Economic News

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 132K
  • Politics 
A year ago, homes in my neighborhood were never on the market for more than a week and several were sold for more than the asking price after a bidding war.

My wife, children, and grandchildren "pressured" me to agree to buying a one level house in Hillsborough where they live which is a 20 minute from where we live today Their concern was that my spinal stenosis and living in a 3 story house was "too risky" to be going up and down the stairs.

Because I am a beta male and have lived by the " happy wife, happy life " credo we bought the house in Hillsborough. Knowing this was not a good time to be selling in this uncertain chaotic economy, I still thought our house would sell within a week or two.

It has not sold so I am now the not proud owner of two houses. I told the missus and the kids we have no problem waiting a year or two, but it may mean spending the kid's inheritance.

My older daughter said she didn't care about her inheritance
My younger daughter said " You aren't spending mine ! " :giggle: She has all of my bad traits and I laughed saying that I would have been disappointed if she had said otherwise.

Sorry for the long story; the short story is that, yes, the market sucks for home sales.
 
Last edited:

White House says jobs surging among U.S.-born. Here’s what economists say.​

A quirk in survey calculations is muddying the data on just how immigration policies are upending the labor market.


“… “Right now we’re seeing American workers are being put first — native-born workers account for all of the job growth, and that’s key,” Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer said this month on Fox Business. “The American worker is going to win in this occasion because the president has their back.”

… But so far, economists on both sides of the aislesay, they have seen no evidence that American-born workers are picking up jobs vacated by immigrants. They also say figures for native- and foreign-born workers should not be used to gauge the current state of the labor force.

“Looking at the number of native-born workers is not the correct way to read the jobs report,” said Jed Kolko, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former Commerce Department economist….”

IMG_8907.jpeg
 

White House says jobs surging among U.S.-born. Here’s what economists say.​

A quirk in survey calculations is muddying the data on just how immigration policies are upending the labor market.


“… “Right now we’re seeing American workers are being put first — native-born workers account for all of the job growth, and that’s key,” Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer said this month on Fox Business. “The American worker is going to win in this occasion because the president has their back.”

… But so far, economists on both sides of the aislesay, they have seen no evidence that American-born workers are picking up jobs vacated by immigrants. They also say figures for native- and foreign-born workers should not be used to gauge the current state of the labor force.

“Looking at the number of native-born workers is not the correct way to read the jobs report,” said Jed Kolko, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former Commerce Department economist….”

IMG_8907.jpeg
“…

The funky math behind counts of native-born workers​

Looking at BLS-reported counts for July, it appeared that more than 2 million native-born workers had joined the labor force over the past year. The number of foreign-born workers, meanwhile, appeared to have fallen by 237,000.

Trump officials have touted that statistic. E.J. Antoni, Trump’s nominee to lead the BLS, also posted the figure on X this month, after the latest jobs numbers came out.



But BLS and census officials warn against using that data to draw conclusions about population counts — or comparing it with figures from previous years. Doing so would be “a multiple-count data felony,” Kolko wrote this past week.
One big reason is that the data is hemmed in by a population estimate set by the Census Bureau in January, before anyone had any idea how immigration enforcement was going to play out.

Basically, the number of foreign-born and native-born workers have to add up to a total based on the census estimate, according to several economists consulted by The Post. As a result, any drop in foreign-born workers artificially boosts the number of native-born workers reported each month….

… As an extreme illustration, Kolko said that if the entire foreign-born population vanished at the end of July, this dataset would show the population of native-born residents skyrocketing by tens of millions of people.

… In addition, the government’s data surveys rely on self-reporting. Economists note that immigrants nervous about their status could be reporting that they are native-born, which could also skew the numbers….”

IMG_8908.jpeg

IMG_8909.jpeg
 
Why does it matter whether European companies list in Europe or the US?
Theoretically, it can create a capital drain spiral - the fewer companies listing on an EU market discouraging future companies from doing so, which can cause the valuations of the already listed companies to decline as well.

I think Europe is already freaking about failing to develop AI start-ups, which I think is the source of the concern.
 
Theoretically, it can create a capital drain spiral - the fewer companies listing on an EU market discouraging future companies from doing so, which can cause the valuations of the already listed companies to decline as well.

I think Europe is already freaking about failing to develop AI start-ups, which I think is the source of the concern.
I mean, maybe, but 1) that violates even weak form efficiency and 2) the companies' HQs and facilities don't have to move. It's just a stock listing. The capital still goes to/stays with Europe.
 
Back
Top