Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldsnow who wrote (33103)	5/3/1999 10:34:00 PM
From: Ahda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116760

Several years ago i read a theory that the ideal rate was somewhere around 2.7 percent. Within that theory there was automatic increase in wage due to positions elevated on a ladder and the top was not heavy. The problem in this particular cycle is the vast difference in wage level. The minimum is still there for many. Two jobs one in household are required in that area . This is a standard for Asia but here i get very confused as to what is norm and normal take home pay for the majority. Within the larger area's the requirements are vast for housing cross country the picture changes somewhat. Accounting for populous however I tend to think brokerage and financial institutions are carrying a great percentage of the actual wage, that bulk in my opinion plus tech creates an erroneous roughly 12.00 average.

To: goldsnow who wrote (33103)	5/3/1999 11:18:00 PM
From: donald martin	Respond to of 116760

re: Phillip's Curve I was never really hip to the Phillip's Curve. I find myself more partial to the [unrelated] Laffer Curve, yet both seem, for the time being, to have been consigned to the trash heap of economic theory. I think the problem with both of these "curves" has to do with time frames. Milton Friedman (pardon my spelling if I'm off here) is/was adamant (is he still alive?) that inflation is a monetary phenomena and nothing more. I am reluctantly on board. However, and bear with me I'm on my third scotch, there is something extremely rational to me [in my inebriated state] in the clause "the Phillip's Curve holds that wages rise faster when demand for labor is strong". Much of what we saw in the Asian disaster has been described as a form of "mis-investment". I love that. It took a long time for people to figure out that there was no way in hell that all the office space being created in Malaysia was going to be filled by paying tenants. Similarly, investors across the globe are piling into US dollar denominated financial assets without appreciating that, at current exchange rates, big chunks of US industry are at a competitive disadvantage to China and Japan. (Are they REALLY dumping steel? C'MON! Would you work for nothing? Hell no! It's cheaper to produce there.) Anyway, the point (YES, I've got a point) is that it takes time...sometimes a lot of time...for inefficiencies in the market place to work themselves out. The Phillips Curve and the Laffer Curve (higher marginal tax rates yield lower total governmental revenues) need time to bear their fruit.