Ask HN: Doom and Gloom but financial markets doing well?
117 comments
It’s fairly simple. In 2020 countries across the globe shutdown, and to keep economies “safe” governments printed money and handed it out more or less to people who were in economic danger - waitresses who could not work, though furlough schemes and the like.
USA printed basically 10 trillion (yes with a T). UK about 1 trillion. Germany, France, Spain, South Africa Japan and so on. Maybe 25 trillion? No one seems to have counted.
Under MMT (modern monetary theory) this is fine as long as government takes away the printed token (money) later on in form of tax
But they have not. The money has flowed from waitresses to landlords, to supermarket owners and their landlords and to share owners of supermarkets - basically it went from the poor to the middle class and then to the ultra wealthy.
The ultra wealthy now have an extra 25 trillion dollars. So they “invest”.
Real estate goes to stupid prices (see cost of a 4 bed house in London).
Stock market hits new highs.
But the rest of us have sold our nice middle class homes in suburbs for stupid amounts and moved … somewhere with less amenities.
Or are renting in cities at high rates and food prices going sky high.
The simplest answer is governments only did half the job - the next job is a uber wealth tax - holding of over say 20 million, 30 million, just get taxed, forcing sale of assets and return of assets to the flowing economy and then governments can afford things like welfare and investment again.
We should stop privileging the privileged.
USA printed basically 10 trillion (yes with a T). UK about 1 trillion. Germany, France, Spain, South Africa Japan and so on. Maybe 25 trillion? No one seems to have counted.
Under MMT (modern monetary theory) this is fine as long as government takes away the printed token (money) later on in form of tax
But they have not. The money has flowed from waitresses to landlords, to supermarket owners and their landlords and to share owners of supermarkets - basically it went from the poor to the middle class and then to the ultra wealthy.
The ultra wealthy now have an extra 25 trillion dollars. So they “invest”.
Real estate goes to stupid prices (see cost of a 4 bed house in London).
Stock market hits new highs.
But the rest of us have sold our nice middle class homes in suburbs for stupid amounts and moved … somewhere with less amenities.
Or are renting in cities at high rates and food prices going sky high.
The simplest answer is governments only did half the job - the next job is a uber wealth tax - holding of over say 20 million, 30 million, just get taxed, forcing sale of assets and return of assets to the flowing economy and then governments can afford things like welfare and investment again.
We should stop privileging the privileged.
A wealth tax sounds good in theory but no one has ever figured out a way to make it with effectively in practice. What do you do with illiquid assets such as patents or equity in private companies? Would owners have to pay for independent valuations every year as part of filing taxes? There's just no way to do it at scale. A wealth tax would also tend to cause people to hide their assets in non-productive things like physical precious metals instead of investing in businesses that grow the national economy.
A sufficiently high land value tax would filter through pretty much everything as a decent wealth tax, and would require no additional work since it’s already continuously appraised. Too low land value taxes incentivize hoarding.
Also, copyright should be reduced to 10 years, maybe 20 years at the longest.
Also, copyright should be reduced to 10 years, maybe 20 years at the longest.
Would taxation of intellectual property reduce rent-seeking behavior? Any idea how it might be implemented?
No, but simply removing the ability to seek rent by removing copyright would.
Taxing wealth will make people not seek it. Why try so hard if it can evaporate in a couple of years anyway? Of course illiquid assets are also a major problem with the idea. But the main problem is that taxing wealth for no particular reason disincentivizes production.
Just tax the hell out of land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Very hard to hide acres of Earth.
Very hard to hide acres of Earth.
Very hard to determine a fair value for those acres too. Everything outside of actual land purchase prices is hypothetical, and not every worthwhile purpose for land produces the same income. We already have high property taxes in some places anyway. Of course I think some kind of tax is necessary but the higher the tax the more this "ownership" resembles a lease.
> the more this "ownership" resembles a lease.
...good?
We are all temporary stewards of an Earth we did nothing to earn or create.
...good?
We are all temporary stewards of an Earth we did nothing to earn or create.
The best wealth tax is a periodic tax on unrealized capital gains. The fact that Jeff Bezos will likely never pay and capital gains tax on his share of Amazon is insane.
No it's not insane. Unrealized gains are purely hypothetical and subject to manipulation. Imagine figuring out the value of an income-producing asset, such as a chicken, then taxing the eggs and the chicken itself. That's what people like you are essentially proposing.
I think the concept is that the ultra wealthy are (ala Pikkety) gathering all the chickens, and using the eggs to buy more chickens, and the government just “magicked” trillions more chickens and most of those ended up in the wealthiest peoples hen houses.
If we tax the chickens, the wealthiest will have to sell some of the chickens to pay the tax, and then chickens will circulate down through the economy as well as up - circulation not redistribution is the idea
If we tax the chickens, the wealthiest will have to sell some of the chickens to pay the tax, and then chickens will circulate down through the economy as well as up - circulation not redistribution is the idea
The government can't magick anything. They get what they have by taking it from productive people. We already make productive people and businesses pay taxes. Those taxes need to be reasonable and not abusive measures that penalize businesses for essentially existing.
>>> They get what they have by taking it from productive people.
The insight of MMT is that governments get what they have by purchasing it from productive people - and purchasing it using money they just print out of thin air. (The point is not to print too much!)
Do governments make bad decisions - yes. Do they misuse tax incentives and muck up hugely. Yes. But to be fair you should see how bad it is inside fortune 500s and boy some of those start ups are an embarrassment.
Don’t call for the “private sector is great and should take over every branch of government” shtick. That’s the weather app theory of extracting public money for profit. Focus on how to make all organisations more effective
The insight of MMT is that governments get what they have by purchasing it from productive people - and purchasing it using money they just print out of thin air. (The point is not to print too much!)
Do governments make bad decisions - yes. Do they misuse tax incentives and muck up hugely. Yes. But to be fair you should see how bad it is inside fortune 500s and boy some of those start ups are an embarrassment.
Don’t call for the “private sector is great and should take over every branch of government” shtick. That’s the weather app theory of extracting public money for profit. Focus on how to make all organisations more effective
MMT is old wine in a new bottle, a tale as old as money itself. "Purchasing" stuff from people with worthless or arbitrarily debased units of currency is like stealing. The government threat of violence does not make these digital or paper "assets" any more real.
>The point is not to print too much!
It may be possible for this to continue an indefinite amount of time, just like counterfeiting. It is almost exactly state-sponsored counterfeiting.
>But to be fair you should see how bad it is inside fortune 500s and boy some of those start ups are an embarrassment.
This waste is greatly exacerbated by artificial credit bubbles created by MMT shysters. They even got academia thinking this is a good idea, probably by paying them off in freshly printed notes.
>Don’t call for the “private sector is great and should take over every branch of government” shtick.
I would never suggest such a thing. But letting the state spend theoretically unlimited money, and thus pick winners and losers in a "free market" is just bad policy.
>The point is not to print too much!
It may be possible for this to continue an indefinite amount of time, just like counterfeiting. It is almost exactly state-sponsored counterfeiting.
>But to be fair you should see how bad it is inside fortune 500s and boy some of those start ups are an embarrassment.
This waste is greatly exacerbated by artificial credit bubbles created by MMT shysters. They even got academia thinking this is a good idea, probably by paying them off in freshly printed notes.
>Don’t call for the “private sector is great and should take over every branch of government” shtick.
I would never suggest such a thing. But letting the state spend theoretically unlimited money, and thus pick winners and losers in a "free market" is just bad policy.
I urge you to rethink the MMT debate - no one suggests it’s unlimited, or debased. Just one thought - if you think the US gov can only spend money it taxes away from people, where do those people get the dollars to pay the taxes? Just start from there.
When the asset can be marked to market, asking people to pay tax on the value once a decade is reasonable, especially if you offer tax credits for any decline that happens later.
"Marked to market" does not change the situation much. Tax credits won't make up for the basic reality that you're demanding cash that is not necessarily on hand, regardless of the company's situation, with a vague promise of tax credits in the future at a time when the company is likely facing losses anyway. "Once a decade" does not make this idea work either.
Taxes on marketable securities are, by definition, trivially payable, especially considering the tax-loophole use to literally get around paying capital gains tax is simply to borrow against them.
You're wrong again. Not everything is marketable, and even if it is you have no right to steal it. Why should a business owner have to gradually give up ownership of his creation just to satisfy some arbitrary tax invented to make poor people feel better about being poor, or feed some arbitrary government apparatus? That's what any wealth tax is, especially when applied to business. Wealth in and of itself should not be taxed, only transactions and fixed assets that need state protection. And the taxes should be carefully measured so as to not penalize people for being successful.
The Fed has been reducung the money supply since June 2022. i don't think we can blame the issues of 2024 on the actions in 2021.
Yes, but not through tax which is the point.
Quantative tightening just takes money from the fed/bank loop. It is real yes but it’s like thinking interest rates are a lever in the economy anymore.
Anyway the QT on M4 has only dropped M4 by a trillion which basically means 9T still out there on top of everything else
(#) ie they tried to suck it back out of banks but banks don’t have the wealth - the banks customers do.
In short, ultra wealth taxes will stop the ultra wealthy drawing more value out of the economy like a gravity well, and start a flow of wealth through the economy.
Imagine all the blood in your body accumulating in your ankle. Your ankle feels it’s rich in blood but you need transfusion after transfusion to keep everything else going.
Quantative tightening just takes money from the fed/bank loop. It is real yes but it’s like thinking interest rates are a lever in the economy anymore.
Anyway the QT on M4 has only dropped M4 by a trillion which basically means 9T still out there on top of everything else
(#) ie they tried to suck it back out of banks but banks don’t have the wealth - the banks customers do.
In short, ultra wealth taxes will stop the ultra wealthy drawing more value out of the economy like a gravity well, and start a flow of wealth through the economy.
Imagine all the blood in your body accumulating in your ankle. Your ankle feels it’s rich in blood but you need transfusion after transfusion to keep everything else going.
> it’s like thinking interest rates are a lever in the economy anymore.
Interest rates are absolutely a lever in the economy. It's not a coincidence that the instant the free-money ZIRP spigot was shut off, suddenly investors cared about profitability again and fat bloated tech firms started having layoffs for the first time in decades.
Interest rates are absolutely a lever in the economy. It's not a coincidence that the instant the free-money ZIRP spigot was shut off, suddenly investors cared about profitability again and fat bloated tech firms started having layoffs for the first time in decades.
If all the hydraulic fluid is draining out of the brake system, pulling on the handbrake (going from a decade of zirp to 7% in a week) is going to have an effect but that does not mean I think you can tap on the brake pedal and get the fine control you think you can.
I agree Most tech companies have been spewing capital out the door and funding the lucky RSU / optioned employees for a decade. I guess the weird hiring practises and so on have been hiding that reality. I think shareholders are waking up to it, but zirp is only a small part of the story
I agree Most tech companies have been spewing capital out the door and funding the lucky RSU / optioned employees for a decade. I guess the weird hiring practises and so on have been hiding that reality. I think shareholders are waking up to it, but zirp is only a small part of the story
Nitpick, The CARES Act [0] was early 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act
You're wrong. Look at this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL or https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1iSvr M2 isn't shrinking much, and it certainly increased throughout 2021. I would point you to M3 as well but that series was discontinued.
Dropping a $trillion isn't shrinking much?
And remember that the economy has been growing the whole time. If the economy grows while the money supply stays constant then it is effectively a shrink of the money supply since a constant amount has to spread across more activity.
And remember that the economy has been growing the whole time. If the economy grows while the money supply stays constant then it is effectively a shrink of the money supply since a constant amount has to spread across more activity.
The economy has not been growing the whole time. It effectively collapsed during the pandemic, went offline, and restarted at lower capacity afterward. GDP also counts government spending, which is misleading as the government is not producing anything it purchases. As for the 1 trillion drop, if you look at the preceding 5 trillion dollar increase you'll see that 1 trillion is very conservative.
The economy grows about $1T per year, and therefore so should the money supply. We're up net $4T over 4 years. That's about right.
It only took a $12 trillion increase in government debt since 2020 to produce that "growth" lol
I would argue a flat tax is the way to maintain prosperity to the middle class. Aggressively taxing everyone and redistributing only goes to benefit the lower middle class. Which then becomes the new poor and drags mid to upper middle class down.
Let's see, as arm chair economists, can we have an interesting discussion?
It could surely be a tax focused on ultra-rich, who have benefited from tax cuts by parties in power for years. Corporate and ultra-rich taxes are not insane concepts, what is the real difference in quality of life of $20M vs. $50M? What necessities of life are not met? Corporate taxes are even better, dodge those, issue large stock buy backs which will benefit largest shareholders the most -- Milton Friedman smiles from the shareholder value heavens.
Imagine the economy has a huge MCMC graph, potentially everyone is connected to each other, with edges of varying strength that correspond to possible outflows and inflows of money between people (and perhaps entities/institutions). It becomes clear that some nodes in the graph are connected to other nodes that end up keeping money in few places to "invest" and accumulate wealth, sitting there, doing nothing for anyone else, tremendous capital accruing more capital because that is how this game can work. Other nodes lead to money moving rapidly in the network and having affect on the lives of many nodes. The economy has to be movement of money among individual components of the economy, because money is the meta-resource, so just use that to stand-in for anything.
It could surely be a tax focused on ultra-rich, who have benefited from tax cuts by parties in power for years. Corporate and ultra-rich taxes are not insane concepts, what is the real difference in quality of life of $20M vs. $50M? What necessities of life are not met? Corporate taxes are even better, dodge those, issue large stock buy backs which will benefit largest shareholders the most -- Milton Friedman smiles from the shareholder value heavens.
Imagine the economy has a huge MCMC graph, potentially everyone is connected to each other, with edges of varying strength that correspond to possible outflows and inflows of money between people (and perhaps entities/institutions). It becomes clear that some nodes in the graph are connected to other nodes that end up keeping money in few places to "invest" and accumulate wealth, sitting there, doing nothing for anyone else, tremendous capital accruing more capital because that is how this game can work. Other nodes lead to money moving rapidly in the network and having affect on the lives of many nodes. The economy has to be movement of money among individual components of the economy, because money is the meta-resource, so just use that to stand-in for anything.
> what is the real difference in quality of life of $20M vs. $50M?
Minimal.
But people having so much money that they have nothing to spend it on encourages investment in wild ideas like SpaceX or OpenAI. If you tax that money away, who will invest in new ideas?
Minimal.
But people having so much money that they have nothing to spend it on encourages investment in wild ideas like SpaceX or OpenAI. If you tax that money away, who will invest in new ideas?
Both manufacturing corporations and mutual investment funds are ways to aggregate smaller amounts of capital into big enough sums that large factories or investments are possible. I don't think it's necessary to rely on multi-billionaires for investment in wild ideas.
Can you point me to a few successful examples of that kind of funding?
Flat taxes are inherently regressive as the poor have to spend a higher proportion of their money than the rich in order to live.
That’s of course very easy to remedy by only requiring taxes to be paid by those making over a certain income, say 80k and somehow tied to inflation so the amount raises slightly over time.
It's a well known phenomenon at this point that social media exacerbates scepticism and pessimism. Which makes sense - busy people with a lot going on spend less time online than loners and depressed people. So using the Internet to gauge the economy or public sentiment is going to be increasingly disjointed.
Thing are slowing down but the economy is still flush with cash: starting wages are at an all time high, median household income is increasing the fastest it has in 80 years even adjusting for inflation, consumer spending is breaking records.
There are obviously people being left out of this but beware that you are not in a pessimistic information bubble.
Thing are slowing down but the economy is still flush with cash: starting wages are at an all time high, median household income is increasing the fastest it has in 80 years even adjusting for inflation, consumer spending is breaking records.
There are obviously people being left out of this but beware that you are not in a pessimistic information bubble.
“It's a well known phenomenon at this point that social media exacerbates scepticism and pessimism. Which makes sense - busy people with a lot going on spend less time online than loners and depressed people.”
That does such a great job of expressing something I’ve intuitively “known” for a long time.
There are the people who do all the talking, and those who are doing - very few who are in both camps. If you’re busy making things happen, you’re less likely to be commenting.
That does such a great job of expressing something I’ve intuitively “known” for a long time.
There are the people who do all the talking, and those who are doing - very few who are in both camps. If you’re busy making things happen, you’re less likely to be commenting.
Doom and gloom also serves independent purposes and isn't just a signaling mechanism arising as a natural outcome of conditions.
Especially with social media, it's worth asking 'does anybody benefit from this particular doom and gloom being socially established and culturally adopted?'
The last thing you want to do is take such a thing at face value, and it's possible that financial markets might discount some such signals, especially if they're getting other signals that give the lie to the doom signals.
Especially with social media, it's worth asking 'does anybody benefit from this particular doom and gloom being socially established and culturally adopted?'
The last thing you want to do is take such a thing at face value, and it's possible that financial markets might discount some such signals, especially if they're getting other signals that give the lie to the doom signals.
Rent is the biggest expense in most peoples lives, and rent is too high. That's not doom and gloom, it's a fact. The FTC and DOJ are suing landlords for using "illegal collusive algorithms" to maximize rents [1]. A recent study [2] reported that half of all US renters, an all-time high of 22.4 million renter households, are cost burdened; evictions have risen; and the country is seeing the highest homelessness counts on record.
1: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fix...
2: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/americas-rental-housing-2024
1: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fix...
2: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/americas-rental-housing-2024
[deleted]
I agree with this answer the most. There's a vocal segment of society that are very active on social media and tend to dominate these sorts of discussions, while the bulk of the population is just living life.
I'm inclined to agree with the stats that show things are going well, and that crisis sentiment is just that - sentiment.
I'm inclined to agree with the stats that show things are going well, and that crisis sentiment is just that - sentiment.
The reality is that there is much more cash in the market since the corona, which reduced the value of cash.
On the paper, the numbers look good, but the reality is shit due to underlying inflation because you can spend way less with the same amount of money.
As a result, valuations of companies also soars, not because everything is great, but because the cash is losing value.
On the paper, the numbers look good, but the reality is shit due to underlying inflation because you can spend way less with the same amount of money.
As a result, valuations of companies also soars, not because everything is great, but because the cash is losing value.
Deaths of despair are at an all-time high while fertility hovers at an all-time low. Are these merely artifacts of social media or is it possible that there is something going on beyond that?
And another question - if social media is so harmful, then what of all the people on this site who helped to build it? Are they villains of the modern era, magnifying unhappiness throughout the world?
And another question - if social media is so harmful, then what of all the people on this site who helped to build it? Are they villains of the modern era, magnifying unhappiness throughout the world?
I think the deaths of despair trend is much less related to the economy than people have postulated. But yes, a doomful online community seems like it would absolutely make this trend worse.
> And another question - if social media is so harmful, then what of all the people on this site who helped to build it? Are they villains of the modern era, magnifying unhappiness throughout the world?
Does this not describe Zuckerberg? But yeah, I'm here. But I would argue HN in particular gives a much less strong "hit" of dopamine when doomscrolling.
> And another question - if social media is so harmful, then what of all the people on this site who helped to build it? Are they villains of the modern era, magnifying unhappiness throughout the world?
Does this not describe Zuckerberg? But yeah, I'm here. But I would argue HN in particular gives a much less strong "hit" of dopamine when doomscrolling.
Each side (those using social media to highlight systemic failures / those too 'busy' contributing to said failures to use social media) thinks the other has their head buried in the sand.
It reminds me of how, depending on the type of person you ask, you'll get conflicting answers on who the 'parasites' are in the movie Parasite.
If you help enshitify the next Big Thing and get paid doing it, are you contributing to society? Or contributing to its growing problems?
It reminds me of how, depending on the type of person you ask, you'll get conflicting answers on who the 'parasites' are in the movie Parasite.
If you help enshitify the next Big Thing and get paid doing it, are you contributing to society? Or contributing to its growing problems?
> median household income is increasing the fastest it has in 80 years even adjusting for inflation
I am not sure about that, inflation was quite high during 2022-2023 and prices didn't go down. It is true that inflation is down right now - as this is an election year; however you still have to pay for current prices with what you get as your current salary.
I am not sure about that, inflation was quite high during 2022-2023 and prices didn't go down. It is true that inflation is down right now - as this is an election year; however you still have to pay for current prices with what you get as your current salary.
Psychologically, if prices go up, you think "oh no, inflation!" but when your wages rise concomitantly, you think "I worked hard; I deserve this raise for my great performance"
People think about prices in terms of macroeconomic factors, but their own income as the result of individual factors.
People think about prices in terms of macroeconomic factors, but their own income as the result of individual factors.
[deleted]
not sure that everyone is getting a raise this year.
After a layoff, I'm making less in nominal terms (forget real terms) than I did in 2020. That said, I'm in a much happier position (sadly I think only for the time being) than I was after escaping a private-equity-created misery factory, so that's a plus at least.
^ Case in point: you discuss only your individual situation, not a word of this is about the macroeconomic environment driving your employers' decisions.
Oh, I think Private Equity is quite in control of a large portion of the macro economy, much to the horror of American workers.
The financial environment now is very different than even 2-3 years ago. Mortgages went from 3%->7%. Bonds/Treasuries actually pay a decent return. The most speculative investments are no longer running hot because they have to compete with returns elsewhere.
So 1. people around here tend to be in the speculative investment bubble and it is worse there than most other places right now and 2. any time there is change like this (esp. when it happens fast) - there are winners and losers and 3. Since 2007/2008 everyone has been trying to be the next Burry or Taleb and call the bubble.
So 1. people around here tend to be in the speculative investment bubble and it is worse there than most other places right now and 2. any time there is change like this (esp. when it happens fast) - there are winners and losers and 3. Since 2007/2008 everyone has been trying to be the next Burry or Taleb and call the bubble.
It's been said for fifty years but bears repeating: "The stock market is not the economy".
They say so themselves!
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-stock-market-is-not-the-...
They say so themselves!
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-stock-market-is-not-the-...
But it's not just the stock market: wages are rising (especially for low and middle income earners), in the USA unemployment is at or near historic lows.
I’m not an economist, so I cannot defend either of these points particularly well.
* Inflation has been rising for so long that wages would have to eventually follow.
* Unemployment figures can be gamed in various ways, especially in an election year, however the real question is "Are quality jobs being created or do we have a glut of open burger flipping positions"
* Inflation has been rising for so long that wages would have to eventually follow.
* Unemployment figures can be gamed in various ways, especially in an election year, however the real question is "Are quality jobs being created or do we have a glut of open burger flipping positions"
>however the real question is "Are quality jobs being created or do we have a glut of open burger flipping positions"
I don't get this argument. I was flipping burgers in 2008 and we saw an influx of overqualified applicants because people needed the work.
If people are not desperate enough for these jobs as menial as they are, that's still a positive economic sign. Especially when they can't find burger-flippers in our area right now at $21.89 an hour.
I don't get this argument. I was flipping burgers in 2008 and we saw an influx of overqualified applicants because people needed the work.
If people are not desperate enough for these jobs as menial as they are, that's still a positive economic sign. Especially when they can't find burger-flippers in our area right now at $21.89 an hour.
The argument essentially is that a $100/h job is worth five $20/h ones but you wouldn't see that in the stats which only count > $0.
Mortgages and cost of living don't go down if you take a lower paying job but you're certainly worse off.
Mortgages and cost of living don't go down if you take a lower paying job but you're certainly worse off.
I guess the question is “who are the markets doing well for?”. If you own equity, financial assets like homes, you’re probably doing pretty good. If you’re a bartender renting in your city, a grocery store worker, bus driver, parks worker, etc things can be not so great.
Another commenter in this thread pointed out starting wages have been at an all time high. That might be true, but that doesn’t mean it’s enough to live comfortably. In my City you’d need to make a salary of about 165,000 in order to be able to theoretically afford the median home here. The two largest employers here have very few positions that pay in that range (mostly leadership roles or administrative) whereas most are 15-25/hr range.
So yes the economy is doing great if you’re rich. Never been better. It is in the best interests for news organizations right now to talk about how amazing it is doing in order to help suppress panic and keep afloat spending from the general populace. If the non-rich feel things are tightening (they are, just ask them) and they decide to stop spending that is bad.
Also keep in mind there is an election this year and a healthy economy as reported can equal votes.
Another commenter in this thread pointed out starting wages have been at an all time high. That might be true, but that doesn’t mean it’s enough to live comfortably. In my City you’d need to make a salary of about 165,000 in order to be able to theoretically afford the median home here. The two largest employers here have very few positions that pay in that range (mostly leadership roles or administrative) whereas most are 15-25/hr range.
So yes the economy is doing great if you’re rich. Never been better. It is in the best interests for news organizations right now to talk about how amazing it is doing in order to help suppress panic and keep afloat spending from the general populace. If the non-rich feel things are tightening (they are, just ask them) and they decide to stop spending that is bad.
Also keep in mind there is an election this year and a healthy economy as reported can equal votes.
> a bartender... a grocery store worker, bus driver, parks worker,
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/
https://www.ft.com/content/f32d4927-a182-4d7c-bf2d-dd915ef84...
Low income earners have seen the most wage growth since the pandemic.
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/
https://www.ft.com/content/f32d4927-a182-4d7c-bf2d-dd915ef84...
Low income earners have seen the most wage growth since the pandemic.
You have to understand why though. Just saying it like this lack perspective. If you earned 100k, spent 100k in 2020, and now earn 110k, spend 60k a year, your wage growth over 3 year is 10%,while inflation was 20% (basically my situation). Your saving rate is lower than it used to be (45% vs 50%), but you're fine.
If you earned 30k, and spent 25k in 2020, and in 2023 earn 35k and spend 30k, the situation is worse, despite a superior wage inflation (16% over 3 year instead of 10%, for a cost of living inflation of 20% in both case).
And I'm not going into the case of people who don't make enough to save even 5k a year, for them, if the wage increases do not match the cost of living inflation, they have to downsize, and sometimes live in their cars for a while (those are often renters and inflation is worse for renters). Most of the invisible homeless in big cities are in that kind of situation.
You have to pay people enough for them to be able to go to work, so of course the wage inflation for lower salaries has to match the inflation for renters.
If you earned 30k, and spent 25k in 2020, and in 2023 earn 35k and spend 30k, the situation is worse, despite a superior wage inflation (16% over 3 year instead of 10%, for a cost of living inflation of 20% in both case).
And I'm not going into the case of people who don't make enough to save even 5k a year, for them, if the wage increases do not match the cost of living inflation, they have to downsize, and sometimes live in their cars for a while (those are often renters and inflation is worse for renters). Most of the invisible homeless in big cities are in that kind of situation.
You have to pay people enough for them to be able to go to work, so of course the wage inflation for lower salaries has to match the inflation for renters.
Why would you compare starting salary to the median home price? Are you suggesting every home below the median is uninhabitable?
The median home price would suggest that the median household income is at least $160k, which seems pretty good.
The median home price would suggest that the median household income is at least $160k, which seems pretty good.
The median income in my city is 70k.
Time to shack up. Double your income and halve the demand.
Moat people think their own financial situation is good while the economy everywhere else is bad: https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pret...
Which leads me to believe it is mostly the negative media hype which gets eyeballs. Also, given the election coming up it is good for the challenger to claim the incumbent messed up the economy and they’ll totally fix it if you vote for them.
Which leads me to believe it is mostly the negative media hype which gets eyeballs. Also, given the election coming up it is good for the challenger to claim the incumbent messed up the economy and they’ll totally fix it if you vote for them.
Larry Summers and others say inflation isn't being calculated correctly:
Unemployment is low and inflation is falling, but consumer sentiment remains depressed. This has confounded economists, who historically rely on these two variables to gauge how consumers feel about the economy. We propose that borrowing costs, which have grown at rates they had not reached in decades, do much to explain this gap. The cost of money is not currently included in traditional price indexes, indicating a disconnect between the measures favored by economists and the effective costs borne by consumers. We show that the lows in US consumer sentiment that cannot be explained by unemployment and official inflation are strongly correlated with borrowing costs and consumer credit supply. Concerns over borrowing costs, which have historically tracked the cost of money, are at their highest levels since the Volcker-era. We then develop alternative measures of inflation that include borrowing costs and can account for almost three quarters of the gap in US consumer sentiment in 2023. Global evidence shows that consumer sentiment gaps across countries are also strongly correlated with changes in interest rates. Proposed U.S.-specific factors do not find much supportive evidence abroad.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w32163
Unemployment is low and inflation is falling, but consumer sentiment remains depressed. This has confounded economists, who historically rely on these two variables to gauge how consumers feel about the economy. We propose that borrowing costs, which have grown at rates they had not reached in decades, do much to explain this gap. The cost of money is not currently included in traditional price indexes, indicating a disconnect between the measures favored by economists and the effective costs borne by consumers. We show that the lows in US consumer sentiment that cannot be explained by unemployment and official inflation are strongly correlated with borrowing costs and consumer credit supply. Concerns over borrowing costs, which have historically tracked the cost of money, are at their highest levels since the Volcker-era. We then develop alternative measures of inflation that include borrowing costs and can account for almost three quarters of the gap in US consumer sentiment in 2023. Global evidence shows that consumer sentiment gaps across countries are also strongly correlated with changes in interest rates. Proposed U.S.-specific factors do not find much supportive evidence abroad.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w32163
Look beyond the averages and you will see that it's not so much financial markets overall as a narrow slice of them doing well.
https://russellinvestments.com/us/blog/market-concentration-...
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/peak-us-stock-concentrati...
Late stage bull markets tend to look like this: still going up, but mostly due to a shrinking number of stocks which benefit from mass reallocation out of everything else.
https://russellinvestments.com/us/blog/market-concentration-...
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/peak-us-stock-concentrati...
Late stage bull markets tend to look like this: still going up, but mostly due to a shrinking number of stocks which benefit from mass reallocation out of everything else.
A trend people are missing out on - in 2020, we crossed an important milestone: more than half of the baby boom generation is now retired.
So we are seeing huge gobs of investments/pensions being pulled out of stock markets and being put into bonds or cash.
The expectation is to see a decrease in the amount of money in the stock market but better returns in the money that remains.
So we are seeing huge gobs of investments/pensions being pulled out of stock markets and being put into bonds or cash.
The expectation is to see a decrease in the amount of money in the stock market but better returns in the money that remains.
And with fewer people producing (but still consuming, they're retired...) we have less supply (and same or more demand) of goods and services also leading to continuing inflation.
Three reasons:
1.
In most western countries, salaries of low-skilled workers have grown faster than inflation, but salaries of high-skilled workers have grown only as fast or slower than inflation.
We (HN) live in a high-skilled bubble, and our food delivery is becoming less affordable because our door dasher is making more money.
2.
Journalism is going through a structural crisis because ppl are addicted to TikTok and co.
So jounalists struggle a lot. From their point of view, the economy looks bad. That's what sets the tone in the news.
3.
If you want to get a different president elected, a good economy is not what you want. So Republicans, Russia and China all want Americans to think that the country is going to shit, because then, they will vote in their guy.
Incidentally, the TikTok algorithm is controlled by a company that is controlled by the Chinese party.
1.
In most western countries, salaries of low-skilled workers have grown faster than inflation, but salaries of high-skilled workers have grown only as fast or slower than inflation.
We (HN) live in a high-skilled bubble, and our food delivery is becoming less affordable because our door dasher is making more money.
2.
Journalism is going through a structural crisis because ppl are addicted to TikTok and co.
So jounalists struggle a lot. From their point of view, the economy looks bad. That's what sets the tone in the news.
3.
If you want to get a different president elected, a good economy is not what you want. So Republicans, Russia and China all want Americans to think that the country is going to shit, because then, they will vote in their guy.
Incidentally, the TikTok algorithm is controlled by a company that is controlled by the Chinese party.
Regarding your first point:
I think you are correct. What we are seeing is something akin to a US elephant curve[1] but the chasm is widening to upper middle class professionals, while the trunk is pointing up more sharply.
When the US deindustrialized, the global poor got richer (manufacturing earns more than subsistence farming) and the rich got richer (it's cheaper to make things overseas), but the lower middle class got poorer. In aggregate it looks like the world got richer, so the Steven Pinkers of the world scold the complainers for not getting that we are living in the best time in human history.
I think the economy is turning against the kind of worker who gets a four year degree and might have a job title like, "data scientist", and everyone is going to tell them they should have known better.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Curve
When the US deindustrialized, the global poor got richer (manufacturing earns more than subsistence farming) and the rich got richer (it's cheaper to make things overseas), but the lower middle class got poorer. In aggregate it looks like the world got richer, so the Steven Pinkers of the world scold the complainers for not getting that we are living in the best time in human history.
I think the economy is turning against the kind of worker who gets a four year degree and might have a job title like, "data scientist", and everyone is going to tell them they should have known better.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Curve
Your attempt to point low-skilled labor as doing great ignores that a lot of low skilled workers are just leaving the workforce, and that a low-skilled job is not a path to house ownership, in part because house inflation is heavily localized and not equally distributed. If you are a low-skilled worker in an urban environment that wage inflation maybe helps you keep up with rent and go out to dinner one more time a month.
Low-skilled labor in America is basically a temporary way to make money and offers no long term future. That was not the case 40 years ago. You have to use whatever opportunity a low-skilled job provides as a springboard to high skilled labor, otherwise you will tread water at best. In part cause you cannot use it to acquire financial assets (a house, 401k, etc) and the American economy is now built around ensuring financial assets appreciate (inflate in value).
Low-skilled labor in America is basically a temporary way to make money and offers no long term future. That was not the case 40 years ago. You have to use whatever opportunity a low-skilled job provides as a springboard to high skilled labor, otherwise you will tread water at best. In part cause you cannot use it to acquire financial assets (a house, 401k, etc) and the American economy is now built around ensuring financial assets appreciate (inflate in value).
This is more relevant than a financial expert’s input.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Also,
>financial markets are doing well
(presumably this means equity prices for shares of publicly listed businesses increasing at a sufficient rate)
and
>depression, people complaining, news
are unrelated things (assuming you mean emotional depression, not economic depression).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Also,
>financial markets are doing well
(presumably this means equity prices for shares of publicly listed businesses increasing at a sufficient rate)
and
>depression, people complaining, news
are unrelated things (assuming you mean emotional depression, not economic depression).
A lot of money was printed / added to the system. It’s still working its way though. The stock market valuation is also subject to inflation. It might be “doing good” but in real terms compared to the money supply it might be just catching up. Real estate however is dropping very much in real terms. Wages going up you have to compare to inflation and the money supply. Just because a dollar is worth less than it was 5 years ago, can take your wage “gain” away pretty fast.
“When your friend gets laid off, it’s a recession. When you get laid off, it’s a depression.”
The loud protestations of people caught in the correction from overhiring are just drowning out the many many people who are still happily employed and not complaining about it online.
The loud protestations of people caught in the correction from overhiring are just drowning out the many many people who are still happily employed and not complaining about it online.
Also worth asking here is what are you measuring the financial markets by ?
If you're looking at the big brand shares like the FAANGs, or most recently Nvidia, then that is all meaningless nonsense. Never, ever, try to read something into the movement of those shares, its a fools game.
Second, but related to the first, don't forget that the NASDAQ is dragged up and down by the big tech brands, so take NASDAQ movements with a pinch of salt too.
There are also in general many sectors out there where valuations and expectations are unrealistically high. Its not all plain sailing.
If you're looking at the big brand shares like the FAANGs, or most recently Nvidia, then that is all meaningless nonsense. Never, ever, try to read something into the movement of those shares, its a fools game.
Second, but related to the first, don't forget that the NASDAQ is dragged up and down by the big tech brands, so take NASDAQ movements with a pinch of salt too.
There are also in general many sectors out there where valuations and expectations are unrealistically high. Its not all plain sailing.
These are not uniquely terrible times. It’s just that bad news and drama attracts more eyeballs than good news and harmony.
Think about who stands to benefit from making you feel bad.
Think about who stands to benefit from making you feel bad.
Historically, a recession follows shortly AFTER the fed starts cutting rates. See also: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y/
The grey areas are recessions.
They often cut rates when a recession is in sight, and raise them when they think the market will handle it. I don't think cutting rates directly causes recessions. Interest rates are still too low but they are about to be cut to save the banks which invested in low interest bonds, presumably.
>See also: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y/ The grey areas are recessions
This chart shows (part of) the yield curve, not the Fed funds rate.
Did you mean to show this?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
This chart shows (part of) the yield curve, not the Fed funds rate.
Did you mean to show this?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
I guess that would have been more correct, yes. It shows the same pattern in any case.
What it shows is that the Fed starts cutting rates shortly before or shortly after a recession begins, exactly as you would expect. In some cases they started raising again too early and had to backtrack.
Some people have only experienced ZIRP. This is the post-ZIRP transition process.
One theory: "It’s Not the Economy. It’s the Pandemic."
> America is in a funk, and no one seems to know why. Unemployment rates are lower than they’ve been in half a century and the stock market is sky-high, but poll after poll shows that voters are disgruntled. President Joe Biden’s approval rating has been hovering in the high 30s. Americans’ satisfaction with their personal lives—a measure that usually dips in times of economic uncertainty—is at a near-record low, according to Gallup polling. And nearly half of Americans surveyed in January said they were worse off than three years prior.
> Experts have struggled to find a convincing explanation for this era of bad feelings. Maybe it’s the spate of inflation over the past couple of years, the immigration crisis at the border, or the brutal wars in Ukraine and Gaza. But even the people who claim to make sense of the political world acknowledge that these rational factors can’t fully account for America’s national malaise. We believe that’s because they’re overlooking a crucial factor.
> Four years ago, the country was brought to its knees by a world-historic disaster. COVID-19 hospitalized nearly 7 million Americans and killed more than a million; it’s still killing hundreds each week. It shut down schools and forced people into social isolation. Almost overnight, most of the country was thrown into a state of high anxiety—then, soon enough, grief and mourning. But the country has not come together to sufficiently acknowledge the tragedy it endured. As clinical psychiatrists, we see the effects of such emotional turmoil every day, and we know that when it’s not properly processed, it can result in a general sense of unhappiness and anger—exactly the negative emotional state that might lead a nation to misperceive its fortunes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/03/covid-gri...
> America is in a funk, and no one seems to know why. Unemployment rates are lower than they’ve been in half a century and the stock market is sky-high, but poll after poll shows that voters are disgruntled. President Joe Biden’s approval rating has been hovering in the high 30s. Americans’ satisfaction with their personal lives—a measure that usually dips in times of economic uncertainty—is at a near-record low, according to Gallup polling. And nearly half of Americans surveyed in January said they were worse off than three years prior.
> Experts have struggled to find a convincing explanation for this era of bad feelings. Maybe it’s the spate of inflation over the past couple of years, the immigration crisis at the border, or the brutal wars in Ukraine and Gaza. But even the people who claim to make sense of the political world acknowledge that these rational factors can’t fully account for America’s national malaise. We believe that’s because they’re overlooking a crucial factor.
> Four years ago, the country was brought to its knees by a world-historic disaster. COVID-19 hospitalized nearly 7 million Americans and killed more than a million; it’s still killing hundreds each week. It shut down schools and forced people into social isolation. Almost overnight, most of the country was thrown into a state of high anxiety—then, soon enough, grief and mourning. But the country has not come together to sufficiently acknowledge the tragedy it endured. As clinical psychiatrists, we see the effects of such emotional turmoil every day, and we know that when it’s not properly processed, it can result in a general sense of unhappiness and anger—exactly the negative emotional state that might lead a nation to misperceive its fortunes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/03/covid-gri...
What a bunch of gaslighting and political hackery. No way unemployment is "lower than ever"... The lockdowns were stupid, especially toward the end, and the bill for that has come due. People are not imagining that their money is worth less than ever, or that finding a job is increasingly difficult. I don't doubt that some people have lingering mental health issues to this day because of the pandemic. I see it almost every day when one or two random people are STILL wearing a face diaper over 2 years since the pandemic ceased being a real concern to practically everyone else.
I'm not even necessarily endorsing this theory, but if you won't accept any basic economic statistics and you use the phrase "face diaper", I confess my doubts you'll have anything worthwhile to contribute to this discussion.
You certainly aren't lol
The rich have finally won. What happens on main street no longer affects wall street.
I’m currently reading Broken Money by Lyn Alden and it has given me a much improved perspective about why things like this are the way they are as a consequence of history and monetary policy. Very interesting.
The price of food seems to have gone up by almost 1.5x in a few years
The relative value of money and goods is changing. It might be prudent to shift some of your savings from one to the other. Luckily we have a system available which abstracts that so you don't actually have to acquire a pile of corn and hide it in the basement.
I don't understand why you can't understand it, the 1% are accumulating endless wealth, while the 99% are working for the richest 1% of people. The 1% believe they are a kind of avengers who can solve the world's problems, they even believe that they are above intellectuals and scientists to solve the world's problems, but they only solve their own problems, not the world's problems.
it's as if the interests of the financial sector and the common man are not in alignment...
but that would be impossible, right?
but that would be impossible, right?
The whole world was going through an immense and generationally unprecedented crisis in 2020-2021-2022, still the financial markets were booming. That's the state of late-stage capitalism, finance is becoming more and more detached from reality. Bubbles also look like the market is doing well until it explodes, trying to derive any picture of the real world through the prices of stocks is an exercise in futility.
Please don't consider me an expert, but here's sort of the birds eye factors I've been reading or seeing over the last few months / my opinion on what seems to be happening.
Right now there does seem to be some interesting disconnects in some measures of the economy. I'm talking things like business revenues in financial results, compared to the various surveys that are done. One of doom and gloom measures is a survey that asks how people think the economy is doing. But where it get's interesting, is surveys that ask about personal finances appear to be showing fairly strong results. So there seems to be a broad sense that people as individuals are doing pretty good, but perceive the economy as bad for others or in general.
I think another angle and personal bias of mine, is Hacker News is a specific tech community with lots of exposure to only a portion of the economy. So we're seeing layoffs and difficulty in the labor market ourselves, and expect that to be happening across the broad economy, especially compared to 2 years ago. But I think there are a few factors that impact us differently. I think a primary one is going to be interest rates. For startups, which are going to light a pile of money on fire and hope they grow, there are other areas of the economy that are much safer to get those returns with current interest rates. Why fund a speculative startup when I can get 9% on a private loan to a business. Also you look at medium and big tech companies, those bonds (debt) are way more expensive competing for those same interest rates, so the investment into growth and expansion is way down compared to 1 or 2 years ago. And we get to perceive that through the big layoff announcements that seem to keep popping up, as interest rates have risen. So the B2B space, which eventually serves other non-tech companies and consumers, is soft on growth and expansion, which is often rooted back to funding through debt instruments.
But if you look at the broader economy, for the average worker in North America, wages are going up at or faster than the rate of inflation, the unemployment rate is low. We're probably sitting around full employment, which actually can be it's own problem. The inflation took a shock but is trending back towards norms. Consumer spending even with current inflation rates hasn't really stopped, purchases don't seem to be getting deferred all that much. So companies where there was an expectation of a pullback in spending haven't really seen it in their financial results, maintaining their value on the open markets.
Another angle for people to perceive doom and gloom is also affordability factors in some segments of the economy. Where I am housing is a disaster for many reasons, so I'm sure many people see being unable to buy the same quality of living as their parents as part of the doom and gloom. But the overall financial markets aren't reacting to this, because enough people still have those mortgages, and with the rise in interest rates, defaults don't appear to have meaningfully risen. Overall debts are getting paid, even if they're more expensive.
And another angle I want to tread carefully into, is the politics and policy angle. With an election going on, as I understand it one of the most correlated factors to a change in governance is the health of the economy. So there may be some motive to color financial data or results through a lens to try and produce a political outcome. I have no idea what overall impact this might have, but some of those surveys I talked about above when divided by political lines or where people receive their information get very interesting. I'm not trying to have the political discussion or take any side, I'm just saying watch out for motives in your sources of information.
And there are just overall expectations, inflation has been difficult, interest rates have risen, so we just expect things to be bad. Also keep in mind one of the disconnects in the financial markets is where would someone put that wealth instead, what in the current situation would be driving people to exit the market and try and park cash for example?
So this is probably a very long way to say, from what I've seen, when you try and measure peoples perception of the economy, those measures appear to show the economy in poor shape. But when you look at other measures that influence the overall markets, like sales, defaults on debt, consumer spending, those measures don't seem to paint the same picture.
Right now there does seem to be some interesting disconnects in some measures of the economy. I'm talking things like business revenues in financial results, compared to the various surveys that are done. One of doom and gloom measures is a survey that asks how people think the economy is doing. But where it get's interesting, is surveys that ask about personal finances appear to be showing fairly strong results. So there seems to be a broad sense that people as individuals are doing pretty good, but perceive the economy as bad for others or in general.
I think another angle and personal bias of mine, is Hacker News is a specific tech community with lots of exposure to only a portion of the economy. So we're seeing layoffs and difficulty in the labor market ourselves, and expect that to be happening across the broad economy, especially compared to 2 years ago. But I think there are a few factors that impact us differently. I think a primary one is going to be interest rates. For startups, which are going to light a pile of money on fire and hope they grow, there are other areas of the economy that are much safer to get those returns with current interest rates. Why fund a speculative startup when I can get 9% on a private loan to a business. Also you look at medium and big tech companies, those bonds (debt) are way more expensive competing for those same interest rates, so the investment into growth and expansion is way down compared to 1 or 2 years ago. And we get to perceive that through the big layoff announcements that seem to keep popping up, as interest rates have risen. So the B2B space, which eventually serves other non-tech companies and consumers, is soft on growth and expansion, which is often rooted back to funding through debt instruments.
But if you look at the broader economy, for the average worker in North America, wages are going up at or faster than the rate of inflation, the unemployment rate is low. We're probably sitting around full employment, which actually can be it's own problem. The inflation took a shock but is trending back towards norms. Consumer spending even with current inflation rates hasn't really stopped, purchases don't seem to be getting deferred all that much. So companies where there was an expectation of a pullback in spending haven't really seen it in their financial results, maintaining their value on the open markets.
Another angle for people to perceive doom and gloom is also affordability factors in some segments of the economy. Where I am housing is a disaster for many reasons, so I'm sure many people see being unable to buy the same quality of living as their parents as part of the doom and gloom. But the overall financial markets aren't reacting to this, because enough people still have those mortgages, and with the rise in interest rates, defaults don't appear to have meaningfully risen. Overall debts are getting paid, even if they're more expensive.
And another angle I want to tread carefully into, is the politics and policy angle. With an election going on, as I understand it one of the most correlated factors to a change in governance is the health of the economy. So there may be some motive to color financial data or results through a lens to try and produce a political outcome. I have no idea what overall impact this might have, but some of those surveys I talked about above when divided by political lines or where people receive their information get very interesting. I'm not trying to have the political discussion or take any side, I'm just saying watch out for motives in your sources of information.
And there are just overall expectations, inflation has been difficult, interest rates have risen, so we just expect things to be bad. Also keep in mind one of the disconnects in the financial markets is where would someone put that wealth instead, what in the current situation would be driving people to exit the market and try and park cash for example?
So this is probably a very long way to say, from what I've seen, when you try and measure peoples perception of the economy, those measures appear to show the economy in poor shape. But when you look at other measures that influence the overall markets, like sales, defaults on debt, consumer spending, those measures don't seem to paint the same picture.
1. "Don't fight the Fed"
Recessions usually follow the Fed raising interest rates. There's a roughly 6-12 month lag after the fed stops raising interest rates for them to bite. There are short term effects from what the Fed says in public which affect markets on closer to a day-to-day basis which are all emotional (including the FAANG layoffs starting in summer 2022). There are medium term effects from the rate-of-change and absolute levels of actual interest rate hikes which evolve fairly quickly (SVB/FRB). But there are also area-under-the-curve effects which are an integral of the level of the rate hikes which just take time and those are the most punishing.
Most corporate debt hits maturity dates after several years at which point the debt needs to be repaid or else it needs to be paid back. These loans are still considered fixed rate in most reporting but in actuality they're more like an ARM which adjusts. We have a lot of zombie companies and properties which have been financed by cheap debt over the roughly 14 years of ZIRP that are now rolling over into a higher rate environment. We also have a slow rolling commercial real estate disaster caused by online shopping and remote work. That all comes under stress slowly because those businesses which are going to fail will do everything they can to kick the can down the road as far as possible, hoping to survive into the next low-rate environment beyond these rate hikes. It takes time for them to be boxed in by financial realities and fail.
I'd say that the 12 month lag is also just a heuristic and given the quick rate hikes that it won't be surprising that it takes a little longer for the rate hikes to bite this time. The start of the rate hikes also matters and for example they started hiking back in 2004 before the 2008 recession. We also don't know when the rate hikes are done. Everyone expects the Fed to cut in June and do 3 cuts by the end of the year, but with the services inflation readings being up the Fed could also hike again -- which resets the counter on the heuristic.
2. AI Bubble
AI is almost certainly in a bubble right now. That doesn't meant that it is worthless like bitcoin, but that it is like the 1999 pets.com era of the Internet. It is mostly hype combined with a lot of hallucinations and not a lot of profitability (outside of NVDA). The real payoffs right now are going to be in things like medicine which don't involve LLMs and that will stake an enormous amount of capital to develop the drugs and protocols that machine learning helps to design. LLMs are mostly going to be used to put tech support people and relatively unskilled graphic design jobs out of business and flood the internet with bullshit--which won't be good for the human jobs market. At some point we're going to hit the era of LLMs that corresponds to the birth of AWS and the cloud and stuff like that, but that's still in the future and it looks more like the hype bubble is about to pop. At some point everyone will get tired of shipping more of their capital off to NVDA and start using the TPUs that they've got more efficiently.
3. Unemployment is Rising
86% of states have unemployment above their 1-year average, 75% of states have unemployment above their 2 year average, 26% of states have unemployment above their 3 year averages and all those numbers are increasing. Temp employment is off its peak 13%, full employment is of its peak 1.3%. None of this means we're in a recession, but all of it is consistent with a recession on the horizon.
4. Personal Savings has been Drawn Down
There was a massive spike in personal savings due to the pandemic which is the direct cause of the inflation that we saw. People put money in the bank as they weren't taking vacations and spending as much money (the spending for home renovations and lumber during the pandemic when everyone was home didn't make up for it at all). When the pandemic largely ended in 2022 (certainly by people's behavior, which is literally all that matters economically) that money re-entered the economy and naturally bid up prices turning into price inflation. Corporations are pretty much done having confiscated most of that from the bulk of middle class (upper class earners of course still retain a good chunk of it because the rich always get richer). The result though is that we're now seeing a lot more companies starting to cut prices and seeing reduced sales.
Looking at personal savings is much more important to understanding immediate inflation/recession dynamics than looking at the Fed balance sheet and screaming about money printing.
5. Everywhere Else Is In Recession
Economics in Europe and China are bad. Ukraine having hit Russian refineries and stuff like that is rolling over into oil price spikes which should have some inflationary shocks which should hit the markets when they start doing the math on how it it will affect the promise of future rate cuts in the US.
The counterpoints right now:
6. The Fed Is Playing Politics To Not Be Seen As Playing Politics
It is an election year and the Fed is being unusually soft since it doesn't want to be seen as influencing the election, so they are aggressively not giving any fucks about what looks like double bubble in crypto and the stock market. It isn't that they particularly favor Biden, they're all Republicans and would just roll with a Trump 2nd term and discount everything going on in Washington DC as just politics which is beneath their institution. But they don't want to be seen to aggressively pop a bubble in any election year, which is how they play politics in order to not play politics.
7. The Market Always Climbs A Wall Of Worry
All booms/bubbles are characterized by the market shrugging off all the reasons why it can't be going up and going up anyway. This phenomenon of all kinds of bad headlines about the market combined with new all time highs week after week is entirely normal going back decades. And another aspect of this is the saying that perma-bears on the stock market are the "broken clock is right twice a day" kind of people. This always happens.
Summary
I don't think the economy is remotely bad right now, but we're heading for a showdown at some point soon. None of this is sustainable. I didn't quite call this right, I was expecting more of a double-top formation, and it looks more like we're heading into an actual bubble. I'd consider it a very dangerous game to play around with this market, though. The personal savings rate that was all the fuel is gone, and at some point the market is likely to wake up and get very grouchy. Don't fight the Fed.
Recessions usually follow the Fed raising interest rates. There's a roughly 6-12 month lag after the fed stops raising interest rates for them to bite. There are short term effects from what the Fed says in public which affect markets on closer to a day-to-day basis which are all emotional (including the FAANG layoffs starting in summer 2022). There are medium term effects from the rate-of-change and absolute levels of actual interest rate hikes which evolve fairly quickly (SVB/FRB). But there are also area-under-the-curve effects which are an integral of the level of the rate hikes which just take time and those are the most punishing.
Most corporate debt hits maturity dates after several years at which point the debt needs to be repaid or else it needs to be paid back. These loans are still considered fixed rate in most reporting but in actuality they're more like an ARM which adjusts. We have a lot of zombie companies and properties which have been financed by cheap debt over the roughly 14 years of ZIRP that are now rolling over into a higher rate environment. We also have a slow rolling commercial real estate disaster caused by online shopping and remote work. That all comes under stress slowly because those businesses which are going to fail will do everything they can to kick the can down the road as far as possible, hoping to survive into the next low-rate environment beyond these rate hikes. It takes time for them to be boxed in by financial realities and fail.
I'd say that the 12 month lag is also just a heuristic and given the quick rate hikes that it won't be surprising that it takes a little longer for the rate hikes to bite this time. The start of the rate hikes also matters and for example they started hiking back in 2004 before the 2008 recession. We also don't know when the rate hikes are done. Everyone expects the Fed to cut in June and do 3 cuts by the end of the year, but with the services inflation readings being up the Fed could also hike again -- which resets the counter on the heuristic.
2. AI Bubble
AI is almost certainly in a bubble right now. That doesn't meant that it is worthless like bitcoin, but that it is like the 1999 pets.com era of the Internet. It is mostly hype combined with a lot of hallucinations and not a lot of profitability (outside of NVDA). The real payoffs right now are going to be in things like medicine which don't involve LLMs and that will stake an enormous amount of capital to develop the drugs and protocols that machine learning helps to design. LLMs are mostly going to be used to put tech support people and relatively unskilled graphic design jobs out of business and flood the internet with bullshit--which won't be good for the human jobs market. At some point we're going to hit the era of LLMs that corresponds to the birth of AWS and the cloud and stuff like that, but that's still in the future and it looks more like the hype bubble is about to pop. At some point everyone will get tired of shipping more of their capital off to NVDA and start using the TPUs that they've got more efficiently.
3. Unemployment is Rising
86% of states have unemployment above their 1-year average, 75% of states have unemployment above their 2 year average, 26% of states have unemployment above their 3 year averages and all those numbers are increasing. Temp employment is off its peak 13%, full employment is of its peak 1.3%. None of this means we're in a recession, but all of it is consistent with a recession on the horizon.
4. Personal Savings has been Drawn Down
There was a massive spike in personal savings due to the pandemic which is the direct cause of the inflation that we saw. People put money in the bank as they weren't taking vacations and spending as much money (the spending for home renovations and lumber during the pandemic when everyone was home didn't make up for it at all). When the pandemic largely ended in 2022 (certainly by people's behavior, which is literally all that matters economically) that money re-entered the economy and naturally bid up prices turning into price inflation. Corporations are pretty much done having confiscated most of that from the bulk of middle class (upper class earners of course still retain a good chunk of it because the rich always get richer). The result though is that we're now seeing a lot more companies starting to cut prices and seeing reduced sales.
Looking at personal savings is much more important to understanding immediate inflation/recession dynamics than looking at the Fed balance sheet and screaming about money printing.
5. Everywhere Else Is In Recession
Economics in Europe and China are bad. Ukraine having hit Russian refineries and stuff like that is rolling over into oil price spikes which should have some inflationary shocks which should hit the markets when they start doing the math on how it it will affect the promise of future rate cuts in the US.
The counterpoints right now:
6. The Fed Is Playing Politics To Not Be Seen As Playing Politics
It is an election year and the Fed is being unusually soft since it doesn't want to be seen as influencing the election, so they are aggressively not giving any fucks about what looks like double bubble in crypto and the stock market. It isn't that they particularly favor Biden, they're all Republicans and would just roll with a Trump 2nd term and discount everything going on in Washington DC as just politics which is beneath their institution. But they don't want to be seen to aggressively pop a bubble in any election year, which is how they play politics in order to not play politics.
7. The Market Always Climbs A Wall Of Worry
All booms/bubbles are characterized by the market shrugging off all the reasons why it can't be going up and going up anyway. This phenomenon of all kinds of bad headlines about the market combined with new all time highs week after week is entirely normal going back decades. And another aspect of this is the saying that perma-bears on the stock market are the "broken clock is right twice a day" kind of people. This always happens.
Summary
I don't think the economy is remotely bad right now, but we're heading for a showdown at some point soon. None of this is sustainable. I didn't quite call this right, I was expecting more of a double-top formation, and it looks more like we're heading into an actual bubble. I'd consider it a very dangerous game to play around with this market, though. The personal savings rate that was all the fuel is gone, and at some point the market is likely to wake up and get very grouchy. Don't fight the Fed.
Peasant: Sire, how goes the war?
King: We're winning!
Peasant: But we are so poor!
King: You're losing!
some ancient strip cartoon the name of which I cannot recall
King: We're winning!
Peasant: But we are so poor!
King: You're losing!
some ancient strip cartoon the name of which I cannot recall
But you're not poor. Wages have risen rapidly for low- and middle- earners. In the United States, unemployment is at or near all-time lows.
>In the United States, unemployment is at or near all-time lows.
According to fake government stats that have changed drastically over time to sweep problems under the rug. If you believe the labor market is good, I have a bridge to sell you. Also, wages went up significantly for a bit, but nowhere near enough to match inflation.
According to fake government stats that have changed drastically over time to sweep problems under the rug. If you believe the labor market is good, I have a bridge to sell you. Also, wages went up significantly for a bit, but nowhere near enough to match inflation.
Please indicate which measure of unemployment you would accept, and make sure it will be your choice regardless of any political or economic changes, because I'm going to snapshot your answer and remind you of it under very different conditions.
How about the percentage of people out of work or working 2 days per week or less, who indicate they want to work more? You think you're being clever but I've been saying the numbers are wrong since at least 2009. Also I would accept total population minus people working less than 15 hours per week (equivalent) plus the number of deliberately retired people and minors. Thanks.
I do not think I am clever.
I'm asking for a measure of unemployment that will stand the test of time, as well as political change. There are many existing measures, and many reasons to criticize each one of them, but this interests me less than knowing what the critics of all of them think we should be measuring.
I'm asking for a measure of unemployment that will stand the test of time, as well as political change. There are many existing measures, and many reasons to criticize each one of them, but this interests me less than knowing what the critics of all of them think we should be measuring.
On the other hand lower earners are more exposed to things like credit card interest rates. Which isn't to say that that swamps the wage increases, just that the picture is complicated.
Right, all humans live in the United States.
The peasant/slaves of all realm were not out of work either ...
Also you don't know, where the oerson you replied to lives. In many places around the world inflation is rising a lot more, than the wages.
Also you don't know, where the oerson you replied to lives. In many places around the world inflation is rising a lot more, than the wages.
> some ancient strip cartoon
That would be The Wizard of Id
https://chicagoreader.com/blogs/johnny-hart/
That would be The Wizard of Id
https://chicagoreader.com/blogs/johnny-hart/
[deleted]
A lot of the good feelings in the boom times post WW2 were based on the idea that there was social mobility and opportunity. Pretty much the experience in America post Financial crisis in every industry except technology is that social mobility is dead, the middle class in this industry will be squeezed out of existence, and profit margins will grow by finding cheaper labor in another country.
A lot of Americans are in the labor class and don't own financial assets, what do they have to be cheery about?
A lot of Americans are in the labor class and don't own financial assets, what do they have to be cheery about?
Devaluation of the unit of account is the main factor behind the confusing signals.
If the thing you're measuring value with halves in value, all the measured values will double.
If we take the dollar as an example, there's around twice as many dollars in existence as there were 10 years ago, halving the value it would otherwise be, and so doubling all the dollar-denominated figures.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2
There's certainly nothing healthy about doubling the money supply - this means that there is double the total debt (the mechanism by which new monetary units are created) - but it will cause figures like GDP, share prices and even wages to a degree to increase, even though they haven't gone up in actual value (in the case of wages they've gone down in value)
If the thing you're measuring value with halves in value, all the measured values will double.
If we take the dollar as an example, there's around twice as many dollars in existence as there were 10 years ago, halving the value it would otherwise be, and so doubling all the dollar-denominated figures.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2
There's certainly nothing healthy about doubling the money supply - this means that there is double the total debt (the mechanism by which new monetary units are created) - but it will cause figures like GDP, share prices and even wages to a degree to increase, even though they haven't gone up in actual value (in the case of wages they've gone down in value)
Any financial experts here willing to chime in?