Economic News

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 157K
  • Politics 
Continued

“… Work culture is “probably going to shift a little bit toward the harder end” for employees, said Lori Yue, associate professor of business at Columbia Business School.

Some companies may see the government’s actions as an opportunity to make drastic changes, work experts say.

“For companies that have been wanting to return to the office and push that agenda, this could be another piece of ammunition,” Bell said.

Tech start-ups, known traditionally to be more flexible than large corporations in their work policies, also are pushing more in-person work and longer hours, some within the community said. For founders, the new culture is something they think will give them a competitive edge.

… While unions continue to fight for worker rights, union participation hit a new low of about 10 percent of U.S. workers in 2024, down from 20 percent in 1983.

Trump also fired leaders of the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both federal agencies that help protect workers. …”

——
Out - work-life balance, work to live

In - live to work
 

Bosses are exerting their power. What Trump’s crackdown could mean for your job.​

President Donald Trump’s crackdown on federal employees bolsters a trend revoking some workplace flexibility.


“… More companies are expected to join the movement this year as they raise performance expectations and mandate workers return to the office full time, work experts say.

“All companies I talk to are really focused on driving productivity [and] lowering cost,” said Bradford Bell, a professor at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. “It pushes things in favor of employers.”

The harder stance started in corporate America before Trump’s executive order, but the trend is expected to accelerate. Goldman Sachs, Amazon, AT&T and JPMorgan Chase have implemented strict five-day in-office mandates, noting that being in the office will help with collaboration and innovation.

In January, AT&T employees returned to the office full time to find a shortage of desks and parking spaces — a problem the company said it’s working to address.

Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, is“raising the bar” on performance and cutting 5 percent of its workforce as it gears up for an “intense year,” CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a recent company memo.

Last month, Microsoft said it will cut staff based on job performance, even as it vowed to pour more money into artificial intelligence.

Dell is mandating that workers who live within an hour of the office return full time beginning March 3. And remote employees won’t be eligible for promotions. …”


My organization announced last week that they're working on a plan for most employees to return to the office three days/week. Improving teamwork and collaboration and that whole bullshit narrative. Decent chance that I'll have to quit considering my family situation.
 
My organization announced last week that they're working on a plan for most employees to return to the office three days/week. Improving teamwork and collaboration and that whole bullshit narrative. Decent chance that I'll have to quit considering my family situation.
Just curious, but how often are you required to go into work now?
 
It's only to be expected.


Since World War II, Democrats have seen job creation average 1.7 % per year when in office, versus 1.0 % under the GOP. US GDP has averaged a rate of growth of 4.23 percent per annum during Democratic administrations, versus 2.36 per cent under Republicans, a remarkable difference of 1.87 percentage points. This is postwar data, covering 19 presidential terms—from Truman through Biden. If one goes back further, to the Great Depression, to include Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, the difference in growth rates is even larger.

The results are similar regardless whether one assigns responsibility for the first quarter of a president’s term to him or to his predecessor. Relatedly, the average Democratic presidential term has been in recession for 1 of its 16 quarters, whereas the average for the Republican terms has been 5 quarters, a startlingly big difference.

  1. Reasons to be skeptical
Even those of us who believe that Democrats may have pursued better policies than Republicans, overall, have a hard time explaining the big observed gap in performance. After all, many other powerful and unpredictable factors impact the economy, often dwarfing the effect of any policy levers that the president can control.

Furthermore, many policies, good or bad, have their main effects only over a time span longer than a presidential cycle. For example, Jimmy Carter deserves credit for appointing Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Fed in 1979 with a mandate to defeat inflation at all costs. The subsequent disinflation was ultimately successful, helping to set the stage for the Great Moderation of the next 20 years. But its immediate impact in 1980 was a recession. Most economists consider the Volcker monetary contraction to have been worth the price. But the downturn contributed to Carter’s failure to win re-election in November of that year. Ironically, that is the one and only recession in the last 70 years that took place with a Democrat in the White House.

  1. Is it just chance?
Looking at the last three recessions.

1. Dot-com - I don’t think you can blame that on either side. Just a natural reaction to a brand new industry.

2. Great Recession - IMO this is absolutely the fault of conservative ideology, specifically financial deregulation. How much Bush is to blame is debatable. Clinton shares a good bit of blame for signing Graham Leach Bliley. While that act had great support from both parties, all three sponsors were republicans, almost all no votes were democrats, and deregulation is a conservative principle.

3. COVID - Certainly can’t blame either party for the appearance of the pandemic and while Trump mismanaged it, I am not sure that mismanagement had a lot of impact financially. You can argue the lockdowns created financial distress but also prevented far more financial distress. In either case, those were led by state and local governments.
 
Clinton shares a good bit of blame for signing Graham Leach Bliley.
I promise you this is not true. I've taught the financial crisis extensively. Glass Steagall/Gramm Leach had nothing to do with it. Also, Glass Steagall was on life support and had become a deadweight regulation -- its benefits were almost nil because anyone who wanted to get around it easily could, but it was costly for those who didn't have such designs.

The person most responsible was Greenspan. The fed is supposed to supervise banks. Greenspan had no idea what they were doing. He thought they were unleveraged because he just looked at their debt: equity, ignoring the possibility of hidden liabilities. The second most responsible party was the Bush administration in general: not Bush himself, per se, but his SEC, his Office of the Comptroller, his Treasury Secretaries.
 
“…The top 10% of earners—households making about $250,000 a year or more—are splurging on everything from vacations to designer handbags, buoyed by big gains in stocks, real estate and other assets.

Those consumers now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%.

All this means that economic growth is unusually reliant on rich Americans continuing to shell out. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, estimated that spending by the top 10% alone accounted for almost one-third of gross domestic product.

… Taken together, well-off people have increased their spending far beyond inflation, while everyone else hasn’t. The bottom 80% of earners spent 25% more than they did four years earlier, barely outpacing price increases of 21% over that period. The top 10% spent 58% more. …”
 
“…The top 10% of earners—households making about $250,000 a year or more—are splurging on everything from vacations to designer handbags, buoyed by big gains in stocks, real estate and other assets.

Those consumers now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%.

All this means that economic growth is unusually reliant on rich Americans continuing to shell out. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, estimated that spending by the top 10% alone accounted for almost one-third of gross domestic product.

… Taken together, well-off people have increased their spending far beyond inflation, while everyone else hasn’t. The bottom 80% of earners spent 25% more than they did four years earlier, barely outpacing price increases of 21% over that period. The top 10% spent 58% more. …”
I predict those spending levels will not continue.
 

Starbucks to Lay Off More Than 1,000 Workers​

New CEO Brian Niccol says corporate cuts are needed to streamline the business​


“… As of September, Starbucks had 16,000 corporate employees, including those supporting store operations, store development and roasting. The company said the layoffs wouldn’t affect roasting, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution workers.

Cafe workers also wouldn’t be affected by the cuts, Starbucks said. …”
 

OPINION:​

Biden’s Mortgage ‘Relief’ Fuels Higher Housing Prices​

It has created another subprime housing bubble and put taxpayers at risk. Trump should end it.​


GIFT LINK 🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bidens-...74?st=46wuzN&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

——
A case of good intentions helping folks buy and stay in their homes creating other issues (growing the principal on the mortgage of defaulting homeowners, albeit without subjecting the additional debt to interest) — the Trump Administration is under pressure to end the program, but doing so would exacerbate house affordability issues for a lot of Americans.
 

OPINION:​

Biden’s Mortgage ‘Relief’ Fuels Higher Housing Prices​

It has created another subprime housing bubble and put taxpayers at risk. Trump should end it.​


GIFT LINK 🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bidens-...74?st=46wuzN&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

——
A case of good intentions helping folks buy and stay in their homes creating other issues (growing the principal on the mortgage of defaulting homeowners, albeit without subjecting the additional debt to interest) — the Trump Administration is under pressure to end the program, but doing so would exacerbate house affordability issues for a lot of Americans.
Yikes
 

Consumer confidence registers biggest monthly decline since August 2021 as inflation fears take hold​



“… Economic jitters are showing up across various sentiment surveys as the Trump administration aims to reconfigure America’s trade relationship with the world and inflation shows signs of getting stuck.

The latest evidence comes from The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index for February, released Tuesday morning. The index fell to 98.3, falling for the third-straight month and marking the largest monthly decline since August 2021, as expectations for inflation in the year ahead climbed. That coincides with the trends reflected in the University of Michigan’s consumer survey for February.

Homebuilders are also growing worried, according to the National Association of Home Builders; even US small businesses, which remain somewhat optimistic about deregulation and tax cuts, are in doubt about the economy’s future. The National Federation of Independent Business’ Uncertainty Index rose in January to its third-highest reading on record. …”
 
“…The top 10% of earners—households making about $250,000 a year or more—are splurging on everything from vacations to designer handbags, buoyed by big gains in stocks, real estate and other assets.

Those consumers now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%.

All this means that economic growth is unusually reliant on rich Americans continuing to shell out. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, estimated that spending by the top 10% alone accounted for almost one-third of gross domestic product.

… Taken together, well-off people have increased their spending far beyond inflation, while everyone else hasn’t. The bottom 80% of earners spent 25% more than they did four years earlier, barely outpacing price increases of 21% over that period. The top 10% spent 58% more. …”
seems sustainable
 
Back
Top