Recession = good?

[vector2]

---

Members don't see this ad.

This is just how free market economies work, largely due to the expansion and contraction of credit.

Much better than having a centrally planned economy that “only goes up”

Bit of a false dichotomy there that ignores the nuances of how regulation and central planning function to stabilize even so-called "free market" economies.

But if one supposes that cyclical recessions are actually inevitable (which may be empirically true in our current as-is system, but likely not provably logically true), then that makes it even more bizarre and gross that some posters cheer on the pain that many workers in this economy will face in a recession...despite the fact those workers are subject to an unavoidable component of a system which they have little control over. Probably the same people who wail about the excesses of US consumer culture while simultaneously rejoicing when their 401ks bounce due to AAPL and AMZN reporting a good quarter.

 

[doctalaughs]

I know we're not going to agree here, but the idea that some significant number of US working age adults - in an environment where the unemployment rate is *3.5%* - don't understand work is pretty dumb.

You do realize that unemployment numbers only count those who are looking for work, not those that have chosen to remove themselves from the workforce?

That’s why I can’t *fathom* why some on the left are claiming 5 trillion+ dollars of stimulus, followed by a double-down of several trillion more of handouts has NO RELATIONSHIP with a massive shortage of workers across most segments

Does anyone actually believe that? Or is it just sort of a *wink* *wink* political talking point?

 

[vector2]

You do realize that unemployment numbers only count those who are looking for work, not those that have chosen to remove themselves from the workforce?

Yes, smart guy, I'm aware. But guess what? Not just U-3 unemployment is at an almost all-time low, but 4, 5, and 6 are all well, well below long-term average rates. The labor force participation rate has recovered to mid 62% and that's where it was for almost all of 2015-2019.

Sure, stimulus has some relationship to the worker shortage, but what's absolute nonsense is your implication that lazy people getting stimulus is the only or even primary reason for worker shortages, which both right and left wing sources acknowledge is a multi, multifactorial problem not simply explained away by trite musings about handouts.

 

[doctalaughs]

Yes, smart guy, I'm aware. But guess what? Not just U-3 unemployment is at an almost all-time low, but 4, 5, and 6 are all well, well below long-term average rates. The labor force participation rate has recovered to mid 62% and that's where it was for almost all of 2015-2019.

Sure, stimulus has some relationship to the worker shortage, but what's absolute nonsense is your implication that lazy people getting stimulus is the only or even primary reason for worker shortages, which both right and left wing sources acknowledge is a multi, multifactorial problem not simply explained away by trite musings about handouts.

I’m sure we’ll never agree — but all you have to do is look around to see that there are lots of able-bodied people who choose to no longer work for whatever reason. Whether you want to call that lazy, or smart or whatever reason is up to you. How they eat and find shelter is pretty easy to guess.

And far from “similar” to before — the labor force participation is steadily 1% below 2015-19 levels and many % points (5+) below the decade or so before that. You can clearly see that here:

Civilian labor force participation rate

www.bls.gov

Keep in mind each 1% is about 2 million prime-age workers sitting on the sidelines. Not to mention for some reason BLS decided to define the working-age population as 22-54 which in my opinion is crazy (who expects everyone 55+ should be retired?).

 

[vector2]

I’m sure we’ll never agree — but all you have to do is look around to see that there are lots of able-bodied people who choose to no longer work for whatever reason. Whether you want to call that lazy, or smart or whatever reason is up to you. How they eat and find shelter is pretty easy to guess.

If your evidence is mostly a man-on-the-street "look around at all the lazy people" anecdote and not...you know...actual evidence, then uh yes, we're going to disagree.

And far from “similar” to before — the labor force participation is steadily 1% below 2015-19 levels and many % points (5+) below the decade or so before that. You can clearly see that here:

Um, look again. From mid 2014 to mid '19 the line is flat. Between 62 to 63 percent. It's currently 62.3% as of September. Were you complaining this much about worker laziness for that 5 yr period last decade?

Regardless, the worker participation thing is a canard anyway, because one of the main things driving the stat change (out of many considering the issue is *multifactorial*) is very high rates of boomer retirement:

Participation declines certainly have little to do, as some have asserted, with a general decline in people’s interest in work. On the contrary, every age category showed a rise in participation. The teen rate rose during the past year, for instance, from 36.1 percent to 36.9 percent. People between the ages of 20 and 54, the backbone of the workforce, increased their rate rise from 81.3 percent to 82.5 percent. Even older Americans increased their participation in the workforce. The rate for those over 55 rose from 38.2 percent to 38.9 percent. But even as each group increased its participation, the relative growth of older groups, which for obvious reasons have a lower participation rate than younger Americans, has held down any gains in overall workforce participation.

Roots Of America’s Labor Shortage

Retiring Boomers Ensure the Worker Shortage Will Persist.

www.forbes.com

I know it's inconvenient to acknowledge, but the thesis that all the lazy stimulus moochers need a recession reality check is not based on sound logic or data.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Sometimes it pays to get fired. Twitter's top executives stand to make a total of $88 million between them if Elon Musk ousts them. Here's the payday for each executive.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, and top lawyer Vijaya Gadde were jettisoned by Musk on Thursday evening.

www.businessinsider.com

I went into the wrong business.

 

[doctalaughs]

If your evidence is mostly a man-on-the-street "look around at all the lazy people" anecdote and not...you know...actual evidence, then uh yes, we're going to disagree.



Um, look again. From mid 2014 to mid '19 the line is flat. Between 62 to 63 percent. It's currently 62.3% as of September. Were you complaining this much about worker laziness for that 5 yr period last decade?

I see no need to argue about this. Everyone can click the link and make their own decision whether the line is trending up or down…..

Similarly you can pull up data and see percentages of officially “disabled” people in the USA in prime working years and extrapolate that data.

 

[vector2]

I see no need to argue about this. Everyone can click the link and make their own decision whether the line is trending up or down…..

So that's a no then on whether you were complaining between mid 2014 and mid 2019 when the rate was literally between 62 and 63%.

 

[doctalaughs]

So that's a no then on whether you were complaining between mid 2014 and mid 2019 when the rate was literally between 62 and 63%.

Fine I’ll humor you. Yes, the us work ethic wasn’t great between 2014-2019 (given the rate declined 4-5 points from 2008-2014. So yes, I would complain about that too.

However, the participation from 2014-2019 ranges from 62.4 to 63.4%. Looks like the average is about 63%. The rate from 2021 to present ranges from 61.5 to 62.4 with average lower than 62. So like I said —about a 1% decline on AVERAGE- which is not insignificant with hundreds of millions of workers.

Here’s a good analysis of where those declines are coming from:

An Unprecedented Labor Shortage

Canceled flights, unopened community pools, delayed deliveries, overcrowded emergency rooms and reduced public safety are all consequences of the unprecedented U.S. labor shortage. There are 50% more job openings today than at any time before the pandemic. The unemployment rate is near a...

www.heritage.org

Bottom line (in general)- we should never design policies that discourage people from working and there should never be a higher return for not working compared to working.

 

[vector2]

Fine I’ll humor you. Yes, the us work ethic wasn’t great between 2014-2019 (given the rate declined 4-5 points from 2008-2014. So yes, I would complain about that too.

However, the participation from 2014-2019 ranges from 62.4 to 63.4%. Looks like the average is about 63%. The rate from 2021 to present ranges from 61.5 to 62.4 with average lower than 62. So like I said —about a 1% decline on AVERAGE- which is not insignificant with hundreds of millions of workers.

Thanks for answering that. At least now we can establish that you're being (possibly willfully) ignorant by not acknowledging 1. The labor participation rate has cyclicality just like many other economic indicators, 2. It has multifactorial contributors. And most importantly, 3. It has very little do with your silly moralizing about how lazy you think people are.

But numbers are numbers. Let's take a look at what that period of stability looked like:

That middle line is 63%. So from late 2013 all the way to 2019 the rate only spiked above that line 4 or 5 times while spending the vast, vast majority of the time well below the line. So how could the average possibly be 63?? As DPM said, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

However, it's clear that you're being at least somewhat disingenuous in defense of your unchangeable, uncritical agenda or else you would've at least acknowledged what I posted before, namely:

1. Labor participation rate went up in almost all of the age demographics groups, so the stagnation in the rate was almost entirely due to boomers who prematurely retired.

2. Not only is U-3 unemployment at a near historic low, but U-4 through 6 which take into account those who are "discouraged, underemployed, marginally attached to the workforce, and have given up looking for work" are also well below historic averages.

Those two points very clearly refute your "lazy" thesis.

Here’s a good analysis of where those declines are coming from:

An Unprecedented Labor Shortage

Canceled flights, unopened community pools, delayed deliveries, overcrowded emergency rooms and reduced public safety are all consequences of the unprecedented U.S. labor shortage. There are 50% more job openings today than at any time before the pandemic. The unemployment rate is near a...

www.heritage.org

Bottom line (in general)- we should never design policies that discourage people from working and there should never be a higher return for not working compared to working.

Haha, quoting the heritage foundation...def the best way to demonstrate you're not biased toward the right wing talking point when arguing with someone. Did you read the article, though? It essentially says what I've been saying... That old people retiring is the biggest contributor to the rate decline. The bit about 20-24 yr old rate dropping is a canard because that's a very low contributor to the total number of workers. And their solution? The stereotypical "means test SSI" and remove or delay benefits for people who already paid in and want to retire. Laughable.

But over here in data-driven land, stimulus was not the only contributor. Other than premature retirement, LPR being lower than 2020 has also been driven by decreasing immigration, increasing childcare costs forcing people home, elder care costs, the ability to work from home, job shifting to different industries, and COVID.

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/16/worker-shortage-strikes-economy/

 

[doctalaughs]

Thanks for answering that. At least now we can establish that you're being (possibly willfully) ignorant by not acknowledging 1. The labor participation rate has cyclicality just like many other economic indicators, 2. It has multifactorial contributors. And most importantly, 3. It has very little do with your silly moralizing about how lazy you think people are.

But numbers are numbers. Let's take a look at what that period of stability looked like:

View attachment 361486

That middle line is 63%. So from late 2013 all the way to 2019 the rate only spiked above that line 4 or 5 times while spending the vast, vast majority of the time well below the line. So how could the average possibly be 63?? As DPM said, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

However, it's clear that you're being at least somewhat disingenuous in defense of your unchangeable, uncritical agenda or else you would've at least acknowledged what I posted before, namely:

1. Labor participation rate went up in almost all of the age demographics groups, so the stagnation in the rate was almost entirely due to boomers who prematurely retired.

2. Not only is U-3 unemployment at a near historic low, but U-4 through 6 which take into account those who are "discouraged, underemployed, marginally attached to the workforce, and have given up looking for work" are also well below historic averages.

Those two points very clearly refute your "lazy" thesis.



Haha, quoting the heritage foundation...def the best way to demonstrate you're not biased toward the right wing talking point when arguing with someone. Did you read the article, though? It essentially says what I've been saying... That old people retiring is the biggest contributor to the rate decline. The bit about 20-24 yr old rate dropping is a canard because that's a very low contributor to the total number of workers. And their solution? The stereotypical "means test SSI" and remove or delay benefits for people who already paid in and want to retire. Laughable.

But over here in data-driven land, stimulus was not the only contributor. Other than premature retirement, LPR being lower than 2020 has also been driven by decreasing immigration, increasing childcare costs forcing people home, elder care costs, the ability to work from home, job shifting to different industries, and COVID.

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/16/worker-shortage-strikes-economy/

My “data-driven” friend- I have no idea how we are looking at the same thing. All I can say is the line circled in red is lower than the blue, which is in turn lower than the green here. I would think all can see that plainly.

In any case if you don’t like the heritage foundation look up NPRs articles on the rates of disability in the USA over the last few decades. If that doesn’t convince you that more entitlements/handouts aren’t the answer, I’m not sure what will.

I will agree though that we shoudn’t use the term lazy. People are rational- if working doesn’t pay off, and they can get by on government cheese without working— why would they?

 

[vector2]

My “data-driven” friend- I have no idea how we are looking at the same thing. All I can say is the line circled in red is lower than the blue, which is in turn lower than the green here. I would think all can see that plainly.

Nice goalpost move there. You previously state the average between the 2014-2019 period (which is relevant because it's a representative stable period of recent history) is 63%. It's plainly *not* because you either misrepresented or misstated what you thought you were looking at, and now you compare it to a higher period of time even after I state that the solitary indicator you're obsessed about is cyclical and multifactorial just like a whole bunch of other indicators. Are you capable of being honest enough to admit that you were just plain wrong?

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Look at Zillow in Big Sky, Montana. No doctors would be able to afford those as a vacation home, aside from maybe a spine surgeon or derm practice owner. However, if the economy crashes many of these houses will go for maybe half off asking price now. Then they’re affordable for many doctors aside maybe pediatrician and family medicine/hospitalists

1.2 million for 900 square feet
35 Mountain Thunder Dr UNIT 5308, Breckenridge, CO 80424 | MLS #S1039240 | Zillow

 

[doctalaughs]

Nice goalpost move there. You previously state the average between the 2014-2019 period (which is relevant because it's a representative stable period of recent history) is 63%. It's plainly *not* because you either misrepresented or misstated what you thought you were looking at, and now you compare it to a higher period of time even after I state that the solitary indicator you're obsessed about is cyclical and multifactorial just like a whole bunch of other indicators. Are you capable of being honest enough to admit that you were just plain wrong?

Looks pretty close to 63% on average to me. The line is certainly between 62 and 64 in that time period you want to argue about.

And the line after looks like it’s between 61 and 62.5 - but certainly lower than before.

I guess if we can’t agree on a what a graph says we aren’t agreeing on anything bigger. Fine by me.

 

[nimbus]

Look at Zillow in Big Sky, Montana. No doctors would be able to afford those as a vacation home, aside from maybe a spine surgeon or derm practice owner. However, if the economy crashes many of these houses will go for maybe half off asking price now. Then they’re affordable for many doctors aside maybe pediatrician and family medicine/hospitalists

1.2 million for 900 square feet
35 Mountain Thunder Dr UNIT 5308, Breckenridge, CO 80424 | MLS #S1039240 | ZillowView attachment 361493

You can thank airBNB. That Breckinridge condo is STR restriction exempt. One of our travel nurses was complaining yesterday that she has to pay $3300/mo for a tiny furnished studio near the hospital. It was probably a $300k condo a few yrs ago.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

You can thank airBNB. One of our travel nurses was complaining yesterday that she has to pay $3300/mo for a tiny furnished studio near the hospital.

I don’t get the appeal of airBNB at all. Don’t trust the cleanliness. Ex once booked one in Nantucket and once I got there, I was already booking a hotel down the street. Apparently she didn’t know that other people would also be staying in other rooms at the house.

 

[nimbus]

I don’t get the appeal of airBNB at all. Don’t trust the cleanliness. Ex once booked one in Nantucket and once I got there, I was already booking a hotel down the street. Apparently she didn’t know that other people would also be staying in other rooms at the house.

It should be in the description whether you are renting a room or an entire unit/property. I think it’s better to airBNB from professional Superhosts and not from mom n pop renting out a room.

My sister airBNBs the same beach house for a month every summer and is very happy with it.

For travel nurses, the options are either airBNB or a hotel. And in our area, a nonshady hotel can cost 3x an airBNB. Even though $3300 sounds like a lot for a studio, it’s still cheaper than a hotel.

 

[vector2]

Looks pretty close to 63% on average to me. The line is certainly between 62 and 64 in that time period you want to argue about.

And the line after looks like it’s between 61 and 62.5 - but certainly lower than before.

I guess if we can’t agree on a what a graph says we aren’t agreeing on anything bigger. Fine by me.

If a line spends 55 out of 60 months *definitely* under 63 and then you want to tell us the average during that timeframe is 63...then that tells us all we need to know about how honestly you're approaching an argument.

 

[abolt18]

I don’t get the appeal of airBNB at all. Don’t trust the cleanliness. Ex once booked one in Nantucket and once I got there, I was already booking a hotel down the street. Apparently she didn’t know that other people would also be staying in other rooms at the house.

Got to thoroughly read descriptions (which specifies if you'll have the space to yourself) and reviews. Reviews are KEY to getting a good, clean, well kept place.

I've used it a lot. Stayed in people's spare bedrooms when traveling for med school/residency/fellowship interviews or for boards. Stayed in someone's basement with a kitchen (totally separated from the upstairs) for my COMLEX PE. Have rented full cabins in the mountains. Condos at beaches. Beach houses. I typically find that I can easily meet my needs whatever they may be.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Meanwhile in Minneapolis

222 2nd St SE APT 1501, Minneapolis, MN 55414 | MLS #6250314 | Zillow

This is right on the water. Any other city this would be 7-10 million imo. It’s 2.7

Still 17k per month due to high interest rates 😧

 

[deleted1147063]

Meanwhile in Minneapolis

222 2nd St SE APT 1501, Minneapolis, MN 55414 | MLS #6250314 | ZillowView attachment 361539

This is right on the water. Any other city this would be 7-10 million imo. It’s 2.7

Still 17k per month due to high interest rates 😧

$2,653 monthly HOA fee. It's a steal! 🤣

 

[Fpg1245]

Meanwhile in Minneapolis

222 2nd St SE APT 1501, Minneapolis, MN 55414 | MLS #6250314 | ZillowView attachment 361539

This is right on the water. Any other city this would be 7-10 million imo. It’s 2.7

Still 17k per month due to high interest rates 😧

Dude wtf it’s MN?! Is this entire country turning into Toronto?

 

[CubsDynasty]

Plus you can only live there 4 months out of the year

 

[nimbus]

I cannot begin to imagine who has the desire to live in a downtown condo, presumably to raise children given its size, and would shell out that kind of money when you can get a real mansion, not a McMansion, literally 15 minutes away in Minneapolis.

Like who is the market for condos like this outside of NYC?

I can see the appeal. Parks, cafes, and restaurants within walking distance, zero maintenance, zero commute. Can also take off for 2 months without worrying about the house. Care free living.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I think the condo is still like 3800 square feet so obviously not a mansion but not tiny either

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

2700 per month condo fee 🤯

Personally, that is where I would draw the line.

 

[nimbus]

2700 per month condo fee 🤯

Personally, that is where I would draw the line.

People overlook the fact that you’re gonna pay for maintenance and upkeep regardless of what type of home you own. $2700 may be a lot but not a lot more than what many people already pay. Also, newer high rises tend to be very energy efficient so utility bills can be significantly lower than a comparable single family house.

 

[NITRAS]

People overlook the fact that you’re gonna pay for maintenance and upkeep regardless of what type of home you own. $2700 may be a lot but not a lot more than what many people already pay. Also, newer high rises tend to be very energy efficient so utility bills can be significantly lower than a comparable single family house.

I mean, that’s $32k/year and going up. That is way more than usual maintence. That is like replacing a roof and an AC unit every year. I get that you are probably getting a lot for the $32k. . . But it is still a lot.

It is a lot of money. That being said if I was single, had a net worth in the 10 million ish range and made $600k/year, I’d probably be all over it.