Business/Markets/Stocks/Economics Random, Random

[Owendonovan]

Posted today by LinkedIn News

Last month was the worst January for job-cut announcements since the Great Recession, outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said Thursday. U.S. companies announced 108,435 cuts — a nearly 120% increase year-over-year. Hiring intentions, meanwhile, fell 13% from the year before, hitting their lowest level since 2009. Almost half of the January reductions were linked to just three companies: Amazon, UPS and Dow. Jobless claims jumped in the last week of the month thanks to severe weather. December wasn't great, either: Job openings fell to a five-year low.

Source articles linked in the piece:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... since-2009
https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/big ... e-6945012/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-americas
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-americas

Yet, the government won't come close to reflecting this when they release their numbers.

[mmmm8]

With consumer spending up, you've got to think those job cuts are driven by automation.

Or more aggressive outsourcing.

True for Amazon but there's only so much these companies can outsource, particularly UPS

[ti-amie]

[ashkor87]

AI and Trump are a double whammy for most economies except China..you might say AI and Non I..

[mmmm8]

Is this because they think Epstein-Barr is about Bill Barr's presence in the Epstein files?

[ponchi101]

...

Is this because they think Epstein-Barr is about Bill Barr's presence in the Epstein files?

And with that, this forum can close to an epic end!!!!

[ti-amie]

[dryrunguy]

I don't know... Some data released just yesterday or the day before pointed to the first U.S. trade surplus in a long, long time. (Of course, that doesn't mean people aren't being hurt by it.)

[ponchi101]

And Japan, China and S. Korea built strong economies on highly protectionist trade systems. Some of their methods were simply restricting imports, tariffs be damned.
I believe that S. America will never be able to become industrialized nations unless we impose such restrictions.

[dryrunguy]

I am no expert on trade, and frankly, I probably shouldn't be saying on the subject at all. But I will anyway because lots of people with no brains do an awful lot of talking (paraphrasing The Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz).

I have always operated under the misguided and naive assumption that the primary purpose of trade was for the transaction to be mutually beneficial. I was completely unaware of the reality that the REAL purpose of trade is to gain a distinct advantage through a transaction made in an unfair or unequitable manner. Sure, the history of western civilization is full of such ill-willed examples... "Give us this marginally useful golden stuff you have, and we'll give you cotton seeds. We know cotton won't grow here, but that still works for you, right" Or, "Give us your land, and we'll give you smallpox and dysentery. That seems fair, right?"

But in the utopian universe in which my defective brain works, I always though trade was supposed to be fair, equitable, and mutually beneficial, and if it turned out a trade deal between two groups was, in retrospect, unfair, the two parties renegotiated so the relationship would remain in tact, mutually beneficial, and a source of trust and continued cooperation in the future. But I'm a silly soul...

[ponchi101]

I know what you are saying.
I know that you are using examples.
But...
(I also have my peeves... )
The unfair trade in which the West gave us smallpox and dysentery also brought us horses, cattle, swine, that slightly useful invention called written language, way more developed construction methods (try to make a cathedral with mud and straw) and almost two thousand years of advanced technology at the time.
We also gave the Europeans (and the rest of the world) tobacco, which maybe has killed more men (and it was almost all men) than anything that Europe did to the Americas. And, to lighten up the mood, we also gave the rest of the world chilis, which was our great revenge (let's not even start thinking of how many people have "died" in a bathroom after a proper serving).

Anyway, that was not what we are talking about, so I apologize for the digression. But is it that this idea that Europe did nothing more than raping and pillaging the Americas is unfair, in my opinion.

Yes. Trade should be mutually beneficial. People that believe that it should be without regulations are simply reading Adam Smith wrong.

[dryrunguy]

Anyway, that was not what we are talking about, so I apologize for the digression. But is it that this idea that Europe did nothing more than raping and pillaging the Americas is unfair, in my opinion.

Yes. Trade should be mutually beneficial. People that believe that it should be without regulations are simply reading Adam Smith wrong.

The bolded part was my main point.

As for the rest, just as you will never buy into my fantasy about the inherent nobility of the conquered, we'll also never agree on the inherent nobility of the conquerors. But at least we can agree most Americans suck.