The reason unemployment is so low, and you can't find a worker.

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
I just heard the correct descriptive term on Fox Business -- UNREALIZED GAINS.

Some people got an unemployment check during Covid. I think most of them have returned to work if their business wasn't destroyed. They are not the issue at this point.

Why is there no one left when this labor problem was not true before the pandemic? A disruption like this should have people unemployed. There should be gobs of people at your doorstep looking for work, laid off from business closures.

What is going on?

This is a repeat of what occurred just before the 2008 financial crisis. I remember people borrowing against the equity in their homes to live it up or invest in the stock market. In fact, according to Fox Business, the current stock valuations are largely being supported by retail investors, not institutions.

This is why there are holes in the workforce, as millions of people felt they did not need to work, or do not want to work. The workforce holes create incentives for people to try and move up or quit. The phenomenon filters throughout everything, down to finding an electrician to fix problems at your home.

The Federal Government and Federal Reserve created this deception of wealth -- unrealized gains, like the price of your home. We're going to have the same mess all over again due to the leveraging. This time it will be worse, because the government cannot afford a bail out.

We've got Congress in a fight with the Fed, one creating inflation and the other charged with trying to stop it. Winner decides how the destruction materializes, but the destruction is unavoidable.

Many people I know think they are going to get 7% real returns (price adjusted for inflation) on their stock portfolio going forward. That is driving their spending behavior. That is dreamland unless you are lucky enough to choose the right stocks.

What will be the driver of growth to support this expectation? I'm not seeing it. Someone help. What will improve productivity? Workers are already spent, some are doing the "quiet quit," and I do not see a new technology like the microchip to suddenly increase productivity.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
I will reply for the leftists, who will probably ignore this thread.

You will say immigrants.

I will respond by saying that the vast majority are not skilled enough to raise growth above what they will consume in housing, education, and healthcare resources in the near term.

Ask the people crossing the Rio Grande about their STEM degrees. How about their technical certifications? You may have to ask the question in Spanish.

No doubt most of those people in time will be of value to the economy, but that is years away.

In the meantime, as a result of government policy, we have a massive productivity gap and destruction of the mechanisms for Supply.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
I just heard the correct descriptive term on Fox Business -- UNREALIZED GAINS.

Some people got an unemployment check during Covid. I think most of them have returned to work if their business wasn't destroyed. They are not the issue at this point.

Why is there no one left when this labor problem was not true before the pandemic? A disruption like this should have people unemployed. There should be gobs of people at your doorstep looking for work, laid off from business closures.

What is going on?

This is a repeat of what occurred just before the 2008 financial crisis. I remember people borrowing against the equity in their homes to live it up or invest in the stock market. In fact, according to Fox Business, the current stock valuations are largely being supported by retail investors, not institutions.

This is why there are holes in the workforce, as millions of people felt they did not need to work, or do not want to work. The workforce holes create incentives for people to try and move up or quit. The phenomenon filters throughout everything, down to finding an electrician to fix problems at your home.

The Federal Government and Federal Reserve created this deception of wealth -- unrealized gains, like the price of your home. We're going to have the same mess all over again due to the leveraging. This time it will be worse, because the government cannot afford a bail out.

We've got Congress in a fight with the Fed, one creating inflation and the other charged with trying to stop it. Winner decides how the destruction materializes, but the destruction is unavoidable.

Many people I know think they are going to get 7% real returns (price adjusted for inflation) on their stock portfolio going forward. That is driving their spending behavior. That is dreamland unless you are lucky enough to choose the right stocks.

What will be the driver of growth to support this expectation? (It should be infrastructure as the funds start going out.) I'm not seeing it. Someone help. What will improve productivity? (Infrastructure by itself. Also, as the economy grows more, companies have more funds to invest in innovation.) Workers are already spent, some are doing the "quiet quit," and I do not see a new technology like the microchip to suddenly increase productivity.
 
Last edited:

rutgersdave

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2004
596
303
1
I just heard the correct descriptive term on Fox Business -- UNREALIZED GAINS.

Some people got an unemployment check during Covid. I think most of them have returned to work if their business wasn't destroyed. They are not the issue at this point.

Why is there no one left when this labor problem was not true before the pandemic? A disruption like this should have people unemployed. There should be gobs of people at your doorstep looking for work, laid off from business closures.

What is going on?

This is a repeat of what occurred just before the 2008 financial crisis. I remember people borrowing against the equity in their homes to live it up or invest in the stock market. In fact, according to Fox Business, the current stock valuations are largely being supported by retail investors, not institutions.

This is why there are holes in the workforce, as millions of people felt they did not need to work, or do not want to work. The workforce holes create incentives for people to try and move up or quit. The phenomenon filters throughout everything, down to finding an electrician to fix problems at your home.

The Federal Government and Federal Reserve created this deception of wealth -- unrealized gains, like the price of your home. We're going to have the same mess all over again due to the leveraging. This time it will be worse, because the government cannot afford a bail out.

We've got Congress in a fight with the Fed, one creating inflation and the other charged with trying to stop it. Winner decides how the destruction materializes, but the destruction is unavoidable.

Many people I know think they are going to get 7% real returns (price adjusted for inflation) on their stock portfolio going forward. That is driving their spending behavior. That is dreamland unless you are lucky enough to choose the right stocks.

What will be the driver of growth to support this expectation? I'm not seeing it. Someone help. What will improve productivity? Workers are already spent, some are doing the "quiet quit," and I do not see a new technology like the microchip to suddenly increase productivity.

Trump cut legal immigration severely.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
@Catch50

Please use a better way to respond. Your text is difficult to separate from my text. If you just press enter before typing you can respond right below what I wrote.

Your idea will not work. The base case problem is the imbalance between public sector spending (infrastructure) and the private sector that supports it (inflation and taxes).

If you say incrementally more infrastructure, then you have to cut something in the public sector that is hurting GDP. What is that, and does it match the level that you want to increase infrastructure?

Remember that there is already a massive imbalance caused by excessive spending. There are no examples in history. If you point to the FDR 1930s and the building of things like dams and other infrastructure, that came at a cost to living standards (1920s compared to 1930s). We built infrastructure instead of manufacturing goods that raise living standards. My father had one pair of socks.

I would expect someone like you to get more detailed and actually show a point in history where this works, or at least describe the math.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1

I don't read that propaganda paper and if I had to guess Trump was actually trying to work a different problem. The leakage of intellectual property to China is a major national security concern. Biden is selling us out.

Get over Trump. He is not the president. He is not relevant. I did not even vote for Trump. You are trying to divert my thread and I resent that. This is a classic way today's Democrat activists try to cover over the problems they created.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,959
38,943
1
@Catch50

Please use a better way to respond. Your text is difficult to separate from my text. If you just press enter before typing you can respond right below what I wrote.

Your idea will not work. The base case problem is the imbalance between public sector spending (infrastructure) and the private sector that supports it (inflation and taxes).

If you say incrementally more infrastructure, then you have to cut something in the public sector that is hurting GDP. What is that, and does it match the level that you want to increase infrastructure?

Remember that there is already a massive imbalance caused by excessive spending. There are no examples in history. If you point to the FDR 1930s and the building of things like dams and other infrastructure, that came at a cost to living standards (1920s compared to 1930s). We built infrastructure instead of manufacturing goods that raise living standards. My father had one pair of socks.

I would expect someone like you to get more detailed and actually show a point in history where this works, or at least describe the math.
Catch thinks homeless people and illegal immigrants will build roads & bridges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,959
38,943
1
I just heard the correct descriptive term on Fox Business -- UNREALIZED GAINS.

Some people got an unemployment check during Covid. I think most of them have returned to work if their business wasn't destroyed. They are not the issue at this point.

Why is there no one left when this labor problem was not true before the pandemic? A disruption like this should have people unemployed. There should be gobs of people at your doorstep looking for work, laid off from business closures.

What is going on?

This is a repeat of what occurred just before the 2008 financial crisis. I remember people borrowing against the equity in their homes to live it up or invest in the stock market. In fact, according to Fox Business, the current stock valuations are largely being supported by retail investors, not institutions.

This is why there are holes in the workforce, as millions of people felt they did not need to work, or do not want to work. The workforce holes create incentives for people to try and move up or quit. The phenomenon filters throughout everything, down to finding an electrician to fix problems at your home.

The Federal Government and Federal Reserve created this deception of wealth -- unrealized gains, like the price of your home. We're going to have the same mess all over again due to the leveraging. This time it will be worse, because the government cannot afford a bail out.

We've got Congress in a fight with the Fed, one creating inflation and the other charged with trying to stop it. Winner decides how the destruction materializes, but the destruction is unavoidable.

Many people I know think they are going to get 7% real returns (price adjusted for inflation) on their stock portfolio going forward. That is driving their spending behavior. That is dreamland unless you are lucky enough to choose the right stocks.

What will be the driver of growth to support this expectation? I'm not seeing it. Someone help. What will improve productivity? Workers are already spent, some are doing the "quiet quit," and I do not see a new technology like the microchip to suddenly increase productivity.
I remember a lot of people took voluntary separation packages during the mortgage crisis. Why not if the government was paying unemployment benefits for 2 years?

But what happens after 2 years? Employers aren't too impressed with applicants who quit and allowed their skills to become dated. Workers get used to not working and are reluctant to return.

Bottom line is when you take a lot of people out of the workforce for an extended period it's not easy to get them back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
@Catch50

Please use a better way to respond. Your text is difficult to separate from my text. If you just press enter before typing you can respond right below what I wrote.

Your idea will not work. The base case problem is the imbalance between public sector spending (infrastructure) and the private sector that supports it (inflation and taxes).

If you say incrementally more infrastructure, then you have to cut something in the public sector that is hurting GDP. What is that, and does it match the level that you want to increase infrastructure?

Remember that there is already a massive imbalance caused by excessive spending. There are no examples in history. If you point to the FDR 1930s and the building of things like dams and other infrastructure, that came at a cost to living standards (1920s compared to 1930s). We built infrastructure instead of manufacturing goods that raise living standards. My father had one pair of socks.

I would expect someone like you to get more detailed and actually show a point in history where this works, or at least describe the math.
I'm well aware of how I can respond. I have been doing it that way because your posts are so long.

What imbalance. Reagan, for example, greatly increased defense spending and total spending yet inflation did not increase much.

You're wrong about FDR. His programs were the result of high unemployment, not the cause of. Furthermore, the electricity produced from the dams made life better, perhaps much better for Americans. If your father had one pair of socks, that was not governments fault. Because there was ALREADY a surplus of workers to produce socks or whatever BEFORE the infrastructure investment. Tell us what consumer goods other than socks are more important than roads, mass transit, schools, ports, water supplies, etc. ??? Fireworks? Soccer balls? Porn? Christmas decorations? Jewlery? Comic books? You must have a long list. ???
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
I remember a lot of people took voluntary separation packages during the mortgage crisis. Why not if the government was paying unemployment benefits for 2 years?

But what happens after 2 years? Employers aren't too impressed with applicants who quit and allowed their skills to become dated. Workers get used to not working and are reluctant to return.

Bottom line is when you take a lot of people out of the workforce for an extended period it's not easy to get them back.
You don't even have an ounce of compassion for people who done everything correct, worked for twenty years and then lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,959
38,943
1
You don't even have an ounce of compassion for people who done everything correct, worked for twenty years and then lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
If somebody voluntarily quits for a severance package + 2 yrs of severance that's on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: summitlion1

LMTLION

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2008
2,793
2,913
1
I'm well aware of how I can respond. I have been doing it that way because your posts are so long.

What imbalance. Reagan, for example, greatly increased defense spending and total spending yet inflation did not increase much.

You're wrong about FDR. His programs were the result of high unemployment, not the cause of. Furthermore, the electricity produced from the dams made life better, perhaps much better for Americans. If your father had one pair of socks, that was not governments fault. Because there was ALREADY a surplus of workers to produce socks or whatever BEFORE the infrastructure investment. Tell us what consumer goods other than socks are more important than roads, mass transit, schools, ports, water supplies, etc. ??? Fireworks? Soccer balls? Porn? Christmas decorations? Jewlery? Comic books? You must have a long list. ???
It is obvious the Earth economy is dead. Time to turn to the Martian economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
What construction worker can't find a job? I try to get a contractor to do repairs or remodeling and they all say it's going to be a long wait because they can't get help.
It is not always that way.

And, right now, the world should not be building more office buildings for worker who could be teleworking. Your fellow citizens are stupid if they think telework should stop for anyone who has been getting their work done at home. Telework is better for many reason. Most importantly to reduce the demand for gasoline.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
108,032
62,649
1
What construction worker can't find a job? I try to get a contractor to do repairs or remodeling and they all say it's going to be a long wait because they can't get help.

Remember, it's Catch you talking to...........
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,144
5,650
1
I just heard the correct descriptive term on Fox Business -- UNREALIZED GAINS.

Some people got an unemployment check during Covid. I think most of them have returned to work if their business wasn't destroyed. They are not the issue at this point.

Why is there no one left when this labor problem was not true before the pandemic? A disruption like this should have people unemployed. There should be gobs of people at your doorstep looking for work, laid off from business closures.

What is going on?

This is a repeat of what occurred just before the 2008 financial crisis. I remember people borrowing against the equity in their homes to live it up or invest in the stock market. In fact, according to Fox Business, the current stock valuations are largely being supported by retail investors, not institutions.

This is why there are holes in the workforce, as millions of people felt they did not need to work, or do not want to work. The workforce holes create incentives for people to try and move up or quit. The phenomenon filters throughout everything, down to finding an electrician to fix problems at your home.

The Federal Government and Federal Reserve created this deception of wealth -- unrealized gains, like the price of your home. We're going to have the same mess all over again due to the leveraging. This time it will be worse, because the government cannot afford a bail out.

We've got Congress in a fight with the Fed, one creating inflation and the other charged with trying to stop it. Winner decides how the destruction materializes, but the destruction is unavoidable.

Many people I know think they are going to get 7% real returns (price adjusted for inflation) on their stock portfolio going forward. That is driving their spending behavior. That is dreamland unless you are lucky enough to choose the right stocks.

What will be the driver of growth to support this expectation? I'm not seeing it. Someone help. What will improve productivity? Workers are already spent, some are doing the "quiet quit," and I do not see a new technology like the microchip to suddenly increase productivity.

Hard to believe that all those fast food workers are now just living off the gains from their stock portfolios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catch50

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
108,032
62,649
1
Hard to believe that all those fast food workers are now just living off the gains from their stock portfolios.

Fast food workers are entry level workers. Young people. They shouldn't have to live off their wages.... unless they are democrats like you.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,959
38,943
1
It is not always that way.

And, right now, the world should not be building more office buildings for worker who could be teleworking. Your fellow citizens are stupid if they think telework should stop for anyone who has been getting their work done at home. Telework is better for many reason. Most importantly to reduce the demand for gasoline.
If everyone should stay home there will be less need for infrastructure.
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,785
6,385
1
I just heard the correct descriptive term on Fox Business -- UNREALIZED GAINS.

Some people got an unemployment check during Covid. I think most of them have returned to work if their business wasn't destroyed. They are not the issue at this point.

Why is there no one left when this labor problem was not true before the pandemic? A disruption like this should have people unemployed. There should be gobs of people at your doorstep looking for work, laid off from business closures.

What is going on?

This is a repeat of what occurred just before the 2008 financial crisis. I remember people borrowing against the equity in their homes to live it up or invest in the stock market. In fact, according to Fox Business, the current stock valuations are largely being supported by retail investors, not institutions.

This is why there are holes in the workforce, as millions of people felt they did not need to work, or do not want to work. The workforce holes create incentives for people to try and move up or quit. The phenomenon filters throughout everything, down to finding an electrician to fix problems at your home.

The Federal Government and Federal Reserve created this deception of wealth -- unrealized gains, like the price of your home. We're going to have the same mess all over again due to the leveraging. This time it will be worse, because the government cannot afford a bail out.

We've got Congress in a fight with the Fed, one creating inflation and the other charged with trying to stop it. Winner decides how the destruction materializes, but the destruction is unavoidable.

Many people I know think they are going to get 7% real returns (price adjusted for inflation) on their stock portfolio going forward. That is driving their spending behavior. That is dreamland unless you are lucky enough to choose the right stocks.

What will be the driver of growth to support this expectation? I'm not seeing it. Someone help. What will improve productivity? Workers are already spent, some are doing the "quiet quit," and I do not see a new technology like the microchip to suddenly increase productivity.

Fox Business is a joke - don’t bother watching and please find a moderately reputable source.

We had a tight labor market before the pandemic and there were a huge number of boomers that dropped out of the labor force during the pandemic. They’re not coming back. Trump also cut down on legal immigration, which created shortages in white collar industries.

Immigration is the only answer. Boomers are going to keep retiring and dying.

 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
I'm well aware of how I can respond. I have been doing it that way because your posts are so long.

What imbalance. Reagan, for example, greatly increased defense spending and total spending yet inflation did not increase much.

You're wrong about FDR. His programs were the result of high unemployment, not the cause of. Furthermore, the electricity produced from the dams made life better, perhaps much better for Americans. If your father had one pair of socks, that was not governments fault. Because there was ALREADY a surplus of workers to produce socks or whatever BEFORE the infrastructure investment. Tell us what consumer goods other than socks are more important than roads, mass transit, schools, ports, water supplies, etc. ??? Fireworks? Soccer balls? Porn? Christmas decorations? Jewlery? Comic books? You must have a long list. ???

I knew I was taking a risk in bringing up the 1930s and that what I was trying to convey would sail past you.

Let me make this simple:

We do need roads (public sector spending), but the private sector produces what the consumer ultimately buys (the car). Infrastructure does not increase supply as much in relative terms.

There is another big factor that lessens the capital return of public sector infrastructure spending: A lot of that marginal tax dollar must now go into paying interest on debt.

Don't get me wrong. Short of things that maintain our free market economy -- regulations that protect commerce, national defense, border security, etc., infrastructure is one of the best ways we could otherwise spend a tax dollar.

The problem is this: We have inflation. That is base case. More marginal spending, of any kind, makes inflation worse in the near term.

So again, what are you willing to cut to spend more, RIGHT NOW? Who should get less or be laid off?
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,717
7,846
1
I just heard the correct descriptive term on Fox Business -- UNREALIZED GAINS.

Some people got an unemployment check during Covid. I think most of them have returned to work if their business wasn't destroyed. They are not the issue at this point.

Why is there no one left when this labor problem was not true before the pandemic? A disruption like this should have people unemployed. There should be gobs of people at your doorstep looking for work, laid off from business closures.

What is going on?

This is a repeat of what occurred just before the 2008 financial crisis. I remember people borrowing against the equity in their homes to live it up or invest in the stock market. In fact, according to Fox Business, the current stock valuations are largely being supported by retail investors, not institutions.

This is why there are holes in the workforce, as millions of people felt they did not need to work, or do not want to work. The workforce holes create incentives for people to try and move up or quit. The phenomenon filters throughout everything, down to finding an electrician to fix problems at your home.

The Federal Government and Federal Reserve created this deception of wealth -- unrealized gains, like the price of your home. We're going to have the same mess all over again due to the leveraging. This time it will be worse, because the government cannot afford a bail out.

We've got Congress in a fight with the Fed, one creating inflation and the other charged with trying to stop it. Winner decides how the destruction materializes, but the destruction is unavoidable.

Many people I know think they are going to get 7% real returns (price adjusted for inflation) on their stock portfolio going forward. That is driving their spending behavior. That is dreamland unless you are lucky enough to choose the right stocks.

What will be the driver of growth to support this expectation? I'm not seeing it. Someone help. What will improve productivity? Workers are already spent, some are doing the "quiet quit," and I do not see a new technology like the microchip to suddenly increase productivity.
We hire damn near everyone that walks through the door. Most don't last a month.
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,866
12,130
1
SE PA
I just heard the correct descriptive term on Fox Business -- UNREALIZED GAINS.

Some people got an unemployment check during Covid. I think most of them have returned to work if their business wasn't destroyed. They are not the issue at this point.

Why is there no one left when this labor problem was not true before the pandemic? A disruption like this should have people unemployed. There should be gobs of people at your doorstep looking for work, laid off from business closures.

What is going on?

This is a repeat of what occurred just before the 2008 financial crisis. I remember people borrowing against the equity in their homes to live it up or invest in the stock market. In fact, according to Fox Business, the current stock valuations are largely being supported by retail investors, not institutions.

This is why there are holes in the workforce, as millions of people felt they did not need to work, or do not want to work. The workforce holes create incentives for people to try and move up or quit. The phenomenon filters throughout everything, down to finding an electrician to fix problems at your home.

The Federal Government and Federal Reserve created this deception of wealth -- unrealized gains, like the price of your home. We're going to have the same mess all over again due to the leveraging. This time it will be worse, because the government cannot afford a bail out.

We've got Congress in a fight with the Fed, one creating inflation and the other charged with trying to stop it. Winner decides how the destruction materializes, but the destruction is unavoidable.

Many people I know think they are going to get 7% real returns (price adjusted for inflation) on their stock portfolio going forward. That is driving their spending behavior. That is dreamland unless you are lucky enough to choose the right stocks.

What will be the driver of growth to support this expectation? I'm not seeing it. Someone help. What will improve productivity? Workers are already spent, some are doing the "quiet quit," and I do not see a new technology like the microchip to suddenly increase productivity.
I saw a commercial yesterday that was advertising some product, don’t remember. But at the end of the commercial was a young woman in maybe late 20’s posting on social media that simply said “quit my job…”. And did so with a big smile as she leans back in her chair with her hands clasped on top of her head.

This is what is cool today. To quit your job. Is it no wonder as a society we’ve lost our work ethic? We prefer someone else fund our triggered life.
 

LMTLION

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2008
2,793
2,913
1
Fox Business is a joke - don’t bother watching and please find a moderately reputable source.

We had a tight labor market before the pandemic and there were a huge number of boomers that dropped out of the labor force during the pandemic. They’re not coming back. Trump also cut down on legal immigration, which created shortages in white collar industries.

Immigration is the only answer. Boomers are going to keep retiring and dying.

In addition add in several million millennials who have left the labor force and a declining birth rate for decades and this is all a recipe for disaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,741
7,429
1
I will reply for the leftists, who will probably ignore this thread.

You will say immigrants.

I will respond by saying that the vast majority are not skilled enough to raise growth above what they will consume in housing, education, and healthcare resources in the near term.

Ask the people crossing the Rio Grande about their STEM degrees. How about their technical certifications? You may have to ask the question in Spanish.

No doubt most of those people in time will be of value to the economy, but that is years away.

In the meantime, as a result of government policy, we have a massive productivity gap and destruction of the mechanisms for Supply.
last report I saw, might have been july numbers,.....inflation +10%, productivity -4%.
 

Wandering Spectator

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2017
620
829
1
Chandler, AZ
www.wanderingspectator.com
Many on the tail end of the boomers used Covid to bridge to retirement. That’s one reason why you see enrollment in ACA off the charts. The vacuum left behind will be hard to fill.
Businesses should consider creative ways to reengage this demographic. Flexible work hours. Passion project apprenticeships. Mentor positions. Consultants.
They have a ton of experience to offer but don’t want to go back to the grind of 60-70 hour work weeks.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,457
7,979
1
I just heard the correct descriptive term on Fox Business -- UNREALIZED GAINS.

Some people got an unemployment check during Covid. I think most of them have returned to work if their business wasn't destroyed. They are not the issue at this point.

Why is there no one left when this labor problem was not true before the pandemic? A disruption like this should have people unemployed. There should be gobs of people at your doorstep looking for work, laid off from business closures.

What is going on?

This is a repeat of what occurred just before the 2008 financial crisis. I remember people borrowing against the equity in their homes to live it up or invest in the stock market. In fact, according to Fox Business, the current stock valuations are largely being supported by retail investors, not institutions.

This is why there are holes in the workforce, as millions of people felt they did not need to work, or do not want to work. The workforce holes create incentives for people to try and move up or quit. The phenomenon filters throughout everything, down to finding an electrician to fix problems at your home.

The Federal Government and Federal Reserve created this deception of wealth -- unrealized gains, like the price of your home. We're going to have the same mess all over again due to the leveraging. This time it will be worse, because the government cannot afford a bail out.

We've got Congress in a fight with the Fed, one creating inflation and the other charged with trying to stop it. Winner decides how the destruction materializes, but the destruction is unavoidable.

Many people I know think they are going to get 7% real returns (price adjusted for inflation) on their stock portfolio going forward. That is driving their spending behavior. That is dreamland unless you are lucky enough to choose the right stocks.

What will be the driver of growth to support this expectation? I'm not seeing it. Someone help. What will improve productivity? Workers are already spent, some are doing the "quiet quit," and I do not see a new technology like the microchip to suddenly increase productivity.

This ^^^ is a more precise/correct description of my hypothesis as well.

My hypothesis, admittedly based on anecdotes (but supported logically), is that during the pandemic, many dual income households decided to switch to single income (i.e. at least one left the workforce).

During the pandemic, it just made so much sense for a bunch of different reasons.

My wife left the workforce right before the pandemic - so statistically, she probably appears to contribute to this phenomenon - and a few of our friends went from dual to single income families during the pandemic as well.

The obvious main driver of this was the Democrat's (+ teacher's union) decision to shut down schools and then in-person schooling. This created a pressure to to have at least one parent home and parenting during the normal business day. And for a good number of these instances, even after schools started to open back up, for various reasons (including "unrealized gains"), they decided, "Hey, I don't really *need* to go back to the workforce."

And here we are.

Oh, and plus "long covid." LOLOLOLOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe and bdgan

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,457
7,979
1
Hard to believe that all those fast food workers are now just living off the gains from their stock portfolios.

I think you know this, but for the sake of everyone reading, I'll answer/explain your question/comment.

What happens when a bunch of people who can live off the gains from their stock portfolios quit and leave the workforce is, their positions are filled by the people under them. Then those people's positions are filled by the people under them. Basically, everyone is shifted up.

So, a bunch of people in the middle quitting doesn't really cause much of a labor shortage of people in the middle. The labor shortage is felt the most at the bottom.

A good friend of mine (who is a good 10+ years older than me) from my first job out of college once said to me, "you can always 'feel' how well the economy is doing based on your experience at fast food joints." When there is plenty of labor (recession), you have college grads taking your order and running the shifts. When the economy is doing well (labor tight), fast food has to hire anyone they can find with a pulse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
36,305
2,317
1
I knew I was taking a risk in bringing up the 1930s and that what I was trying to convey would sail past you.

Let me make this simple:

We do need roads (public sector spending), but the private sector produces what the consumer ultimately buys (the car). Infrastructure does not increase supply as much in relative terms.

There is another big factor that lessens the capital return of public sector infrastructure spending: A lot of that marginal tax dollar must now go into paying interest on debt.

Don't get me wrong. Short of things that maintain our free market economy -- regulations that protect commerce, national defense, border security, etc., infrastructure is one of the best ways we could otherwise spend a tax dollar.

The problem is this: We have inflation. That is base case. More marginal spending, of any kind, makes inflation worse in the near term.

So again, what are you willing to cut to spend more, RIGHT NOW? Who should get less or be laid off?
Watch your mouth clown. Nothing sailed past me.

Public goods such as infrastructure are things the public needs but cannot or are unwilling to pay for by themselves. We elect office holders to make the best decisions on what we need.

You are far too obsessed with inflation and interest rates because these two measures have barely been a problem for the last forty years. Yet, I have always feared higher oil prices and inflation and feel both Dems and Republicans will not have most of the correct policies in place. The correct policies must balance inflation, interest rates and unemployment.

There is not much we can cut from the budget in my opinion. You know I want space exploration and fusion energy research eliminated but those would only save around $15 billion/year. And I would plow that money back into law/drug enforcement.

I asked you yesterday. Why was economy good when the debt was $15 trillion? Much of that debt means Americans have more money in the bank. That means they have money to buy bonds, etc. to service the debt. I wish we didn't have any debt but we should have all learned the debt is not destroying the economy. There are essentially no spending we could cut without raising unemployment.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
108,032
62,649
1
If we could just get lazy mother f'ing democrats to get off their fat asses......
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,313
9,912
1
I'm well aware of how I can respond. I have been doing it that way because your posts are so long.

What imbalance. Reagan, for example, greatly increased defense spending and total spending yet inflation did not increase much.

You're wrong about FDR. His programs were the result of high unemployment, not the cause of. Furthermore, the electricity produced from the dams made life better, perhaps much better for Americans. If your father had one pair of socks, that was not governments fault. Because there was ALREADY a surplus of workers to produce socks or whatever BEFORE the infrastructure investment. Tell us what consumer goods other than socks are more important than roads, mass transit, schools, ports, water supplies, etc. ??? Fireworks? Soccer balls? Porn? Christmas decorations? Jewlery? Comic books? You must have a long list. ???

No, it did sail past you. This was your response above (above).

I was trying to show you that the production of a car (1920s private production) created more SUPPLY than the production of a dam (1930s public spending) in the short run --- because the problem is a near term imbalance right now. Inflation is being cause by too much money (demand) chasing too few goods (supply).

The production of MORE EXPENSIVE ENERGY using public money does not address a supply problem. It exacerbates it.

Then you responded with the fact that FDR did not cause unemployment, as if that had anything to do with what I posted, yet you through this out in your response, showing that you missed my point.

We have the opposite issue. Not enough people working producing food, energy, and goods relative to the money supply, causing inflation. (Unemployment in 1930 was caused by a banking run, a liquidity crisis that concentrated wealth. The things that led up to that are things that should be addressed in our commerce regulatory system, one of the roles for the Federal Government. 2008 was also created by failures in the regulation of our banking system).

Then you responded with electricity from dams producing better life for Americans. Of course it did, but the payout was long term, (and today) we cannot build more dams.

In the near term, where we have a problem (money chasing the supply of goods), you will not propose anything to deal with the money supply / goods supply problem. Instead you think Americans are marginally producing trinkets in a service economy. That's not even true because the Chinese do that.

Americans produce services. We have a "service economy" as a result of bad previous policies. We can fix those policies but can't do it with more government spending at a time of high inflation. That takes corporate tax cut policies that would grow the building a factories, something that Trump was doing. It will probably take wage concessions, not union-driven wage increases.

You think the Fed will fix this by raising interest rates? Inflation hurts the poor and middle class, especially those on fixed incomes in the private sector. Who gets hurt by raising interest rates?

The fix has to come from the fiscal side -- wasteful spending programs. But you won't touch that, because you are a big government Dem, even though that is the root cause problem squeezing Americans with higher prices for goods that they actually need to buy. You don't like the label that this describes, well OK, I'll refrain from that if you can get to the point of understanding the concepts, the flaws in your position.

Guess what will happen with inflation when the dollar starts to weaken relative to other currencies and we are not producing things in the private sector within this country? It's actually true that our trading partners followed our bad policies, and even to a greater extent. They are further along in growing government relative to the private sector. Again, I will refrain from the descriptive label.

You are an economist. You should be able to figure this out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
108,032
62,649
1
No, it did sail past you. This was your response above (above).

I was trying to show you that the production of a car (1920s private production) created more SUPPLY than the production of a dam (1930s public spending) in the short run --- because the problem is a near term imbalance right now. Inflation is being cause by too much money (demand) chasing too few goods (supply).

The production of MORE EXPENSIVE ENERGY using public money does not address a supply problem. It exacerbates it.

Then you responded with the fact that FDR did not cause unemployment, as if that had anything to do with what I posted, yet you through this out in your response, showing that you missed my point.

We have the opposite issue. Not enough people working producing food, energy, and goods relative to the money supply, causing inflation. (Unemployment in 1930 was caused by a banking run, a liquidity crisis that concentrated wealth. The things that led up to that are things that should be addressed in our commerce regulatory system, one of the roles for the Federal Government. 2008 was also created by failures in the regulation of our banking system).

Then you responded with electricity from dams producing better life for Americans. Of course it did, but the payout was long term, (and today) we cannot build more dams.

In the near term, where we have a problem (money chasing the supply of goods), you will not propose anything to deal with the money supply / goods supply problem. Instead you think Americans are marginally producing trinkets in a service economy. That's not even true because the Chinese do that.

Americans produce services. We have a "service economy" as a result of bad previous policies. We can fix those policies but can't do it with more government spending at a time of high inflation. That takes corporate tax cut policies that would grow the building a factories, something that Trump was doing. It will probably take wage concessions, not union-driven wage increases.

You think the Fed will fix this by raising interest rates? Inflation hurts the poor and middle class, especially those on fixed incomes in the private sector. Who gets hurt by raising interest rates?

The fix has to come from the fiscal side -- wasteful spending programs. But you won't touch that, because you are a big government Dem, even though that is the root cause problem squeezing Americans with higher prices for goods that they actually need to buy. You don't like the label that this describes, well OK, I'll refrain from that if you can get to the point of understanding the concepts, the flaws in your position.

Guess what will happen with inflation when the dollar starts to weaken relative to other currencies and we are not producing things in the private sector within this country? It's actually true that our trading partners followed our bad policies, and even to a greater extent. They are further along in growing government relative to the private sector. Again, I will refrain from the descriptive label.

You are an economist. You should be able to figure this out.

I don't know if he's an economist, but he most certainly is a big government democrat.