Another terrible jobs number

Very true. Most noticeably Reagan's tax policy in combination wth Clinton FDI policy and the best you can wish for is this

https://thejobgap.org/job-gap-2015-low-wage-nation/2015-low-wage-nation-national-findings/

 

Not for the incremental quarterly swings that we over-report since the advent of CNBC and online brokerage, but you can definitely link executive choices all the way back to TR to economic activity.

 

Actually it was QE that did it, interest rates were already near 0.

 

You're projecting again, this is the advice you should be taking.

Particularly in realizing that now that the baby boomers have begun retiring, that rate will continue to drop for the next decade or two regardless of what party happens to occupy the White House.

Which stagnated in the mid-1970s, having very little to do with Obama, particularly since the GOP controlled Congress refused to do anything that might help as their number one priority was making Obama a one-term president.

You mean like unemployment rate?

Obama doesn't have any influence on Fed actions?

 

Please bigtexxx tell us how the republicans want to impact wage growth!

Tell me how republicans are working to help low and middle class workers get paid more!!!

 

Ireland has a great corporate tax rate. A lot of companies relocate there. They must have a super low employment rate and wage growth rate as well?

 

Leading the world in alternative energy solutions would effect the trade deficit and job growth. Carbon companies might quit resisting at this point.

 

No you just can't give any stats to back up your assertion. That is because you can't as usual. How did you even get into Rice. Is it because you are a Mexican?

 

lol, I just want to remind everybody how useless it is to argue macroeconomics with texxx.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=156438&highlight=obama+stock+market&page=2



Is the stock market now pricing in his exit?

arguing with texxx about "Obamanomics" is arguing with somebody who slips goalposts like some people drink water, and somebody who will look for any reason to assuage blame to the president for macroeconomic conditions.

his rebuttal will be "Fed near-zero interest rate policy!" as always--in which case I'll point out that his rebuttal undoes his own argument that the president is largely responsible for macroeconomic effects one way or another.

Trying to isolate macroeconomic trends to an individual without actually isolating for different effects is the hallmark of terrible economic thinking, which really defines this thread.

 

I didn't say any such thing, go back and read for comprehension, try to do so without the pervasive bias which colors your worldview.

I'm far more educated than you are and I'm actively pursuing more education, b!tch.

You don't have the capacity to educate me.

 

There is no evidence that there is any link between tax rates and GDP growth, none whatsoever.

 

So, just about par for this thread?



Have fun in here, but try not to make it seem like you're advancing actual economic arguments.

 

If your theory is that reducing taxes for American corporations leads to more jobs and increased wage growth for American workers, then how would pursuing corporate inversions/lower taxes and keeping operations in America not increase jobs and wage growth as well?