You mean this one [0] that was flagged off the front page afte the discussion thread pointed out it was using figures not adjusted for inflation, where the inflation-adjusted figured show a decline of 0.1% percent in wages?
Which isn't being accompanied by wage gains, and were going up long before the tax cuts happened.
"That’s because that extra 33% in our bank balance means more marketing spending, more inventory, more open reqs for hiring sale, marketing, support, and engineering, etc. etc."
Which is great, except the vast majority of companies are using that 33% for stock buybacks.
That’s certainly a popular talking point, but I think frankly it’s impossible;
“Publicly traded companies constitute less than 1 percent of all U.S. firms and about one-third of U.S. employment in the non-farm business sector.”
Think what you want, but you're not entitled to your own facts. And the facts show that, most publicly traded companies used the money for buybacks, and that wages did not grow very much in the last quarter, which one would expect if these tax cuts were going to go to wages. Which they didn't.
That’s because that extra 33% in our bank balance means more marketing spending, more inventory, more open reqs for hiring sale, marketing, support, and engineering, etc. etc.
E.g. This WSJ post which is also on the front page: “U.S. Workers Get Biggest Pay Increase in Nearly a Decade”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-employment-costs-rose-in-th...