301–310 of 376 posts
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSJOL Job openings are still very high, ~30% higher than the average for the last few decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously? What hedge contract you going to use for: 1) Wars, 2) a revocation of trucker drivers’ licenses (already happening in Cali), 3)deportations, 4)tariffs, 5) the collapse of USMCA
War-risk insurance is a thing [1]. You could probably buy a business-interruption policy with a line item for revocations. Adding a tariff contingency to customer contracts and/or engaging with vendors on a fixed-price tariff-notwithstanding basis transfers tariff risk. Deportatios and the collapse of a free-trade zone are not mitigatable. De-leveraging from products that don't have a strong domestic alternative woul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. It is very funny how young people perceive this market. Unemployment is basically lower than it has ever been and people are panicking. Prime age labor force participation rate near all-time record highs. The people are almost dangerously over-employed.
I'm young-ish transitioning to middle age (36). The job market is AWFUL for my generation, and pretty much always has been since we entered the workforce. Unemployment might be low if you think that folks with advanced STEM degrees can go and get a part time gig at McDonald's. If you look at meaningful employment - where one can make enough to live near where they work, save a bit, pay food/rent, and spend a bit for…
It's almost like anecdotal reports are meaningless, and we should rely on well sourced data to determine how things like the economy are doing.
Spoiler alert: there is no indication we are in a death spiral, though in my opinion Trump seems to be doing his best to correct that. Fortunately, I don't think he's up to the task.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm young-ish transitioning to middle age (36). The job market is AWFUL for my generation, and pretty much always has been since we entered the workforce. Unemployment might be low if you think that folks with advanced STEM degrees can go and get a part time gig at McDonald's. If you look at meaningful employment - where one can make enough to live near where they work, save a bit, pay food/rent, and spend a bit for…
I am slightly older than you, and literally don't know a person who isn't employed and doing well (including plenty your age and younger), though I am aware they exist. It's almost like anecdotal reports are meaningless, and we should rely on well sourced data to determine how things like the economy are doing. Spoiler alert: there is no indication we are in a death spiral, though in my opinion Trump seems to be doin…
I was doing terribly. Honestly, I still am. I've just been fortunate enough to have conceived a product some people in my city want. Will the business scale and succeed? I hope so, because I'm fucked if it goes south.
And yes, anecdotal data sucks. But I'd take that over whatever bullshit the Trump administration says. Especially after they fired the BLS statisticians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that weird? If American's can't compete with the wage expectations of foreign workers then they're not going to be hired. If US workers can't compete then vote for less immigration. It's not the corporates or the foreigners fault, it's the government that's putting those groups first over US workers.
its not that they're putting people who are immigrants over US workers, they are putting corporate profits before US workers. the US is terrible at protecting american jobs for americans. i am not overly educated on this but it seems like a lot of countries, europe specifically, are extremely protective of their jobs. i don't think americans are somehow inherently more worthy of employment and opportunity than people…
I personally would like to see some sort of system where we account for discrepancies in regulations related to worker protections, government subsidies, and environmental standards through taxation (e.g. Chinese crap is no longer as cheap as it is right now because we account for the substandard worker conditions and environmental damage being done), but I think restricting the labor market too much would be incredibly damaging.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSJOL Job openings are still very high, ~30% higher than the average for the last few decades.
This has been called out by the Moody's Analytics economists in their podcast [0] for a while. The generally accepted explanation is that online job postings no longer map 1:1 to actual open positions at companies, ie many companies are not actually hiring despite having a listing for an open role. This has become common enough that it has gained it's own term: "ghost" postings/listings. [0] https://www.moodys.com/we…
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSJOL Job openings are still very high, ~30% higher than the average for the last few decades.
I don't understand how this chart can be true at all. Does this include ghost listings?
> JOLTS defines Job Openings as all positions that are open (not filled) on the last business day of the month. A job is "open" only if it meets all three of the following conditions:
1. A specific position exists and there is work available for that position. The position can be full-time or part-time, and it can be permanent, short-term, or seasonal, and
2. The job could start within 30 days, whether or not the establishment finds a suitable candidate during that time, and
3. There is active recruiting for workers from outside the establishment location that has the opening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the US, it's not too out of the norm historically speaking. Up until relatively recently tariffs were very popular in the US despite the clear understanding by academics that they were incredibly damaging to the economy. Political movements based around protectionist economic arguments have a long history in the US. For an example, take a look at the 1888 US presidential election, which largely revolved around ta…
Serious question, if tariffs are so terrible, why did so many countries have tariffs on US (and other country's) goods? Also, during the period you describe the US was a major export economy. Now the US economy is far more insular (even before Trump) than it was during that period (foreign trade was more than 50% in the late 19th century vs 7% today). Why would you assume that doesn't impact the effects of tariffs?
1. Making the same mistake as Trump et al.
2. Quick and easy reaction to other nation's tariffs, which we saw this year when Trump announced all his tariffs.
3. Targeted at specific industries to influence politics in other nations. IIRC, the EU is actually doing this to the US, specific states that have a lot of support for Trump, in the hope those voters will make the connection and get Trump to back off.
4. Targeted at specific industries to protect domestic industries from being undermined. The USA has accused China of this in various cases, any "anti-dumping tariffs" would be perfectly reasonable where this happens. China was accused of trying basically the same thing Uber was accused of, spending (VC|tax) money to corner the market then raising prices when all the old (taxi drivers|PV makers) were gone.
5. Sin taxes. Singapore doesn't have their own car industry to protect, they make it really difficult to get a car just because they don't want lots of cars. I mean, it's more of a registration fee, but the effect there is much the same given the lack of local industry.
My hot take: We’re already in a recession. We just use AI to justify doing all the same recession behaviors while making it sound like innovation - not hiring this year > AI is making us productive! - no wage growth > AI means we don’t need to raise salaries - layoffs > with AI we can do more with less people - spending less on offsites, work perks etc > we really need that budget for AI - not spending money on that…
Hardly a recession