- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 3/8/24 at 4:50 pm to Bard
I'm not a guru on this stuff but I work for a Fortune 10 and reorg/layoff announcements already coming out, including some of our peer companies. That stuff means more to me than the metrics and "official" numbers. For my sake, I'm told I'm safe but to start Knowledge Basing i.e. data mining some of my peers who aren't safe.
Posted on 3/8/24 at 5:18 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Govt jobs should never be counted as its simply another tax on taxpayers.
it is why i always ask how many are gubment jobs and part time jobs
Posted on 3/8/24 at 6:48 pm to deeprig9
quote:
I'm not a guru on this stuff but I work for a Fortune 10 and reorg/layoff announcements already coming out, including some of our peer companies.
Anyone paying attention understands that with respect to real jobs there has been weakening. Big time. But by all means, let’s celebrate a bunch of illegal aliens being hired to clean hotel rooms, work in home health care, etc.
Posted on 3/8/24 at 8:11 pm to Powerman
quote:
I think you're the only one confused
Yet you don't even attempt to explain how.
Posted on 3/8/24 at 8:36 pm to deeprig9
quote:
I'm not a guru on this stuff but I work for a Fortune 10 and reorg/layoff announcements already coming out, including some of our peer companies. That stuff means more to me than the metrics and "official" numbers. For my sake, I'm told I'm safe but to start Knowledge Basing i.e. data mining some of my peers who aren't safe.
For the guys that are getting laid off, 275k jobs doesn’t mean Jack. And there are lots of guys. We are not comparing apples to apples in these numbers in these times.
Posted on 3/9/24 at 6:19 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
What? Fluffed up BLS labor data is all foreign born immigrants you say? Can't be.
Sane people know the data collected by the BLS is done extremely well. The Jewish space laser and Michelle Obama is a man crowd are convinced all this data is being released by people who are politically motivated. The tin foil hat people would rather think that nothing they don’t agree with is real.
Posted on 3/9/24 at 6:40 am to Motownsix
Dude, he presented a link with data in his post. Are you saying this data is incorrect? Then refute it. Save the silly name calling.
Oh, and the regular and material downward revisions undercut your assertions.
Oh, and the regular and material downward revisions undercut your assertions.
Posted on 3/9/24 at 7:10 am to Motownsix
quote:
Sane people know the data collected by the BLS is done extremely well
They just admitted on a call the other day that they are understaffed and trying to do thier best.
These numbers are a lot worse than you think. This repoets going to get revised down as well
This statement of yours is ridiculous
Posted on 3/9/24 at 1:10 pm to SloaneRanger
Are you native american? What tribe? Likely a Pollarck from Jersey by the sound of your posts. Lol.
Please share how you know the citizen status of all the folks getting jobs. And the number of hours they work.
Please share how you know the citizen status of all the folks getting jobs. And the number of hours they work.
Posted on 3/9/24 at 1:15 pm to Bard
quote:
These mean there are still larger numbers than you want to see when you're needing the economy to contract.
Posted on 3/9/24 at 1:18 pm to TheWalrus
quote:Looking at the chart Pezzo posted that was supposed to be so scandalous, the initial estimates for the 14 months were off by about 13% in aggregate. That seems pretty damned accurate to me. They basically said there were 3.5 million jobs and it turned out over time to "only" be 3 million.
I’d understand revising it by a few thousand jobs but how the hell are the initial numbers that far off?
Seems like the wrong conspiracy talking point to run with.
This post was edited on 3/9/24 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 3/9/24 at 2:18 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
These mean there are still larger numbers than you want to see when you're needing the economy to contract.
Crap typing on my part. What I meant to say was "these are still larger numbers than you want to see".
If you're engaging in monetary tightening policy, continued strong job numbers are the opposite of what you want to see. Even the revisions downward are a bit too strong for the rates and length of time they have been in effect. Unemployment going up is a positive in such an environment but it's doing so far too slowly.
This resistance and the stickiness of inflation are all tied together and the story they tell is that rates haven't had the intensity of impact the Fed was hoping for.
Posted on 3/9/24 at 2:59 pm to KWL85
quote:
Are you native american? What tribe? Likely a Pollarck from Jersey by the sound of your posts. Lol. Please share how you know the citizen status of all the folks getting jobs. And the number of hours they work.
Really? You realize that native born vs foreign born and full vs part time are tracked and reported, right? As I said in a prior post, almost all the jobs being added are part time. The US has lost 300k full time jobs over the last year. If you can’t figure out what’s going on, I really don’t know what more I can say.
Posted on 3/9/24 at 4:09 pm to Bard
quote:But who is looking for an actual contraction?
Crap typing on my part. What I meant to say was "these are still larger numbers than you want to see".
Posted on 3/9/24 at 11:30 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
But who is looking for an actual contraction?
I am. Whether they say it out loud or not, I believe the Fed is as well. As long as we have positive GDP growth (especially if it's anything like Q3 & Q4), raising rates risks inflation going back up due to the liquidity problem we still have. We're going to have positive GDP as long as we have strong job creation and low Unemployment, but we're also going to have continued sticky inflation.
So something has to give and that something has to be a contraction. That's why all their talk of a "soft landing" is only as credible as was their talk about inflation being "transitory".
Posted on 3/10/24 at 12:19 pm to Bard
quote:What do believe is the current inflation rate and what long term inflation rate are you comfortable with?
I am. Whether they say it out loud or not, I believe the Fed is as well. As long as we have positive GDP growth (especially if it's anything like Q3 & Q4), raising rates risks inflation going back up due to the liquidity problem we still have. We're going to have positive GDP as long as we have strong job creation and low Unemployment, but we're also going to have continued sticky inflation.
So something has to give and that something has to be a contraction. That's why all their talk of a "soft landing" is only as credible as was their talk about inflation being "transitory".
Posted on 3/10/24 at 3:03 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
What do believe is the current inflation rate
It depends on how we're measuring it. There have been some changes over the last 40 years so the measurement methodology for the 1980 inflation rate isn't the same as what is used today. Not having a fixed basket of goods, no weighting based on propensity of purchasing (not sure if that one was one in 1980 or not, but it should be if the idea is to show what the consumer is experiencing at the checkout counter) and OER replacing the payment approach (which looked at housing prices, mortgage rates, property taxes, etc).
We'll find out February CPI at the end of this week, for January it was 3.1% after having resisted going below that since June (even going back up to 3.7% during the summer).
I believe it's probably closer to 3.5% than 3% if we're basing it off what the consumer is actually experiencing.
Rent is going up (rent of primary residence) but housing prices are coming down (slowly). The issue with housing right now is that YoY unit sales have seemed to hit a bottom while 30-year fixed rates have stalled as well (being relatively unchanged YoY). I think there's an assimilation factor coming into play as potential buyers get more and more used to higher rates being "the new normal" (and also maybe some FOMO coming into play as they fear not being able to afford anything soon). If this is the case, we would see home sales maintain their current pace or move up. All this said, I think OER is now skewing the CPI reading of home prices upward.
When looking at groceries, I like to look at the most-purchased items. While it may skew inflation, I think it's a lot closer to what the average consumer is actually seeing when they buy groceries.
YoY changes:
Soft drinks: Up ~12.7%
Cereal: Up ~1.5%, but I think that may be a little low due to offsetting by including "and bakery products" as PPI for cereal has been above 7% since Q2 2022
Frozen dinners: This is a big, general category and there's no solid tracking on it. I used the Amazon price tracker for random brands (Stouffer's, Swanson's, etc) but they all came up as negligible
Salty Snacks: Again, another very general category so I narrowed it down to chips ( up ~2.4%) since they are by far the most purchased item out of that category
Milk: Down .2%
Laundry detergent: All I can find is PPI data.
Eggs: Eggs are a little odd because of the ridiculous climb then fall they had in 2023. To take that out of the equation (otherwise they've fallen by 47% YoY) I'm comparing today's prices to 2 years ago, which puts them up 20%.
Peanut Butter: They stopped collecting consumer data on this pre-COVID
Meat: Beef ( up .2%), chicken ( up 7.1%) and pork ( 0% although this doesn't include canned hams nor luncheon slices (pork as an overall commodity trended down in 2023 so that number is likely as close as we can get)
Bread: Wheat ( up 7.3%) and white ( up ~.15%) were both up
While this data runs the spectrum from "none" to "specific category" what we see is that the consumer is likely looking at a YoY increase in their grocery bill of somewhere north of 5%-7% (which is considerably more than the 1.2% for food at home we saw from January's CPI). With so much of that data either not existing (at least where I can find it) or having to make caveats for it (looking at you, Eggs), it's a crapshoot as to the exact increase other than saying "more than what we see in CPI".
If all of this is true then Shelter is likely a wash while the Food at Home component likely pushes CPI up (I can't find how much Food At Home accounts for CPI at the moment and there are so many categories of the most-purchased items in which the values aren't as clear as I would like, so I'm not even going to guess beyond a very broad generalization).
quote:
and what long term inflation rate are you comfortable with?
I think between 1% and 2% is the sweet spot. That's usually seen growth that has been slow but solid and consistent while not often getting into the overheated growth territory (at least nothing that raising rates couldn't quickly temper).
This post was edited on 3/10/24 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 3/10/24 at 4:21 pm to Bard
quote:
I am. Whether they say it out loud or not, I believe the Fed is as well. As long as we have positive GDP growth (especially if it's anything like Q3 & Q4), raising rates risks inflation going back up due to the liquidity problem we still have. We're going to have positive GDP as long as we have strong job creation and low Unemployment, but we're also going to have continued sticky inflation.
So something has to give and that something has to be a contraction. That's why all their talk of a "soft landing" is only as credible as was their talk about inflation being "transitory".
I was 100% in this camp for the last couple years, now I'm more 50/50. With spending running above 6% of gdp it is just hard for a real slow down in gdp to develop.
CRE is a problem but consumers and corps termed out their debt for the most part during covid. People on the low end are upside down with 25% cc balances but middle and upper end folks are fine, sitting on 3% mortgages.
Higher for longer will eventually break things but the first to go will be the US Govt. Yellen did not term us out when she had the chance and I don't think it's because she's an idiot. I think it was due to the clownish amount of issuance. Now we're running at a clip of 1T every 100 days. The govt is paying a trillion a year in interest, mostly to boomers, and they're plowing it back into the economy (and invidia, lol).
Posted on 3/10/24 at 5:41 pm to Art Blakey
quote:
Higher for longer will eventually break things but the first to go will be the US Govt.
I don't think it will be the government unless an auction fails. Until then, they'll just continue to issue debt.
I think where we'll see it first is among consumers, the question is among which class or classes? How many new college graduates got into some DEI, marketing, coding, etc position which pays well but will be seen as expendable in a downturn? How many of the middle and lower classes bought a new car or home since rates went to above 5.5% or so?
That's why I'm watching credit card delinquencies. The 90+ day rate has moved up to a 10-year high and isn't likely to change direction anytime soon. LINK
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News