HE LEFT A VERY, VERY MESSY DOODY

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2015 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Claims.   That's because people just stopped looking.

No, not really. Unemployment is at 5.6%. Even if you argue that it's low because some people have been out of work for so long that they have stopped looking, an unemployment rate that low puts pressure on supply, which increases wages and gets more people back into the work force.

We are essentially at "full employment."

For the United States, economist William T. Dickensfound that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s.^[2] Recently, economists have emphasized the idea that full employment represents a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate.^[3]

GREAT!

Now explain what you just posted.

You're right, moy, we should definitely work to put policies in place that slide more money to the middle and lower class and less money to the upper class.

Yeah, the new Republican talking point is that President Obama is responsible for rich getting richer, income gaps, etc. The Republican solution for this is ..............

Posted by moy23 on 1/30/2015 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 1/30/2015 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, the new Republican talking point is that President Obama is responsible for rich getting richer, income gaps, etc. The Republican solution for this is ..............

Lower taxes for everyone... Give them back more of their hard earned money. Reduce government spending. Lower corporate taxes to incentivise business investment and job growth.

Why would lower corporate taxes increase hiring?

Posted by moy23 on 1/30/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/30/2015 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 1/30/2015 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 1/30/2015 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, the new Republican talking point is that President Obama is responsible for rich getting richer, income gaps, etc. The Republican solution for this is ..............

Lower taxes for everyone... Give them back more of their hard earned money. Reduce government spending. Lower corporate taxes to incentivise business investment and job growth.

Why would lower corporate taxes increase hiring?

Increases foreign investment in the US.

For example 'Honda has invested $2 billion into its U.S. manufacturing plants since 2011, bringing Honda¹s total U.S. capital investment to $15.3 billion.'. They now have 9 factories in the US which spend $23 billion buying US parts.... This creates jobs not just for Honda but for the suppliers and manufacturers as well.

http://www.hondainamerica.com/


We need to incentivise MORE of this.

To compete in a worldwide labor market we either have to reduce the tax burden or reduce the wages employees make. I would rather reduce the tax burden. If the cost of doing business in the US becomes too high businesses will invest elsewhere. There is not a talent gap like there used to be - emerging countries have very skilled workers today.

An example - many chicago businesses are leaving IL because of the high tax climate. They are movind (and being recruited) to IN and WI because the labor is just as skilled and the taxes are way lower. IN/WI are hiring more people while IL is fighting to keep businesses here (CBOT, Sears, Walgreens, etc --- btw they are using HUGE tax breaks to keep them in IL). Same concept works internationally.

I can see that. I guess my question is, can we actually lower the corporate rate enough to ever make US employees a viable alternative to cheap, overseas labor? I would guess not. Regardless of what the corporate tax rate is, you're only going to hire Americans if you have to hire Americans. If it's possible to use foreign labor, you are and will continue to.

When it comes to labor costs, it's almost always going to be cheaper to do it overseas and ship it here.   Shipping costs are relatively cheap.   Bulky, inexpensive items aren't worth it but, for something like electronics, it's always going to be cheaper.    Assuming, of course, planning isn't an issue.   Takes time to move stuff from India.

So, basically, the only way to compete, from a cost-effective standpoint, if corporate taxes.