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

Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why

stayathomemacro.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why

#101

Post by tobias3 »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #83
davidw wrote: post #10

I 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.

On election night when Trump was elected in 2016, Krugman wrote in the NYT that the markets would never recover, and that there would probably be "a global recession, with no end in sight". He definitely lets his political angle completely color his economic analysis. Now that Trump is back in the White House we are of course doomed, same as the last time he was in the White House, same as the next time. If you've go…

He quickly retracted that call back then https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/the-long-haul/

Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why

#103

Post by Smoosh »

RickJWagner wrote: post #97
davidw wrote: post #10

I 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.

Krugman is great if you want confirmation of your left-side ideas. But he’s terrible if you want criticisms of left-side ideas, or if you want to hear about right-side policies that are working well. To me, that’s of very limited utility.

Perhaps “Reality has a well-known liberal bias” ?

Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why

#104

Post by pstuart »

RickJWagner wrote: post #97
davidw wrote: post #10

I 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.

Krugman is great if you want confirmation of your left-side ideas. But he’s terrible if you want criticisms of left-side ideas, or if you want to hear about right-side policies that are working well. To me, that’s of very limited utility.

Out economy is now in the hands of an entitled narcissist with clear cognitive decline, surrounded only by enablers. Policy is determined by personal aggrandizement, greed, and vendettas. It's fucking crazy and to pretend otherwise is fucking crazy.

Judging policy solely by the their promoter would normally be wrong (book by its cover, eh?), but these days there's been some consistency in the quality (and lack of same) by various groups so challenging them out of the gate isn't unreasonable.

Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why

#105

Post by [deleted] »

maxglute wrote: post #90

Deport + limit immigration = degrowth = of course job growth would slow, maybe even turn negative. Perhaps there's this alternative scenario world where pressed Americans start working jobs illegals work, aka the jobs allegedly Americans won't. But Americans are too soft / have too much dignity / employers haven't increased wage (whatever interpretation you wish) for that to happen.

[deleted]

Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why

#107

Post by xboxnolifes »

andsoitis wrote: post #76
xboxnolifes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the majority of wealth is centralized to a small group of people, why would you bother trying to extract smaller amounts of money from the other group?

> If the majority of wealth is centralized to a small group of people, why would you bother trying to extract smaller amounts of money from the other group? That's a fantastic question that I don't think I've heard before, but I have a practical answer to. Most of the wealth of the top 1% (to pick an arbitrary "small group of people") is not sitting as cash in the bank; it is concentrated in financial and business as…

When i said extract money from, I didn't mean taxes. I meant why would businesses target the group of people with very little wealth, instead of making products that target the rich? At some amount if wealth inequality, the majority of commerce has to be targeting the rich instead of everyone else, no? What does that economy look like?

Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why

#108

Post by [deleted] »

thankyoufriend wrote: post #29
davidw wrote: post #10

I 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.

Economics is political.

[deleted]

Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why

#109

Post by throw0101d »

RickJWagner wrote: post #97
davidw wrote: post #10

I 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.

Krugman is great if you want confirmation of your left-side ideas. But he’s terrible if you want criticisms of left-side ideas, or if you want to hear about right-side policies that are working well. To me, that’s of very limited utility.

> But he’s terrible if you want criticisms of left-side ideas, or if you want to hear about right-side policies that are working well.

MMT is left-side, and he's highly critical of it. Not a fan of rent control, a favourite of many left-leaning folks.

What right-side policies—especially perhaps ones that are being pursed by Trump / Project 2025—are working well?

Re: Job growth has slowed sharply; the question is why

#110

Post by andsoitis »

Volundr wrote: post #91
andsoitis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what do they do with it, and how does effect the economy compared to the way lower wealth people behave when they receive money? Most of the wealth of the top 1% (to pick an arbitrary "small group of people") is not sitting as cash in the bank; it is concentrated in financial and business assets: equities & mutual funds, private businesses, real estate, bonds and other fixed-income investments, alternative assets.…

Great! So how does that compare in economic impact to spending it? I can help with that: it doesn't. If I buy stock, it doesn't create demand for... Anything. Unless it was stock bought from the company itself it doesn't give the company any more funds to work with. It doesn't help the company produce more, nor does it create demand that would encourage them to do so.

> So how does that compare in economic impact to spending it? I can help with that: it doesn't. If I buy stock, it doesn't create demand for... Anything.

1) Many of the super wealthy have the shares because they created the company and get awarded stock each year as compensation. Of the 10 richest people on the planet (in order: Musk, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Page, Huang, Brin, Balmer, Arnault & Family) 8 or 9 of them were the primary founder or co-founder.

2) Even if they didn't, then it is worth knowing that trading shares benefits the economy in several interconnected ways; some direct, some more subtle: Efficient Capital Allocation, Liquidity and Confidence, Price discovery, Risk transfer, Wealth effects, Global capital flow. Or in short: Trading shares doesn’t just “move money around” — it helps connect savers with businesses, keeps capital moving toward productive uses, and makes the whole investment process safer and more flexible.

Post reply on HN