We Stalked. He Balked. The Truth Squad is getting to Mr. Krugman.

National Review Online ^ | May 7, 2003 | Donald Luskin

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Ah, Truth! What a wonderful antidote to the venom and invective that the Liberal Media love to spew -- especially from this unrepentant liar and dissembler, Professor Krugman. Looks like the Truth Squad is getting to Prof. Krugman!

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Krugman Truth Squad ping!

[chance33_98]

Bump !

[Samurai_Jack]

If each job costs 500,000.00 spread over 10 years for each 40,000.00 job, thats only 400,000.00 of income so I can see where he would be complaining. The problem with Mr Klugmans postulation is that he assumes a 'static' economy and a 'static' payscale. Over 10 years a person starting out at 40k will most likely be increased to 70k without even trying. If that person invests in himself he can take that chance he was given and advance into the Six Digit territory and be called "RICH" by the Klugmans of the world. That is the nature of a dynamic freemarket economy.

Now if you spent that same half a million on a socialist program... THAT would be a static cost with no return whatsoever. If you GIVE that same person 40,000.00 per year (saving the government 10,000.00/yr) he will not be incentivized to self improvement and will from that point forward be a societal burden.

But of course... Thats what the democrats want is to create a society that is dependent on the Government. Ba'athists!

[BOBTHENAILER]

Great post. I hope these truth stalkers keep it up, maybe even intensify the exposure.

[finnman69]

The hit piece yesterdaycalling Bush 'funny' in a flight suit was nauseating.

Krugman is such a dick.

[Katya]

"The problem with Mr Klugmans postulation is that he assumes a 'static' economy and a 'static' payscale. Over 10 years a person starting out at 40k will most likely be increased to 70k without even trying."

Although 70K might be a stretch in some areas of the country, you are absolutely correct in pointing out the static economy and payscale argument.

[q_an_a]

The NET will set you FREEEEE!!

[LurkerNoMore!]

Krugman ping!

[Wright is right!]

In addition to Static Modeling, there is another fallacy peddled by the Left and Krugman - that a job paying "$40,000" costs the employer $40,000. Not so.

In order for a company to offer you a job at the stated salary of $40,000, it's going to cost the company $50,000. At least. So, in actuality, you are being offered a $50,000 job, out of which you will pay BOTH "halves" of your SocSec, Mediscare, all of your health insurance and amy so-called "matching contribs" to your 401(k) plan.

Want to know how much you're REALLY making? Go to your boss and ask to see YOUR LINE IN THE PERSONNEL BUDGET. This line represents what it costs the company to have you exhale on company property.

Remember. Companies don't pay taxes. They just pass them along.

Michael

[xsmommy]

truth squad member ping : )

[Cyber Liberty]

KTS Bump!

[Cyber Liberty]

Hey. Ping you....

[r9etb]

In order for a company to offer you a job at the stated salary of $40,000, it's going to cost the company $50,000. At least.

If there are benefits (as most $40k jobs would have), then the cost to the company is probably at least twice the gross salary. For example, I know that my employer's cost/hour for me is twice the hourly rate that shows up on my paycheck -- and my organization was purposely set up to be on the low end of the cost/hour scale.

[js1138]

Truth Squad members have sent me ample proof. Here's one item: a picture (courtesy of the Special Electronic Mission Aircraft site) of President Clinton wearing something that most assuredly "resembled military garb."

Anybody have this?

[Cyber Liberty]

[js1138]

Great Pic. All these attacks on bush will backfire. And the stock market continues to trend upward.

[rebel_yell2]

No, it won't cost the company $50,000 to pay you $50,000 because salary expense is a deductible expense. If the corporate tax rate is 30% then the company is only out $35,000 to pay you $50,000. The other $15,000 comes from Uncle Sam.

[Wright is right!]

"If there are benefits (as most $40k jobs would have), then the cost to the company is probably at least twice the gross salary."

There are a lot of variables, but anywhere from 20-30% more than the stated "salary" is a decent rule of thumb as to the actual cost to a company of an employee. I've been self-employed since the late 80's, but the last time I had a look at my line in a personnel budget, my salary was $60,000. My line in the budget was $73,000 and change. So I was making $73,000 and change.

Michael

[RippleFire]

bump