Wages going down was not a prediction of the study despite what you try to pretend.No, it was an assumption made by the economists developing the model. They assume that producer prices can't drop unless gross wages drop. Every economist I've read (including Kotlikoff) assumes this.
Unless costs are eliminated.
Don't read much, eh???
Yep, there goes pigdog again. Pretending not to know the difference between a prediction and an assumption. After 30 posts on a previous thread, I gave up trying to explain. Of the dumb things I do on this forum, trying to engage that ignoramous in an intellgent debate is by far the dumbest. He would not concede the sun rises in the east if he thought it would hurt his beloved cause.
"They assume that producer prices can't drop unless gross wages drop."
That is demonstrably false. Producer prices can and will drop with or without wage declines. The issue is and always has been by how much. Other than you and Louie, who argue that prices exist in one corner of the economic universe while prices exist in another and they have no connection, I don't know of anyone who does not understand that the elimination of
1. corporate income taxes
2. employer paid payroll taxes, and
3. the enormous compliance costs of the current system
would not enable some producer price reductions.