| ▲ | nicoburns 13 hours ago |
| > Global economy doesn't look that terrible. It doesn't? I was born in the 90s (so admittedly 2008 was before I started working), but the economy is looking the worst it's been in my lifetime to me. |
|
| ▲ | ryandrake 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The economy is currently great if your income is from your investments rather than from your labor. The relative comfort and power of the capital class vs. labor class has never been farther apart in my lifetime. |
|
| ▲ | rich_sasha 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| US real GDP is racing ahead: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1 . Inflation is fine, even if you don't fully believe the official numbers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA . Unemployment is increasing but below long term mean: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE . Interest rates are at a reasonably business-friendly level. This is all the USofA. Elsewhere, China is allegedly also printing GDP growth like crazy. Europe is maybe a little stagnant but also not, on the whole, awful. At the face of it, it's at least a C+ if not better. So if you'd claim it's terrible, there's some explaining to do. |
| |
| ▲ | didibus 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > So if you'd claim it's terrible, there's some explaining to do Here's the explaining: - Unemployment has increased.
- Long-Term unemployment has increased.
- Number of gig workers is at an all time high.
- Layoffs have continued.
- Personal household dept is at an all time high.
- Polls show most people have financial anxiety and feel squeezed.
- Inflation is not under control.
- Buy now pay later usage is up as much as consumer spending is.
- Income and wealth inequality are near records high.
- GDP and consumer spending were also seen peaking before the last 5 recessions as well...
We're all talking predictions, I don't think either of us should pretend to know the future, but there are counterpoints and so the data does not all look rosy. | | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Yep. It's the "K" shaped economy making your numbers and the GPs real at the same time. (Well, at least the GPs 1st number. The 2nd ends in 2024, and the 3rd has questionable precision after September.) | |
| ▲ | rich_sasha 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'd say these are symptoms (and I'm not denying them) rather than causes. My point is that it's hard to find hard data that would say the economy is doing poorly. Even unemployment, which is your top line, seems... fine? I just don't understand where the squeeze is coming from. Either companies figured out how to do more with less people, or they started the cycle with too many people, or they don't know what they are doing. Undoubtedly they are laying people off, especially in tech. But I he symptoms you list don't explain it to me. | | |
| ▲ | davidgay 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Even unemployment, which is your top line, seems... fine? The unemployment one is interesting because if you look at that graph, the universal pre-2022 pattern is basically a spike of unemployment during recessions followed by a gradual drop. The recent pattern is a gradual increase. I'm not a big fan of "numerical only / shape of graphs" analyses, but this does seem strange. Of course, the 2020 Covid spike is also unusual, so... | |
| ▲ | didibus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think they're a symptom or a cause. Just indicators the economy may not be doing well. > Even unemployment, which is your top line, seems... fine My lines were in no particular order. The issue with unemployment data is it counts gig workers as "employed." What doesn't add up is that there are fewer job openings, mass layoffs, and rising long-term unemployment (people who can't find work past 6 months). > I just don't understand where the squeeze is coming from. Nobody really knows. It's hard to model the economy and identify cause and effect. But likely candidates are low competition, businesses with coercive leverage on pricing/pay since buyers and workers have no alternatives. Essentials like housing, health, and food have skyrocketed, and we haven't scaled them as demand grew. Companies have abandoned stakeholders, they only care about shareholders. They're squeezing record profits, sustained because buyers are supplementing with gig work, have all adults working, are taking on more debt (and there are more ways to get credit than before), or are abandoning their savings (YOLO). > Undoubtedly they are laying people off, especially in tech. But the symptoms you list don't explain it to me. My list wasn't about layoffs, just signals the economy may be doing poorly. One reason for layoffs is companies believe the economy is at risk. They're avoiding hyper-growth and cutting fat. In tech specifically, I think a lot of it is undoing the mess of Covid, such as ventures that didn't profit, hiring before knowing what to use people for, workers distributed across too many places. Even if one part is growing, redistributing is hard. Easier to lay off and rehire where needed. There's probably some offshoring too. But in general, cost-cutting happens when companies feel they need to be conservative. | |
| ▲ | nicoburns 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cause wise, we probably shouldn't ignore the delayed hangover from covid. But also the longer term trends towards an economy that is extractive rather than productive, and increasingly unequal, neither of which are sustainable. | |
| ▲ | chairmansteve 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They are laying people off so they can spend the money on AI data centers. |
|
| |
| ▲ | no_wizard 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm going to set aside GDP for a moment, which is hardly the full story but instead I want to zoom in on inflation. The Federal Reserve of St. Louis is using the CPI numbers, as most government agencies do. I would contend those numbers in and of themselves lie. The ALICE index, which is based on more comprehensive data[0][1] and closer to what CPI used to represent before the major adjustments in the 1990s, tells a different story[2] Inflation against the ALICE index is much higher than the 3% reported in by the Federal Reserve, running at a stark 5.9% YoY change. This honestly lines up much closer to the reality I see in my day to day life than the CPI numbers reported by the Federal Reserve do. [0]: https://www.unitedforalice.org/methodology [1]: I recommend downloading the PDF here: https://www.unitedforalice.org/Attachments/Methodology/ALICE... [1]: https://www.unitedforalice.org/essentials-index | |
| ▲ | snowwrestler 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | U.S. tariffs created inflationary pressure that has so far been mostly absorbed by producers and retailers, but they can’t do that forever. In fact the Amazon CEO said a week ago that they will have to raise prices this year due to tariffs. | |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It always takes 6 to 12 months for the graphs to match the reality on the ground. Because that's how long it takes most people to run out of money and credit. |
|
|
| ▲ | kindatrue 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There were points in 2008 where there were bank runs. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jul-12-fi-indym... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/oct/11/banking-cri... Italy had to buy 3% of Parmigiano Reggiano production. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/europe/rome-stage... |
|
| ▲ | loeg 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 2008 was a lot worse. |
| |
| ▲ | int_19h 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Once the dust settled, sure. We're still on our way to hit the bottom for this round, and by all accounts it's likely to be much bigger when we finally do. | | | |
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 2008 didn't really impact tech sector much though. Companies continued to hire through it, and in fact those that didn't often had a headcount deficit afterwards. And also the worst of 2008 was confined to the US. What we have now is more like 2001. Also most of these big companies were completely dysfunctional on their hiring through 21/22, just going completely apeshit. Now they're making everyone suffer for it. | | |
| ▲ | loeg 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Much less severe than 2001, where tech lost 250,000 jobs peak to trough (~18.5% from 2001 to 2003). Current downturn from peak (2022) is about 80,000 jobs (~3.2%). The timeframe for this period is longer and the magnitude is much lower. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES6054150001 | | |
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Interesting. I guess I'm surprised, because having lived through both, this somehow feels worse. | | |
| ▲ | acdha 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | In 2001, there were a ton of non-dotcom jobs where big companies, non-profits, governments, etc. wanted to move online for the real benefits it offered but had struggled to lure people away from bubble money. The people I knew who were laid off got jobs pretty quickly once they were looking outside of SF startups—not always the same money, but sometimes better and never much worse, and still building relevant career experience. The market is mature now, and most sectors of the economy are getting hammered at the same time: tariffs have most industries cautious about new commitments if they aren’t already cutting, academia is reeling from grants being rescinded, large chunks of federal spending are gone or frozen, and state/local governments are getting less federal funding at the same time everything else is affecting tax revenue and increasing demand for social services. With so much uncertainty affecting the entire economy, you hear from people who have hundreds of interviews because even established companies in stable industries are unsure what tomorrow will look like after the next whim of an unstable octogenarian. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bdamm 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 2008/09 was the worst this xennial ever saw so I think you're as qualified as most of us. |
| |
| ▲ | hajile 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Everyone was trying to pretend the bottom of the market back in 2007 right up until they couldn't keep up the farce and everything collapsed. I believe that's what we have today. The economic indicators are all worse than they were in 2008. Our economy is Wile E Coyote running at full speed in midair until he realizes the truth then falls. | | |
| ▲ | JohnnyMarcone 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The fed was taking action by increasing rates up until the housing market collapsed, so at least some were taking the issues seriously. I don't have the full context of what the thinking was back then since I was in highschool. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | paxys 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| By what metrics? |
|
| ▲ | jeffbee 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yeah, that's one perspective :-) Objectively, the global labor market is the hottest it has been in modern history. |
| |
| ▲ | loeg 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well. Maybe not quite as hot as 2022. But by any standard from a year before 2020, yeah. | |
| ▲ | eli_gottlieb 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which is why governments and firms in the capitalist core are trying to cool it down? | | |
|
