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_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.

You do understand the difference between marginal and baseline tax rates? That word 'marginal' did not slip by me, I'm afraid.

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.

It's tracked labour productivity growth very closely:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/22_wage...

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.

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.

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.

Isn't picking out a short period with the largest gap between compensation growth and output growth the cherry picking?

85% is a very high level of correlation. The original comment claimed:

>>But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore,

Labour productivity growth obviously does cause wage gains. The data shows that the primary cause of the slowdown in wage growth has been a slowdown in labour productivity growth, not a decline in labour's share of revenue.

> The original comment claimed

It's possible for both the original claim and your counterclaim to be untrue. Two lies don't make a truth. The original claim of no relationship is untrue. So is your "tracking very closely" counterclaim. There's a relationship, but it's not very strong and it's growing weaker.

> Labour productivity growth obviously does cause wage gains.

Cause? Without qualification? Not so fast, hoss. Sometimes productivity growth translates into wage increases. Other times either can change independently. The whole point - what those data really show - is that the relationship has been weakening.

> So is your "tracking very closely" counterclaim.

85% is a strong correlation. I even posted the graph for others to make up their own mind. Calling my statement a lie, when it's based on your own subjective determination of what constitutes a close correlation, is hostile and unfair.

>Cause? Without qualification? Not so fast, hoss. Sometimes productivity growth translates into wage increases

Wage growth can only come from productivity growth on any sustained basis, so yes, the latter caused the former.

> Wage growth can only come from productivity growth

To quote the top-level comment that started this thread (and which was apparently OK with everyone): bullshit. Wage growth can come increased availability of resources or funds, from regulation, from many sources besides productivity growth. Productivity growth can actually drive wage decreases, e.g. when automation makes jobs obsolete and its practitioners end up doing menial work instead. Typesetting is an example that has affected my own family. To pick another one, do you suppose that all of the long-term increase in finance-industry wage growth has been because of productivity? That repealing Glass-Steagall, or tax laws favoring certain investment vehicles and funneling trillions into mutual funds had nothing to do with it? That would be naive. The people making all that money certainly know better.

If that claim is the basis of your argument or economic beliefs, then I feel sorry for you because you're building on quicksand.

>>To quote the top-level comment that started this thread (and which was apparently OK with everyone): bullshit.

First you accuse me of lying when I was being completely honest, then you call another claim of mine "bullshit". You're being rude. Please stop if you want to carry on the discussion.