Octopus Overlords

Ok. Get the comment now. That's the way the news works though. Hot takes all the time. What I observed today was that multiple national media outlets somehow took a reading that indicated ok-to-good and sledgehammered them into their persistently wrong recession is nigh narrative. Which is all I've been commenting on in the end.

Yeah, I learned years ago to wait for the revision.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:43 pm Get the comment now. That's the way the news works though. Hot takes all the time.

Absolutely. This is the problem.

LOL I thought about using that here, but for some reason brain said ‘no’.

I'll just drop this here to watch y'all turn blue in the face: The US economy's secret weapon is rich boomers!

In August, 17.7% of the population was 65 or older, according to the Census Bureau, the highest on record going back to 1920 and up sharply from 13% in 2010. The elderly aren’t just more numerous: Their finances are relatively healthy and they have less need to borrow, such as to buy a house, and are less at risk of layoffs than other consumers.

This has made the elderly a spending force to be reckoned with. Americans age 65 and up accounted for 22% of spending last year, the highest share since records began in 1972 and up from 15% in 2010, according to the Labor Department’s survey of consumer expenditures released in September.
...
The average household led by someone age 65 and older spent 2.7% more last year than in 2021, adjusted for inflation, according to the Labor Department, compared with 0.7% for under-65 households. Spending by older households is up 34.5% from 1982, compared with 16.5% for younger households.
...
By the Fed’s reckoning, baby boomers alone have now amassed $77.1 trillion in wealth. “There’s a $77 trillion-wide hole in the theory that consumers’ running out of pandemic savings will sink the economy,” he said.

They have less consumer debt, minimal student debt and are more likely to own their homes outright. Many of those who have mortgages refinanced at the unprecedented low in mortgage rates after the pandemic hit. They are also less likely to need to move due to an expanding family or a new job than Gen Z and Millennials, shielding them from the impact of rising housing costs.

Wife and I aren't typical for our age, but we are planning to spend $77 trillion next year to position ourselves for retirement.

Meh, I'm sure the prune juice salespeople are rejoicing at the news.

Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 11:56 pm I'll just drop this here to watch y'all turn blue in the face: The US economy's secret weapon is rich boomers!

In August, 17.7% of the population was 65 or older, according to the Census Bureau, the highest on record going back to 1920 and up sharply from 13% in 2010. The elderly aren’t just more numerous: Their finances are relatively healthy and they have less need to borrow, such as to buy a house, and are less at risk of layoffs than other consumers.

This has made the elderly a spending force to be reckoned with. Americans age 65 and up accounted for 22% of spending last year, the highest share since records began in 1972 and up from 15% in 2010, according to the Labor Department’s survey of consumer expenditures released in September.
...
The average household led by someone age 65 and older spent 2.7% more last year than in 2021, adjusted for inflation, according to the Labor Department, compared with 0.7% for under-65 households. Spending by older households is up 34.5% from 1982, compared with 16.5% for younger households.
...
By the Fed’s reckoning, baby boomers alone have now amassed $77.1 trillion in wealth. “There’s a $77 trillion-wide hole in the theory that consumers’ running out of pandemic savings will sink the economy,” he said.

They have less consumer debt, minimal student debt and are more likely to own their homes outright. Many of those who have mortgages refinanced at the unprecedented low in mortgage rates after the pandemic hit. They are also less likely to need to move due to an expanding family or a new job than Gen Z and Millennials, shielding them from the impact of rising housing costs.

Wife and I aren't typical for our age, but we are planning to spend $77 trillion next year to position ourselves for retirement.

Baby boomers are the big winners from the Federal Reserve's policies in recent years, while millennials and Gen Z have been badly burnt, Larry McDonald said.

"The Fed made the baby boomers really REALLY rich - then figured out a way to make T-Bills yield 5% so the boomers could ride off into the sunset risk-free," the founder of "The Bear Traps Report" wrote in a post on X Wednesday.

"Everybody in the younger generations just gets screwed because they can't finance anything," he added.

...

The former Lehman Brothers trader, who wrote a book about the investment bank's collapse at the start of the financial crisis, has flagged wealth disparities between generations before. He's noted that at the age of 40, baby boomers had paid far less for college and their homes than millennials, a larger percentage owned homes, and they generally had higher net worths and smaller debts.

"Baby boomer party, then left the check in the lap of Millennials," McDonald tweeted in early 2019. He's also noted that boomers were worth an estimated $78 trillion, or about half the US total, at the end of last year. That's despite the cohort making up just a fifth of the US population.

Not sure I agree with all of it but it's a narrative that is out there.

FWIW I feel like some of that is smokescreen, The generational discussion is useful but it also seems partially crafted to distract from the more important wealth inequality component. Even within the Boomer generation there is massive inequality. The difference between the average wealth of a boomer is $1.2M while median wealth is $200-300K. However, I'd note those are sort of old numbers so it's probably a bit north on both those numbers. However I doubt it got much better in the last 2-3 years. Still most of the wealth concentrated in fewer hands and social security has been a stabilizer for those further down the wealth curve.

Maybe this new paper in Nature will help change things:

We call for a moonshot for long COVID, a commitment — from the US government — to invest at least US$1 billion annually over the next ten years to address the problem. Such an investment would inspire governments around the globe to respond in kind to this health challenge, which exists on every continent.

There are precedents for this. In 2016, the US Congress directed more than $1.8 billion towards cancer research through the 21st Century Cures Act. Among the various efforts funded was the Cancer Moonshot initiative, supporting more than 240 research projects, many of which focused on improving understanding of cancer biology. Since then, billions more have been proposed for cancer research across multiple initiatives. Meanwhile, across the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), more than $3 billion each year is spent on improving testing and treatment for HIV/AIDS, and driving progress towards a cure.

Such an investment will more than pay itself back. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, around 6% of US adults are experiencing symptoms following a SARS-CoV-2 infection that do not resolve for months or years, and that might not resolve at all. Other studies have estimated that 18 million adults in the United States and 65 million people globally have long COVID (see ‘Too many to ignore’). Children are also affected.

But why?

For the United States alone, the economic cost of long COVID is estimated to be $3 trillion over the next five years.

The NY Times is the handmaiden of oligarchic dystopia.

Reminds me of a recent article in our local news about a homeless encampment they were clearing out in some woods nearby. It was something along the lines of "Over 300 homeless live in the encampment, which authorities will clear and remove next week. But an even bigger problem is the trash they leave behind which the county says will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up."

So trash in the woods, is a "bigger problem" than 300 people without homes having to live in the woods behind a Walmart. And instead of the county investing "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in fixing the homeless problem, they're going to spend it on trash services.

The callousness of this world right now is just mind-boggling.

BUT IT CAN'T LAST FOREVER! That was an actual blurb somewhere today.

Whew, it's a good thing the GOP took control of the House and led us to an economic boom!

A downturn is always possible but it's not in the data. Much like I was arguing last year if a downturn comes it'll be from some sort of shock because fundamentally the economy is strong. Certain sectors might be lagging and others booming but that's normal.

It's just not healthy how we are just inundated with misinformation narratives. The same things people said a year ago when they were peddling imminent recession? They are saying the same thing but just a little louder. They'll eventually be right and then talk about how they 'called' it. It's a reputational grift.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:47 pm Whew, it's a good thing the GOP took control of the House and led us to an economic boom!

Lol... great timing for sure.

Wonder what Larry Kudlow thinks? He's always got his pulse on this type of stuff.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/larry ... ng-economy

Hmm shocking take by him.

Utter bullshit. What world do you have to live in where a 1% drop in manufacturing hours worked is described as a "slump". Fuck Kudlow. He is a complete fraud.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:59 pm A downturn is always possible but it's not in the data. Much like I was arguing last year if a downturn comes it'll be from some sort of shock because fundamentally the economy is strong. Certain sectors might be lagging and others booming but that's normal.

It's just not healthy how we are just inundated with misinformation narratives. The same things people said a year ago when they were peddling imminent recession? They are saying the same thing but just a little louder. They'll eventually be right and then talk about how they 'called' it. It's a reputational grift.

I think you realize though that when recessions and major downturns occur, they are almost never "in the data". The GDP (revised) data is pretty good at forecasting when there are no "events". But the world is full of events, so that forecast is a bit...weak IMO. Cyclical downturns are of course a normal (and healthy) thing, so it seems a bit weird to even see you phrase it like you did. Maybe I am reading too much into your first sentence though.

A downturn is not just possible...it's inevitable.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 5:39 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:59 pm A downturn is always possible but it's not in the data. Much like I was arguing last year if a downturn comes it'll be from some sort of shock because fundamentally the economy is strong. Certain sectors might be lagging and others booming but that's normal.

It's just not healthy how we are just inundated with misinformation narratives. The same things people said a year ago when they were peddling imminent recession? They are saying the same thing but just a little louder. They'll eventually be right and then talk about how they 'called' it. It's a reputational grift.

I think you realize though that when recessions and major downturns occur, they are almost never "in the data".

Actually they usually are. Sometimes there is debate but almost always they are preceded by some slowdown or a mounting issue. However not every issue resolves in a recession. And during a recession positive news doesn't always resolve in a recovery. But usually we see some signs of slow down. We've seen almost no slow down at all. There are a couple of soft spots and there is a notable exceptions for black swan crises.

The GDP (revised) data is pretty good at forecasting when there are no "events". But the world is full of events, so that forecast is a bit...weak IMO. Cyclical downturns are of course a normal (and healthy) thing, so it seems a bit weird to even see you phrase it like you did. Maybe I am reading too much into your first sentence though.

What I mean by crises is that barring something completely out of nowhere (bank crisis/pandemic) we see normal warning signs that sometimes manifest in recession. Think broad indicators which could indicate heading in that direction. However, I'd safely argue when you have a +5% read it is safe to say the current quarter or next quarter or very unlikely to see one.

A downturn is not just possible...it's inevitable.

That's what I'm getting at but the data was sort of mixed about a year ago, we were being told 100% chance of recession. People argued we were in a recession because some tech companies trimmed a couple percent of their employees. You can look back but I was making similar argument there saying the pessimism was largely out of line with the data reads. Now we have fairly strong reads and it's still doom. All I'm saying is that if you know what you're looking at there is a clear disconnect between the popular media narrative and data.

The takeaway is that I'm pointing out that IMO the business news cycle is driven by partisan, dare I say oligarchic narratives. Oligarchs own the media (concentrated into only a few companies) and generally want the GOP in charge. If you go back and look at some of the soft reads during the middle of the Trump administration you'd see a stark contrast. On fairly tepid GDP reads, you'd hear *strongest economy ever* and oh by the by now is always the best time for tax cuts! Now when there are very strong reads it is endless calls of 100% chance of recession. Which is always true but in this case they said in 2023. That's not happening. There is no revision that'll get us there. The subtext being please kick out this Democrat so we can get on with our next wave of looting via tax policy.

All I'm saying is that the business press is not a good source of credible economic reporting anymore. There are still good sources - The Economist comes to mind - but that isn't accessible to the lay person. We are being lied to by just about everyone now. And unfortunately most folks aren't going to read economic data much less understand it to figure out it's a con.

Hey remember this thread? There's a fascinating article in the NYT today that of course is paywalled, but the end is why I posted it here:

Here's a link to someone that is pulling quotes:



And a more direct link to an unroll.

There are more Americans who say they have serious cognitive problems — with remembering, concentrating or making decisions — than at any time in the last 15 years, data from the Census Bureau shows.

“The increase started with the pandemic”

"The number of working-age adults reporting 'serious difficulty' — thinking has climbed by an estimated one million people... And younger adults are driving the trend."

..the number of working-age Americans with a disability who are employed has increased by an estimated 1.5 million people, census data show."
“We need to take this very seriously as a society. We need to understand who these people are, how they’re being impacted and what we can do about it.” — Monika Mitra, who directs the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy at Brandeis University.

Not disputing that COVID may be a factor but I'd suggest that total reliance on smart devices can't help either. Notlr has classifying not wanting to work as legitimate reason not to work.

Yeah, I'd be amazed if it was the only factor and not just contributing. Didn't think about the smart-device element. I figured there could also be stress and PTSD related to being pressured to ignore the last ~3 years as a contributing factor as well - indirectly related to COVID but still connected.

The last 7 years. COVID came in the middle of an already crushing societal crisis.

Yeah, that's also very true. The best example of how things can always get worse - they sure did.

Now with wars.

The 80s did promise a post apocalyptic wasteland in the new millennium. It just gave us an extra 20 years before getting u underway.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:38 amNotlr has classifying not wanting to work as legitimate reason not to work.

Familiar with the concept but not familiar with this application. What entity accepts this classification and what benefit does it provide? Or was this more that "it's socially accepted"?

Yeah, asking for a friend.

I ask because I know of many progressive labor policy suggestions but I can't remember this being one of them. Though maybe it could be some reference to some disability classification somewhere I'm unaware of.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 12:15 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:38 amNotlr has classifying not wanting to work as legitimate reason not to work.

Familiar with the concept but not familiar with this application. What entity accepts this classification and what benefit does it provide? Or was this more that "it's socially accepted"?

More societal. Although societal acceptance eventually leads to regulatory acceptance.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 12:55 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 12:15 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:38 amNotlr has classifying not wanting to work as legitimate reason not to work.

Familiar with the concept but not familiar with this application. What entity accepts this classification and what benefit does it provide? Or was this more that "it's socially accepted"?

More societal. Although societal acceptance eventually leads to regulatory acceptance.

Got it. FWIW I still think that's overblown. In fact, some of the low participation amongst some populations described as "not wanting to work" is argued to be an expression of a population of people with a different problem. They are out there racking up student debt.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:38 am Not disputing that COVID may be a factor but I'd suggest that total reliance on smart devices can't help either. Notlr has classifying not wanting to work as legitimate reason not to work.

Of course, 18 months later and I'm still mentally and socially exhausted and thanks to a negligent driver, physically limited in addition to not wanting to work. I was getting over the exhaustion and starting to become somewhat productive again at the time of the accident now I'm back to ground zero in that regard.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 12:00 pm Now with wars.

The 80s did promise a post apocalyptic wasteland in the new millennium. It just gave us an extra 20 years before getting u underway.

More than that, the 80s promised corporate cyberpunk dystopias surrounded by post apocalyptic wastelands.

As expected

https://fortune.com/europe/2023/12/08/g ... ion-study/

Paywalled

The headline:

U.S. payrolls increased by 216,000 in December, much better than expected

The reality:

December’s jobs report showed employers added 216,000 jobs for the month while the unemployment rate held at 3.7%. Payroll growth showed a sizeable gain from November’s downwardly revised 173,000 [from 199K]. October also was revised lower, to 105,000 from 150,000, indicating a slightly less robust picture for growth in the fourth quarter.

...

The report, along with revisions to previous months’ counts, brought 2023 job gains to 2.7 million, or a monthly average of 225,000, down from 4.8 million, or 399,000 a month, in 2022.

Presumably when December is revised downward, it will be closer to, or even below, the consensus estimate of 170K but hey, HUGE BEAT for now!!!

Ah, there it is:

Biden-Harris HQ
@BidenHQ
CNN: Just in, the economy added 216,000 jobs in December, continuing 36 consecutive months of job growth under President Biden

[Biden-Harris HQ
@BidenHQ
Just the facts, Jack. A project of Biden-Harris 2024. ]