Do trickle-down economics work?

There is nothing inherently wrong with economic inequality.

No. Its too simplified. You would never make an investment purely based on hoping something might conveniently happen. There needs to be something spuring the action you want. E.G. tax credits for people who invest in startups. Tax credits for increasing personnel by x% per year. Tax credits for adopting new technology in your corperation. Good will tax reduction is retarded and doesnt benefit the middle income family who is also investing in start ups or starting businesses and developing growth.

No it ducking does not work. You can only have so many yachts, so many mansions, you can only grow your business so much before you simply stop caring and begin inadvertently hoarding money. Having billions in a Savings account does nothing to help the American economy. Give money to a poor person and it gets spent, give money to a rich person and it gets saved.

The era of wealth only lasting a few generations is over. The worth has never had superwealthy to the degree that they now exist.

Historically significant economic inequality has led to fairly shity problems

Only if you're on the far right of the Laffer curve, or the tax cuts are extreme enough to radically change the investment environment. Good companies (true Scotsman argument applies here) will only invest if they see it as a way to grow. Giving them several % more in revenue doesn't change a damn thing. If there's no growth, companies will either pocket it or distribute it to shareholders. The vast majority of shareholders are households and retirement accounts. So in essence the rich or the common man will squirrel the money away if there's no growth.

i'm tired and rambling.

Yeah because the French Revolution, Russian October, Nazism, and Alcibiades' seduction of the lower classes of Athens all turned out so fucking well.

A heartfelt thanks to you "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who continue to cuck yourselves in order to make me and my wealthy peers even more wealth.

Case in point: my net worth is seven figures higher since the election thanks to all the dumb, poor, white Americans who apparently decided that I need a massive tax break. Have your lives improved since the election?

No. See long form economic research of the last 30 years for proof.
>1930820
This is wrong,, no one stopped investing because they would make slightly less millions because of tax. In fact companies now have a glut of cash that they are not using to build new things or hire new people. Changing the tax rate up or down some doesn't really change this. People invested more when the tax rate was higher in fact.
Again I repeat no investor or bank turned down a chance to make a few more million with a new deal because the tax rate was say 50% instead of 30%. They are still making money (protip: profits are taxed, not losses.)
.
Anyone who still splits this claptrap are bootlicking cucks. It's one of those things that /sounds/ right but takes a long economic aurgument to show why it's wrong, if you really care to see the argument, read a book, not Veeky Forums.

Exactly, and then you have someone like trudeau in Canada think that you grow an economy you need to borrow money and dump it into infrastructure that we can't afford because he's "creating jobs". Mind you these aren't permanent jobs. And deeper we go into the hole.

What does that even mean? People on the right use it as a meme to pander to dumb fuck voters who also think the national debt matters meanwhile the left uses it as a demon to champion government control over every aspect of the economy.

If it is just referring back to investing back into the business; yes, it works so long as its labor. Otherwise, multinational enterprises will simply buy machines or offshore production where there are cheaper labor costs and then shift profits to tax havens.

It works so long as it is domestic business reinvesting in more labor, essentially.

Holy shit, I knew Veeky Forums was stupid but I didn't know you fuckers were THIS stupid

You know pretty much every major economist who's been relevant at all in the last 30 years has said trickle down economics not only doesn't work, but actually hurts the lower classes more?

You people fucking know this, don't you?

I hate this argument. I could go to the New School in NY or UMass-Amherst and find a million leftist retards to say one thing.

Then, I could go to Duke and Auburn and find a bunch of right leaning retards to say the exact opposite.

Economists are literally memeworthy.

Trickle down doesn't work eh? So tell me, when's the last time you got a job from a poor person?

Open mouth, insert foot. Stupid fuck.

Alright, fine, let's talk anecdotes instead because I agree: economists aren't the be-all end-all of financial discussion.

I am a business owner - literally, I own a business, which I am going to continue maintaining and building tomorrow morning, just like most mornings. It's small, sure, but these concepts apply whether you have 2 employees or 14,000.

Let's say tomorrow I receive a letter in the mail saying "Your federal+state taxes are going to be capped at 5% from now on", saving me tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Let's just say that happens. Now I have a shit ton more money in my pockets. I would fucking NOT hire more people, or raise my wages, just because I had more money. What on fucking Earth would make you think I'd do that? I'm going to pocket that extra fucking money because I ALREADY HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE I NEED. I don't hire people because I have extra money, I HIRE PEOPLE BECAUSE I NEED THEM. I don't pay people what I pay them because I'm so generous and just have all this money laying around, I PAY THEM BECAUSE I FUCKING NEED THEM TO WORK.

I swear to god every person who legitimately believes trickle down economics is a real, actual fucking real-life god damn concept, has NEVER thought about it from the business owner's perspective. Never ONCE thought about it from the perspective of the PEOPLE WHO ARE DOLLING OUT THAT MONEY. I DOLL OUT THAT MONEY. I'M NOT GOING TO HIRE MORE PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE MY TAXES GOT LOWERED.

If that doesn't make sense, please, I'm begging you, tell me what you don't understand.

Nice meme

These two are beacons of light

>Nice meme

Exactly you fucking assclown.

You don't own jack shit. If you did, you would be firsthand evidence of trickle down economics. How, you ask? BECAUSE YOU'RE PAYING PEOPLE WHO HAVE LESS MONEY THAN YOU. If they didn't, they wouldn't be working for your stupid ass.

You are a Grade-A fucking moron.

Dude wait wait wait. Trickle down economics isn't the concept of rich people employing poor people.

It's specifically the idea that "lowering taxes on the wealthy will give them more money, which eventually 'trickles down' to the middle and lower classes". People say "trickle down economics" because it's shorter than saying "if we let rich people keep more of their money then, for some reason, they will pass that money onto poor people".

Obviously, that's not how the world works.

>I would fucking NOT hire more people, or raise my wages, just because I had more money.
Then you're irrational. The idea is to invest back into your business by buying more capital and labor to expand production to then receive higher profits, a higher market cap, more lobbying power with local and state governments, etc. This is one problem with economics, I admit; that is, they assume people are rational. Clearly you're greed blinds you, which is fine. I would probably do the same if I was a small business owner. But when you are a bigger business you are ALWAYS seeking new markets, new places to expand, more efficient processes such as replacing labor with capital, etc. The idea is more profit + more power later.

I'm just saying mate, you seem smart. But just because YOU would keep the additional money, doesn't mean you're employing its use properly or the best way. If you were just going to pay that up as taxes anyways, then just invest it back in for a greater return later.

And how the fuck do you think it "trickles down"? When companies pay less taxes they tend to expand. Expanding means hiring.

Just because you're content to remain stagnant does not mean everyone is.

I get it. I understand. The idea is if you lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy, it will help them expand, which results in more people being hired. That's the idea.

That's. The. Idea.

If you take a look at the real numbers, however, you get a very different picture. Yes, companies and the wealthy are benefiting *immensely* from lower taxes. Absolutely, they're expanding. But they are not hiring more people, certainly not in the US.

US Corporations enjoy some of the lowest taxes in the developed world, and have consistently gotten break after break after break over the last 20 years. America's wealthiest class has gotten a, what, 40% tax *decrease* over the last two decades? There hasn't been a better time in the entire history of the United States to be a wealthy person or a company.

And, yet... Our real unemployment rate hasn't been this high since we started collecting accurate data in 1975. Fun facts:

>Real unemployment is at nearly 33%
>"Labor Non-participation" (which is just re-labeled unemployment) hasn't been this high since we started keeping records
>Nearly 1 in 2 working age adults in the US, right now, does not have a job

We've been trying to "trickle down" thing for literally decades now, and what do we have? The highest wealth and income inequality ever recorded in a modern first world country, the highest unemployment the US has seen in nearly a century, and a middle class so pathetically weak that we are on the verge of a financial shitfest so massive it will make 08 look like a fucking children's play.

But don't take my research for it. And don't take my anecdotal evidence for it. But maybe, just maybe, you could consider the studies conducted by almost literally every single active economist alive today, all of whom say the same thing: trickle down economist does not work.

And before you just ignore what I said and reply with "shut up fag", please, give me a counter example of it ACTUALLY WORKING. Show me on the fucking doll where employment and wages increased after tax cuts. Because I can show you a whoooole lot of places where things got worse.

>The highest wealth and income inequality ever recorded in a modern first world country, the highest unemployment the US has seen in nearly a century, and a middle class so pathetically weak that we are on the verge of a financial shitfest so massive it will make 08 look like a fucking children's play.

This is because of the monetary/banking system we have in place. NOT "trickle down" economics.

You create a system that allows the government to willy-nilly print money at will and hand it to their wall street buddies... and you wonder why there's income inequality? Do you understand what inflation is?

You're right, the economic ailments we have today aren't only due to trickle down economics. We have a lot more problems than just bad tax policy.

However, again, I have never once seen evidence that trickle down economics works. It doesn't make sense from the perspective of a business owner. It doesn't make sense from the perspective of a wealthy person. It doesn't make sense from any perspective other than the left-leaning concept of ignoring reality.

>>Real unemployment is at nearly 33%
>>"Labor Non-participation" (which is just re-labeled unemployment) hasn't been this high since we started keeping records
>>Nearly 1 in 2 working age adults in the US, right now, does not have a job

Jesus H. Christ. Every one of these statements is a lie. What a massive fag you are.

Gimme a second... A few months ago I finally decided to save the explanation and citation posts. Gotta find it. Here we go.

I gathered data from the BLS, the St. Louis branch of the Fed, and the US Census.

I collected data for every year since 1975; that's when the BLS first started tracking "non-participation", which is nothing more than unemployment lasting longer than X months. This limit has gotten shorter continuously since the early 2000s btw, which officially means fewer and fewer people are officially "unemployed", despite still not having jobs.

Starting in 1975, I got general population, stay-at-home mother population (census.gov/hhes/families/files/ASA2010_Kreider_Elliott.pdf) from the US census estimations. Non-participatory and unemployed population from the BLS. Working age population (ages 18-65 if I remember right) from the St Louis Fed (research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S#). That data only starts in '77 so I had to extrapolate the first two years, it's a non-issue.

I gathered this into a spreadsheet to examine the US population, working age population, unemployed PLUS "non-participatory" individuals, and the stay at home mother population (because they account for a few percentage points). From this yearly data, 1975 to 2015, I extracted the overall percentage out of work (ie REAL unemployment), and the percentage of working age adults currently out of work, not including stay at home mothers.

Pic related is the real unemployment rate over the last 40 years. As you can see it has never been this high, at least since we started collecting data, and likely since the Great Depression. Real unemployment as of 2015 is at just under 32%. Keep in mind, many of those "newly employed" individuals are working minimum or near-minimum wage and not full time. That's not gainful employment.

They say "things are getting better!" because they're changing the definition of "better".

Here are the figures when it comes to how many working-age people are unemployed. 47% of adults in the US, right now, don't have a job. It hasn't been this high, ever.

So many people think nothing is wrong. They think "unemployment's at the lowest it's been in years!" and think everything is just gravy. They think increases in worker efficiency, outsourcing, machine assistance and automation aren't affecting anyone. If they're a bit more informed and aware of automation, they may even think that what *they* do is safe, because no machine could *possibly* do what I do. And that could be right; a machine may indeed not be able to do everything they do.

But it might be able to do part of it. A machine, or improved process, or a program, might be able to cut down the amount of human labor needed to finish a task. Maybe your accounting firm goes from needing 200 juniors to only 60. Maybe the law firms in your area go from needing 1200 paralegals, down to 100. Maybe with a program like Watson, a hospital only needs 4 GPs instead of 40.

Don't get me wrong, those jobs will still exist. But the number of available positions isn't going to be enough for all those junior lawyers who just got laid off, or tax preparers, or doctors.

And that's just with assistive technologies; machines helping humans. That's to saying nothing about full automation. Uber, Google, and Tesla all have cars that can drive themselves, right now, today, with no human input. Three MASSIVE companies have technology that can wipe out 5 MILLION jobs, right now. And this isn't outsourcing. It's not "oh well the jobs are in Mexico now!". The jobs aren't anywhere. They're fucking gone. Forever. Automated kiosks in fast food? Millions of jobs. Not "gone away for a while." Gone away forever.

Right now we are going over the edge of a cliff. We are not prepared, we aren't even trying to be prepared, and if we do nothing, you will experience an upheaval that will make Syria look tame.

Here you go kid, make a hat.

tl;dr three main sources in the decline of employment demand: 1) increased worker efficiency, 2) outsourcing, and 3) automation.

Those posts are geared toward automation threads, but the population statistics are still the same.

this...

what the heck does this have to do with conspiracy theories

Not in a deflationary or "depression" economy. Businesses just hoard their money as do the rich.

yes but ours is a complete injustice

Yes. The rich should be less taxes so instead of locking their money away they reinvest it on the system.

some dumbshit liberal said to me today
"the free market only works if you have a strong central government"

There is. A single person has a limit to their needs. Once those needs are met the rest of the money that person is earning only gets hoarded (removing money from circulation is basically destroying it, which is bad).

I'm not demonizing savings but there's a difference between lifetime support and wealth that cannot be spend reasonably in multiple lifetimes.

>Have your lives improved since the election?
Yeah I'm in the same boat. You need to give yourself more credit, you're playing the game well. No-one has less just because you have more. Wealth is NOT a zero sum game. It sounds like you think you should be ashamed of your wealth, don't be. We earned it.

>No-one has less just because you have more.
This is categorically false. All wealth is relative.
>It sounds like you think you should be ashamed of your wealth, don't be. We earned it.
I'm not ashamed of my wealth because I did earn it. What I ashamed of is that 48% of America is so stupid that they voted for a presidential candidate who wants to give me a massive tax break for no good reason that will have the effect of making the country I love a worse place.

>Wealth is NOT a zero sum game
It kinda is with automation. You take money from clients but you don't give it back in worker's wages.

>This is categorically false. All wealth is relative.
Wrong. Wealth can be and is created out of thin air. Nobody loses anything if someone becomes more wealthy. Poor people being poor is not the fault of someone else being wealthy and if you think it is then I would suggest you take Economics 101.

You seem to be confused, son. You're arguing about some zero-sum bullshit, and I'm explaining a completely different concept. This is elementary stuff.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth

"An individual who is considered wealthy, affluent, or rich is someone who has accumulated substantial wealth relative to others in their society or reference group."

>relative

>relative

>relative

>You're arguing about some zero-sum bullshit, and I'm explaining a completely different concep
I don't know why because I specifically said wealth is NOT a zero sum game. Period. Sperg off on a tangent if you want but it's not relevant to anything I've said and I guess you're backpedaling because you realize what you said is irrelevant to my point.

Um, you responded to me. Fucking autist.

Yeah with the point that no-one is ever worse off because someone else is rich. Which is true. Then you embarrassed yourself because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Here I'll point it out

>No-one has less just because you have more.
>This is categorically false

It's not categorically false and wealth being relative has nothing to do with the fact I can create wealth without anyone else being worse off. So I'm sorry I had to school you, but you really did dig yourself a hole that makes you look like a fucking moron.

>Yeah with the point that no-one is ever worse off because someone else is rich.
Again, it's just sad when poor people have attitudes like this. You literally don't understand that my becoming wealthier makes you poorer, and you probably never will.

But I'm not ungrateful. Thanks for everything you do to make my life better and yours worse. Cuck.

>You literally don't understand that my becoming wealthier makes you poorer
It doesn't though. I pointed this out like 5 times already. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Please take a basic economics course then get back to me.

no, because of greed

which states nearby have no income tax
if you go to omaha they have similar tax rates and same with oklahoma

Then where did the money go that used to pay people a living wage(own a house, car etc) with skill less labor. Oh yeah, those jobs got automated or outsourced so the money stays in the bosses pockets etc. Thus, people at the bottom have less and people at the top have more. The amount of wealth in this world is merely transferred around. It's not created out of thin air or destroyed.
What do you think happens when there's a stock market crash? Someone loses a ton of money if they sell after a dip and someone who sold before the peak is where that person's "wealth" was transferred to.

>I would fucking NOT hire more people, or raise my wages, just because I had more money.

if that tax break didn't go in to growing your buisness then I'll assume you spent the rest of the money on yourself or something
the simple answer is you would be outperformed by people who didn't frivolously spend their money, someone else will take advantage of that tax break to grow their buisness

Why would a company make jobs just because they have more money? To feel good? No, in fact companies will cut jobs at any time as long as it is efficient.

Demand creates jobs, not excess cash. Guess who are the true drivers of the economy? The middle and lower classes. If they don't have enough money to spend demand is lowered.

Really gets the noodle doodlin.

You're missing the point, why does tax breaks for corporations all of a sudden increase demand for their products?

It doesn't and if demand is the same (why would it change in this scenario?) they'll just sit on the money and cut jobs as needed to become even more efficient.

It WOULD work if having extra cash meant that the company had to spend it on something. Companies have two options: spend it or pay taxes on it. Most companies spend it.

Trickle-down thought that by giving companies less taxes and more to spend, they would spend it on growth, because what else would they spend it on? If they paid their CEOs more - gets taxed. If they keep the money and don't spend it - gets taxed. Either way that money is going to the middle class.

Some new laws fucked this formula up, though, one in particular is called ERISA. ERISA passed a bunch of laws that dictated how people can save for retirement. One of the big ways is how MUCH a CEO or highly compensated executive can save--tax free. Suddenly. businesses had congressional approval of how to not spend money and also not pay taxes on it.

Instead of money being taxed or "trickled down" through spending on growth, money got put into tax-shielded annuities, insurance contracts, 401ks, SEPs, and a dozen other programs that saved that money from taxing and spending. These CEOs now get a boatload of money in their retirement portfolios and the money stays in the top 1% and never trickles down.

So, yeah, trickle down works on paper, but people get greedy and decide they'd rather have more money than a bunch of jobs or better equipment or a nicer building, so that money stays with the top earners and never sees the light of day by the middle class.

yes and no.

>yes under very specific circumstances which don't really hold in the real world

>no as a consequence

Came to post this.

This is a classic case of economic theory being blindly practiced without account for the assumptions it makes. Sort of like people who take micro 101 and use the supply and demand graph to "prove" minimum wage is always bad.

Protip: if you're arguing economics and you can only counter empirical evidence with theory, you're losing.

my man

you an econ major too?

I did undergrad. Taught me enough that I don't really understand the economy well but I can spot bullshit.

Not necessarily. With automation, prices fall and items become cheaper and more accessible.

>It doesn't and if demand is the same (why would it change in this scenario?) they'll just sit on the money and cut jobs as needed to become even more efficient.
This.

Honestly dealing with bootlickers, especially poor ones who are cucked every single fucking day by massive corporations and the government, is one of the most frustrating things I've ever experienced.

"Hey you're getting taken advantage of, they are lying to you, they are literally doing everything in their power to extract money from you and drag you down. Here's the proof. This is just objective fact, I'm trying to help you god damn it."

Their response:

>nah man you're just a fag bro, it works and once I make my millions I want to keep as much as possible for myself and I don't want taxes in place NOW because I MIGHT make enough money to get into that 0.1% of income earners who actually benefit from these tax breaks

It's so fucking frustrating because I want to help people and they fight you at every. Fucking. Turn. Every fucking turn, I swear to god. The propaganda machine built by corporations, political leaders, and the wealthy over the past 50 years is so fucking efficient and powerful, it's unbelievable.

Please show me a single example of something becoming cheaper in the last 15 years because the company moved to automation.

You can't? Oh.

>Amazon's prices are increasing despite their costs dropping through the floor due to anti-competitive practices and immense investment into automation
>Every major electronics, whether it's processors or headphones, is outsourcing and automating - their costs are decreasing, yet prices on new electronics are consistently going up

Fast food? They're jumping on the automation bandwagon and yet... The dollar menu is still the dollar menu. In fact, Wendy's entirely dropped their dollar menu, now it's a "value" menu with everything above $1

Retail? Look at self-checkouts. Look at how few employees they have on the floor compared to 8 years ago. Despite the fact that their overhead has dropped, significantly, retail prices have kept pace with inflation or walked right past it.

The local suppliers I deal with - you know what happened when they started investing in automated machinery and dumped half their workforce? Their prices stayed the same or increased. IN SPITE OF THE FACT that their per-unit cost of goods sold dropped by anywhere between 10 and 60%.

Maybe empirical evidence isn't your thing. Let's try a thought experiment.

Say it costs me $50 to produce a widget which I then sell for $100. I make an investment into automation, and now it only costs me $20 to produce that same widget. People are still paying $100 for the widget - that's still a fair market price and that's what people are comfortable paying. Why THE FUCK would I drop my price to $70? I fucking wouldn't. I fucking wouldn't! Please tell me you understand that.

Has this chick ever done porn? Like maybe posing nude?

Never mind. I figured out who she is and apparently there isn't anything good out there. Bummer, really. She seems like she would have a nice rack.

The fact that prices stay the same over time means that the price, in real terms, is dropping. Have you heard of inflation?

Also, look up a standard of living graph to get an idea of how increases in efficiency effect people in real terms. Life gets better for the average person with increases in efficiency. The nominal value is not worth getting hung up on.

>not wanting to mass murder the poor

Not who you responded to, but if I could keep raising the price corresponding with inflation, *I will.* I will raise the price as much as people are willing to pay.

sssshhhh dont tell normies the truth let us get rich first you pleb. I'm in a STEM field and im gonna be the last to get replaced but I need time to gather enough capital.

Cucksurvieatives blow the fuck out.

At this point that's literally what we're going to fucking face here

Dude believe me, every single person I've talked to about this stuff just spews the same crap Veeky Forums does. I could hack into a fucking CNN feed and tell the whole country the same stuff I've said here and everybody would be like "what? nah man that's stupid, you're stupid." Two people I know actually agree with me, and that's because they did their own fact finding and, you know, actually collected a bit of data and did some basic, basic fucking analysis. I'm not making a god damn dent in the public perception of any of these issues.

Also yes, smart move collecting capital before the big automation shitshow. 10-20 years from now it's going to be either you have capital or you're dead.

Yeah, I'm totally going to believe you and you're fedora wearing friends when they try to tell me that

>Our real unemployment rate hasn't been this high since we started collecting accurate data in 1975

>Real unemployment is at nearly 33%

No faggot, the Real Employment Rate is 9.2%, not 33%.

>I gathered data from the BLS

No you didn't, asshole. But I did.

gallup.com/poll/189068/bls-unemployment-seasonally-adjusted.aspx.aspx

Fuck off back to /pol/ or /x/ or whatever shithole you call home, because Business and Finance clearly aren't your strengths.

When I say real unemployment I mean *actual* real unemployment, including labor non-participation, which that link does not include. You really think that employment rates have recovered since 2008? They did, if you ignore a huge chunk of the population that's actually unemployed.

>When I'm 100% wrong about something, I just change the definition to something I made up in order to support my bullshit narrative.

Does anyone outside /pol/ fall for your bullshit? Why don't you go back and find out. kthxbye.

Dude they literally talk about how the definition of unemployment has been changed in the link you linked

SOMEBODY is changing definitions here and it sure as shit isn't me. Besides, what you call it and how you define it don't matter; right now, over 33% of Americans do not have jobs.

DID YOU EVEN READ THE THREAD OR YOUR LINK? MOST UNEMPYLOMENT NUMBERS DON'T INCULDE PEOPLE NOT LOOKING FOR WORK.
Those numbers are bulkshit, and it gets worse, The fact is for people under 30 the unemployment rate is over 50%

>Gallup defines a "good job" as working 30 or more hours per week for an employer that provides a regular paycheck.
>The GGJ metric measures the percentage of U.S. adults who have good jobs based on this definition.
>ggj number %45%
Meaning 55% of working age people work less than 30 hours a week or not at all
Blown the fuck out by your own source. Please try again. I Garett's the working age people completely out of work is over 30%. You got fooled by their graph at the top, which is from the bls, that whole pages point was to dispute that, learn to read next time.

ITT retards who think people that don't want to work or don't need to work should be forced to work.

Fuck off commies.

Are you fucking retarded?
Nobody is scrooge mcduck.

All money is invested somehow, not hoarded.

Money in a bank account is being spent.

>who think people that don't want to work...
Shut the fuck up with your zero source factoid.
Most research shows people that stop looking for work still want work you fuck up.

Alaska, Florida, Nevada, Texas, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming all have no state income taxes. If he were trying to lure businesses to the state, he should've gotten rid of the tax altogether. There's no reason for me to move my business to Kansas to take advantage of that decline, when I could move it to some place that has no state income tax period.

Also, for reference, Kansas' huge state income tax cut was to 4.6%. Massachusetts' current state income tax is 5.3%.

California has high as fuck taxes AND tough labor laws and tons of regulation and businesses still come here all the fucking time, and start here too.
Cuckservitves have just been memed to brain death by people ripping them off.
It turns out a place good for workers is good for business too, who'd have thought. It turns out a place with good regulations has good customers, who'd have thought.
I thought customers liked being in unsafe areas with unsafe goods, I thought hard workers could be found in places where they get screawed /scarasm.

>Most research shows people that stop looking for work still want work

"Almost all of the decline that we've seen over the last decade or so is due to three factors: retiring baby boomers just leaving the labor force, college students getting more education than ever and disability," Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at job placement site Glassdoor, said in an interview. "I don't think it's particularly worrisome."

#rekt
#btfo
#fakenews
#neetnews
#youjustsuck
#diaf

Texas has had a consistently lower unemployment rate and pre-2015 aka pre-oil bust, Texas beat California for economic growth. It's a testament to the strength of Texas' economy that they're even able to achieve economic growth under the conditions they're placed in, considering six of the eight top oil pumping states entered recession this year.

Most economic growth in California comes out of the Bay Area, which isn't surprising. California has a well educated labor force, which is why Silicon Valley exists. Supply side tax cuts are just one element of what a conservative economic agenda proposes, if you go through the American Enterprise Institute they address worker productivity a lot and Desmond Lachman (AEI scholar) mentions that tax reform won't bring a 1980s-style economic boom under today's conditions.

Sources:
politifact.com/california/statements/2016/dec/19/jerry-brown/are-jobs-california-growing-hell-lot-faster-texas/

sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article123869779.html

Jamie Dimon identified labor force participation rate as one of the five major concerns he had about the US economy: finance.yahoo.com/news/jamie-dimon-its-clear-something-is-wrong-with-the-u-s-economy-153054918.html

Stanley Fischer also mentioned the declining rate among men as a reason for the overall decline of the labor force participation rate, alongside increased discouragement among workers and demographic factors: marketwatch.com/story/labor-force-participation-rate-decline-is-mostly-structural-feds-fischer-says-2016-09-27

>It's a testament to the strength of Texas' economy
Helps that texas property is worth 100 times less than Cali, so it has nowhere to go but up. And it will keep going up fast, like a third world country discovered by retirees.

seriously, Texan growth is coming in large part from Californian companies buying land and buildings for literally one cent on the dollar.

"On the participation rate, Fischer said SOME of the decline reflects the people who became discouraged after losing their job and not finding new ones. But he said “MUCH” of the decline was due to the nation’s aging population, as well as a trend since the mid-1960s for declining participation by prime-age males."

Thanks for posting a link that supports MY argument, dumbass.

Economic climate:
TX: #1
CA: #4

Projected annual job growth:
TX: 1.7%
CA: 1.6%

Unemployment:
TX: 4.6%
CA: 5.5%

Household income growth:
TX: 2.7%
CA: 2.3%

California's superiority to Texas isn't the product of its underlying economy, but more so the product of its top tier universities. Obviously, if you have that kind of infrastructure you will be insulated from some kind of effects of higher taxes, costs of doing business, etc.

The point I'm trying to make is that supply side economics has yet to be disproven by On a national level, you would obviously see negative effects from implementing California-style policies, as even within California there is a huge disparity between growth in the regions where these universities are concentrated and the rest of the state. In the long run, California is already fucking itself with the amount of entitlements it has to pay with CALPERS, but that's a discussion for another time.

>"as well as a trend since the mid-1960s for declining participation by prime-age males"

Jamie Dimon mentioned this trend specifically as one thing that was concerning him about the US economy. I linked the Fischer argument to explain that it has a profound enough effect to be mentioned by Fischer on the labor force participation rate decline. I think that you underestimate how damaging that specific male labor force participation rate trend is: washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-quiet-catastrophe-millions-of-idle-men/2016/10/05/cd01b750-8a57-11e6-bff0-d53f592f176e_story.html

Forgot to link my sources:
forbes.com/places/tx/
forbes.com/places/ca/

my argument if you care to hear it is that all of that will in time happen to texas as well.

California used to be a republican libertarian mecca. It's evolution to regulation isn't unique, it's the normal progression that comes with enrichment and gentrification. Texas will suffer exactly the same fate if it manages to continue its boom. And once that happens the boom will move to some other state where poverty reigns and land costs a pittance.

it's not that regulation makes rich, rather riches make regulation

Typical NEET/pol logic: ignore what the experts say are the major causes, and focus on the minor elements. Then blow them out of proportion.

Bad logic won't win you any hearts or minds. Try being intellectually honest for once in your life.

brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2017/02/03/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-the-declining-labor-force-participation-rate/

I'm not saying you're wrong about demographics driving its fall, I'm just saying that the decline from the factors I mentioned are still concerning.

>call your opponent NEET or /pol/ to win the argument
lol

Look, I'll make a small concession to close this on a civil level since you're actually not as retarded as the other user: its a statistic worth further study and observation. But its not worthy of panic or even policy change at this point in time.

Honestly, I think it's really driven by the fact that (a) Boomers have pensions and were never required to self-fund their retirements, allowing a huge chunk of the population to leave the work force, and (b) Millennials take 5 years to graduate high school and 7 years to graduate college, making lots of "adults" "unemployed" when really they're just unmotivated basement dwellers trying to get a (probably shitty) degree.

Rich people can always find cheap ways to fuck over their workers. You can offshore hire immigrants who work for peanuts or do away with humans altogether with automation. Its ironic anyone here supports trickle down economics. That's a baby boomer excuse for globalization