Increasing wealth inequality, drives prices inflation, wage stagnation and less disposable income, driving less consumption, driving less revenue for businesses, meaning cuts happen and hiring freezes, drives slowing growth in new job market.
duxup · 11m ago
>Currently, the data suggest that reduced labor supply is likely the key driver
It's interesting as far as people I know looking for jobs, they're supply ... and having a hard time finding jobs. Reduced supply you'd hope you'd get a job.
Granted the article addresses this both in the types of jobs and:
>The stability of the unemployment rate masks effects of the low-hiring, low-firing labor market.
I do wonder, if this continues and a sense of economic slowdown or worse continues, would lowering a rate really fire up hiring? I know small businesses who can't eat /dance around tariffs like big companies, some are seriously terrified / facing hard decisions, others fine.
mlinhares · 7m ago
Title is clickbait (we all know why) but its a great read. Its so many shocks to the economy at the same time, and with no goal other than to cause harm that I don't think anything the FED does will have any real impact in the real world.
The author goes for an OR between reasons but I really don't see it like that, its an AND, all jumbled together and pushing the economy down.
andsoitis · 22s ago
> with no goal other than to cause harm
My read is not that it is to cause harm / break things down per sé, but instead to deglobalize. At various times, the left and the right have made globalization the bogeyman and something to fight, so this idea has been in the ether.
For many reasons (economic, geopolitics, peace), globalization is a great thing.
Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is haphazard, incompetent, rushed.
tcfhgj · 4m ago
More interesting question: more spare time for everyone or just for a small part of the population?
It's interesting as far as people I know looking for jobs, they're supply ... and having a hard time finding jobs. Reduced supply you'd hope you'd get a job.
Granted the article addresses this both in the types of jobs and:
>The stability of the unemployment rate masks effects of the low-hiring, low-firing labor market.
I do wonder, if this continues and a sense of economic slowdown or worse continues, would lowering a rate really fire up hiring? I know small businesses who can't eat /dance around tariffs like big companies, some are seriously terrified / facing hard decisions, others fine.
The author goes for an OR between reasons but I really don't see it like that, its an AND, all jumbled together and pushing the economy down.
My read is not that it is to cause harm / break things down per sé, but instead to deglobalize. At various times, the left and the right have made globalization the bogeyman and something to fight, so this idea has been in the ether.
For many reasons (economic, geopolitics, peace), globalization is a great thing.
Even if deglobalization were a great idea, then the execution is haphazard, incompetent, rushed.