4 ms·

But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore, hasn't for decades upon decades. Probably worth asking if you assert that American corporat

But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore, hasn't for decades upon decades. Probably worth asking if you assert that American corporate taxes are the highest in the world: sometimes there are just major, major reality-based differences in the discourse and it's useless talking any further. I know I can't believe some of your axioms here, unfortunately.

ericd 9y ago
I'm curious what you mean by that, because I've never heard anyone seriously argue against that assertion. Our top marginal corporate tax rate is one of the highest, according to Wikipedia [1], though companies are generally pretty good at not being too profitable and therefore not paying a very high tax rate, if that's what you mean. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St... Excerpt: In 2014 the United States had the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent (consisting of the 35% federal rate plus a combined state rate), exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates However, the average corporate tax rate in 2011 dipped to 12.1%, its lowest level since before World War I, largely due to the great recession and a bonus depreciation tax break.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  You do understand the difference between marginal and baseline tax rates? That word 'marginal' did not slip by me, I'm afraid.
  - ericd 9y ago
    Yes, I do, and no, it wasn't meant to "slip by you", which is why I asked if you meant that companies were good at not being profitable, and thus never made it to the top rate.
CryptoPunk 9y ago
It's tracked labour productivity growth very closely: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/22_wage_fig1.png?w=639&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C457px https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/22_wage...
- notacoward 9y ago
  That graph shows the exact opposite. From near-parity with the output figures in 1947-1972, wage/compensation struggle to stay about half that in 2005-2014. In other words, the workers are not benefiting in proportion to productivity.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    It's still highly correlated for most of recent history, meaning for most of the last 50 years. 2005 to 2014 is only a nine year period, and even during this period, compensation growth has been well half (0.9 vs 1.5) of output growth.
    - notacoward 9y ago
      Beyond the obvious cherry-picking, that's some pretty serious statistical gamesmanship you're into. Maybe you should consider this little thing we call exponential growth, or "compounding" to a finance type. Let's look at the "Hourly Compensation (Output Price)" figures, which are the most favorable to your argument. * For 1947-1972 it fell behind output by 0.2% per year, which sounds small, but that's 4.6% for the entire period. * In 1972-1994 workers fell behind by another 4.1% * In 1994-2005 (half the time) workers fell behind by another 2.9% * In 2005-2014 (even less time) workers fell behind by another 4% Over the entire span, workers' compensation has only increased 85% as much as productivity. More importantly, the gap is growing, not shrinking. Even using yearly figures to make differences look small, then grouping those numbers into oh-so-convenient unequal intervals, can't turn this into evidence of your original claim that wages have kept pace with productivity growth.
      - 9y ago

ericd 9y ago

I'm curious what you mean by that, because I've never heard anyone seriously argue against that assertion. Our top marginal corporate tax rate is one of the highest, according to Wikipedia [1], though companies are generally pretty good at not being too profitable and therefore not paying a very high tax rate, if that's what you mean. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St... Excerpt: In 2014 the United States had the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent (consisting of the 35% federal rate plus a combined state rate), exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates However, the average corporate tax rate in 2011 dipped to 12.1%, its lowest level since before World War I, largely due to the great recession and a bonus depreciation tax break.

Applejinx 9y ago
You do understand the difference between marginal and baseline tax rates? That word 'marginal' did not slip by me, I'm afraid.
- ericd 9y ago
  Yes, I do, and no, it wasn't meant to "slip by you", which is why I asked if you meant that companies were good at not being profitable, and thus never made it to the top rate.

CryptoPunk 9y ago

It's tracked labour productivity growth very closely: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/22_wage_fig1.png?w=639&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C457px https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/22_wage...

notacoward 9y ago
That graph shows the exact opposite. From near-parity with the output figures in 1947-1972, wage/compensation struggle to stay about half that in 2005-2014. In other words, the workers are not benefiting in proportion to productivity.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  It's still highly correlated for most of recent history, meaning for most of the last 50 years. 2005 to 2014 is only a nine year period, and even during this period, compensation growth has been well half (0.9 vs 1.5) of output growth.
  - notacoward 9y ago
    Beyond the obvious cherry-picking, that's some pretty serious statistical gamesmanship you're into. Maybe you should consider this little thing we call exponential growth, or "compounding" to a finance type. Let's look at the "Hourly Compensation (Output Price)" figures, which are the most favorable to your argument. * For 1947-1972 it fell behind output by 0.2% per year, which sounds small, but that's 4.6% for the entire period. * In 1972-1994 workers fell behind by another 4.1% * In 1994-2005 (half the time) workers fell behind by another 2.9% * In 2005-2014 (even less time) workers fell behind by another 4% Over the entire span, workers' compensation has only increased 85% as much as productivity. More importantly, the gap is growing, not shrinking. Even using yearly figures to make differences look small, then grouping those numbers into oh-so-convenient unequal intervals, can't turn this into evidence of your original claim that wages have kept pace with productivity growth.
    - 9y ago