3 ms·

The layoffs are almost all lead by the retail sector, which is undergoing a shift due to digital disruption from the likes of Amazon. There is no evidence the

The layoffs are almost all lead by the retail sector, which is undergoing a shift due to digital disruption from the likes of Amazon. There is no evidence the tax breaks have created (many) jobs...but there is even less evidence that it has "destroyed" jobs. If you can point me to a peer reviewed study that says that, and not a Vox article, I'll gladly read it. But I skim FRED sometimes and have never seen such claims from a legitimate economist. In fact a lot of these jobs were reabsorbed elsewhere in other sectors, that's actually a sign of a fairly healthy economy. Which is actually pretty astonishing given the weakness in Asia at the moment; but as someone I've read (can't remember the author) pointed out the US has never imported a recession, even during the currency crisis of the early 90s and all the problems that Japan has had with growth since the early 90s.

bjourne 8y ago
I did not say that tax cuts destroyed jobs. I said that cutting welfare programs, that Trump has decided to do, will destroy jobs. This idea is prevalent among Keynesian and Marxian economists as you can easily find out for yourself by reading Wikipedia. Whether they are right or not, well, we will see about that in two to three years.
bduerst 8y ago
>The layoffs are almost all lead by the retail sector, which is undergoing a shift due to digital disruption from the likes of Amazon. Except YoY retail layoffs have shrunk by 20%. And that's a very strange burden of proof to lay down for trickle down economics, considering that tax cuts for the wealthy are repeatedly claimed to generate jobs. Are you saying the job generation claim is a red herring? Would you equally defend me not paying any taxes since it "doesn't hurt anything", or do I need to be super-rich first to get the tax-cut apologizing?
ajross 8y ago
Why picking on Vox here? Vox is, if anything, decidedly pro-market for a left wing publication. Branding himself a "neoliberal shill" is one of Yglesias's core schticks, even. In fact I'll go farther: Vox's economics coverage is as good as any you can find on the internet outside of academic sources. They're deep, wonky and very broad. Obviously that comes with some policy preferences, but if you're avoiding them because they don't match your personal politics I think you're missing out.

bjourne 8y ago

I did not say that tax cuts destroyed jobs. I said that cutting welfare programs, that Trump has decided to do, will destroy jobs. This idea is prevalent among Keynesian and Marxian economists as you can easily find out for yourself by reading Wikipedia. Whether they are right or not, well, we will see about that in two to three years.

bduerst 8y ago

>The layoffs are almost all lead by the retail sector, which is undergoing a shift due to digital disruption from the likes of Amazon. Except YoY retail layoffs have shrunk by 20%. And that's a very strange burden of proof to lay down for trickle down economics, considering that tax cuts for the wealthy are repeatedly claimed to generate jobs. Are you saying the job generation claim is a red herring? Would you equally defend me not paying any taxes since it "doesn't hurt anything", or do I need to be super-rich first to get the tax-cut apologizing?

ajross 8y ago

Why picking on Vox here? Vox is, if anything, decidedly pro-market for a left wing publication. Branding himself a "neoliberal shill" is one of Yglesias's core schticks, even. In fact I'll go farther: Vox's economics coverage is as good as any you can find on the internet outside of academic sources. They're deep, wonky and very broad. Obviously that comes with some policy preferences, but if you're avoiding them because they don't match your personal politics I think you're missing out.