour week.

This can't be telling the full story, can it?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000007

Underemployment? Part timers from Dual Income? More kids in the workforce?

While I can't speak to making less money, I don't know how the money thing works. From just about any perspective I make good money... Except the one that says I am basically working for the dream of retirement and probably couldn't raise a family on my wage like my father did and he also got an early retirement to boot and didn't have to dream about it as a blue collar worker.


Any how I find the whole thing interesting and frustrating. I am living in some sort of state of cognitive dissonance. I can't see how we're putting in less hours because I don't see anyone putting in less hours and I see a lot more dual income families and yet the numbers they collect say a different story.

[Jeff V]

There doesn't seem to be many parameters on that data, so I would presume it includes kids working after-school jobs; elderly working as Walmart greeters (and, well, virtually all Walmart employees since the company wishes to keep them in abject poverty with no benefits); contractors/consultants and other professionals that might get by on shorter work weeks (often by choice) and non-principal breadwinners simply augmenting household income. Many companies also have less-than-40 hour work weeks (I've even worked for some that averaged 37.5). Since the chart is for "production and non-supervisory employees", this means the vast majority of them are also OT-eligible, and companies such as mine often do what they can to avoid paying OT at all. Fortunately, while as a manager I can work all of the hours I want in a week and occasionally do go over 40, the goal is to keep it at or under 40 and this is rarely a problem.

The chart might look different if it contained full-time employees only.

[msteelers]

I know that what I observe is not necessarily indicative of the whole, but does any one know of normal full time employees working less than 40 hours? In my industry, in my area, the standard work week has become 45 hours and no one works "only" 45 hours. Of course we get paid as if we work a 40 hour week.

My first real job was for a large corporation where a full work week was 37.5 hours.

At my current position in a totally different industry and a much smaller company. I'm a full time salaried employee, and I generally work under 40 hours a week.

[LordMortis]

:envy:

My area made a serious wrong turn somewhere.

[GreenGoo]

I can't for the life of me believe that the majority of salaried workers are working only 33-34 hours a week regularly.

Could I believe hourly employees are working that? Sure. But they get paid for the hours they work, so they are either working that by choice (yay) or are getting screwed by their employer (boo). In either case, it hardly discredits Sanders' point. I guess technically it does but not the spirit of his point.

[The Meal]

I can't for the life of me believe that the majority of salaried workers are working only 33-34 hours a week regularly.

*Maybe* if you factor in holidays and vacations as time-not-working you can pull the average down below 40. But that's a lot of time off to pull the weekly average down by six or seven hours.

[GreenGoo]

I can't for the life of me believe that the majority of salaried workers are working only 33-34 hours a week regularly.

*Maybe* if you factor in holidays and vacations as time-not-working you can pull the average down below 40. But that's a lot of time off to pull the weekly average down by six or seven hours.

Good point. Government employees often have more paid time off (partial compensation for less pay I guess) than private industry so that could pull the average down, although while there are a LOT of government employees I can't imagine it's close to the number of private industry employees (meaning lesser impact to the average overall).

[Jeff V]

I believe that linked graph is just for private sector and not public jobs. There are a lot of people engaged in less-than-full time work, by design or necessity, however. If you ever go shopping or to fast-food joints in the evening, for example, you are more than likely dealing exclusively with part time people (aside from managers/supervisors who are not included in this graph). A lot of big companies (UPS is notorious for this) also employ large numbers of part time people to keep down the cost of benefits.

The numbers are IMO remarkably close, all within a .7 hour (or about 45 minutes) spread. looking at the distribution, it seems to be on the low end when the economy is sucking (2009) and on the high end when it is not (such as today). When employees have hand, as is generally the case today, employers have less ability to pull off their part time crap and still maintain a productive workforce.

[LordMortis]

The idea of working a 40 hours work week that gave me 7 hours off for every 33 worked seems like an impossible dream. Essentially saying that I work 208 8 hour days a year, rather than 227 9+ hour days (after 18 years).

208 days is taking 11 holidays plus another 41 days of PTO, isn't it? (while still working an 8 hour day)

[Jeff V]

11 holidays?

We get...um...6. Beginning of Summer, Middle of Summer, End of Summer, Football and Turkey Day, Presents Day, and Drunken Party Day.

[LordMortis]

11 holidays?

We get...um...6. Beginning of Summer, Middle of Summer, End of Summer, Football and Turkey Day, Presents Day, and Drunken Party Day.

11 is standard around here.

NY
Memorial
Easter Friday
4th of July
Labor
Turkey Day +2
Xmas +2
NYE

...

I appear to be missing one but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. We don't Columbus, Voting, or MLK days off.

[Max Peck]

11 holidays?

We get...um...6. Beginning of Summer, Middle of Summer, End of Summer, Football and Turkey Day, Presents Day, and Drunken Party Day.

11 is standard around here.

NY
Memorial
Easter Friday
4th of July
Labor
Turkey Day +2
Xmas +2
NYE

...

I appear to be missing one but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. We don't Columbus, Voting, or MLK days off.

Veteran's Day?

[Jeff V]

Oh, we get Hangover Day off too, so 7.

[Isgrimnur]

13 holidays, one of which is slurped by the all team meeting, but compensated for with a floating holiday.

[LordMortis]

Veteran's Day?

Nope. I remember having this thought before, so it might be they tell me I get the standard 11 holidays when they really mean 10.

[Jeff V]

13 holidays, one of which is slurped by the all team meeting, but compensated for with a floating holiday.

Oh, we get 3 floating holidays too. This year I am taking Spouse's Day (Jan 26), International Dog Biscuit Appreciation Day (Feb 23) and, of course, National Goof Off Day (March 22).

[Archinerd]

11 holidays?

We get...um...6. Beginning of Summer, Middle of Summer, End of Summer, Football and Turkey Day, Presents Day, and Drunken Party Day.

Yep, I can confirm. 6 Holidays.

[Archinerd]

School kids around here get more though.
Polish General's Day, Civil Rights Activist Day, Furry-Faced President's Day, and whatever Feb 5th is because I've been seeing kids walking around outside all day so I'm pretty sure there is no school.

[ImLawBoy]

School kids around here get more though.
Polish General's Day, Civil Rights Activist Day, Furry-Faced President's Day, and whatever Feb 5th is because I've been seeing kids walking around outside all day so I'm pretty sure there is no school.

It's just a teacher's institute day, not an official holiday. It's the day when the teachers are more open about Irishing up their coffees.

[LordMortis]

Reading this for work:

https://www.amazon.com/Exponential-Orga ... anizations

It appears as though the corporatcracy is beginning the push for the employeeless and assetless economy and from my read so far a chunk of it is being accomplished through the same WallStreet snakeoil salesmanship of. So far it's a fascinating and useful examination of why we are on the verge of losing most of the employee/employer relationship in the public sector, among other things.

The book chooses to see this a path to exponentially growing billion dollar IPO utopia with workers having an ultimate freedom. I can't help but see the initial 1980's cyberpunk dystopias making the general populace into the farm labor of a Steinbeck novel. I'm trying really hard to have a better attitude. It's got some great stuff but so far I can't see how the economics of a world terrified of technological disruption leaving them behind is going to uplift "the people" being left behind. These people elected Trump largely out of that fear. They so desperately don't want be left behind, they're holding federal government hostage to go back to the mystical year known only as the abstract "again"

[Rip]

[malchior]

According to UBS and PwC the 2nd gilded age is now unofficially official. The US tax debate has to be framed in this context as the ultra wealthy strike first. This could easily also explain the rise of populism across the west. It is a bit early to say but it rings right. Especially when you talk to many under 35 right now who are struggling.

Edit: I would *love* to see their methodology that shows that 98% of their wealth goes back into circulation. Stagnant wages for decades argues *very, very strongly* against that.

[Isgrimnur]

When new adults spent nine years earning less than retirees did...

[noxiousdog]

New adults (and note that includes 15-18 year olds) SHOULD earn less than retirees.

[Isgrimnur]

New adults (and note that includes 15-18 year olds) SHOULD earn less than retirees.

And yet 82% of the last fifty years indicates that it's not the case. But who's to blame? It's surely not the new adults setting their own wages.

Also of interest to me, note the barely-there blip for retirees during the last recession.