Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 10:02:15 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Jerome Powell: "Fuck Your Couch" 9/2022
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Thu Sep 22 16:55:21
Some journalist multiplied the 0.8% increased target unemployment by the number of adults in America by the labor participation rate and got 1.3m "target" job losses, I came to same number with same math using whatever google told me.

Other selected quotes I took note of on 9/21:

- "restrictive level pretty quickly." He said "restrictive" like 15 times.

- "modest unemployment increase." Also said several times.

- "targeting below trend growth." Also repeated a bunch.

- we need "softer labor conditions," the current labor market is too good for workers, not good enough for the "supply side" of the economy.

- "I wish there was a painless way to do this. There isn't."

- Housing "price increases are moving down" and there's "declining activity" but expect that "shelter inflation is gonna remain high for some time."

- "Shit."

- "higher interest rates, slower growth, and softening labor market are all painful for the public that we serve, but they're not as painful as failing to restore price stability and having to come back and do it down the road"

- "hope for the best, plan for the worst." That's actually a cynical saying common in the military.

- Like 3 speeches ago it was "projecting" this and "projecting" that for bad economic news. Now it's "targeting" this and "targeting" that. Subtle difference in word choice that was certainly not by mistake or error.

- "We'd never say there's too many people working, but..."

I'm all about the right tool for the job. We have supply chain and labor issues. Those are supply side problems. But we're "all Keynesians now" and only have demand-side tools. The toolbox has all sorts of shit to bring demand down (killing 1.3m jobs, etc), but there's no orthodox tools in the tool box to bring supply up (which wouldn't necessarily involve killing jobs).

So in light of "right tools for the job," Rugian, I would like to convey a gold star to you, and on the broader scale I'd like to invite some classical economists to the podium and offer solutions.

Here's JPOW on the plight of the 1.3m jobs he intends to kill to combat inflation: http://imgur.com/a/kvA2qsE
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:09:42
"we need "softer labor conditions," the current labor market is too good for workers"

This is also why they want shitloads of immigrants flooding the border.

It lowers wages, they literally want to make workers more poor and take away what leverage workers had to get better compensation (wages, bens, conditions etc)
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Thu Sep 22 17:13:27
He did actually mention "increasing the labor supply," but it was sufficiently nebulous that you can read into it what you want, so I didn't include it.
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:15:03
The solutions are not pretty. I don't see how you get around losing the jobs.

But you don't need to flood the place with low wage accepting workers either.
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:17:23
I mean your Miltons would say, limit spending.

Stop printing so much.

That to will lead to medium term job losses.No one denies that.
nhill
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:18:17
Everyone can ignore the elephant in the room. Not me.

The worst part of the pandemic for our country is the establishment of remote work practices for skilled workers.

I've heard every excuse under the sun ("I'm more productive because I don't have to commute", "I'm more productive because I can stay at home with the family and be happier", "I'm more productive because there's fewer distractions in my personal office", etc. etc.) and read a ton of studies "proving" (through cherry-picked data operating in reverse from the desired outcome) it. I've even made most of these justifications and worked remotely for about 6 years.

But a huge part of the problem is that, outside of a few outliers, these skilled workers are about 20-80% as productive as before they worked from home (depending on personality).

I get it, we all have a vested interest in being able to slack off at a job and play videogames all day while producing enough output to make it seem like your productivity hasn't declined.

But the end result of this en masse is we've effectively halved our workforce output (among skilled jobs that can wfh). We are paying for it. We will continue to pay for it.
nhill
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:20:34
Apple has recently stopped remote work outside of 2 days a week. Tesla has stopped it altogether unless you work overtime.

This is because their employees are less productive from home, like nearly all remote-work employees. But they actually have the gumption to say it out loud.
nhill
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:23:21
Unfortunately, a cottage industry of remote-work consultants has also sprung up concurrently. We are literally paying people to make companies less productive. This cottage industry has a vested interest in perpetuating itself and will bombard the populace with flawed study after flawed study touting its benefits while selling their "perfect remote work plan".

Remote work is a fking joke and nobody wants to admit it.
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:25:00
"But a huge part of the problem is that, outside of a few outliers, these skilled workers are about 20-80% as productive as before they worked from home (depending on personality)."

Not to mention, if you can work from anywhere, why hire Americans and not Indians who will work for a fraction of that.

This is not a good trend.
nhill
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:27:35
That too, it increases globalization. It doesn't bother me as much as reducing our productivity (as this is a global reduction in the productivity of our species which we all pay for), but I understand why it can be seen as a problem.
murder
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:30:23

"we need "softer labor conditions," the current labor market is too good for workers, not good enough for the "supply side" of the economy."

Exactly this.


"We'd never say there's too many people working, but..."

What they really care about is too few unemployed.

They need desperate people dragging down wages and salaries.
nhill
Member
Thu Sep 22 17:33:45
Nah, we just need fewer lazy people sitting at home outputting half of what they did in the office.
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Sun Sep 25 18:58:11
WFH is causing inflation. First I've heard of that particular theory, though it's new and unusual, so makes sense that it gets blamed for anything bad that happened concurrent to it's rise in popularity.

The moon landing caused disco and the 1970s oil crisis, after all.
murder
Member
Sun Sep 25 21:21:29

Yeah I don't understand that one either. I'm pretty sure that inflation is being driven by any number of things such as restricted production of raw materials, manufacturing lines being closed, logistics, ... combined with the spike in demand.

I don't see how people working from the office could alleviate that.

murder
Member
Sun Sep 25 21:24:28

Maybe I just misunderstood what he meant.

Pillz
Member
Sun Sep 25 21:39:26
You understand how decreased productivity can help drive inflation? Really?
nhill
Member
Sun Sep 25 22:30:26
It's weird to think that we can reduce our productivity of the most skilled workers in the world and not see downstream effects in supply. Perhaps we should all stop working and see how that goes. Not once did I say it was the sole determinant, as such, I'm not sure what EP and murder are on about here.

Like I said, it's the elephant in the room because most people don't want to talk about it.
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Sun Sep 25 22:37:00
WFH is a symptom of the labor shortage. An output.

COVID's been done for a long time now, but employees still don't want accountability. No surprise there, who would? The thing is, they're *getting away with it.* That's due to the labor shortage.

JPOW's unemployment bump will (or so he hopes) shift balance back towards management.
nhill
Member
Sun Sep 25 22:39:22
Less productivity from most of our most skilled workers will equate lower quality of life. Whether that's through inflation or other means. Unless your thesis is either A) Skilled workers don't contribute to the economy (???) or B) People, as whole, are actually more productive working from home and not lazy (???)
nhill
Member
Sun Sep 25 22:48:09
Y'all try to make this shit so complicated.

It's pretty easy to understand, but you may want to read each word carefully.

When people produce less, people have less.

I don't know how quantifiable the effect is currently or whether or not it is reflected entirely in inflation numbers, or if it is other mechanisms such as excess skilled labor (a quite obvious implication, as now JimBob from small town bum fuck Egypt can now work at Google remotely. a veritable menagerie of opportunities has opened up for him. supply/demand of jobs, run the numbers).
Habebe
Member
Sun Sep 25 22:49:39
I don't know if we have a labor shortage, TBH, I would say the opposite.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share