If you were CEO how would you lay off 20% of your company?
And,if I really had to lay off so many people, I'd take a more personal approach. Invite the whole company for a virtual or physical meeting where I explain why I have to do that, why I have no alternatives, and communicate the decisions to the managers, so people can be let go after talking to a human. Not after getting an email out of the blue in their box, in the middle of a working day. This has been impersonal and faceless on so many levels.
There are companies out there who would love to lay off half their staff, but in regular times they couldn't just do it (because it wasn't a common thing, and makes them look "bad"... everyone would protest). But since nowadays every damn company is doing massive layoffs (and not unknown companies, but companies like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) then they take advantage of the situation and proceed to do the same.
> While we are looking forward to what’s to come in 2023, we must also make hard decisions necessary to set us up for long-term success.
This could have been said any damn year in the past, but massive layoffs is the latest trend, so why not.
So, to fight that elevated inflation they are killing demand, and when demand sharply drops, you can't keep paying your workers as before (because you sell less goods!).
Moreover, companies simply got fat during the pandemic and over hired. I mean, there are probably also a few (lot) companies which do what you write, but I don't think Flexport is one of them. It's more likely they over hired like everyone else. Also, you might want to take a look at the current container fright prices [1]. Pretty parabolic.
The world, particularly business in the US, really did get used to cheap borrowing for everything. Using a line of credit for everything or acquiring massive amounts of easy to service debt has been basically a standard business practice for the last 20 years.
I am actually surprised things haven't imploded yet. So many companies have acquired massive debt that's going to become increasingly impossible to service. It feels to me like we are waiting for the first big domino to fall.
I tend to think they will stick to their guns: they will raise to 5+% and stay there as long as unemployment is below 4.5%
In a cheap money environment you take the money and you gamble for growth, in an expensive money environment you do your best to run lean. The pain is moving between these two. The winners are the guys who did a raise at the peak and can use that cash to accelerate through the downturn, and the losers at the guys who just didn't quite get there, who now are forced into taking capital at a massively diminished valuation.
It's a classical Austrian economists nightmare. The argument is that cheap money stimulates malinvestment. That is to say that corporate projects that would not have made adequate returns on capital under normal circumstances seem to look feasible.
It's all fun and games until the tide turns, and then the whole edifice collapses like a house of cards because it was built on shaky premises that no longer hold.
It's a bad deal for companies to borrow money or take big investments when interest rates are so high. If you want to avoid doing that, you need to predict when interest rates will drop and make sure you have enough cash to ride it out. In spite of being successful, some companies don't have the cash, and they need to reduce their burn rate.
Smaller companies that are still not generating profits? Absolutely they need cuts to survive.
Both of these things are true at the same time. I’m continually surprised at how quickly people have bought the excuse trotted out by extremely profitable companies for mass layoffs. In that situation it is primarily an exercise in juicing up the stock price and keeping investors happy.
Lots of companies are laying off workers or at least freezing hiring because they anticipate earnings cratering, or are already seeing it happen. They haven't reported on it yet, but they will in the coming months. The layoffs will continue to gather pace, as will bankruptcies.
At the end of every season, the Yankees fire some players and hire others.
Old cells in organisms die or are killed, while new ones are born.
Soldiers going on missions may put down the equipment from the prior mission, and pick up new equipment.
The argument "the organization is behaving selfishly, they should just repurposing the existing organization member" is inane since the function of members of an organization depends on the member's specialty, role, purpose, and an organization's purpose can change over time.
It's really strange people act like this is some killer argument when in fact nearly every organization with multiple entities does something analogous (grow in some ways, shrink in others, at the same time)
Flexport always seemed to be hiring.
Source: I’m a hiring manager for software engineers at Flexport.
> At Flexport, 2023 is going to bring extraordinary velocity – we are in the process of doubling our software engineering talent and moving to single threaded business organizations to build world class products faster, and we will continue to invest in delivering best-in-class operational execution for our customers.
Looks like they are laying off non-tech workers who they have made (or will make) obsolete through automation
What does that even mean? They are only able to do one thing at a time? Doesn't sound like a recipe for business success to me...
They could start by laying off 50% of their CEOs
https://www.flexport.com/blog/flexport-co-ceos-note-to-emplo...
Well that's YCombinator in a nutshell.
I would expect that a global reduction in shipping traffic would mean needing fewer of these people internally; so I suspect that's the bulk of the 20% reduction group.
Is it safe to say the Global Trade is down but there is still demand (for now) for tech efficiencies.
We've had 5 such approaches in the past 6 weeks of which 2 we have taken over.
It is going to get very very bad inside the next 6 months. We're still in the pre-swell phase before the tidal wave hits.
1. Start making money 2. Sell the company
Many of them will tell themselves that they can somehow see massive growth and start making a profit, and will fail while trying to do so.
The economy is not "still strong" by most measures. Employment is still strong although there are lot's of arguments to be made that when you dig beneath the surface things are much less rosy. But it get's way worse when you look past employment.
Both volume and rates on maritime container shipping are down roughly 80% YOY. https://www.drewry.co.uk/supply-chain-advisors/supply-chain-...
PMIs are falling off of a cliff https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/manufacturing-pmi
S&p Earnings are in steep decline off the peak https://www.macrotrends.net/1324/s-p-500-earnings-history
Consumer revolving credit is extremely high while the savings rate has fallen off of a cliff since the pandemic peak https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/REVOLSL
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
Housing volume has fallen off of a cliff, auto wholesale has fallen off a cliff, Major Metro Commercial real estate volume has fallen off a cliff while REITs are suspending withdraws.
All of this while tax receipts are about to drop off of a cliff while US debt to GDP and deficit to GDP are essentially at historic highs while the rollover rate on that debt is constantly increasing.
And then realize that the US is in a drastically better position than China, Europe and Japan
It seems like some of the HN crowd is very out of touch with the realities of the economic data.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_World_Is_Just...
Will be fine.
I wonder what roles they elimated though. Good question for you to ask
I hadn't heard of Flexport before, but they seem to be focused on global shipping. The company I work for ships almost all of its products internationally, and we have seen a massive price hike over the last 2-3 years. Some of it necessary due to rising costs, but we know for a fact that larger-volume customers are still getting lower prices. Additionally, the well-known carriers still offer incredibly poor service - most notably when it comes to tracking shipments and providing proper updates. This seems to be exactly the market Flexport wants to tackle.
If they can't even compete in the current overheated market, something must be going seriously wrong at their end.
https://www.drewry.co.uk/supply-chain-advisors/supply-chain-...
Both volume and rates are down roughly 80% YOY.
Amazing incompetence.
A handful of ideas from info theory coupled with government desire to hype nation state brand does not a genius make.
None of these people have established net new ideas. Just borrowing from Gödel, Shannon, Turing, and the like.
Computer networks put the visibility, routing of logistics within reach of the masses. But we’re obliged to preserve the meme of aristocrats knowing best.
That actually really gives me hope for a soft landing - those high-wage folks are much less likely to have serious financial problems like homes getting foreclosed (not to say it's not possible but they're much more likely to have a cushion to keep making payments). If they pull back on their discretionary spending plus stop doing things like driving up housing/car/stock prices by putting money into those things, that feels like it could be the basis for inflation slowing down without a huge uptick in unemployment and everything that comes with it.
Inflation has been pretty stubborn. I assume some of that is coming from supply chain issues, but some of it also could be due to higher-earning households not being as price sensitive as they would have been in previous eras. i.e. a Google engineer is not going to really notice or care that milk is 50% more expensive. They might not even notice or care that their new car now costs $40k instead of $30k. Their annual stock options probably fluctuate by that much on a daily basis. That level of economic comfort used to be the exclusive purview of the professional class, i.e. doctors, lawyers, etc... But the tech boom has expanded that class (upper middle, lower rich?) considerably.
Will be interesting to see if this is the straw that can break the inflation camel. Overall, I am getting the impression that these layoff announcements, while grabbing headlines, are not very indicative of the market at large. But it does seem like they are picking up steam, and of course, these things can also reinforce each other. For example when you let go of 10% of your staff, that means you also reduce your per-seat SAAS software spend, and that money was someone else's revenue.
Anyways, I am rooting for a soft landing but still feel like these things are too hard to control. Would be nice if we could just let some air out of the more bubbly parts of the economy while keeping everything else chugging along. Previous recessions usually result in those who can least afford it getting hit the hardest, so a change of pace on that front would be welcome. Fingers crossed.
Compound that at scale and it will definitely have an effect.
There will not be a soft landing.
When has there ever been a soft landing and how would raising rates into a recession ever result in one? Raising rates takes 1 year to come through to the real economy - we haven't even seen the impact yet, only on stock prices which foreshadow the real economy and again are a leading indicator. They will raise till unemployment starts to rise.
Unemployment is the goal of this Fed policy - that is the point - cause unemployment so that inflation goes away.
Shit rolls downhill. We'll see how well the service economy holds up when their client base has been out of work for 6 months.
Wealthy people have gotten used to increasing the gap and therefore assume that trouble at the top is much worse below.
But what’s actually panning out is that Internet technology is great at replacing white collar jobs and awful at replacing blue collar jobs (I don’t think electricians are losing sleep over ChatGPT).
going to hit $1 trillion soon for the first time. seems not great in face of high interest rates.
--
Would love to hear more on your perspective / insight.
This is all intentional, right? My understanding is that the fed is leaning into this particularly hard in order to dislodge the stubborn housing bubble.
For an individual (someone who isn't a current business owner), does this basically mean we should continue stockpiling savings, and avoid moving (rent) / avoid buying house / buying a car?
Any ideas how long this could last / what the bottom looks like?
They are trying to reduce inflation. The housing bubble certainly played a part, but inflation was hitting nearly everything. A big concern here, is that many smart people think a fair bit of that inflation was due to COVID related supply chain disruptions (which still persist, see China and COVID). So while raising interest rates will help, it may not be the right tool for the job (but it is the only tool that the Fed has, so here we are).
> For an individual (someone who isn't a current business owner), does this basically mean we should continue stockpiling savings, and avoid moving (rent) / avoid buying house / buying a car?
Definitely build up your savings. The other three are more complicated. Rents appear to be finally going down in some marquee markets. So moving might actually save you money. Buying a house now feels like a bad idea, seems like the market is still carrying on from the fumes of the bubble, but interest rates are definitely having an impact. Based on historical examples, the full impacts will probably take a few years to shake out as housing tends to move pretty slowly. And buying a car, well that is complicated. If you need one, buy one. If not, probably best to avoid it.
If you do have savings, might make sense to start looking at CDs, treasuries, and municipal bonds. Interest rates are up and if you have a chunk of cash sitting around those are good ways to put it to use.
> Any ideas how long this could last / what the bottom looks like?
Watching the Fed is the key here. And the Fed is watching inflation. So as long as inflation stubbornly persists the Fed is likely to keep raising rates, and that is going to impact the economy. I read somewhere that the "market" is expecting inflation to normalize in the summer of 2023. But personally that feels optimistic. I think we still need to shake off the COVID induced supply chain disruptions before things get back to normal, and that still feels like another year or so away.
If you run a VC backed business my suggestion is 24-30 months of runway is a good starting point.
As far as individuals go, it's not a bad idea to mirror this advice. Have essentially 2 to 2.5 years of income saved in the event that you get laid off and can't find a job for a long time. Hopefully it never comes to that, but it never hurts to be prepared.
He called this correctly in 2021, before it burst: https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/grantham-this-is-a-bub...
He feels there is still farther to fall (and I agree with him there): https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/prepare-for-an-epic-...
Falling stock prices are really a reflection of real-world problems - while it obviously feels in the US like everything is fine (judging from the many comments saying this here on this thread), everything is not fine, companies looking at their P/L and laying off staff are not fine, and the Fed is deliberately going to cause a recession and cause unemployment to stop inflation, which is a very brutal and indirect tool to do so.
This will not be a soft landing.
If you have a low mortgage, hang onto that! Otherwise standard advice applies, try to keep at least 6 months expenses in cash or cash equivalents. Don’t make big purchases.
God I wish we could just do a Land Value Tax and be done with it. It wouldn't hurt the economy and might even create more work.
Some companies are doing layoffs (mainly those that overhired during COVID), others aren't. Look at the data instead of clickbait headlines and everything looks much less bleak.
If you are really certain you can forecast how the economy is going to do with high accuracy, get a job at some hedge fund and get rich.
Unemployment is low due to a lot of early retirement/retirement. It is obvious we're headed for a recession, the question is how bad will it be. Will China's housing market collapse?
I believe we're going to double dip. We already dipped before the holidays. We'll see one more very painful quarter, which may not be Q1, but Q2 or Q3. From what I've seen, Series B+ is essentially impossible right now unless you're in the top 0.0001% of companies. Even then, if you're that operationally efficient, you might even hold off on funding until you can pull a higher valuation in 24-36 months.
As far as tech layoffs go. I think this has been coming for nearly a decade. Companies have been hiring at what seemed an insane pace for so long that it just became the norm. My personal opinions on Elon aside, he proved how bloated a lot silicon valley tech companies are/were.
Raising money is going to become very difficult, even for those in a good position who manage to raise, they'll be asked for a lot more of their company in return for less money.
This might be a real bear market in equities (anyone remember those?), where things are bad for years and we may see something like the 70s, where the inflation peaked twice, the second time it was worse.
Taking Amazon for example, look at this chart: https://www.statista.com/chart/7581/amazons-global-workforce...
Amazon's headcount literally doubled from 2019 to 2021. The recent layoffs barely move their headcount back at all.
While Amazon may be the most visible, this pattern was repeated across a lot of smaller companies. Even my employer was setting arbitrary goals to grow headcount by certain numbers last year and hired a lot of people with questionable qualifications in the process. Now they're laying people off and using it as an opportunity to cut their mistakes.
A lot of good people are getting laid off, but I have a feeling that many of these layoffs are an overdue correction from companies that were too afraid to let anyone go in the past few years. Now that the hiring market has changed to give employers the upper hand, it's only natural for them to start wanting to cut underperforming employees and focus on the people doing most of the work.
What you're leaving out is that Amazon's net sales literally doubled between 2019 and 2021, from $280MM to $470MM. The doubling of headcount over that period was perfectly rational and in-line with its business model.
There was definitely irrational exuberance in hiring during 2021-2022. But Amazon's exuberance was far more rational than most of tech. Ironically, Amazon both hired far more than everyone else and also over-hired less than everyone else. Unlike all of the other FAANG++ companies, Amazon is and always has been a low margin and labor intensive business.
That reeks of "I'm so sorry but with the tough financial times right now, we have to run a skeleton crew, so we won't be able to approve any of your PTO requests and we're expecting you to work long hours for the forseeable future"
Then later at the earnings meeting: "We made record profits this quarter! The CEO is getting a giant ass bonus!"
A bull-whip effect, but for employment.
What’s happening today is a result of the free money spigot being turned off. The layoffs and hiring freezes are going to be a bit more sticky.
No. Did they have layoffs previously? I also don't remember anyone cancelling orders and cutting jobs at the beginning of the pandemic.
[0]https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2021/temporary-layoffs-remain-h...
Many metrics have a huge pandemic bump that's just approaching the pre-COVID trend line. I suspect we'll see a slight overcorrection. First dipping below trend, then bouncing back up a bit, before finally returning to trend line.
Companies will adjust to supply chain issues. Workers will wisen up and move jobs. Home demand will level out with supply. People will return to "normal" work areas.
I can imagine a lot of companies struggling to hire in a few months. But I can't imagine they being the same ones that are just firing.
There are a lot of companies not unsustainabled, at least in the 10 year frame, that are laying off.
Freight forwarding itself is the industry of coordinating the logistics of freight shipment, ie subcontracting with physical movers of goods (ocean carriers/railroads/trucking companies) and dealing with customs/legal requirements involved in the movement of goods
(Disclaimer: former FP employee and current shareholder)
Is this remotely true though? Aren't the main costs of forwarding simply fuel?
At some point I was importing goods from China (really small volume though) and I did ask them for a quote, and they were twice the price what the Chinese factory could get me from their own forwarder.
> You’d be joining at an exciting time, Flexport is in a hyper-growth stage
See also: insider trading
Don't know the exact origin of the name but maybe an easy way to remember it is "FLEXible transPORT".
To massively oversimplify it for the sake of being short:
- ship a small package within the same country --> UPS/FedEx
- ship a large heavy package (e.g. forklift pallet) within the same country --> freight trucking company
- send a shipping container from one country to another that requires a ton of complicated government paperwork for export & import, pass customs inspection, pay duty fees, and involves coordinating ocean carriers, railroads, air freight, docks, etc --> a freight forwarding logistics service like FlexPort.
E.g. you invented a new electric scooter and had a factory in China manufacture a thousand of them. Now you have to ship those 1000 scooters from the factory to a warehouse in USA. That's the business FlexPort is in. FlexPort itself doesn't own any ships or railroads. It is a coordinator (acts as agent) for various transport companies.
Quick! Don't think! Get in on the ground floor so you won't be left behind when we go to the moon and you can become a bazillionaire!
[G] https://www.npr.org/2021/11/03/1051773672/a-look-at-whats-ca...
Forget about "bad rep", it was a bad economic decision: why let go a slight underperformer (a now-known 0.8x engineer) that you hired in 2015 at pay X, if in exchange you hire a "expected normal 1.0x engineer", but at a price of 1.8*X in 2021 due to crazy escalation of SWE salaries in that period.
(Assuming you have a perfected/more picky hiring process that knows the median hire will be a 1.0x engineer)
Now in 2023, the situation is different: you can hire a "expected normal 1.0x engineer" but at pay 0.8*X (adjusted for inflation - ratios all made up)
It isn't that you do one thing at a time as an entire company, but your org is focused on one thing. For example, maybe there is a director who runs an org in charge of international freight forwarding.
I'm not really sure how things are organized at other large companies as Amazon was my only experience into mega corp work.
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/enterprise-strategy/two-pizza-t...
To be fair, many new businesses cannot do one thing at a time, so maybe singular focus is a good thing at this stage...
Some dominoes took longer to fall than others (Circuit City was fast, Sears took half a century)
Companies are screwed. Big companies might get bail out, or not. Governments, especially big ones like Italy, will probably get a bail out and break the stupid system once and for all.
It’s not that the system does not work, but it’s getting abused left and right by people who think they know shit about economics.
I would not label this "correctly" calling a bubble when he is off by over 6 months and equities remain within 10% of when he gave his interview.
Can you say what this is and how it would address the housing situation?
The housing bubble certainly is a slow moving one at this point. It seems like there's still not a lot of inventory and prices are still at historic highs. Prices haven't come down although price growth has slowed. It's really quite bizarre. We're a mobile a society though, eventually people have to move for various reasons. Maybe people are going to hold on their mortgage and rent the house instead of selling? It's hard to see how all this plays out.
It would eliminate most of the speculation in housing and give strong incentives to build more.
Building more would allow more people to move into job centers which would be good for the economy.
The q1/q2 numbers were more than made up by the q3 gdp growth. The numbers for q4 aren’t out yet but the consensus thinks they’ll be slightly positive making 2022 a positive year. That’s after 2021 which was a barn burner.
The GDP curve is already nothing like 2008 so it’s hard to use it as a guide.
There are costant headlines about layoffs. Also you said that a recession has a defintion, if that hasn't happened how is the media and government in denial?
In Seattle and the SFBA, yes.
Companies don’t try to break even, they try to make money because higher ROI means you’re more valuable.
The rest of us have to read the tea leaves. But for every company that lays people off, you'll find employees swearing up and down that the business is healthy, layoffs aren't happening, and they know this because execs assured them for the third time just yesterday that there's no plans for layoffs.
Delivery robots are limited to certain college campuses, robotic waitresses are far from the mainstream, and self-checkout appears to still need 1-2 workers manning it for loss-prevention/general help.
Meanwhile, Robotic Process Automation is gutting the "I download a PDF and transcribe it to Excel" worker category at banks.
Meanwhile, farm automation has flipped the overall percentage of labour force from >90% farm to <10%
That part was a joke because of Flexport's layoffs due to lack of volume. The stacking is probably a separate topic compared to the success of his business, but was just stating why his name and company are familiar on HN.
I personally believe they should stack them vertically vs horizontal stacking to save space so they are always accessible vs 2-3-4 high. (also a joke)
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/11/03/1051773672/a-look-at-whats-ca...
https://s3.cointelegraph.com/uploads/2022-12/50a56fbc-65fc-4...
2022 was the worst performing year ever for bonds and among the worst-10 for stocks -- we've never been this deep in the "negative returns across sectors" quadrant as we are right now, and there's no clear indication or catalyst to suggest we're recovering yet either.
I mean picture yourself stopping work for 2-3y with zero planning, living on debt and pretending like nothing happened. At some point the bills come due.
Another factor working its way through the system is the "reshoring" of manufacturing. A lot of companies gave up on China and are moving their manufacturing to other countries or closer to home. This probably creates inflationary pressures as the development of the manufacturing facilities create s a fair bit of demand, but also staffing the facility creates more demand for the local workforce. So if this trend continues I could seeing this being a long term inflationary pressure.
Housing market is a completely different discussion. Interest rates rising of course lead to price drops here.
I'll start worrying about a recession once GDP falls and jobs are eliminated instead of added from the economy.
The jobs added are great, especially since we need ~140K additional jobs per month due to the growing US Population. (that number probably dropped due to reduced immigration)
Unfortunately I don't work in all sectors of America so even if the GDP goes up to a China-inflated 10% or higher but I'm unemployed, it'll suck.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-single-family-housing-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-28/us-housin...
For wages that's 1000^3, for taxes it's 1024^3.
or did op mean Gigidollars = mere 1e3 Mebidollars ?
There is a lot of administrative cost. IIRC, you might have something like 1 dispatcher for every 50 drivers. You have other people giving quotes via phone, decently high turnover for truck drivers, slow loading warehouses that cause a cascading effect when the driver can't complete all the stops planned for the day, and a strict limit on hours worked for truckers.
Some of the pandemic port congestion was truckers arriving at a port to pick up a particular load, but that load wasn't ready right then. Flexport has an app which basically let drivers on their platform arrive at a port, grab any container that's part of their platform, and take that to the destination. This prevented countless hours of idle trucks in ports.
Isn't it possible that tech simply overpromised, and that a couple of guys here and there smoking, typing numbers in spreadsheets on old computers, yelling over the phone and writing things down on post-it notes are simply cheaper and just as "efficient" as an army of AWS EC2 instances spilling out logs on S3 under the supervision of highly-paid engineers and dev op guys?
I think the pitch of flexport is what if we modernize the technology and make it more efficient by reducing or removing the need of all of these people managing the forwarding via excel.
That said, I can't really vouch for the soundness of this argument one way or another. It's been a long time since I worked there, and my primary interest when I did was more in understanding the industry at a conceptual level than in litigating the viability of the business model.
Another significant cost factor for a freight forwarder is IT integrations with customers and carriers--many of which are very old-school and use EDI, SOAP, or even CSV-over-FTP to communicate shipment instructions and statuses.
I'm not sure to what extent Flexport implements these kinds of integrations with their partners, but there is definitely a significant hurdle to breaking even on investment in this kind of automation vs. just hiring clerks to process everything manually with e-mails and phone calls, especially in countries with lower labor costs.
That's a lower case g.
It's everybody here that is getting out of their way to avoid understanding the number.
It's also rather small.
The reality is we cannot see the future of our incredibly complex, ever-changing economy. Sure, this hasn't happened in the past, but on the other hand the economy today is vastly different than it was even fifty years ago. Not to say we couldn't end in a recession - of course that is a distinct possibility - but the reality is that we don't have a ton of history to draw on when it comes to post-pandemic recessions exacerbated by supply chain issues and large-scale war in major energy-producing countries.
I wonder if you've shorted the equities markets to the greatest degree practically possible given your financial situation? If not, then I think you're phrasing things with too great a degree of absoluteness.
In terms of the Fed's goal, it is reduction of inflation. Unemployment is both a driver and a signal of that, but it's not the ultimate goal. And besides, a rise in unemployment doesn't guarantee a recession - we're at 3.5% and folks from the Fed have said they see 4% as consistent with keeping inflation stable at an appropriate level. It is absolutely possible to have 4% inflation and not be in a recession.
High interest rates causing unemployment and reducing investment is the lever they will use to defeat inflation, it's very very hard to get right and the Fed has a long track record of getting it absolutely wrong (including over the last decade when they stoked a massive asset bubble in the US and all sorts of crazy behaviour like NFTs and crypto speculation). I suspect they will get it wrong this time too.
The Fed created this bubble (and arguably others since 2000) with loose monetary policy, and now they're trying to kill it with tight monetary policy - what could possibly go wrong!
The equities market doesn't have great correlation with the common pleb's job outlook so it makes no sense to short the equities market based on these kind of predictions.
If we're making predictions about recessions based on history, then it seems pretty clear that the result of one will be a market decline.
Huzzah. /s
Many of these businesses being hit were long overdue for a fall and behaving highly irrationally. This borders on the severity of the .com bust, though it does appear to be less severe.
How do we know it won't be worse either? We could be heading into a downturn and turmoil to rival the great depression.
I don't think this is remotely true - the .com bust killed off a huge number of companies (and an enormous amount of market cap) that weren't profitable and had no real path to profitability. This time we're talking about layoffs at companies like Meta and Amazon that are just throwing off money every quarter.
All had massive amounts of domesday comparisons to the Great Depression.
None came close.
Irrationally businesses being hit hard is a normal part of the economic cycle.
The big question is “is this recession going to reveal some hideous flaw in our financial system we didn’t know about and couldn’t plan for.”
So far the answer is “no” - just like the dot com burst, and unlike the Great Recession and the bond crisis of the early 90s.
The fed is basically a team of scientists when it comes to monetary policy, and meanwhile congress is essentially warring factions of drunk, catty sorority girls when it comes to fiscal policy. It's unfortunate.
If instead of the massive tax cut passed in 2017 we had passed a 2 trillion dollar infrastructure spending bill (and I'm talking 2 trillion in additional infra spending, not the watered-down "1 trillion" that included routine spending) we could've been on a solid footing for supply capacity that could've fought inflation without targeted killing of the working class.
That’s already happening. Bank reserves are being tightened up. Plus banks do that anyways when economic outlook looks poor.
I think it would be terrible to legislate any of this. The fed is already under enough political pressure.
Can you image politicians trying to control the economy? They’d screw it up for sure.
Why would this be a goal?
It sucks, but it is what it is. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
This isn't conspiracy speak, JPowell has made this very clear.
It wasn’t until the fed took control of the money supply in the late 70’s did inflation get under control.
It doesn’t have to drop more in a recession because it already has! People losing their jobs and spending less is already predicted by Wall St.
>But it seems like overall, and especially in lower-wage jobs, employment is still humming along and people are very much not getting laid off. There will not be a soft landing.
It seemed like you were responding to this statement that was about employment rather than the stock market, before making your comment about shorting the equities market.
