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

191–200 of 243 posts

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

#191

Post by cylinder »

fiter wrote: post #103
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…

This could leave you flat-footed when the economy picks back up or you realize it was a 'blip', so it's not an easy/clear decision to make because you see one or two numbers going down.

It's a stupid fucking mentality pervasive amongst the American corporate MBA set. It treats people as disposable and is usually not in the company's best interests. It's a short term boost to a company with long lasting and often disastrous implications down the track.

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

#192

Post by rohit2412 »

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…

I think that assumption makes sense if you don't think of the system as a closed loop.

What if the increase in GDP happened only because you borrowed money and spent it? What if you don't spend an equivalent amount next year, and that increase in GDP went away?

In this case, you want the money borrowed to be paid off completely by the taxation on increased gdp.

Which would be 1.03 * 3.8%=3.914% of gdp (deficit to be paid back next year) to equal 0.19 * 2.9%=0.551% (tax collection on increased GDP) of gdp, which it is very far from. Add the fact that the increased GDP is normally as welfare/income of poor people, which is taxed less.

This of course leads to main question. Is the growth sustainable? If the govt borrowing+spending go away tomorrow, would the GDP not contract? If yes, Then this growth was unsustainable and was debt fueled.

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

#193

Post by 0x8BADF00D »

mywittyname wrote: post #161
ajross wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the government can. The 2008 crisis didn't happen in deposit banking, but it was effectively a "bank run" in the same sense you're talking about -- all the assets banks could normally use to draw on to meet obligations froze up, and they ran out of money. And the government stepped in, becoming a lender of last resort. And it worked (not well, maybe, but it worked). Saying "the economy is powered by belief"…

> (not well, maybe, but it worked) Obviously we don't have the alternative universe where President McCain opted to do nothing for comparison. But looking at the economic boom we're living in 10 years out, it's difficult to make an argument that the government's handling of the housing crisis was poor. I have a hard time coming up with an outcome more ideal than what we got. 2008->2018 was a much nicer decade than 19…

Hindsight is ridiculously useless at understanding the automation wave we’re experiencing right now. There is a fragmentation of the economy; as someone eloquently put it, your life is either dictated by algorithms, or you’re the one writing them. So for many, the economy is rosy; for the majority, not so much.

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

#194

Post by Symmetry »

jmvoodoo wrote: post #150
dba7dba wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In theory it would be better to cut everyone's pay than to lay off some people. But this brings lots of complications.

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/09/why_dont_wages.html

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

#195

Post by diminoten »

mywittyname wrote: post #159
CydeWeys wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their point is that all of that hard data may be a result of self-fulfilling prophecies of other companies cutting back their business because there's a general sense that a recession might be coming.

I mean, if you're running a burger joint and fewer people are coming in to buy burgers, why would you continue to order the same amount of beef each week? I get that the real world more complicated than this, as forecasting can be done for months out, but businesses can't magically fix the economy by continuing to spend the way they have been because it isn't sustainable.

The problem being pointed out is that fewer people aren't coming in to buy burgers yet, but because the store managers heard rumors of a recession, they preemptively fire employees and order less meat, which puts fewer dollars in their employees pockets, which means less spending power per person on average which means people actually do spend less, even though there wasn't actually anything wrong in the first place.

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

#196

Post by ummonk »

geggam wrote: post #56
xxpor wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people believe in the FDIC, not that there won't ever be a bank run.

Interesting isnt it ? The banks are secured by the govt which happens to be the biggest debtor to the banks. Problem being the govt is really the people and when it comes down to it the people are on the hook for their own debts regardless of how it gets paid. AND we bail out the corporations who spend too much.

Nobody ends up on the hook. The Fed is a large enough entity that it can step in and prevent the tragedy of the commons that occurs when individual banks start failing and people start making bank runs.

This is how the federal government made money off the bailouts. Well this and basically looting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

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

#197

Post by bitcoinmoney »

throw0101a wrote: post #91
carrja99 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The only time I saw something like this was as a contractor at a certain Fortune 500 company. As each fiscal year was approaching the end and budgets were running close, they'd quickly lay off all the contractors. They'd then be aggressively hiring contractors once they were in the new fiscal year. I never quite understood that one. Feels like the churn would be more costly than keeping those contractors…

Not even contractors sometimes. I've seen full-time employees laid off at one point, given severance, told not to look "too hard" for a new job, companies reported numbers, and hired back the same people in the same roles a few months later.

Hopefully at a higher rate to make up for lost $$?

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

#198

Post by dredmorbius »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #190
behindmyscreen wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Without fiat currency, the US would have crumbled into a pile of blood soaked rubble.

Can't tell if you guys are being facetious or not. The fiat model parallels the currency debasement in ancient Rome pretty well, and it'll probably have similar results.

Inflation is a symptom, not a disease.

It arises out of a recognition that the basis of prior financial obligations on expected return was false.

Options are debt repudiation, inflation, debasement, or collapse.

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

#200

Post by RPLong »

moorhosj wrote: post #52
__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...

Meanwhile, the laborforce participation of 63% remains lower than 2014. I remember a time, when there was a different president, that this number was constantly referenced as evidence of a poor recovery. If the labor market is so robust why aren't people joining the workforce? [1] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns11300000

> If the labor market is so robust why aren't people joining the workforce?

Because they don't need to work. They're not applying for unemployment and they're not taking jobs. So, logically, they're using their time on non-work-related activity. They're having fun, or otherwise doing stuff that they would rather do than work.

The media has this terrible tendency to promote work as the primary marker of life success, which is a valid opinion, for sure, but it's not a universal one. Some people step out of the workforce because they can, and good for them. I expect the wealthier our society becomes, the more people will have this opportunity.

Post reply on HN