The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by moorhosj » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #137

moorhosj wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the deficit is 3.8% of GDP [1] and growth is only 2.9% [2] during a supposed economic "boom", something is wrong. [1] https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_percent_gdp [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-economic-...

I think our current deficit spending is dumb, but I don't actually see a problem mathematically with this. Assuming we only pay 2% interest on that debt, that's 0.076% of GDP to service the debt from this year. If the new GDP growth is taxed at just 10%, then we have 0.29% of GDP in new taxes. So that's a 4x ROI correct? (of course, the assumption here is that there is no better way to spend that money and that the d…

==Assuming we only pay 2% interest on that debt==

Where does this come from? the 10-year bond rate was closer to 3% for most of 2018 [1].

==So that's a 4x ROI correct==

You can't calculate ROI with an I. In this case, that is the 3.9% of GDP mentioned. Going forward, we may gain more tax revenue than we would pay in debt servicing each year, but that ignores the initial investment we made.

In reality, you would need to show that the present value of your annual tax revenues (0.29% of GDP - 0.076% of GDP) is larger than the 3.9% of GDP invested initially.

[1] https://www.thebalance.com/interest-on-the-national-debt-411...

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

#142

Post by JustSomeNobody » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

mtw wrote: post #84

BluSyn wrote: post #2

"The report said worry about an economic slowdown was the main driver of companies' layoff intentions." I sometimes wonder if these sorts of economic projections end up being self-fulfilling prophecies. If everyone tightens up spending because they expect a recession, that essentially guarantees there will be one.

It's not just projections or worries. Companies have real hard data, such as sales pipeline, inventories, orders etc. If your sales pipeline is down, inventory is stocking up, and your warehouse is idle compared to a year before, it is a manager's job to lay off employees. a few interesting reports: https://www.reddit.com/r/StockMarket/comments/aydpbu/first_h... https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1110161228507348…

>... it is a manager's job to lay off employees.

I feel awful for those people whose lives have just been disrupted so. I’m particularly empathetic because, as a foster parent, I know very well what may happen to some of those families.

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

#143

Post by ryansmccoy » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

hackerz2 wrote: post #65

alt take from Bill McBride of CalculatedRISK: https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2019/04/comments-on-march... Summary: The headline jobs number was above expectations, and the previous two months were revised up slightly. The headline unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.8%. This was a solid jobs report, and was probably boosted by some bounce back from the poor weather in February. What's with the HN editor's obsess…

IMO, politics seems like possible reason.

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

#144

Post by geggam » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #139

geggam wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. That is like saying any corporation publicly traded yet regulated by the govt is now part of the govt. Any bank can apply to become a member and buy shares of the federal reserve. They simply are regulated by the govt.

No. Again I'm really not sure why you insist on saying so given the fact that the Federal Reserve saw fit to dedicate a whole FAQ section to say otherwise. Publicly traded companies area still owned by private people and organizations. The publicly traded nature subjects them to additional oversight, but they're still private enterprises. Where can I buy stake in the Federal reserve? What was it's stock price history…

What you cant see ?

A corporation with employees becomes a member of the Federal Reserve. The job is to generate money from nothing, and get paid for it.

So as a federal reserve bank you create money, charge for doing so and then you change hats from federal reserve to local private bank and loan that money to the private sector charging profits for doing so.

You charge fees coming and going get salaries for both jobs and have no exposure for doing so.

Bonus if your bank fails you are insured by the people who are borrowing money from you.

And you think they are part of the govt

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

#145

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #58

golemotron wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"It's a sign of health," he says from the comfort of his yacht, taking a slow sip of champagne between big spoonfuls of Beluga caviar all while watching the city burn. "Just look at all those construction and health-care jobs being created."

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by dba7dba » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #142

mtw wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just projections or worries. Companies have real hard data, such as sales pipeline, inventories, orders etc. If your sales pipeline is down, inventory is stocking up, and your warehouse is idle compared to a year before, it is a manager's job to lay off employees. a few interesting reports: https://www.reddit.com/r/StockMarket/comments/aydpbu/first_h... https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1110161228507348…

>... it is a manager's job to lay off employees. I feel awful for those people whose lives have just been disrupted so. I’m particularly empathetic because, as a foster parent, I know very well what may happen to some of those families.

I've never been a manager or had any role in laying someone off. But I've been laid off myself and know plenty people who get laid off and suffer the consequences, some quite severe.

So I sometimes wonder, how do these managers who lay off people sleep at night? I mean they are just doing their job so that THEY themselves don't get laid off. And next I wonder, who are these rich rich people who want more money so that they hire people to lay off other people?

But I guess that's life.

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

#147

Post by manfredo » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

geggam wrote: post #144

manfredo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Again I'm really not sure why you insist on saying so given the fact that the Federal Reserve saw fit to dedicate a whole FAQ section to say otherwise. Publicly traded companies area still owned by private people and organizations. The publicly traded nature subjects them to additional oversight, but they're still private enterprises. Where can I buy stake in the Federal reserve? What was it's stock price history…

What you cant see ? A corporation with employees becomes a member of the Federal Reserve. The job is to generate money from nothing, and get paid for it. So as a federal reserve bank you create money, charge for doing so and then you change hats from federal reserve to local private bank and loan that money to the private sector charging profits for doing so. You charge fees coming and going get salaries for both job…

Yes, banks can join the federal reserve system and other banks can be FDIC insured. But how do you go from that to "the Federal reserve is not part of the government". It's the central bank of the United States. Its chairman is appointed by the government. All profits are paid back to the United States. Is about as independent from the government as the FBI. Saying that the Federal reserve system is not part of the government is as non-sensical as saying the FBI is not part of the government because similar degrees of independence from the executive branch exist. I get that the fact that government agencies can be independent from the executive branch is difficult to wrap one's head around but that sort of independence is not the same as "not part of the government".

Here's yet another page from the federal reserve website that explicitly says that it's part of the government: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm

> The Federal Reserve, like many other central banks, is an independent government agency but also one that is ultimately accountable to the public and the Congress.

It says right there that it is a government agency. Independent, yes, but ultimately accountable to the government. It's leadership is appointed by the government.

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

#148

Post by opportune » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

moorhosj wrote: post #141

opportune wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think our current deficit spending is dumb, but I don't actually see a problem mathematically with this. Assuming we only pay 2% interest on that debt, that's 0.076% of GDP to service the debt from this year. If the new GDP growth is taxed at just 10%, then we have 0.29% of GDP in new taxes. So that's a 4x ROI correct? (of course, the assumption here is that there is no better way to spend that money and that the d…

==Assuming we only pay 2% interest on that debt== Where does this come from? the 10-year bond rate was closer to 3% for most of 2018 [1]. ==So that's a 4x ROI correct== You can't calculate ROI with an I. In this case, that is the 3.9% of GDP mentioned. Going forward, we may gain more tax revenue than we would pay in debt servicing each year, but that ignores the initial investment we made. In reality, you would need…

It doesn't matter, 2% or 3% is just splitting hairs. I also apparently underestimated the percent of US GDP going to federal taxes; it's around 19%, not 10%. So there is still more a lot more new tax money coming in than is necessary to service the new debt.

"3.9% of GDP invested initially" How is this investing 3.9% of GDP? It costs 0$ in investment for the government to issue new bonds. The only way federal debt costs the country is in the interest spent on servicing it. As long as the tax base increases faster than the interest spent on servicing debt (and also accounting for population growth) there is no economic problem with increasing the federal debt.

And again, I am not arguing that the things we are spending the government money on are rational. I think we could do a lot better by cutting military spending and increasing funding for non-military research and infrastructure without deficit spending (which is certainly possible). But technically the current deficit spending is not unsustainable

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

#149

Post by maxxxxx » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

BluSyn wrote: post #2

"The report said worry about an economic slowdown was the main driver of companies' layoff intentions." I sometimes wonder if these sorts of economic projections end up being self-fulfilling prophecies. If everyone tightens up spending because they expect a recession, that essentially guarantees there will be one.

That's how the economy works. Everybody watches each other and makes adjustments. And with the financial sector being so big there are also a lot of feedback loops.

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

#150

Post by jmvoodoo » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:49 PM UTC

dba7dba wrote: post #146

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... it is a manager's job to lay off employees. I feel awful for those people whose lives have just been disrupted so. I’m particularly empathetic because, as a foster parent, I know very well what may happen to some of those families.

I've never been a manager or had any role in laying someone off. But I've been laid off myself and know plenty people who get laid off and suffer the consequences, some quite severe. So I sometimes wonder, how do these managers who lay off people sleep at night? I mean they are just doing their job so that THEY themselves don't get laid off. And next I wonder, who are these rich rich people who want more money so tha…

I've had to lay off a decent number of people over the course of my career. The way I have always justified it is that I'm keeping the company healthy, and allowing far more people to keep their jobs in doing so. I'm sure there are cases where restructuring was done to the detriment of the business. I don't believe I've personally participated in any of those.

That is part of the reason I took those jobs. Someone was going to do it, and I felt that I could do it in a way that kept the business healthy and was as respectful and careful about the humans impacted as possible (ensuring severance, having 1-1 conversations with every impacted person on my team, etc).

For context I was an executive brought in to restructure software companies after they were purchased or tucked in by the LBO side of a PE firm.