Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 243 posts

Re: The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade

#121

Post by bduerst »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #86
Rooster61 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The stock market finds the 'correct' price for stocks, by aggregating conflicting beliefs and predictions of traders. 10-20 years ago, maybe. It's now driven largely by semi-autonomous algorithms monitoring swings/trends. I'd argue that it finds a 'simulated' price rather than a 'correct' price. The stock market is much less susceptible to emotional speculation than it used to be, for better or for worse. A quick g…

But won't these algorithms be based upon the whatever the meatspace traders were feeling? We've added indirection, but I don't know if it's in any way better.

At one point that was it, but now the algorithms are based also on what other algorithms are "feeling".

You don't need to be the smartest person in the room to be good at trading, you just need to know what everyone else in the room is thinking. Algorithms are part of the room now, so they try to predict what other algorithms are thinking.

Re: The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade

#122

Post by gbear605 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #81
reallydude wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting how there's so much "information" about how well the employment rate was over the last 10 years, but everyone knows people who became/are unemployed (or part time only employed). Somehow every just assumes it's a localized situation to them, despite the ubiquity across observers. Part of it is the misinformation, but is that the only factor in the strength in the mischaracterized narrative? This stil…

Assuming the unemployment rate is > 0%, shouldn't you know someone who's unemployed, just by the logic that there are unemployed people, and you know people?

You wouldn’t have to know people, but yes there’s a good chance of it. For example, consider if the unemployment rate is 1/300,000,000 (ie. One person in the US is unemployed). Then only the people that know that one person would know an unemployed person. However, the percentage is high enough that everyone should expect to know a couple unemployed people. If the rate is 3% and everyone knows 200 people well enough to know their employment status, then you should expect to know 6 unemployed people.

Re: The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade

#125

Post by moorhosj »

isoskeles wrote: post #93
moorhosj wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

==half the country views wealth as a sin.== But I thought they were all atheists, which is it? ==absurd new tax schemes.== As opposed to the old scheme of cutting taxes for the richest among us and telling the rest it will trickle down to them? How many times of that not working before we are allowed to try something new?

> But I thought they were all atheists, which is it? Don't be ridiculous, you understand what I wrote. > trickle down etc They still pay more than you or I, by rate and nominally, unless most of their income is in long-term capital gains. And this isn't what people target when they talk about a "90%" (or whatever number) income tax rate on the wealthiest. I would prefer we dismantle our massive war-spending problem b…

==Don't be ridiculous, you understand what I wrote.==

What you wrote was hyperbole based completely on political bias. I responded in-kind.

==And this isn't what people target when they talk about a "90%" (or whatever number) income tax rate on the wealthiest.==

Yet, the one example you provided (Sen. Wyden) does exactly this.

Re: The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade

#126

Post by bduerst »

golemotron wrote: post #41
__HYde wrote: post #36

And yet: "Applications for US Unemployment Aid Fall to 49-Year Low"[0] "Unemployment Rate Reached a Record Low in 19 States Last Year"[1] [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-04-04/app... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/unemploym...

Layoffs plus hiring. Will people realize at some point that volatility is a sign of health?

Volatility is a calculation. What volatility range is a sign of health? What range is problematic?

Re: The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade

#127

Post by manfredo »

geggam wrote: post #112
manfredo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal reserve would print the money. They probably have an even bigger interest in preventing the collapse of America's financial institutions. It's still a part is the government, just one with extra layers of separation from the executive. Like the FBI.

Incorrect 1. Applications for membership by State banks -- Any bank incorporated by special law of any State, operating under the Code of Law for the District of Columbia, or organized under the general laws of any State or of the United States, including Morris Plan banks and other incorporated banking institutions engaged in similar business, desiring to become a member of the Federal Reserve System, may make appli…

I'm not sure how your quote is relevant to the statement that the Federal Reserve is part of the US government. The Federal Reserve is "independent within the government" [1] not separate from the government. There's a whole page on the Federal Reserve website's FAQ section dedicated to explaining this. Your quote seems to be about how commercial or State banks apply to become a part of the Federal reserve system.

1. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

Re: The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade

#128

Post by bduerst »

partiallypro wrote: post #50
bjourne wrote: post #45

That's what left wing economists have been saying for ages. Cutting taxes for the rich does not create more jobs. Cutting welfare programs for the poorest destroys jobs. Trump did both: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax... https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18260271/t... According to them, cutting taxes can create some short-term growth spurs (like what we have been seeing) b…

The layoffs are almost all lead by the retail sector, which is undergoing a shift due to digital disruption from the likes of Amazon. There is no evidence the tax breaks have created (many) jobs...but there is even less evidence that it has "destroyed" jobs. If you can point me to a peer reviewed study that says that, and not a Vox article, I'll gladly read it. But I skim FRED sometimes and have never seen such claim…

>The layoffs are almost all lead by the retail sector, which is undergoing a shift due to digital disruption from the likes of Amazon.

Except YoY retail layoffs have shrunk by 20%.

And that's a very strange burden of proof to lay down for trickle down economics, considering that tax cuts for the wealthy are repeatedly claimed to generate jobs. Are you saying the job generation claim is a red herring? Would you equally defend me not paying any taxes since it "doesn't hurt anything", or do I need to be super-rich first to get the tax-cut apologizing?

Re: The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade

#129

Post by ajross »

partiallypro wrote: post #50
bjourne wrote: post #45

That's what left wing economists have been saying for ages. Cutting taxes for the rich does not create more jobs. Cutting welfare programs for the poorest destroys jobs. Trump did both: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax... https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18260271/t... According to them, cutting taxes can create some short-term growth spurs (like what we have been seeing) b…

The layoffs are almost all lead by the retail sector, which is undergoing a shift due to digital disruption from the likes of Amazon. There is no evidence the tax breaks have created (many) jobs...but there is even less evidence that it has "destroyed" jobs. If you can point me to a peer reviewed study that says that, and not a Vox article, I'll gladly read it. But I skim FRED sometimes and have never seen such claim…

Why picking on Vox here? Vox is, if anything, decidedly pro-market for a left wing publication. Branding himself a "neoliberal shill" is one of Yglesias's core schticks, even.

In fact I'll go farther: Vox's economics coverage is as good as any you can find on the internet outside of academic sources. They're deep, wonky and very broad. Obviously that comes with some policy preferences, but if you're avoiding them because they don't match your personal politics I think you're missing out.

Re: The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade

#130

Post by raesene9 »

ishjoh wrote: post #69
raesene9 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a theory (it's a totally unproven one, I hasten to add). There's been a huge move into passively managed index funds over the last 10 years, with many smart investors touting them as a better long term bet than actively managed funds. Passively managed funds don't look at what's coming down the road, they invest to fixed formula. So where an active fund might predict a fall and get out of equities, all the pas…

I invest in index funds that follow the S&P 500 according to a formula. The data shows that they tend to outperform managed funds in the long term. With so many people following the same strategy it will be interesting to see if that stays true long term, but the problem is the same as it ever was. How do you identify an active fund manager that will outperform the market over a long time period? Do they still outper…

That's exactly what I think's happening, what you're doing is what a lot of people are doing.

what will be interesting is, say there's a genuine market rout (e.g. what happened with Lehmans), which should depress stocks definitely in the sector, but also in the wider market.

If all the money from the passively managed funds just stays put, will the stocks basically not take much of a hit?

Of course if it gets bad enough for companies to go broke, that could go wrong for the passively managed crowd as they'll stay in there till the end, most likely.

Post reply on HN