Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s basically the plot of Stardew Valley. Programmers yearn for the fields.
I don't think Stardew Valley prepares you for the sweltering heat of performing manual labor in the Central Valley.
Save us Yoba!
Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
41–50 of 112 posts
Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
#42Title is clickbait (we all know why) but its a great read. Its so many shocks to the economy at the same time, and with no goal other than to cause harm that I don't think anything the FED does will have any real impact in the real world. The author goes for an OR between reasons but I really don't see it like that, its an AND, all jumbled together and pushing the economy down.
> with no goal other than to cause harm My read is not that it is to cause harm / break things down per sé, but instead to deglobalize. At various times, the left and the right have made globalization the bogeyman and something to fight, so this idea has been in the ether. For many reasons (economic, geopolitics, peace), globalization is a great thing. Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is…
I think that security/stability for a country as big as the US requires at least some localization. For example, IMO all medications, medical devices, infrastructure systems (such as telecom, power, etc.), hardware and materials should be at least 50% domestically produced and have at least dual sourcing.
I realize that not all countries are big or diverse enough to accomplish this, and that's a reason why loose confederations like the EU exist. The US started much closer to that itself.
Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
#43I have been enjoying Paul Krugman's writing, now that he's free from the shackles of the New York "both sides!" Times https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/its-beginning-to-smell-a-... He's obviously got a political angle, but doesn't let that completely color his economic analysis.
If the political angle is not relevant to the analysis, then why do you enjoy it?
> If the political angle is not relevant to the analysis, then why do you enjoy it?
The politics angle is unavoidable because Krugman is commenting on the impact that the economic policies of the current US administration is having on the US economy.
This is the same US administration that fires staticians for reporting numbers that render bare the impact of their own economic policies, which they are actively trying to censor.
We live in a day and age where in the US reporting facts leads to political persecution. Of course mentioning stagflation, as Krugman does, is deemed political.
Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is haphazard, incompetent, rushed. Doesn't this apply to globalization as well? Saying "learn to code" to people who lose their jobs due to globalization is not great execution either and sets the stage for backlash.
> > Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is haphazard, incompetent, rushed. > Doesn't this apply to globalization as well? Saying "learn to code" to people who lose their jobs due to globalization is not great execution either and sets the stage for backlash. Globalization, or more loosely, more and more people or societies trading with each other over greater distances and competing at who d…
I'm sure it's just automation that replaced a lot of the manufacturing jobs in the US with foreign workers earning less in a month than US workers earned in a day.
Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How does increasing wealth inequality drive price increases? When poor people receive money, they tend to put it to circulate in the economy, by spending it. When super-rich people receive money, it goes mostly to tax havens, removing it from circulation. Business lose scale, as there is less consumers, raising unitary prices.
Doesn't the lack of liquidity in an economy cause deflationary behavior?
Obviously I'm not an economist, nor do I play one on TV.
One would indeed expect removing currency from the economy to be deflationary, but in GPs example we didn't just remove currency, we removed demand too. If less people have money to buy a car, less cars are produced. When you are making 1k instead of 1m cars, you no longer benefit as much from scale and must raise your prices, which only the rich can afford.
Now why might this happen instead of prices dropping to the point the now-poorer people can afford them? Maybe the cost of inputs can't go much lower, or maybe other less-stratified markets are picking up the slack, so demand shifts there. Or maybe the rich have enough money they don't care about the higher prices. Or some combination of all of the above.
Economies are complicated beasts, it's rarely as simple as X leads to Y. Instead you have the whole alphabet pulling in different directions and the forces that win out may be quite unintuitive.
Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
#46I think it's a moot point. We've been trying to increase the number of jobs and the amount that jobs pay for most of modern history. And since when has that ever worked? well it worked until about the 70s and then we roughly flat line for about 30 years and since 98, its been nothing but down hill from there (if you dought this, calculate the standard of living: nominal gdp per capita or median wages / case-shiller housing index). by all means try but it's not going to work.
There's two sides to personal finance: what you earn and what you spend. earning more, on a wholistic countrywide scale, simply isn't possible anymore (if the last 50 years has taught us anything).
The answer lies in allowing the economy to make life more cost effective (removing regulations that force housing costs to be high, making more land available for living, thus driving down it's costs, etc.). The answer lies in controlling costs and spending, both in the personal life and for government.
Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've got your cause/effect chain a little muddled. I would also assert that the system dynamics are neither linear nor singular in the way you frame it. > Increasing wealth inequality, drives prices inflation How does increasing wealth inequality drive price increases?
The missing dynamic is that businesses are encouraged to increase growth in profit YoY. Each year, a business needs to grow faster than it did the previous year. If business owners get wealthy more rapidly than workers, then eventually the business will not be able to maintain increasing rates of growth, as its profit velocity exceeds the wage velocity of households. Think of a car fuel pump: you can accelerate all y…
> The missing dynamic is that businesses are encouraged to increase growth in profit YoY.
> Each year, a business needs to grow faster than it did the previous year.
It is very reasonable for an investor or a worker wanting the business they have hitched their financial wellbeing to to do very well, which means growing profit. It gives the business more strength and stability.
Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the lack of liquidity in an economy cause deflationary behavior?
Obviously I'm not an economist, nor do I play one on TV. One would indeed expect removing currency from the economy to be deflationary, but in GPs example we didn't just remove currency, we removed demand too. If less people have money to buy a car, less cars are produced. When you are making 1k instead of 1m cars, you no longer benefit as much from scale and must raise your prices, which only the rich can afford. No…
> One would indeed expect removing currency from the economy to be deflationary, but in GPs example
the issue is that the GP's premise ("When super-rich people receive money, it goes mostly to tax havens, removing it from circulation.") is invalid.
Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've got your cause/effect chain a little muddled. I would also assert that the system dynamics are neither linear nor singular in the way you frame it. > Increasing wealth inequality, drives prices inflation How does increasing wealth inequality drive price increases?
> How does increasing wealth inequality drive price increases? i'm not the person you asked, and i'm just spit-balling, but here's a way: wealth inequality means there's a group that has substantially more wealth than normal, let's call that group A, and the complimentary group of people who don't have substantially more wealth than normal, let's call them B. A's wealth ultimately comes from B-- you know, you got wor…
i'm not the person you replied but if wages lag furhter, how rents going up? it should go down since there is noone to be able to pay higher rents. they have no choice but either convince homeowner or downgrade. and Group A(rich + upper-middle) won't rent since they have enough wealth to buy a house, they may upgrade and cause inflation in luxury houses/goods.
Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why
#50Title is clickbait (we all know why) but its a great read. Its so many shocks to the economy at the same time, and with no goal other than to cause harm that I don't think anything the FED does will have any real impact in the real world. The author goes for an OR between reasons but I really don't see it like that, its an AND, all jumbled together and pushing the economy down.
> with no goal other than to cause harm My read is not that it is to cause harm / break things down per sé, but instead to deglobalize. At various times, the left and the right have made globalization the bogeyman and something to fight, so this idea has been in the ether. For many reasons (economic, geopolitics, peace), globalization is a great thing. Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is…
I, on the other hand, believe that it's not causing harm or deglobalization, but rather a way to generate cash for Trump himself. He or his lieutenants get cryptocurrency for either imposing tariffs on competitors, or not imposing threatened tariffs, or maybe shorting entire industries before the tariff is announced.