U.S. job openings post biggest drop in more than four years(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. job openings post biggest drop in more than four years
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-jobs/u-s-job-openings-post-biggest-drop-in-more-than-four-years-idUSKBN1ZG1V0
275 comments
> Oddly enough, the stock market typically rallies from the yield curve inversion right into the next recession.
In addition to buybacks, the Fed has been buying treasuries like crazy[1] since September 2019 (they claim it's totally not Quantitative Easing) - so lot's of fed dollars are juicing the stock market rn.
1. $100-billion-per-month worth of "not-QE" https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-federal-reserve-is-stu...
In addition to buybacks, the Fed has been buying treasuries like crazy[1] since September 2019 (they claim it's totally not Quantitative Easing) - so lot's of fed dollars are juicing the stock market rn.
1. $100-billion-per-month worth of "not-QE" https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-federal-reserve-is-stu...
HN comments are like ZeroHedge -- we've predicted 14 of the past 2 recessions.
I'd love to see someone do an analysis of "recession almost here" posts on ZeroHedge over time. There are probably at least one per day for the past decade.
My prediction - someone's guess will turn out to be right and they'll be the new investing star for the coming decade.
My prediction - someone's guess will turn out to be right and they'll be the new investing star for the coming decade.
The very best advice about timing of recessions and recoveries comes from Jack Bogle:
"Nobody knows nothing."
"Nobody knows nothing."
> Taken with the yield curve inversion in 2019, and other leading indicators, it appears the US economy is headed for the first recession in over 10 years.
The research using yield curve inversion as a leading indicator of recession is based on the yield curve remaining inverted for a full quarter -- which it didn't do.
The research using yield curve inversion as a leading indicator of recession is based on the yield curve remaining inverted for a full quarter -- which it didn't do.
It's not certain that the drop in job openings will _quickly_ turn into loss of jobs, i.e. TFA also says "layoffs rate dipped to 1.1% from 1.2%".
Also, the yield curve inversion is a strong indicator, but not a perfect one, and some of the recessions it indicated happened as far as 34 months out (according to some Credit Suisse report I can't really find anymore).
We're sure to hit a recession at some point, but it's really hard to guess when.
Also, the yield curve inversion is a strong indicator, but not a perfect one, and some of the recessions it indicated happened as far as 34 months out (according to some Credit Suisse report I can't really find anymore).
We're sure to hit a recession at some point, but it's really hard to guess when.
>The unemployment rate, at 4 percent, is currently 30 basis points from its recent low.
Seems like the article is trying really hard to imply that the 50 basic point increase has already occurred, even though it has not occurred.
Seems like the article is trying really hard to imply that the 50 basic point increase has already occurred, even though it has not occurred.
It’s also an old article, and the unemployment rate has since dropped to new lows. [1]
1: https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
1: https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Add in the bad monetary policy that has Fortune 500 companies borrowing money at 0% to buyback stocks. Then the Democrats are going to want to rollback the Trump tax cuts and that will be the beginning. However, I think we need a bad recession or pop to bring things back to normal instead of just easing the pressure slightly. Otherwise the real crash will be even bigger.
The republicans will want to decrease budget deficits, just as soon as a democrat is in office. There's no end to business cycles, a recession will happen again. And we are overdue based on previous cycles.
I think we've been juicing the economy for many years so when we have a recession it could be more severe than typical because we've been propping up the economy. We have 0% interest rates in many countries, so the actual economic growth absent that should be much lower. We foolishly had big tax cuts aimed at wealthy people with the trump tax cuts, so when we have a recession and need to counter that with more stimulus spending we'll be facing an increasing budget deficit. if we cancel the billionaire/millionaire trump/republican tax plan it will serve as another negative stimulus on the economy. Just like the us has been reducing the power of its democratic institutions the last few years, we've been borrowing from tomorrow (with unnecessary tax cuts).
I think we've been juicing the economy for many years so when we have a recession it could be more severe than typical because we've been propping up the economy. We have 0% interest rates in many countries, so the actual economic growth absent that should be much lower. We foolishly had big tax cuts aimed at wealthy people with the trump tax cuts, so when we have a recession and need to counter that with more stimulus spending we'll be facing an increasing budget deficit. if we cancel the billionaire/millionaire trump/republican tax plan it will serve as another negative stimulus on the economy. Just like the us has been reducing the power of its democratic institutions the last few years, we've been borrowing from tomorrow (with unnecessary tax cuts).
[deleted]
If it is 12 to 18 months away it will happen just after the election this winter. That will be fun.
Alternatively timed perfectly to let the Republicans hammer the Democrats if they win all the way until 2024.
I'm pretty convinced the Democrats will be toast as a party by 2030 once they get saddled with imploding the economy by no fault of their own other than bad timing.
I'm pretty convinced the Democrats will be toast as a party by 2030 once they get saddled with imploding the economy by no fault of their own other than bad timing.
> I'm pretty convinced the Democrats will be toast as a party by 2030 once they get saddled with imploding the economy by no fault of their own other than bad timing.
The effect of federalizing $3 trillion a year of the economy, raising corporate taxes to far above what Sweden has, and 70% marginal personal tax rates probably won’t be “no fault of their own.”
The effect of federalizing $3 trillion a year of the economy, raising corporate taxes to far above what Sweden has, and 70% marginal personal tax rates probably won’t be “no fault of their own.”
It was right around 10 years ago when headlines were going around saying "Will the GOP ever win again?"
On its own, this probably doesn't mean anything. But it's important for us to pay attention. Technologists live in a world of negative unemployment, so it's easy to forget that everyone else is subject to macroeconomic cycles.
Even if you were laid off after the Dot-Com Crash or the Great Recession, you didn't have it anywhere near as bad as someone outside this industry.
Even if you were laid off after the Dot-Com Crash or the Great Recession, you didn't have it anywhere near as bad as someone outside this industry.
> Technologists live in a world of negative unemployment
Just wait until you turn 50...
Just wait until you turn 50...
I don't personally know any sharp ICs who have trouble finding work, regardless of age, provided they keep learning.
I've met many people who have struggled to find work after they stopped learning. But someone who refuses to learn at 30 is less employable than someone who still gets excited about a new framework at 60.
I've met many people who have struggled to find work after they stopped learning. But someone who refuses to learn at 30 is less employable than someone who still gets excited about a new framework at 60.
I passed an all-day at Google in my 50s. No offer, though, and that job hunt lasted many months. Pleased to meet you. :-)
I live in flyover country and have worked many years for companies way less sexy than Google. The environment here is different from the Bay Area's "moving on at 26" mentality. Certain industries (especially insurance, financial services, and healthcare) prefer someone who's been around the block and is more interested in maintainable, well-architected solutions. A lot of the in-joke humor about tech culture that you see on HN would probably go over the heads of most of my coworkers because they just don't care. They want to write great software and leave at 5.
Googler here.
Recruiter would not know if you passed or not.
IIUC, Google recruiter would send your package to the hiring committee if your interview result isn't bad (this is at their discretion); the hiring committee has the final say on if someone has "passed", recruiter doesn't.
Recruiter would not know if you passed or not.
IIUC, Google recruiter would send your package to the hiring committee if your interview result isn't bad (this is at their discretion); the hiring committee has the final say on if someone has "passed", recruiter doesn't.
How do you know you "passed" the all day? Why do you think the lack of an offer is age-related?
The Google recruiter told me that I passed that and the follow-on hiring committee. I have no reason to believe that wasn't true, especially since the people in the all-day seemed genuinely enthusiastic about me.
I didn't say they didn't hire me for age. Rather, I was offering that as a proof of sorts that my skills are current and yet I had a hard time getting hired.
(I did hear via back channels that I was nixed there for being [euphemism for too old]. Hard to know whether that's true, but all things considered, it's hard to think of a non-demographic explanation, aside from bad luck. In any case, I'm over it.)
I didn't say they didn't hire me for age. Rather, I was offering that as a proof of sorts that my skills are current and yet I had a hard time getting hired.
(I did hear via back channels that I was nixed there for being [euphemism for too old]. Hard to know whether that's true, but all things considered, it's hard to think of a non-demographic explanation, aside from bad luck. In any case, I'm over it.)
Please see my comment above. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22079448
Recruiter would not know if you have passed, I assume you mean your package was sent to the hiring committee?
If you did not receive an offer after your package passed hiring committee, one common reason I heard was there is no head count.
A not recent news: Google Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit [0]
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/07/23/google-set...
Recruiter would not know if you have passed, I assume you mean your package was sent to the hiring committee?
If you did not receive an offer after your package passed hiring committee, one common reason I heard was there is no head count.
A not recent news: Google Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit [0]
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/07/23/google-set...
I was told by the recruiter that the hiring committee had passed me, and I subsequently had a conversation with a team manager that seemed fine. Then heard I was nixed at the final executive review--something like that.
Was contacted after the usual six months by a new recruiter wanting me to apply again. Asked what happened last time, which he seemed to know nothing about. He investigated, and came back with the corporate-speak I interpreted as "too old" (though phrased in a way that would probably avoid legal issues).
The "no head count" explanation doesn't make much sense to me. And in any case, given the effort required to go through the process, it'd be kind of a dick move to be interviewing candidates when there were no openings.
Their recruiters continue to contact me about every six months.
Was contacted after the usual six months by a new recruiter wanting me to apply again. Asked what happened last time, which he seemed to know nothing about. He investigated, and came back with the corporate-speak I interpreted as "too old" (though phrased in a way that would probably avoid legal issues).
The "no head count" explanation doesn't make much sense to me. And in any case, given the effort required to go through the process, it'd be kind of a dick move to be interviewing candidates when there were no openings.
Their recruiters continue to contact me about every six months.
By "no head count" I meant was it could happen that the head count they are conducting interview for was lost by the time the package reached its final stage. Giving Google's extremely long hiring process, I imagine this happens more often to Google then to other tech companies.
I do wish companies are more transparent about their hiring decisions.
I do wish companies are more transparent about their hiring decisions.
I could see that for a small company. For a company of Google's size and wealth, it simply doesn't make sense not to pick up a good candidate even if you don't need them right away.
In any case, it did drive home the point that Google would never see me as anything but marginal and expendable, and I realized that there were other places where I could really matter.
In any case, it did drive home the point that Google would never see me as anything but marginal and expendable, and I realized that there were other places where I could really matter.
Do you have any recommendations for someone earlier in their career (<50 yo) to avoid or minimize ageism? Go into management? Be prepared to pick a new career?
Seriously, your best bet (and the advice I would give my 20-something year old self) is to SAVE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN. And then save more than that. Try to be financially independent by 50. If you can do that then you won't have to worry about ageism. You'll be able to be picky about the kinds of jobs you take.
From a practical standpoint that means don't buy status symbol products (cars, fancy phones, etc) - stick to practical (I drive a '98 Civic that cost me $2400 - great, reliable car). If you buy a house, buy a very practical one in a more affordable neighborhood. Learn to do your own maintenance. Keep your expenses as low as possible. If you don't have a Roth IRA start one today and begin fully funding it. If your work offers a Roth 401k option put some money in there too if you can.
And of course, always be learning new things.
From a practical standpoint that means don't buy status symbol products (cars, fancy phones, etc) - stick to practical (I drive a '98 Civic that cost me $2400 - great, reliable car). If you buy a house, buy a very practical one in a more affordable neighborhood. Learn to do your own maintenance. Keep your expenses as low as possible. If you don't have a Roth IRA start one today and begin fully funding it. If your work offers a Roth 401k option put some money in there too if you can.
And of course, always be learning new things.
I'm in a similar spot. As enticing as a Tesla Model 3 Performance edition might be, my '00 civic with 220k miles, no heater, and a head gasket problem still gets me to work every day, and I have all the cash I need to replace it the day it dies. My wife and I are in our early 30s and our mortgage payment is less than most of our friends pay to rent a single room because we worked and saved through college.
When I buy something nicer than I truly need for a hobby such as a Mountain Bike, I wait for a great price on a fixer-upper, perform the maintenance it needs, and enjoy it without getting attached, while at the same time putting it back up for sale at a higher price in case someone wants it more than I do. 9 times out of 10 the item will sell in a few months, and oddly enough I've met some incredibly interesting people who wanted properly restored items, such as a tie-dye founder whose been in business for over 50 years and an SVP at Cisco who's in charge of a product I had been using daily for years.
When I buy something nicer than I truly need for a hobby such as a Mountain Bike, I wait for a great price on a fixer-upper, perform the maintenance it needs, and enjoy it without getting attached, while at the same time putting it back up for sale at a higher price in case someone wants it more than I do. 9 times out of 10 the item will sell in a few months, and oddly enough I've met some incredibly interesting people who wanted properly restored items, such as a tie-dye founder whose been in business for over 50 years and an SVP at Cisco who's in charge of a product I had been using daily for years.
While I'm pretty frugal myself I do splurge on cars; currently own the Model 3. The reason being is that safety technology is always improving. So driving an '00 Civic with 220k will save you some cheddar it may cost you a severe injury or worse.
I'm not saying I don't want one (I rented a P100D on vacation and it was fantastic). Its just not the right decision for me to use as a commuter car despite how much my heart wants one, and I have to actively supress my desire to purchase one, but it does make me feel more fiscally responsible not to buy it. I also probably don't value safety as much as you. I have a twin turbo 300zx track car which I'll never sell and goes completely against everything I described above to be honest, so I'm a hypocrite regardless!
Moderation in everything :)
If you care about safety, don't overlook the effects of weight differential. Odysseys are quite safe, partly because they're pretty heavy.
The other advantage of 90s Hondas (and possibly also '00) is that they're so cheap to have fixed as opposed to how much you have to pay to get a newer car fixed. Parts are readily available and pretty darn cheap. I know a shade tree mechanic in the neighborhood and when I needed to get a new clutch master cylinder put in I ordered the parts off of Amazon for $20 and he did the job for $100. I probably could've done it myself, but for $100 it seemed like it would be better to have him do it as he does this kind of thing all the time.
Yep, I am one of those shade tree mechanics, the only way I can afford my financially irresponsible 300zx. Beware amazon parts however, my head gasket issue in the civic issue was caused by an "OEM" (pretty sure it was counterfeit in some way) water pump from amazon that failed in under a year.
I had a 37 year career at a company that used to be a well recognized brand. I was in the Research Laboratories in an Analytical Sciences division. During that time we had many layoffs as the company's financial position eroded. The key to success in that environment was to be a lifelong learner, a team player, and developing skills that permitted you to generate results that proved your worth.
During downsizings, as groups got smaller, managers were let go along with workers. Survivors needed learn to mourn the loss of your colleagues who were downsized, and then pick up the important work they left behind. To survive, one needed a positive attitude. Keeping one takes work under difficult circumstances. I always viewed the task as taking lemons and making lemonade.
None of us liked this. This strategy worked for me until they finally cut 70% of the Research Labs staff, including most of my clients and many of my fellow analysts. The best an employee can do is to work with your family to design a budget that lets you live below your means, build an emergency fund with at least six month's living expenses, and to save as much as you can each month in a retirement plan. None of these tasks are easy. Few people actually do this because it requires you to say "no" to many of your desires. Those who do find it easier to cope when the shoe finally drops on you...
During downsizings, as groups got smaller, managers were let go along with workers. Survivors needed learn to mourn the loss of your colleagues who were downsized, and then pick up the important work they left behind. To survive, one needed a positive attitude. Keeping one takes work under difficult circumstances. I always viewed the task as taking lemons and making lemonade.
None of us liked this. This strategy worked for me until they finally cut 70% of the Research Labs staff, including most of my clients and many of my fellow analysts. The best an employee can do is to work with your family to design a budget that lets you live below your means, build an emergency fund with at least six month's living expenses, and to save as much as you can each month in a retirement plan. None of these tasks are easy. Few people actually do this because it requires you to say "no" to many of your desires. Those who do find it easier to cope when the shoe finally drops on you...
Aside from ~UncleOxidant's really good reply -- to save as much as possible with a goal towards being financially independent by 50 -- there are a couple of other options which anecdotally seem to have worked well for a lot of people:
You can become an expert in a niche subject. The tricky part here is that it has to be a niche subject that pays well, with a lot of demand but not so much demand that newcomers are tempted to do the work to also become an expert in it. One example of this, that most on HN would like to pretend doesn't exist, is COBOL. COBOL programmers can command some pretty nice rates now, because nobody wants to work with COBOL but it still powers a lot of the world.
It's also a great time to start your own business. Maybe your kids are out of the house, hopefully you've become a seasoned industry veteran, you've seen other people make mistakes and you've gathered together a nice bit of savings and some excellent credit. Why not put those resources and that experience to use and start your own business? See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18212409
You can become an expert in a niche subject. The tricky part here is that it has to be a niche subject that pays well, with a lot of demand but not so much demand that newcomers are tempted to do the work to also become an expert in it. One example of this, that most on HN would like to pretend doesn't exist, is COBOL. COBOL programmers can command some pretty nice rates now, because nobody wants to work with COBOL but it still powers a lot of the world.
It's also a great time to start your own business. Maybe your kids are out of the house, hopefully you've become a seasoned industry veteran, you've seen other people make mistakes and you've gathered together a nice bit of savings and some excellent credit. Why not put those resources and that experience to use and start your own business? See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18212409
I'd echo what others are saying here: learn to live cheap, cultivate your professional network, learn to be a team player.
Amplifying: Don't have kids unless you really want them--they're very expensive. Don't get married unless you really want to--being (and then likely not being) married is very expensive. Avoid those and a drug habit, and you don't need a lot of money.
I didn't realize how important networking is when I was young. It really is "who you know and not what you know". And to the degree that it's the latter, it's how well you interview, not what you know that actually matters. It's rarely possible to evaluate someone's skills or how they'll do in a company until you've had them on-board for a year or two.
I was much more idealistic when I was young, and often stood on principal. That was a mistake. If management wants to drive their train over a cliff, offer to sell popcorn. Or write a crash analysis tool that will look good on your resume. But smile the whole time, and keep your resume polished. You're playing for your team, not your employer's.
Amplifying: Don't have kids unless you really want them--they're very expensive. Don't get married unless you really want to--being (and then likely not being) married is very expensive. Avoid those and a drug habit, and you don't need a lot of money.
I didn't realize how important networking is when I was young. It really is "who you know and not what you know". And to the degree that it's the latter, it's how well you interview, not what you know that actually matters. It's rarely possible to evaluate someone's skills or how they'll do in a company until you've had them on-board for a year or two.
I was much more idealistic when I was young, and often stood on principal. That was a mistake. If management wants to drive their train over a cliff, offer to sell popcorn. Or write a crash analysis tool that will look good on your resume. But smile the whole time, and keep your resume polished. You're playing for your team, not your employer's.
Yea going into management is the best bet. Its a "controversial" topic on HN because large swathes of ppl here here believe #IC4Lyfe is a good career move. Its not.
I agree that IC for life is not a good career move, but it's not the wanna-be IC's fault.
It's the industry.
I work with this guy, he's about 60. I think he has a degree in Physics from Oxford, but he has a Texas accent. He's kind of a nomad type of guy, bounces from job to job. Got hired into the AWS "Cloud Team" shop on a project I work on. Doesn't have any AWS certifications. As far as I know, barely touched AWS and never touched Python, CloudFormation, or Jenkins before this job (but he knows just about every *ix flavor there is). Basically a lifelong Linux Sysadmin. I have no idea how he got the job.
Within a month he was writing his own CloudFormation, Lambdas, and Jenkinsfiles. He almost immediately intuited the whole "Zip up the Python and all its dependencies, throw on S3, use CFT to deploy the Lambda using that Zip file" method of deploying lambdas. Note this is with multiple accounts so you need to get the whole IAM delegation between accounts stuff. He's a natural.
I'm in awe of this guy.
I truly believe that HN is full of people than can be like this. The problem is that most hiring managers do not.
It's the industry.
I work with this guy, he's about 60. I think he has a degree in Physics from Oxford, but he has a Texas accent. He's kind of a nomad type of guy, bounces from job to job. Got hired into the AWS "Cloud Team" shop on a project I work on. Doesn't have any AWS certifications. As far as I know, barely touched AWS and never touched Python, CloudFormation, or Jenkins before this job (but he knows just about every *ix flavor there is). Basically a lifelong Linux Sysadmin. I have no idea how he got the job.
Within a month he was writing his own CloudFormation, Lambdas, and Jenkinsfiles. He almost immediately intuited the whole "Zip up the Python and all its dependencies, throw on S3, use CFT to deploy the Lambda using that Zip file" method of deploying lambdas. Note this is with multiple accounts so you need to get the whole IAM delegation between accounts stuff. He's a natural.
I'm in awe of this guy.
I truly believe that HN is full of people than can be like this. The problem is that most hiring managers do not.
I think it's important to let people know that there are fewer managers than workers. (At least, if a company is doing things correctly there are fewer management positions.) This means that not everyone will be able to make this transition even if you have the appropriate skills and disposition. Furthermore, if you look around a lot of tech companies, you'll notice that most of the managerial staff is <45 as well. So keep that in mind.
Basically, don't bank everything on going into management. Be financially responsible. Live beneath your means. Explore other pass times and activities that you may have an interest in pursuing in the future. The worst thing you can do is arrive at 40 or 45 with a Plan A that may not work out and no Plan B or C.
Basically, don't bank everything on going into management. Be financially responsible. Live beneath your means. Explore other pass times and activities that you may have an interest in pursuing in the future. The worst thing you can do is arrive at 40 or 45 with a Plan A that may not work out and no Plan B or C.
Until companies have 3 managers and 2 normal employees.
I'm mid 50s, I keep learning. If you are a programmer who can't find work, well first let me say that would be horrible. It's unacceptable, it should never happen, yet reports keep happening. I haven't seen it in my career, I'm sure I'm fortunate in many ways.
I'm guessing that for people this happens to, it's a combination of being in a place with not many tech jobs and also not keeping up with technology. Can you do cloud tech (aws, google cloud, azure?), c++, java, js, protobuffers? None of these technologies were invented when I got my BS in CS many many years ago and I've been learning continuously. Sure there were similar things or building blocks toward this kind of stuff. My last job search was a couple of years ago, I had 3 offers and stopped interviewing and I'm not unusual in my experience (going back to the above comment about negative employment in software engineering). I'm in the Seattle area. At the company I joined a few months ago half our small team of engineers are 45+. We just hired someone past 60 as a dev.
If you find yourself in this situation, all these technologies are available to try for free on the internet, you can teach yourself. Companies that won't hire older people are just stupid, on top of being illegal.
I'm guessing that for people this happens to, it's a combination of being in a place with not many tech jobs and also not keeping up with technology. Can you do cloud tech (aws, google cloud, azure?), c++, java, js, protobuffers? None of these technologies were invented when I got my BS in CS many many years ago and I've been learning continuously. Sure there were similar things or building blocks toward this kind of stuff. My last job search was a couple of years ago, I had 3 offers and stopped interviewing and I'm not unusual in my experience (going back to the above comment about negative employment in software engineering). I'm in the Seattle area. At the company I joined a few months ago half our small team of engineers are 45+. We just hired someone past 60 as a dev.
If you find yourself in this situation, all these technologies are available to try for free on the internet, you can teach yourself. Companies that won't hire older people are just stupid, on top of being illegal.
Build and cultivate your professional network. The more senior you are (in position and age), the more you're hired via connections rather than resume.
Government and DoD contractors usually run older than commercial companies- you won't get close to SV level compensation, but it can be a good way to move to a lower cost-of-living area.
Assuming you're in software -- study machine learning! It's going to be hot for a long time.
Exactly. Mid-50-something here. Currently looking for work in this "negative unemployment" environment. It's going to take a while, I think, just like it did last time I was out of work 3 years ago (took 9 months to find another gig then, though I have to admit I can afford to by picky).
> Technologists live in a world of negative unemployment
I would amend that to say:
"Many technologists live in a world of frequently negative unemployment"
I would amend that to say:
"Many technologists live in a world of frequently negative unemployment"
That won't last forever. I know Mozilla and Digital Ocean just had layoffs.
... and there are many many HR departments going on a hunt for these people that got laid off
Is any tech worker seriously that desirable still that they are being hounded immediately after getting fired? I entered college in 2004 and transferred out of software engineering, feeling that developer/engineer jobs would quickly become the auto mechanic of the 21st century and wages at the grunt level would fall in line. I also didn't feel fulfilled with sitting at a computer all day. Fast forward to now, and while I work as a Civil Engineer I still find myself sitting at a computer all day regardless. While the pay is completely reasonable, I probably would be just as happy with my day-to-day working on software, while making more money from how things are looking.
I grew up on IRC and building SMALL scripts starting in 5th or 6th grade for software of the day such as Palace, customizing small bits of code to rename items in the dreamcast version of Phantasy Star Online, etc. When I took the 1st year of software engineering classes at Cal Poly Software Engineering could code perfectly serviceable and had As/Bs.
What would be the best way for me to dip my toe back in and see the type of work I'd be doing working in tech in 2020? Is there a way to bring my skills up to the current day through free or paid remote coursework, and are there ways to get small freelance work I could use to build my resume? Are there any good blogs following someone who has taken a similar path?
I grew up on IRC and building SMALL scripts starting in 5th or 6th grade for software of the day such as Palace, customizing small bits of code to rename items in the dreamcast version of Phantasy Star Online, etc. When I took the 1st year of software engineering classes at Cal Poly Software Engineering could code perfectly serviceable and had As/Bs.
What would be the best way for me to dip my toe back in and see the type of work I'd be doing working in tech in 2020? Is there a way to bring my skills up to the current day through free or paid remote coursework, and are there ways to get small freelance work I could use to build my resume? Are there any good blogs following someone who has taken a similar path?
Yes- layoffs typically happen for bigger reasons than just performance. It is a bit of a red flag, I mean clearly you were not the most critical person the company could not do without, but its happened to me and it has not been an issue. In a struggling company, layoffs can happen for many reasons including- being too junior, being too senior (costing too much), working on a feature/product that is getting killed- its a lot easier to just cut everyone on that project then to start cherry picking them and moving them, disagreeing with the strategy, and sometimes there is just a mandate to cut 20% and your team could all be great people and its just a tough decision to make...
Dipping back in? Just code. Take some free classes on webdev, contribute to open source, build a portfolio of projects you can show off, you will get your foot in the door somewhere that might be a little crappy, but after a year or two it should be much easier for you to at least get a shot at a FAANG or a much better company.
Dipping back in? Just code. Take some free classes on webdev, contribute to open source, build a portfolio of projects you can show off, you will get your foot in the door somewhere that might be a little crappy, but after a year or two it should be much easier for you to at least get a shot at a FAANG or a much better company.
Great! I have a number of friends I still talk with once in a blue moon at FAANG, though socially rather than about work. I'll start talking to them to see what direction they see their companies/divisions moving and what skills they could use.
And completely agreed about so many reasons to be laid off. My wife was forced out of a position at a very successful company not because of experience but because one single SVP was threatened by her. So many colleages were stunned to hear she left, but she ended up somewhere much more appreciative of her skills and experience.
And completely agreed about so many reasons to be laid off. My wife was forced out of a position at a very successful company not because of experience but because one single SVP was threatened by her. So many colleages were stunned to hear she left, but she ended up somewhere much more appreciative of her skills and experience.
I'm not claiming any personal credit for this per se. While I've made some good decisions, the vast majority of my good professional position over the past few decades has been luck.
> Is any tech worker seriously that desirable still that they are being hounded immediately after getting fired?
In the 25+ years people have been paying me to do what I do, I've been able to find a new position quite rapidly, once I decided to move on.
In fact, it's gotten easier over time. The last time I switched jobs, away from a startup that in my judgement didn't have good prospects, in six weeks, I had five competing offers, two from 'FAANG' companies.
I'm not some kind of 'rock star': far from it. I usually work more slowly than most of my peers.
Having said all that, I know that nothing last forever, and the blind fortune that brought me a specific set of skills and personality traits will move on.
> Is any tech worker seriously that desirable still that they are being hounded immediately after getting fired?
In the 25+ years people have been paying me to do what I do, I've been able to find a new position quite rapidly, once I decided to move on.
In fact, it's gotten easier over time. The last time I switched jobs, away from a startup that in my judgement didn't have good prospects, in six weeks, I had five competing offers, two from 'FAANG' companies.
I'm not some kind of 'rock star': far from it. I usually work more slowly than most of my peers.
Having said all that, I know that nothing last forever, and the blind fortune that brought me a specific set of skills and personality traits will move on.
> Is any tech worker seriously that desirable still that they are being hounded immediately after getting fired?
I get hounded constantly now, and I don't even do anything that interesting. Having a LinkedIn account and accepting connection requests from recruiters is a good first step.
I get hounded constantly now, and I don't even do anything that interesting. Having a LinkedIn account and accepting connection requests from recruiters is a good first step.
Can you explain your insight on why you thought programming would be an unattractive field to work in in 2004, where wages would become much less, like they are for auto mechanics? Since the 1980s at least software has been probably the leading factor in increasing business performance, efficiency, and automation. I guess in 2000 there was the dot com implosion but after that there were always lots more demand than there were devs, there's really been a shortage of devs my professional life over 25 years except maybe 2001 and 2008. I used to worry that there would be an infinite series of much cheaper software engineers worldwide, taking my job for less page. I think there is enough work for all the tech workers in the world, plus many things are easier with local engineers, like product discussions and evaluation of quality. But there are great engineers all over the world, of course. Maybe we've had better university training in the us but I don't see that anymore, the people I work with from india and china are first rate.
Just write some code, some toy problems, find something that is fun and go from there. And yes, software engineers face constant recruitment, daily recruiter spam on linked in. It's been a crazy hiring environment for 10 years, even worse. Everyone you try to hire has a job already (that's where the negative comes in), college students often get jobs offers their junior year.
Just write some code, some toy problems, find something that is fun and go from there. And yes, software engineers face constant recruitment, daily recruiter spam on linked in. It's been a crazy hiring environment for 10 years, even worse. Everyone you try to hire has a job already (that's where the negative comes in), college students often get jobs offers their junior year.
I wanted to be a software engineer throughout junior high and high school until I saw the dot com bubble burst. My naive 18 year old brain thought even if things look good for a few years, its just going to happen again. The year I graduated in 2008 again was a terrible time to enter the workforce, so I entered a field that needs to exist in some capacity irrespective of economy (municipal engineering). I haven't looked back much before now, but as my job went from a balance of field and office to primarily office, and I enjoy the mental exercise of coding more than I enjoy what office civil has become.
That makes sense. It's never too late! Getting back into it and then getting that first job will be the challenges. After that you'll have a programming resume and it will make it easier and easier.
> while I work as a Civil Engineer
Not answering your question, but just sharing some anecdote. A good friend of mine is a (unhappy) Civil Engineer and became passionate about programming. It's a hobby that he discovered later in his life. I can tell he's actually quite good (even though he lacks some fundamentals but he could learn fast). Unfortunately, I don't think he would be given a chance in company (here in France). My feeling is that the system is rather rigid, and there are some expectations for a junior developer job (a degree in the field, being less than 30). An option he could take and I think would work, is to take a one year CS program designed for people with different background. Some universities offer this type of program and it seems to work. Actually, I used to teach in such a program and the students were a joy to work with.
Not answering your question, but just sharing some anecdote. A good friend of mine is a (unhappy) Civil Engineer and became passionate about programming. It's a hobby that he discovered later in his life. I can tell he's actually quite good (even though he lacks some fundamentals but he could learn fast). Unfortunately, I don't think he would be given a chance in company (here in France). My feeling is that the system is rather rigid, and there are some expectations for a junior developer job (a degree in the field, being less than 30). An option he could take and I think would work, is to take a one year CS program designed for people with different background. Some universities offer this type of program and it seems to work. Actually, I used to teach in such a program and the students were a joy to work with.
Thanks! Yeah its just an idea I'd like to look into at this point. As I said in my post I grew up natively thinking like a programmer surrounded by a bunch of hackers in university on IRC when I was still in grade school, but I never did any structured programming learning and when I got to college it just didn't feel like a realistic path to a career-long job, as to me coding was familiar enough that it felt anyone could (and would) learn it in the future, and there were only so many jobs to go around. Facebook was built with a handful of people, who would have thought in their wildest dreams a social media website would need more than 40,000 employees? I have no idea how many of them are engineers, but probably way more than I would have expected.
Take a software class at a community college. I had my eye on recruiting interns and new devs at the local community college and I went to the career fare and they said the entire graduating group had already been hired, mostly by microsoft. It's a crazy world with so much demand.
Are you suggesting a local community college only (Santa Rosa Junior College for me) or do remote courses work too? What class specifically should I be taking?
The first year curriculum at Cal Poly was Java at the time, and while cumbersome I did well enough, so I don't exactly need an intro to computer science course. I'd like to jump in to something for people with about a year's experience working with whatever languages are in demand right now. I know I need to learn to learn programming again and I'd be learning all my career if I make the switch down the road, but I'd still like to do it with a language that could get me some freelance work to start building a resume with.
The first year curriculum at Cal Poly was Java at the time, and while cumbersome I did well enough, so I don't exactly need an intro to computer science course. I'd like to jump in to something for people with about a year's experience working with whatever languages are in demand right now. I know I need to learn to learn programming again and I'd be learning all my career if I make the switch down the road, but I'd still like to do it with a language that could get me some freelance work to start building a resume with.
I think remote isn't nearly as good as local. Locally you can get connected to companies that are sniffing around the college. Do they have a cs curriculum, I'd go through it step by step. You've probably not had much past "just programming". There's theory of computation, algorithm analysis - being able to do O(n) type calculations on algorithms (to compare choices) it a key interview ability, and it's useful in your job but crucial for 'real' software interviews.
In software engineering, there's using the tools (git, make, c++, dev environment - these days microsoft visual studio code is a free and commonly used dev tools that work s on linux and windows) and coding. But you will eventually need to get past it. Don't approach this as "oh my god, this will take years". Instead start with some programming classes, java or c++ or js or python, and look toward getting to those other classes eventually (theory of computation and algorithm analysis).
Good luck, you can do it.
In software engineering, there's using the tools (git, make, c++, dev environment - these days microsoft visual studio code is a free and commonly used dev tools that work s on linux and windows) and coding. But you will eventually need to get past it. Don't approach this as "oh my god, this will take years". Instead start with some programming classes, java or c++ or js or python, and look toward getting to those other classes eventually (theory of computation and algorithm analysis).
Good luck, you can do it.
I feel like in the dot-com crash it was technologists who got hit the worst. Most other industries were unscathed, or very little scathed for a short time. But in tech it was like winter for about 3 years.
Yeah it was brutal I managed to scrape by doing short term contracts but it was some deep poverty and on top of it my options in Yahoo were upside down so I had not only poverty but a relentless IRS pursuing me for whatever they could for 10 years after dot bomb.
This happened yesterday:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-16/u-s-to-ch...
I can't help but see a relationship here between bad economic news and attempts to curb the release of such.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-16/u-s-to-ch...
I can't help but see a relationship here between bad economic news and attempts to curb the release of such.
That works other way too. The Media baron running for President influencing the framing of standard bureaucratic changes.
We only see, what we want to see!
We only see, what we want to see!
The AP has more context about this: https://apnews.com/cde6768a1c300c7d167f19f676d0d515
The FT also gives useful analysis: https://www.ft.com/content/e3ec2f00-3886-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3c...
The FT also gives useful analysis: https://www.ft.com/content/e3ec2f00-3886-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3c...
The funny thing is, it's other people copying said media baron prompting the change.
> and cited a 2014 report by the department’s inspector general saying several news organizations that participate are able to profit by providing the numbers to algorithmic traders in a format that provides them an advantage.
That's Bloomberg's original business model!
> and cited a 2014 report by the department’s inspector general saying several news organizations that participate are able to profit by providing the numbers to algorithmic traders in a format that provides them an advantage.
That's Bloomberg's original business model!
It looks like you're completely misinterpreting this change.
Status quo ante: big media get advance access in a closed room to the new economic news, with electronics to prepare stories and prepare optimized communications to friends.
New procedure: big media still get advance access in a closed room to the new economic news, but without the electronics.
How is this an attempt to curb the release of bad economic news?
Status quo ante: big media get advance access in a closed room to the new economic news, with electronics to prepare stories and prepare optimized communications to friends.
New procedure: big media still get advance access in a closed room to the new economic news, but without the electronics.
How is this an attempt to curb the release of bad economic news?
That had to do with certain outlets like Bloomberg and Reuters getting market data before everyone else. Nothing nefarious that I can tell.
This doesn't indicate if is good or bad. You need to know employment rate as well, all the job could be getting filled faster than they are opened.
Good? Bad? Market economies do not operate based on these notions. This certainly indicates a slowing in demand for labor. Employment rate is not the full picture either -- wages being stagnant would support the low demand for labor hypothesis even if employment was high.
Hit this link and use the Wage Level filter. The poor are seeing faster wage growth than any other income quintile. The richest wage earners are seeing the slowest growth - income equality must be dropping quickly, even if wealth inequality might not be do to stock ownership.
https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx
https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm:
> The number of job openings fell to 6.8 million (-561,000) on the last business day of November, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the month, hires and separations were little changed at 5.8 million and 5.6 million, respectively. Within separations, the quits rate was unchanged at 2.3 percent and the layoffs and discharges rate was little changed at 1.1 percent. This release includes estimates of the number and rate of job openings, hires, and separations for the nonfarm sector by industry and by four geographic regions.
> The number of job openings fell to 6.8 million (-561,000) on the last business day of November, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the month, hires and separations were little changed at 5.8 million and 5.6 million, respectively. Within separations, the quits rate was unchanged at 2.3 percent and the layoffs and discharges rate was little changed at 1.1 percent. This release includes estimates of the number and rate of job openings, hires, and separations for the nonfarm sector by industry and by four geographic regions.
If I read this correctly it suggests that these weren't jobs filled by unemployed people. More like they are no longer needed.
Trying to glean rationale of a large and diverse group of firms is difficult. I'm not sure I can arrive to that conclusion so easily. Can you explain your reasoning further? I am quite curious.
I didn't do some kind of deep analysis. I just saw that separations rates were unchanged. I Googled the unemployment rate at the same time and it's unchanged. So I made some assumption, possibly not a very good one, that those jobs were not filled by employed or unemployed people.
You write as if we do not have access to additional context. There have been several signs that the US economy might be slowing down after a very long (the longest?) bull run in history.
It's weird because although I'm aware that the US Stock Market has been doing great, at least here in Europe it feels that for most people we still haven't recovered from the 2008 crisis.
Right, we rarely get accurate numbers on under-employment or non-employment (people who gave up looking for jobs but are able to do work).
Stock market went up to the record on the news somehow.
I wonder what proportion of stock market growth is completely absent of any human decision making, e.g. automatic 401k contributions to index plans
I actually kinda want the stock market to crash although all of my money is in it. At least we'd all stop worrying about when it's gonna crash once it has and move on with our lives :)
A coworker told me he thinks as long as people think it might crash it won’t crash.
In 1987 before the crash the market was already down substantially and people were worried it could get worse. So, I'm going to disagree. I think it is true that the market can keep going up as people think it will crash because they keep shorting the market and getting squeezed which propels the market even higher.
This is correct. Neither the public nor the majority of economists have ever been able to predict a stock market crash. Price only crashes when reality falls short of expectations. The fear is priced in. As long as everyone is expecting a crash, virtually no news can be worse than $(calamity causing event) which seemingly is anticipated.
As long as there are huge piles of cash floating around looking for something to be invested in, it's not going to crash. Everybody buys into every little dip, on the assumption that it'll go back to where it was, and they will make some money. Because they do this, it does go back up to where it was, or a little higher, and the piles of money get bigger.
"As long as there are huge piles of cash floating around" : is this due to the low interest after 2008? Even still, I would assume stock prices can't exceed a certain threshold relative to the company's earnings as it won't make economic sense; but if indeed there are no other investment alternatives I guess it does? Maybe just hoarding cash and waiting for a crash is the best strategy?
The old chestnut is that the market can stay irrational a lot longer than you can stay in the black trying to bet against it.
Keeping money in S&P500 index funds is giving 5-10% returns over the past three and a half years. Bank accounts and money-market funds don't even give you 1% over that period.
Keeping money in S&P500 index funds is giving 5-10% returns over the past three and a half years. Bank accounts and money-market funds don't even give you 1% over that period.
Indeed, that's the common investor wisdom. But I have to say it's getting scarier by the day. If you hoard cash or put it in a savings account you risk inflation. If you put it in the market you risk 40% crash is we witnessed twice the last 20 years. You might say bonds but they carry a risk as well as interest rates may pick up at some point.
I'm staying in the market but can't say I'm loving it.
Markets don't organically crash anymore. They just halt trading, the central bank pledges to increase their balance sheet, the cycle continues.
[deleted]
Or the crash may be a slow burn crash. Like bitcoin. Heck after 2.5 years, the price is still 50% higher than it was.
Or we could stagnate for 30 years, like Japan, and be forced to start drawing down before it has a chance to grow. You don't get a Mulligan.
The current fetishisation of index funds - which I am entirely complicit in - seems to be based on drawing long-term extrapolations from a relatively short timescale in a relatively narrow market which didn't actually have funds that tracked indices, saw the rise of modern computing, and followed the most destructive wars in the Western world.
The current fetishisation of index funds - which I am entirely complicit in - seems to be based on drawing long-term extrapolations from a relatively short timescale in a relatively narrow market which didn't actually have funds that tracked indices, saw the rise of modern computing, and followed the most destructive wars in the Western world.
That makes no sense.
The thinking behind "as long as people think it will crash, it won't crash" is as follows...
1) most people thinking that a crash is near means that they view the stock market to be overpriced.
2) this means they won't buy as much and inflate prices even further. in fact, many may start to sell.
3) this will tend to limit price increases and may even depress the markets a bit
4) Thus, while there may be a decline if economic conditions turn sour, there's a lower likelihood of a "crash" (large drop from current prices).
1) most people thinking that a crash is near means that they view the stock market to be overpriced.
2) this means they won't buy as much and inflate prices even further. in fact, many may start to sell.
3) this will tend to limit price increases and may even depress the markets a bit
4) Thus, while there may be a decline if economic conditions turn sour, there's a lower likelihood of a "crash" (large drop from current prices).
Or alternatively:
3) this will cause prices to start dropping, which increases uncertainty, and causes additional sells.
4) thus we enter a loop where uncertainty increases, which causes more selling, which causes price decreases, and the market crashes.
Market prices are largely a function of market confidence. If confidence erodes, so does the market. It's how bubbles burst.
3) this will cause prices to start dropping, which increases uncertainty, and causes additional sells.
4) thus we enter a loop where uncertainty increases, which causes more selling, which causes price decreases, and the market crashes.
Market prices are largely a function of market confidence. If confidence erodes, so does the market. It's how bubbles burst.
Not necessarily agreeing/disagreeing, but there might be some mileage in the notion. If people think it might crash, they may take some hedge stances that shore things up. If they thought the game will play on, they might take more risks and kick the legs right out from under the chair.
It only makes sense if you don't comment it doesn't make sense.
It sort of does. When people start thinking that a market is going to go up forever, that's a sign of a classic bubble.
It's a riff on the "fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful" Warren Buffett quote.
It does. If people think valuations are inflated and a correction is near, then then they'll be less likely to invest, which stunts valuation growth.
Do you happen to retire in the next few years or why would you care about short term liquidity of your stocks?
If interested, this is the economic news release: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm
BLS reports will typically get revised but this could be an indicator for full employment. Yes, the stock market is at all time highs - this is a common occurrence if you take a look at historical charts. However, the stock market != economy.
Does the US government provide metrics on job openings by wages or some measurement of monthly or annual earnings?
My portfolio has been doing fantastic, but I have to stop and wonder how the average person who doesn’t have assets is doing.
My portfolio has been doing fantastic, but I have to stop and wonder how the average person who doesn’t have assets is doing.
You're looking for the USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here's the archive.
https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/wkyeng.htm
The most recent report for Q4 2019 can be found here https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
Important takeaways:
"Median weekly earnings of the nation's 118.3 million full-time wage and salary workers were $936 in the fourth quarter of 2019 (not seasonally adjusted), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This was 4.0 percent higher than a year earlier, compared with a gain of 2.0 percent in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) over the same period."
The most recent report for Q4 2019 can be found here https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
Important takeaways:
"Median weekly earnings of the nation's 118.3 million full-time wage and salary workers were $936 in the fourth quarter of 2019 (not seasonally adjusted), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This was 4.0 percent higher than a year earlier, compared with a gain of 2.0 percent in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) over the same period."
Given wages not increasing with COL in cities and availability of credit (student loans, rising rents, credit cards, low interest rates) I'd assume poorly
Numbers prove your assumptions wrong. Take a look over at the bureau of labor reports, Q4 2019 is out
Except he's right. Wages have increased with respect to CPI, but not to COL. The housing market has consistently and significantly outpaced salaries.
I have a feeling we're entering a job bubble, and possibly a recession... if it hits by November, I'm betting there will be another blue wave. Actually, that might happen regardless, but the blame will likely fall on the President, it usually does. Digital Ocean just announced layoffs, so it's possible a lot more might follow. I think a lot of VC bets like magic leap, and WeWork and Uber might go sour and hurt investments going into the 2020's.
I think extrapolating the entire tech or startup economy off an extremely small company in a commodity area of computing is not a good decision.
I’ll take that bet. I think the market will surge upward 20% by year end because of a Trump re-election then level off over the next 3 years as the blue wave rises and drowns out the embers.
We’d really need to see more historical data and also how that correlates with employment levels. It could mean nothing, it could even be a positive indicator but they didn’t provide enough information to make those interpretations so the null hypothesis is that this is bad.
Here is another look at the jobs though...paints a different picture
https://economicgraph.linkedin.com/resources/linkedin-workfo...
https://economicgraph.linkedin.com/resources/linkedin-workfo...
[deleted]
I base my recession predictor on BS detection. The dot-com bubble and mortgage crisis were driven by lies, this time is no different with buybacks. You cannot outrun truth forever.
What a bs title, U.S. job opening post second biggest drop in more than five years, doesnt sound as scary I guess
Why stop at five years? How does this compare to job openings in 1776?
More seriously, bounds have to be set on a comparison like this for it to have relevance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_cycles#Short_te... suggests that "Cyclical cycles generally last 4 years, with bull and bear market phases lasting 1–3 years, while Secular cycles last about 30 years with bull and bear market phases lasting 10–20 years."
Assuming this is true or widely accepted by economists, four years seems like an appropriate length of time for a comparison such as this.
More seriously, bounds have to be set on a comparison like this for it to have relevance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_cycles#Short_te... suggests that "Cyclical cycles generally last 4 years, with bull and bear market phases lasting 1–3 years, while Secular cycles last about 30 years with bull and bear market phases lasting 10–20 years."
Assuming this is true or widely accepted by economists, four years seems like an appropriate length of time for a comparison such as this.
lets parse this out:
"U.S. job openings post biggest drop in more than four years"
becomes
<economic statistic that is rarely cited and no one has cared about before> post biggest drop in more than <arbitrary time frame>"
becomes
<economic statistic taht is rarely cited and no one has cared about before> post <scary descriptor> in more than <arbitrary time frame>"
becomes
"<holy shit live in fear the sky is falling and you should panic>"
"U.S. job openings post biggest drop in more than four years"
becomes
<economic statistic that is rarely cited and no one has cared about before> post biggest drop in more than <arbitrary time frame>"
becomes
<economic statistic taht is rarely cited and no one has cared about before> post <scary descriptor> in more than <arbitrary time frame>"
becomes
"<holy shit live in fear the sky is falling and you should panic>"
> <economic statistic that is rarely cited and no one has cared about before> post biggest drop in more than <arbitrary time frame>"
I recall seeing job opening changes regularly cited in the news for pretty much as long as I've been an adult (around 40 years)...it was probably cited before that too but I didn't pay much attention to the news when I was a kid.
I recall seeing job opening changes regularly cited in the news for pretty much as long as I've been an adult (around 40 years)...it was probably cited before that too but I didn't pay much attention to the news when I was a kid.
It's really difficult from my arbitrary perspective to read it as anything other than click-bait sensationalism.
Anything that can be cited as "the biggest" negative movement or trend since any point in the past can be used to signal to our survival mechanisms, "it is important to your survival to click through to this article"
Just like money needs taken out of politics, ad revenue needs taken out of news reporting. I just wish I had a solution to propose ...
Anything that can be cited as "the biggest" negative movement or trend since any point in the past can be used to signal to our survival mechanisms, "it is important to your survival to click through to this article"
Just like money needs taken out of politics, ad revenue needs taken out of news reporting. I just wish I had a solution to propose ...
[deleted]
All 3 stock indexes record high opening. Consumer confidence 20 year high. Enormous USMCA trade deal finally passed by US Congress after the House sat on it for a year.
Reuters just salivating over finding something they can spin as negative about the current economy.
Reuters just salivating over finding something they can spin as negative about the current economy.
Good god, is this supposed to be ironic? Imagine trying to paint Reuters as biased. Next thing you’ll be telling me that the Associated Press is biased as well.
And really? USMCA? You mean NAFTA 2.0? Imagine acting like “passing” USMCA has any meaning. It’s just NAFTA. Tell me when we pass the TPP. Oh wait, we messed up and now that ship has sailed without us.
This is news whether you like it or not. Sorry, there is no “spin” here. Reuters reports news. They report the stock market being up, they report yield curve inversions, they report it all. There’s no hidden agenda, get over it.
And really? USMCA? You mean NAFTA 2.0? Imagine acting like “passing” USMCA has any meaning. It’s just NAFTA. Tell me when we pass the TPP. Oh wait, we messed up and now that ship has sailed without us.
This is news whether you like it or not. Sorry, there is no “spin” here. Reuters reports news. They report the stock market being up, they report yield curve inversions, they report it all. There’s no hidden agenda, get over it.
>Tell me when we pass the TPP. Oh wait, we messed up and now that ship has sailed without us.
The TPP had serious flaws and I am glad it was never passed. It was far too secretive, with the most powerful existing interests dictating policy and regular citizens being completely cut of of even viewing what was in the actual agreement for far too long, until the thing was nearly finished.
It was horrible for privacy and stifled innovation by entrenching IP protections for existing powerful interests over (again) common citizens.
The EFF has a good writeup on the most pertinent sections for those interested in technology: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
The TPP had serious flaws and I am glad it was never passed. It was far too secretive, with the most powerful existing interests dictating policy and regular citizens being completely cut of of even viewing what was in the actual agreement for far too long, until the thing was nearly finished.
It was horrible for privacy and stifled innovation by entrenching IP protections for existing powerful interests over (again) common citizens.
The EFF has a good writeup on the most pertinent sections for those interested in technology: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
> The TPP had serious flaws and I am glad it was never passed. It was far too secretive, with the most powerful existing interests dictating policy and regular citizens being completely cut of of even viewing what was in the actual agreement for far too long, until the thing was nearly finished.
You mean like almost every treaty ever negotiated pretty much as far back as we have recorded history?
A treaty negotiation is a give and take. Each side goes in wanting to gain certain things, and being willing to concede certain things to get those things it wants. The purpose of the negotiation is to find a set of gains and concessions for each party such that the party will agree to the treaty for those gains at the cost of those concessions.
During negotiation, what is on the table changes as each party gives up on certain wants, or accepts certain concessions, to further its overall goals.
It would be nearly impossible to do this in public. Every time you go from draft N to draft N+1, anyone who had gains in N that are no longer in N+1, or who is part of concessions in N+1 but not in N, would be putting political pressure on the negotiators to go back. Everyone who got gains in N+1 that weren't in N, or had concessions in N but not in N+1, would be putting political pressure on negotiators to not cave to the pressure to revert.
The only known way to make it work is for each party to send negotiators who know that party's big picture goals, work out a near final draft, and then present that more widely for a yes/no decision on ratification.
You mean like almost every treaty ever negotiated pretty much as far back as we have recorded history?
A treaty negotiation is a give and take. Each side goes in wanting to gain certain things, and being willing to concede certain things to get those things it wants. The purpose of the negotiation is to find a set of gains and concessions for each party such that the party will agree to the treaty for those gains at the cost of those concessions.
During negotiation, what is on the table changes as each party gives up on certain wants, or accepts certain concessions, to further its overall goals.
It would be nearly impossible to do this in public. Every time you go from draft N to draft N+1, anyone who had gains in N that are no longer in N+1, or who is part of concessions in N+1 but not in N, would be putting political pressure on the negotiators to go back. Everyone who got gains in N+1 that weren't in N, or had concessions in N but not in N+1, would be putting political pressure on negotiators to not cave to the pressure to revert.
The only known way to make it work is for each party to send negotiators who know that party's big picture goals, work out a near final draft, and then present that more widely for a yes/no decision on ratification.
The secret part isn't the biggest issue - it's the fact that there were certain groups allowed to shape policy (like large IP holders) while others (like citizens) were not well represented. It thus led to a very one-sided set of rules.
>Tell me when we pass the TPP. Oh wait, we messed up and now that ship has sailed without us.
Which is a good thing. The TPP was a horrible giveaway to the IP industries. A trans-pacific trade deal like that is a good idea in theory, but not after US politicians kowtow to Hollywood and Disney and work that crap into the treaty.
The remaining countries forging their own trade deal are better off without the US screwing it up.
Which is a good thing. The TPP was a horrible giveaway to the IP industries. A trans-pacific trade deal like that is a good idea in theory, but not after US politicians kowtow to Hollywood and Disney and work that crap into the treaty.
The remaining countries forging their own trade deal are better off without the US screwing it up.
Eh, true, I will give you that the US made it worse with their shitty IP laws.
Most news organizations are biased one way or another. About 90% of reporters are left of center, that probably also applies to Reuters.
They do keep the spin to a minimum, I’ll give them that.
They do keep the spin to a minimum, I’ll give them that.
What amazes me is how easy it is for people to be radicalized by watching a single news source.
My parents have literally been radicalized from normal moderate folks to "crazy conspiracy people" by watching Fox News and, I suspect, this is a broadly true statement amongst a very large swath of the elderly population.
My parents have literally been radicalized from normal moderate folks to "crazy conspiracy people" by watching Fox News and, I suspect, this is a broadly true statement amongst a very large swath of the elderly population.
Older Americans come from a time when the Man on the TV or Radio spoke the truth, with honor and integrity and did so citing facts and experts. They still hold onto this ethos and therefore believe - like they believe a preacher, that the words and opinions are real and factual and worthy of regard... This is why FOXNews and talk radio skews so heavily to people over 60 and is also why its so effective.
> Older Americans come from a time when the Man on the TV or Radio spoke the truth, with honor and integrity and did so citing facts and experts.
There's definitely information asymmetry involved, but a history or US in wars makes this nostalgia bias at best.
Examples;
- US Involvement in Vietnam
- Remember the Lusitania, The Zimmerman Telegram WWII
- USS Maine
- US annexation of Mexico
There's definitely information asymmetry involved, but a history or US in wars makes this nostalgia bias at best.
Examples;
- US Involvement in Vietnam
- Remember the Lusitania, The Zimmerman Telegram WWII
- USS Maine
- US annexation of Mexico
It is exactly what we're seeing. They have been trusting the Man on the TV/Radio for so long, they trust him when he tells them that THE OTHER guys are lying to you... Funny how that works.
That's not exactly what we're seeing with right-wing people. They will happily tell you that NYT, WaPo, CNN, AP, Reuters, etc. are all "fake news" because their far-right "news" sources tell them so.
If you don't think all big media news outlets have an agenda to push, you might need to take a closer look. That includes CNN, WaPo, Fox, etc. As an example, Bloomberg effectively told his news outlets they weren't allowed to investigate Democrats during the primary.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/24/bloomberg-news-will-not-inve...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/24/bloomberg-news-will-not-inve...
Perhaps, but according to the Trump fans, the right-wing outlets are completely unbiased and trustworthy and don't have an agenda to push, and all the other ones are just completely making stuff up out of whole cloth.
Yes, seriously don't rely on any single news source. It will distort your worldview and put you in a bubble, whether it's Fox News or MSNBC or CNN. Though you can inoculate yourself a bit and get a more holistic view by watching both sides, as you'll see the cherry picking each does to support their narratives. And if they report the same thing it has a better chance of actually being true.
Though better yet is to not watch the news at all. Really, it's just entertainment and a major source of stress with little upside. They're not informing so much as misinforming.
If you don't believe that, well... neither does the side you think is wrong. If you think you're more intelligent than they are, well, again, they think the same of you.
Try going without the news for a couple weeks and see how you feel. Take note of your stress levels and day to day life. Another experiment you can do is to watch the news (objectively as possible) from 2 months or 2 years ago and see how much actually ended up being relevant.
Though better yet is to not watch the news at all. Really, it's just entertainment and a major source of stress with little upside. They're not informing so much as misinforming.
If you don't believe that, well... neither does the side you think is wrong. If you think you're more intelligent than they are, well, again, they think the same of you.
Try going without the news for a couple weeks and see how you feel. Take note of your stress levels and day to day life. Another experiment you can do is to watch the news (objectively as possible) from 2 months or 2 years ago and see how much actually ended up being relevant.
On the other hand, I have family members who have been radicalized into crazy conspiracy people who think white men are the root of all evil (can’t remember the direct quote but it was pretty close to that) by watching every news source except Fox News. And I suspect this is true amongst a very large swathe of the millennial population.
it is entirely possible that you have been radicalized from a normal moderate folk to a "crazy libtard" by watching whatever channels you watch, and, i suspect, this is a broadly true statement amongst a very large swatch of the millenial generation.
(note: using "crazy libtard" here not as a personal insult, but because it is the right's version of "crazy consipiracy people").
anyways, take the speck out of your own eye before complaining about the beams in your parents eyes.
(note: using "crazy libtard" here not as a personal insult, but because it is the right's version of "crazy consipiracy people").
anyways, take the speck out of your own eye before complaining about the beams in your parents eyes.
> About 90% of reporters are left of center
How would one even go about defining what center is? And when we say "left of center," how far to the left are we talking about?
How would one even go about defining what center is? And when we say "left of center," how far to the left are we talking about?
This is an important point. One could argue, and some have, that the center of US political discourse is actually firmly right of center, especially when compared to European nations for example.
The US has been a right-of-center country since at least Reagan.
Obviously "center" is an ephemeral term that oversimplifies a complex spectrum of political positions.
that definitely seems the case to me
the other thing is, in the us, people say “left” a lot which they really mean is “liberal” (which itself is a very blunt word to be sure)
if put in that context, then saying the media is slanted liberal (market oriented, individualistic, capitalist etc) is probably true (at least from a layman’s eyes)
when reframed in that way, there are very few “left” media in the us; it’s either conservative (socially, right-wing) and liberal corporate media
the other thing is, in the us, people say “left” a lot which they really mean is “liberal” (which itself is a very blunt word to be sure)
if put in that context, then saying the media is slanted liberal (market oriented, individualistic, capitalist etc) is probably true (at least from a layman’s eyes)
when reframed in that way, there are very few “left” media in the us; it’s either conservative (socially, right-wing) and liberal corporate media
Left of what is the center in the audience of people they are talking to. About equal numbers of Americans identify as Democrat or Republican: https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx. Meanwhile, self-identified Democrats outnumber Republicans 4:1 among the news media: https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percen....
Another analysis: https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi.... Reporters and news media are close to entertainment workers in donation patterns. They lean left more than mining and agricultural workers lean right.
Another analysis: https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi.... Reporters and news media are close to entertainment workers in donation patterns. They lean left more than mining and agricultural workers lean right.
> About equal numbers of Americans identify as Democrat or Republican:
We say this as though Democrats and Republicans fall neatly on a straight line.
We say this as though Democrats and Republicans fall neatly on a straight line.
By the best estimates, it's more like a 3-1 split, with a solid amount of journalists actively trying to stay in the middle and do good reporting. [1]
Also, more meta-analysis studies like this need to be created and reported _to everyone_.
[1] https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/liberal-mediaevery-poll-...
Also, more meta-analysis studies like this need to be created and reported _to everyone_.
[1] https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/liberal-mediaevery-poll-...
Here's the thing, you can have journalists trying their best to stay in the middle and do good reporting and yet, a handful of corporate executives can completely shape the narrative of the day and choose to run one story over another, or one headline over another, and the journalists on the ground are powerless to do anything about it.
I disagree that most news sources are biased. This is a lazy claim that is used to explain away a lot of biases by fox news, because "they are all biased". You have to explain what bias means, and what you mean by 90% of reporters are left of center. In my experience most reporters try hard for a middle balance.
The problem with bias is it's not immediately apparent to people who stay within their bubble that they are biased at all. This goes for the left just as well as the right. But let's it put it this way, if we were to do a survey of all journalism majors at universities over the past 20 years, which side of the spectrum do you think they fall and what would be the magnitude of that slant? I would guess it's at least 3:1 if not 10:1 for left-leaning graduates of journalism. Whereas, if you were to take a survey of say, plumbers or firefighters, the slant would probably go the other way. Now, with ratios like that, you're not going to be able to be "middle of the road" as much as you try. Unless the industry itself is relatively balanced. It's not by far, though.
[deleted]
Except, of course, as people are finally starting to notice and point out, high stocks only benefit the top 10% of society, and are a useless indicator for the vast majority, who have little to no holdings.
The largest stockholding entity in the state of California is CalSTRS (California State Teachers' Retirement System); the holdings[0] represent the 11th largest retirement fund in the world[1].
[1] https://www.calstrs.com/investments-overview
[0] https://www.pionline.com/article/20170904/INTERACTIVE/170839...
[1] https://www.calstrs.com/investments-overview
[0] https://www.pionline.com/article/20170904/INTERACTIVE/170839...
Definitely no. The popularity of 401k plans and as such makes the fortunes of many middle class Americans directly tied to gyrations of Wall Street.
The median 401k balance for 40-49 year olds is $36,000 [0]. These are adults who, for the most part, have never had access to pensions, only to 401k plans. They are about midway between entering the workforce and retirement. They, as a group, are nowhere near prepared to retire. Ever.
A booming stock market is irrelevant to most Americans.
[0]: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/the-average-401...
A booming stock market is irrelevant to most Americans.
[0]: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/the-average-401...
This gets thrown around a bunch in personal finance forums as well, but its a bit dishonest IMHO- it saying that the avg balance for a 401k account is 36k, not that the average balance across all 401ks account for an individual is 36k. Considering the typical tenure these days is around 2-3 years, this makes sense. Most people it seems don't really consolidate their 401ks.
That article also says that the average isn't a useful measure, but I feel it likely is more useful than stated as everyone has a capped contribution amount. There are some outlying scenarios where you can contribute more, but those are far from typical.
It seems there are a bunch of ways to fudge these numbers- I have a roth and a standard 401k- these are likely counted as 2 separate accounts, thus painting a much bleaker picture of my overall financial health.
That article also says that the average isn't a useful measure, but I feel it likely is more useful than stated as everyone has a capped contribution amount. There are some outlying scenarios where you can contribute more, but those are far from typical.
It seems there are a bunch of ways to fudge these numbers- I have a roth and a standard 401k- these are likely counted as 2 separate accounts, thus painting a much bleaker picture of my overall financial health.
More than one-third of Americans who work full-time have no access to pensions or retirement accounts such as 401(k)s that derive their value from financial assets like stocks and bonds. The percentage of workers covered by generous defined-benefit pension plans has declined from 62% in 1983 to 17% by 2016. While some economists consider an increase in the stock market to have a "wealth effect" that increases economic growth, economists like Former Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher believe those effects are limited. Make no mistake the stock market only benefits the upper class, and quite disproportionately so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/opinion/bull-stock-market...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/opinion/bull-stock-market...
Only if you are 60 and about to retire does this matter. Not like a 20-50 year old will tap into their 401k, and not like they have too much saved in these funds to begin with. Most of the middle class with retirement plans will ride this out like they did the last recession and every one before that. They might have to hold off on buying a new car for a year or three, but they will be fine when the business cycle rights itself again.
The people working 60 hour weeks comprised of 3 part time jobs that refuse to pay out full time hours and benefits just to share a bedroom in south LA while accumulating zero savings? These people are about to experience real pain, and news coverage and forums like HN generally have no concept of the working class.
The people working 60 hour weeks comprised of 3 part time jobs that refuse to pay out full time hours and benefits just to share a bedroom in south LA while accumulating zero savings? These people are about to experience real pain, and news coverage and forums like HN generally have no concept of the working class.
[deleted]
60 percent of Americans have their fortunes tied to the market via direct investment or retirement funds. The government also finances a lot of its pensions via the market.
> high stocks only benefit the top 10% of society, and are a useless indicator for the vast majority, who have little to no holdings.
This is absolutely not true. Most pension plans are at least partially invested in stocks.
This is absolutely not true. Most pension plans are at least partially invested in stocks.
Agreed. In addition to pension plans (most government employees), all 401K plans invest into stocks/indices. That's a huge chunk of regular middle class people throwing money into the market. Just because some people don't actively day trade, it doesn't mean that they're not affected by stock market.
Also, increasing stock prices are usually a key component of corporate finance, which will yield job growth, or promotion, or investment inside the firm, which are all good for employees. Even if much of the wealth generated directly by stock increases happens for the owners of the company, it enables the company to operate.
And what percentage of the poorest 50% of Americans have even $5,000 in any kind of retirement savings?
"More than one in five (22%) Americans have less than $5,000 saved for retirement, and 15% have no retirement savings at all. That’s an improvement from 2018 when 31% had less than $5,000 saved and 21% had no retirement savings at all."
Source: https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-20...
Source: https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-20...
With platforms like robinhood, and the trend toward lowering the bar to investment, even people like me ( <3% of income is "disposable" (which in and of itself probably isnt true as I have student debt)) can start doing SOME investment. Ive been poor my whole life, and have made a point since my teens to keep savings. Only recently did I begin investing however. This is a result of benig surrounded by people who don't make enough money to buy the things they do. Everyone has a choice of how to spend there money. To pretend the 12 bucks you spent on PBR and cigs is a better way to spend the money than to put it towards savings is the crux of the problem according to my personal experience.
> To pretend the 12 bucks you spent on PBR and cigs is a better way to spend the money than to put it towards savings is the crux of the problem according to my personal experience.
Expensive habits are terrible for your personal finances. I like to look at habits like that in a weekly, monthly, and yearly cost. Seeing that a $40/week habit is $2,080/year really helps me put my spending choices in perspective.
Expensive habits are terrible for your personal finances. I like to look at habits like that in a weekly, monthly, and yearly cost. Seeing that a $40/week habit is $2,080/year really helps me put my spending choices in perspective.
I'm curious by how you define being 'poor' since you say you had savings as a teen.
When I was a teen, being poor meant that even if you put that $12 away for another day, it'll just be used the next day to fill your tank. It's not really saving money if you're just putting off buying gas for your car.
When I was a teen, being poor meant that even if you put that $12 away for another day, it'll just be used the next day to fill your tank. It's not really saving money if you're just putting off buying gas for your car.
My concern with something like robinhood is that many people treat investing like gambling without realizing it until there is a down turn and the money they saved for years is wiped out.
And what percentage of those people are not bottom 50% by the time they retire? Wealth is not a lifetime static number.
It's easy to google median wealth by age and see how people add wealth over a lifetime.
It's easy to google median wealth by age and see how people add wealth over a lifetime.
Nice goalpost shift. The original poster claimed that only 10% benefited. How did it change to 50%?
Well 52 - 60 percent of Americans own stocks so more (probably a good amount more) than 2 - 10 percent of the bottom fifty percent must own stocks, directly or indirectly
As of 2016, according to NASRA, pension funds on average had 48% of their holdings in stocks.
And the pension market is ~140% of GDP. So that's a lot of cash in stocks. Too much if you ask me, but I'm just an engineer.
And the pension market is ~140% of GDP. So that's a lot of cash in stocks. Too much if you ask me, but I'm just an engineer.
[deleted]
You can't REALLY believe that only the top 10% of wage earners in the United States own stocks, right?
Please tell me you're just parroting something you heard and you don't actually think that.
Please tell me you're just parroting something you heard and you don't actually think that.
A once-every-three-years study by the Federal Reserve Board found that in 2016, 51.9 percent of families owned stocks, either directly or as part of a fund.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf
[deleted]
That 10% number has certainly been making the rounds, almost like a talking point. However, that’s literal nonsense.
> People are finally starting to notice and point out.
Incorrectly.
Every person in America with a pension or a retirement account has significant exposure to the stock market. Universities and their endowments, which make institutionally awarded need based financial aid possible directly benefit from the stock market. Casualty (and other) insurance companies directly benefit from the stock market which affects their profitability and thus their ability to write policies at reasonable rates; it also affects the reinsurance market which can mean the difference between a large housing development being built or not, or a new industrial plant opening or not.
This “only benefits the top 10%” talking point is so ridiculous as to not be worthy of comment, but since it keeps popping up from people who have a political interest in talking down the economy, it should be addressed before more people actually start to believe that tripe.
The origin of that “10%” number was from a CNBC report that said “the richest 10% own 85% of individually traded stocks.” However that statistic conveniently excludes mutual funds — which generally consist of a basket of individually traded stocks packaged together. So if I own $1 million in a Fidelity mutual fund, I am not considered as owning “individually traded stocks.” So, to use that “only benefits the top 10%” number, then that would say that the stock market doesn’t benefit me because I only own shares in a mutual fund. Which is complete baloney.
When Trump calls out fake news, this is exactly the kind of thing he’s referring to: a statement that a rising market only benefits the top 10% because they own 85% of individually traded stocks — while that is completely false because everyone that owns shares of a mutual fund (the majority of American families in fact,) doesn’t benefit.
And your statement “the vast majority” don’t own stocks, that’s also a lie, according to Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
Even if Gallup was off by 10%, which would be a huge margin or error, that’s still nowhere close to a “vast” majority. Now to be fair, you did stick in a qualifier there “little” but that is meaningless. How much is “little?” And how do you know how prevalent “little” vs. “none” is? It’s just a meaningless distraction to protect against the fact that the majority of Americans own stock and even those that don’t own stock benefit from a good economy. Very low unemployment means tighter labor market which means wage competition.
It would seem that the economy could be absolutely perfect but those of different political stripes would be wishing its downfall just to win an election. Didn’t Bill Maher or one of those hosts actually wish for a recession so it would make it easier to beat Trump? Some sick people that would wish for people to lose their jobs and homes in order to beat Republicans.
We can have honest policy debates. But let’s not trade in misrepresentations to win political points.
> People are finally starting to notice and point out.
Incorrectly.
Every person in America with a pension or a retirement account has significant exposure to the stock market. Universities and their endowments, which make institutionally awarded need based financial aid possible directly benefit from the stock market. Casualty (and other) insurance companies directly benefit from the stock market which affects their profitability and thus their ability to write policies at reasonable rates; it also affects the reinsurance market which can mean the difference between a large housing development being built or not, or a new industrial plant opening or not.
This “only benefits the top 10%” talking point is so ridiculous as to not be worthy of comment, but since it keeps popping up from people who have a political interest in talking down the economy, it should be addressed before more people actually start to believe that tripe.
The origin of that “10%” number was from a CNBC report that said “the richest 10% own 85% of individually traded stocks.” However that statistic conveniently excludes mutual funds — which generally consist of a basket of individually traded stocks packaged together. So if I own $1 million in a Fidelity mutual fund, I am not considered as owning “individually traded stocks.” So, to use that “only benefits the top 10%” number, then that would say that the stock market doesn’t benefit me because I only own shares in a mutual fund. Which is complete baloney.
When Trump calls out fake news, this is exactly the kind of thing he’s referring to: a statement that a rising market only benefits the top 10% because they own 85% of individually traded stocks — while that is completely false because everyone that owns shares of a mutual fund (the majority of American families in fact,) doesn’t benefit.
And your statement “the vast majority” don’t own stocks, that’s also a lie, according to Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
Even if Gallup was off by 10%, which would be a huge margin or error, that’s still nowhere close to a “vast” majority. Now to be fair, you did stick in a qualifier there “little” but that is meaningless. How much is “little?” And how do you know how prevalent “little” vs. “none” is? It’s just a meaningless distraction to protect against the fact that the majority of Americans own stock and even those that don’t own stock benefit from a good economy. Very low unemployment means tighter labor market which means wage competition.
It would seem that the economy could be absolutely perfect but those of different political stripes would be wishing its downfall just to win an election. Didn’t Bill Maher or one of those hosts actually wish for a recession so it would make it easier to beat Trump? Some sick people that would wish for people to lose their jobs and homes in order to beat Republicans.
We can have honest policy debates. But let’s not trade in misrepresentations to win political points.
I think there's a bit of talking past one another here. Certainly the many Americans who have retirement plans benefit from stocks increasing, as do the very wealthy who own large shares of stocks in non-retirement earnings.
However, the context of the discussion is over what term.
The markets are subject to boom and bust cycles. Over the 40 or so year term of retirement plans, there's not a whole lot that a 20 or 30-something can do to benefit from a clearly bull market.
I know that day-to-day, I'm not wealthier or better off because the stock market is doing well. My paycheck doesn't change. I can't sell any stocks to cash in.
And that is the context of the discussion: not that over the long term stocks go up and when you retire you reap the benefits, but rather that over the short term, 90% of the people don't suddenly get enhanced quality of life because the stock market is doing well.
However, the context of the discussion is over what term.
The markets are subject to boom and bust cycles. Over the 40 or so year term of retirement plans, there's not a whole lot that a 20 or 30-something can do to benefit from a clearly bull market.
I know that day-to-day, I'm not wealthier or better off because the stock market is doing well. My paycheck doesn't change. I can't sell any stocks to cash in.
And that is the context of the discussion: not that over the long term stocks go up and when you retire you reap the benefits, but rather that over the short term, 90% of the people don't suddenly get enhanced quality of life because the stock market is doing well.
I mean a good stock market makes it easier for companies to raise funds and thus to expand and employ more people. The purpose of the stock market is ultimately not to provide and asset class so much as it is to ease raising large amounts of money companies need to grow.
When companies raise funds, are they generally expanding and hiring these days or buying back their own stocks? Workforce have been shrinking for probably 100 years. Trickle down is fantasy.
Why the hell would companies sell their stock to raise money to buy their own stock again? That doesn't make sense. If they want to do stock buybacks they just borrow money to do it, but only if interest rates are low enough. In most cases when companies raise money by selling stock you can bet its to expand, by making capital investment, raising headcount, acquisitions, etc. Either at that moment or the near future.
One thing to consider is that the price of the markets are based on holders NOT selling. Its fundamentally impossible for the majority of holders to actually hold the wealth if the majority of holders sold their stock. Kind of a conundrum if you ask me... Market price is only real money if you sell, and if the majority (or even a sizable portion) of holders sell, the value of the shares will decline thus put the majority of holders underwater...
Ummm what are pension funds?
Less than 13% of US private sector workers participate in pensions plans[0].
[0]https://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-man...
[0]https://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-man...
You're not including the defined contribution retirement plans, which are a vehicle for investment.
N.B. I believe 'pension' ≡ 'defined benefit' is an American English thing, which may the source of the confusion. I, my employer, and my provider refer to my private, defined-contribution plan as a pension.
N.B. I believe 'pension' ≡ 'defined benefit' is an American English thing, which may the source of the confusion. I, my employer, and my provider refer to my private, defined-contribution plan as a pension.
Correct, we do have legal US definitions which makes pensions different than DC Plans.
Nearly 22 million people work for the state, federal, and local governments, nearly 20% of the active workforce.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999001.htm
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999001.htm
Okay so adding those numbers with the private sector ones you still get that the vast majority of American's aren't benefiting.
You’re also forgetting all the people without pensions, but with IRAs and/or 401ks. And then the many more with brokerage accounts. And young people seem to have jumped headlong into Robinhood.
I don't know if I'd characterize 66% of Americans (100% - (public + private)) the "vast majority"...
However less than 2.3% of hourly workers (not total workers, but hourly workers) make minimum wage, yet those that claim a good stock market doesn’t benefit most people would argue fiercely over minimum wage which affects only a tiny fraction of workers. So we should be applauding something that benefits “only” 13% of the workforce (though that 13% number with pensions is misleadingly low as pointed out by other comments.)
Indeed, "what are pension funds"? I don't have a pension. No one I know personally has a pensions. The younger or non-tech people I know have little to none in their 401k.
I entered the workforce about 10 years ago and I genuinely don't even know what a pension is. I know what a retirement plan is, and employer matching. I guess a pension is something different from that.
A pension is a plan where your employer promises to pay you money _after you retire_, in perpetuity. In the "olden days", or when working for the government, one often would work at the same employer for 20+ years, and a pension is a way for that employer to support you. (My dad has multiple pensions from when he worked at a large company, and then later for the local county government.) In general, it scales up the longer you worked for a company. This was back when companies and employees were "loyal" to one another.
That seems to be a lot less common now.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/whats-differ...
That seems to be a lot less common now.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/whats-differ...
When people say "pension" at least in the US they usually mean a defined benefit retirement plan, i.e. you get $X/month based on salary and years of service starting at age Y.
By contrast, a 401(K) is a defined contribution plan. You put however much money in, maybe get matching, and you can take money out after a certain age based on how much you put in and how much it grew.
Defined benefit used to be a lot more common but it's become less so for a variety of reasons including tax law changes. Today you see them mostly in government jobs like teachers.
By contrast, a 401(K) is a defined contribution plan. You put however much money in, maybe get matching, and you can take money out after a certain age based on how much you put in and how much it grew.
Defined benefit used to be a lot more common but it's become less so for a variety of reasons including tax law changes. Today you see them mostly in government jobs like teachers.
Worse, many of those with pensions find themselves one day without one... Look at the hundreds of bankrupt orgs that have somehow, been able to simply walk away from their obligations. The only people who hold pensions these days are govt workers. People who do not contribute to the economy.
Don't know any state or federal workers? Traditional pensions are still offered by about 84% of state and local governments. That's cops, teachers, etc.
FYI - California teachers do not pay into SocialSecurity. Their pension is 100% on the backs of the tax payers of CA. Market performance is irrelevant as their pensions are paid regardless of performance.
Market performance is only irrelevant as far as the amount the retirees see on their checks -- it's relevant to CA taxpayers because the money has to come from somewhere if the market underperforms.
Yes, that was my point. The market investments are not what is driving the pension's long term value. The underwriting by the state is what makes it valuable. The markets are simply an avenue for growth, or as was the case in the past, losses...
I know a teacher but she still has a few years before she'll be eligible.
Which is one of the reasons that pensions fell out of favor for employment in the private sector. They were traditionally very oriented towards long-term (a decade or more) employment with a single company. With typical employment in a lot of sectors--certainly including tech--a large majority of workers would basically end up getting little or nothing out of a traditional pension.
No one in tech has a pension.
Some people I know who are programmers for a defense department company have pensions, 401ks, and bonuses.
That is mostly true but not categorically so. I'm in tech and have one, albeit from an older company that's no longer around.
ITT: Americans, Americans everywhere.
this
Pensions as we know them won't exist in five to ten years.
Those of us under 30 never knew them either.
And most never will. The ones left are awful and full of restrictions, and can be taken away at any time for any reason, even if it's illegal in your state.
Could you elaborate please? Genuinely interested to hear your take.
No unions and privatizing government jobs = no pensions.
And any workers who plan on retiring
So what you're saying is that when a reporter noticed that the monthly job openings number hit a 4 year low, the Reuters service should not have released a short article stating that fact, otherwise they're "salivating over finding something they can spin as negative about the current economy."
Sounds like you're biased in your media assessment.
Sounds like you're biased in your media assessment.
>Enormous USMCA trade deal finally passed by US Congress after the House sat on it for a year.
The House didn't sit on it. It has been undergoing the normal process. USMCA is replacing NAFTA. NAFTA took six years to negotiate and ratify.
So far, USMCA has taken about two.
The final negotiations weren't even finished until mid-December.
Mexico ratified the final version of USMCA last month after negotiations had ended, and Canada has yet to vote on it.
If anyone has been telling you that the House has been holding things up, they are either wrong or deliberately lying to you.
The House didn't sit on it. It has been undergoing the normal process. USMCA is replacing NAFTA. NAFTA took six years to negotiate and ratify.
So far, USMCA has taken about two.
The final negotiations weren't even finished until mid-December.
Mexico ratified the final version of USMCA last month after negotiations had ended, and Canada has yet to vote on it.
If anyone has been telling you that the House has been holding things up, they are either wrong or deliberately lying to you.
You sound like you might be suffering from a slightly religious view of politics.
I’d recommend just setting all that aside and try looking at all the data.
Consumer confidence is often pretty high before a sudden crash, for example. It doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Using selection bias (only looking at the good things that confirm your beliefs) is a bad formula.
Sooner or later we’ll have recession.
It may or may not be the fault of whichever administration is in office.
Jimmy Carter, for example, took a lot of heat for the economy. The high interest rates from the Fed slowed everything but it eventually fixed the economy. Reagan got all the credit.
I’d recommend just setting all that aside and try looking at all the data.
Consumer confidence is often pretty high before a sudden crash, for example. It doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Using selection bias (only looking at the good things that confirm your beliefs) is a bad formula.
Sooner or later we’ll have recession.
It may or may not be the fault of whichever administration is in office.
Jimmy Carter, for example, took a lot of heat for the economy. The high interest rates from the Fed slowed everything but it eventually fixed the economy. Reagan got all the credit.
Giving Jimmy Carter credit for the boom in the 1980s is a bit of a stretch. Using that logic, George HW Bush should be credited with the boom during the Clinton years.
It was all about the Fed.
George Bush lost because of Fed decisions. The economy went into a brief recession. Bush was extremely popular after the first Iraq War. Unfortunately, rates went up...
Paul Volcker was appointed by Carter. He really cranked up rates: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/2019/12/09/c...
George Bush lost because of Fed decisions. The economy went into a brief recession. Bush was extremely popular after the first Iraq War. Unfortunately, rates went up...
Paul Volcker was appointed by Carter. He really cranked up rates: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/2019/12/09/c...
Aren't you just doing the opposite? There are lots of data points that point to economic weakness. Ignoring those is just as silly as people ignoring the low unemployment rate and high consumer confidence and saying everything is bad.
Among actual signs of weakness: low GDP growth, three rate cuts in 2019, an annual deficit higher than annual GDP growth, an S&P 500 earnings recession [1], a manufacturing recession [2], corporate debt at a record 47% of economy [3]. Even the fact that companies are using cash to buy-back stock instead of investing in growth shows that they don't believe there is enough economic demand to grow EPS through business expansion. Instead they re-purchase stock to reduce the denominator [4].
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sp-500-is-in-its-first...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-09/despite-tr...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/corporate-de...
[4] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-buybac...
Among actual signs of weakness: low GDP growth, three rate cuts in 2019, an annual deficit higher than annual GDP growth, an S&P 500 earnings recession [1], a manufacturing recession [2], corporate debt at a record 47% of economy [3]. Even the fact that companies are using cash to buy-back stock instead of investing in growth shows that they don't believe there is enough economic demand to grow EPS through business expansion. Instead they re-purchase stock to reduce the denominator [4].
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sp-500-is-in-its-first...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-09/despite-tr...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/corporate-de...
[4] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-buybac...
Here's a little more sober analysis:
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/01/bls-job-openings-...
By someone who has been following the jolts numbers for years.
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/01/bls-job-openings-...
By someone who has been following the jolts numbers for years.
Calculated Risk has been "sky is falling" for many years. Someone taking their advice over the last 12 years would be much worse off than doing the opposite of what they encourage.
You must be thinking of a different blog. For the past decade, Bill has steadfastly maintained that we're not headed into a recession any time soon.
[deleted]
Interesting. I haven't followed as closely since left the real estate business but thought he was always pretty measured. And data driven. See
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2019/05/still-not-on-rece...
For an example.
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2019/05/still-not-on-rece...
For an example.
So are you saying that the drop is US job openings isn't newsworthy on it's own?
They don't give an opinion on if this is negative or positive.
What news they choose to make News is an opinion.
Job openings has been reported by the government every month for a long time. This isn’t obscure, cherry picked news.
So they shouldn't report news that is slightly downbeat? Even though the JOLTS report is reported... monthly?
Jobs reports are always covered by the major news outlets. I’ve literally been reading them for decades. Doesn’t matter who the president is.
How are they making this news? News is simply news - there are no opinions here.
Click on the business section of Reuters, this isn't even a headline.
Click on the business section of Reuters, this isn't even a headline.
They chase demand. Ideas exist in a market place. I wouldn't expect "Everything is great, No problems here, Weekly" to sell many copies.
>Consumer confidence 20 year high.
It's not even at a 1-year high [1,2,3].
Reuters also reported on consumer confidence, stock index prices, and the USMCA, so maybe they're only reporting the news.
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-confiden...
[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-sentiment-index-t...
[3] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4315169-weekly-economic-rel...
It's not even at a 1-year high [1,2,3].
Reuters also reported on consumer confidence, stock index prices, and the USMCA, so maybe they're only reporting the news.
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-confiden...
[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-sentiment-index-t...
[3] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4315169-weekly-economic-rel...
>the House sat on it for a year.
You mean worked on. Its not like it was ignored.
You mean worked on. Its not like it was ignored.
stock indexes aren't necessarily a great indicator of how well PEOPLE are doing. The stock market has mostly rallied due to massive stock buybacks and the FED which means that companies are choosing to buy stocks rather than make investments in actual R&D, employment, their workers, innovation, and their future. the 99% aren't seeing any benefits from ATH stock indexes.
In my country, the stock market is at an all time high, even though gdp growth is at a 13 year low and unemployment is the highest in 40+ years.
Stock markets often don't reflect the actual state of the economy
Stock markets often don't reflect the actual state of the economy
P/Es being so high reflects the long-term effects of low interest rates.
because the fed just pumped $2 trillion into the economy.
interestingly, If you compare NASDAQ stock index to Bitcoin, it is near record lows and trending toward making new record lows.
https://www.tradingview.com/chart/aydXWl0h/
[deleted]
And the largest deficit in history... Who is going to pay for the debt fueled growth? Hint: Its not the people benefiting most from the markets... The US economy is as stable as Trump and as factually real as his skin tone...
Look at interest rates. The cost of borrowing matters more than the amount borrowed.
I assume you mean US bond rates? You're assuming that's an indicator of confidence the US will be able to keep borrowing? Is it not just confidence it will make good on what it currently owes before becoming insolvent?
But alright, so we can borrow. Can we pay for healthcare and schools now?
But alright, so we can borrow. Can we pay for healthcare and schools now?
Interest rates are, in economics terms, the same as government bond rates since the interest rates of any safe investment will always trend towards the government bond rate because of the arbitrage principle.
I can only assume you are talking about hard asset based debt... What if there is no collateral, or hard assets? Like the majority of consumer debt? Or corporate debt?
Most consumer debt is mortgage debt which is backed by assets. Most corporate debt is backed by assets. But this is government debt we're talking about anyway, which can always be repayed due to money printing. The cost is in inflation and sentiment.
Wow... That's an interesting assertion and frankly, crazy. Care to explain?
Fundamentally there is no difference is the debt at .01% or 15%, if one cannot make the payment, they are in trouble. If the holder of the debt cannot collect, they're in trouble.
Fundamentally there is no difference is the debt at .01% or 15%, if one cannot make the payment, they are in trouble. If the holder of the debt cannot collect, they're in trouble.
Not that I entirely agree with the parent, but as you said:
> if one cannot make the payment, they are in trouble.
That's a function of cost of borrowing, not the amount borrowed.
> if one cannot make the payment, they are in trouble.
That's a function of cost of borrowing, not the amount borrowed.
The Unites States will always pay the coupon. QE4 is currently supporting our record issuance in the repo market - you know, the support that was supposed to be unwound by now, but has in fact grown in position since the beginning of the year.
We will monetize our debt forever, just like Japan, until there are currency consequences. The MMT people argue there will never be said currency consequences. We shall see.
We will monetize our debt forever, just like Japan, until there are currency consequences. The MMT people argue there will never be said currency consequences. We shall see.
The currency consequences come in the form of inflation. So it's already happened. But if you mean real, paradigm altering consequences like what's happened to places like Zimbabwe or even Argentina, no, it'll never happen as long as demand for their products (and currencies) remains high.
Mikeb85(1)
In the context of the US debt, this is an incredible claim.
1. It's larger than ever 2. It's growing faster than ever 3. T-Bill rates are at record lows
If 1. and 2. were false because 3. is true, you'd have a cogent point. But they aren't false. The debt situation is getting dramatically worse despite low rates, and those low rates on the perpetually recycled US debt are unlikely to hold. So when the $5T of debt Trump added is resold at 5%, and the sugar rush of his economic priming is over...yeah, it's not going to look so great.
1. It's larger than ever 2. It's growing faster than ever 3. T-Bill rates are at record lows
If 1. and 2. were false because 3. is true, you'd have a cogent point. But they aren't false. The debt situation is getting dramatically worse despite low rates, and those low rates on the perpetually recycled US debt are unlikely to hold. So when the $5T of debt Trump added is resold at 5%, and the sugar rush of his economic priming is over...yeah, it's not going to look so great.
Market is overpriced, equities vs gdp. Money is flowing into indexes, reducing price discovery and liquidity. Half of stocks in s&p500 have less $150m trade volume. Investors are over allocated to stocks. This is all following the yield curve uninverting. Bridgewater meanwhile is betting big on gold. Disclosure: I've reduced my equity holdings in half with plans to go further.
Hopefully you didn't miss out on this weeks earnings season! Been a great week for equities
> According to LaVorgna, since 1948, the economy has always entered or been in a recession when the unemployment rate increases 50 basis points (or 0.50 percentage point) from its trailing cyclical low.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/20/a-recession-indicator-with-a...
Taken with the yield curve inversion in 2019, and other leading indicators, it appears the US economy is headed for the first recession in over 10 years. If previous trends hold, it's within 12-18 months away.
Oddly enough, the stock market typically rallies from the yield curve inversion right into the next recession. So there's money to be made, but it's kind of like trying to gather nickels on the tracks as the locomotive barreling down on you blows its whistle.
However, policymakers will continue to tout the relatively low unemployment rate and booming stock market right into the recession (which can only be declared months after its start).