Stock Market Update (Where's Eduardo?)

[bdgan]

It's not magic. It's not anything that's not already out there. Google it. Different people have different focuses and slight nuances to suggestions (levels, etc.). Nothing you guys are suggesting hasn't already been suggested, debated, etc. It's just fun to point out the obvious idiocies in extremist positions. There's not even just one way to make it work - there are various strategies that, when combined, can have a beneficial effect on the situation. Cut spending a bit (no need to go nuts). Institute some taxes or increase taxation levels. Raise benefits ages. Increase legal immigration for increased productivity and tax base. Slowly work rates down and the refinancing situation takes care of itself.

You guys have all fallen victim to the "urgency crisis" where talking heads on TV ... and then on the internet ... need to suggest that this topic or that topic is the most important and the most dire, so they can get and retain eyeballs ... and then you embraced the ultimate idiot in this respect ... and then he brought in his buddy in idiocy ... and you're sitting here cheering the extremism "yeah, huge tariffs on everybody! we're gutting everything! some 260 year old is receiving benefits!" Your brains have rotted.

You've essentially said that the debt/interest problem can be fixed by collecting more revenues and spending less money. Duh! Tell us what you're really thinking. Spell it out.

What does "cut spending a bit" mean? $50 billion? $100 billion? $500 billion? And where would you cut it? Until now we've just added new spending. I'm old enough to remember when Obamacare wasn't going to add a dime to the deficit. What's it adding now? My guess is $150 billion. I also remember when taxpayers would save money by having the government take over student loans. How much have we lost? $300 billion?

What does "institute some tax increases" mean? Allow the TCJA to expire? Everybody gets a 3% tax hike, half standard deduction, and half child credit?. Biden's tax the rich plan (if you believe him) would have only raised $50 billion per year.

What does "raise benefit ages" mean? SS is already at 67. That's going to be difficult for roofers, miners, warehouse workers, etc.

So yes, it would help to generate more revenue while spending less money. The problem is those are just words. Look at the outrage because DOGE wants to close/consolidate 47 out of 1,200 SS offices. I'm not trying to give you crap. I'm just asking you to quantify what you're thinking.

 

[PurposePitch]

Peter Schiff, who just appeared on Claman, is another no-bullshit pundit who sees the world as I do. He says Trump is wrong. The country holding the cards is not the one with the consumers. It's the country with the trade surplus, the savings, the infrastructure, the factories. They can consume what they produce and sell to other nations. They can move their assets out of US securities (and drive up our interest rates). In short, they have the leverage. It is not the other way around.

Schiff says "our deficit chickens are coming to roost." Our living beyond our means is finally coming to an end. The world had been living beneath its means to subsidize America living beyond its means.

This is why I've been rather livid about financing, through debt, wars to protect the world. A balanced budget forces you to live with the pain at the moment, so you can truly see the source of the pain. As it is, half a century of bad policies are now causing the house to crumble.

The feeble minds in our society won't realize what really caused it. They'll probably just try to blame Trump.

Schiff and Pomboy = "the end is nigh" every day.

1 billion years later, when the Sun engulfs the Earth, their ancestors' final words will be "nailed it, losers."

 

[bdgan]

Schiff and Pomboy = "the end is nigh" every day.

I agree with a lot of their economic theory. The problem is they're predictions overly negative all the time. They say the market is going to crash at S&P 3k,4k, 5k, and 6k. Then 5 years later it finally tanks back to 4.5k and they say "I told you so". Sure, but they told us so at 3k.

 

[ryoder1]

I think I can agree with most of your above comment and I don't see much of a conflict between many of the points you're making and what I said in my earlier response to you.

In fact, your emphasis on the devolution of authority to the lowest possible governing level is a core principle of conservatism. Heck, it's even a core principle of Catholic theology called "subsidiarity": "...the principle stating that decisions and actions should be made at the lowest, most local level possible, with higher authorities intervening only when necessary, which emphasizes the importance of decentralization and empowerment of smaller institutions..."

Also, your thoughts on deregulation tracks closely with my point opposing unrestrained, unregulated capitalism whose controlling criteria are dollar signs and profit margins.

Again, however, as in your earlier post, I have to disagree with your starting point about shared values, history, etc. I would say that in fact our constitution and our entire democracy are premised on a set of shared, core principles arising from common moral values, history, tradition, and all the rest. Without that, the whole thing breaks down. As a matter of fact, it is breaking down...because we're losing it...because we've arrived at a point where the nation is divided into two sides who no longer share the same principles and values.

Keep in mind that the Founders did not, after all, invent the wheel. They built on the wisdom and experience of the many generations before them...the same wisdom and experience that produced Western Civilization. They said that themselves.

What was their starting point? It's famously expressed in the Preamble to our nation's Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

There it is in a nutshell. Everything, to include our Constitution, proceeds from that fundamental principle.

America's Grand Experiment is a story of peoples coming together as one nation. It was colloquially called the Melting Pot. God knows, it wasn't an easy or automatic road. At one crucial point, it almost fractured for the very reason that a fundamental division arose about the concept of freedom and human worth. We fought a bloody civil war over that.

160 years later, I think we're not far from a similar fracture where the differences between the two opposing sides can no longer be reconciled by the basic democratic devices of debate, compromise, elections, and so forth. Let's face it, one side actually hates the other. Just listen to the rhetoric. I don't see a civil war on the horizon...but neither do I see a terribly bright future on our present path.

If the Fed cuts rates the same bad stuff will occur. Long rates will rise as the stock market gets a temporary sugar high. But it won't change the economic problems we face at all, so the market will collapse all the same. The credit market won't change much by a Fed Funds rate cut. The Fed will have to start buying bonds, i.e., restart QE, and that is inflationary.

In the end we wind up with stagflation despite what the Fed does. All of what government has done is nothing more than prolonging the inevitable while making the Day of Reckoning worse.

Look at Debt payments to GDP. Payments rollover for just the remainder of this year is about 30% of GDP. That is staggering.

Did you think we were headed for economic collapse before the tarrifs? I think you did so in your view and what you posted earlier is the whole economy is going to fall off a cliff and I guess nothing is going to stop that.

 

[junior1]

You've essentially said that the debt/interest problem can be fixed by collecting more revenues and spending less money. Duh! Tell us what you're really thinking. Spell it out.

What does "cut spending a bit" mean? $50 billion? $100 billion? $500 billion? And where would you cut it? Until now we've just added new spending. I'm old enough to remember when Obamacare wasn't going to add a dime to the deficit. What's it adding now? My guess is $150 billion. I also remember when taxpayers would save money by having the government take over student loans. How much have we lost? $300 billion?

What does "institute some tax increases" mean? Allow the TCJA to expire? Everybody gets a 3% tax hike, half standard deduction, and half child credit?. Biden's tax the rich plan (if you believe him) would have only raised $50 billion per year.

What does "raise benefit ages" mean? SS is already at 67. That's going to be difficult for roofers, miners, warehouse workers, etc.

So yes, it would help to generate more revenue while spending less money. The problem is those are just words. Look at the outrage because DOGE wants to close/consolidate 47 out of 1,200 SS offices. I'm not trying to give you crap. I'm just asking you to quantify what you're thinking.

again not being specific but some thoughts... for the first time in decades at least someone is actually trying to cut spending. So far the doge guys seem to have identified $150billion savings, and I assume these were recurring parts of the federal budget so that would be $150billion a year in budget savings (remember there's a major outcry over finding $880 billion over 10 years or $88Billion/year for the Medicaid). Additionally Trump wants to add work requirements to Medicaid and the CBO found 5% fraud out of a $631billion medicaid outlay so there's an additional $30billion a year. Plus, the feds NEED to reduce the matching formula for Medicaid. If the states want to expand the program, they should pay for it. Look at California. They have $3billion deficit in their Medicaid budget because they decided to open the program to illegal migrants. No reason for a taxpayer in Pennsylvania to pay for that.

We haven't even gotten into Medicare fraud. I'd bet that there's a lot of money to be found there. And this time people look to be really interested in finding it.

I have always believed that the objectives the leader sets out determine the mindset of everyone else. If the mindset is we need to cut $X billion out of the budget, people will find a way to do that. On the other hand just setting a goal of cutting funds is meaningless.

Now, if what DOGE is finding relative to our federal management systems is accurate - outdated computers, software, systems that don't "talk" to each other etc) than there are significant productivity enhancements that can be made reducing the need for manpower. It's clear to me that management programs are woefully inadequate...20 million people over 100 years old on social security roles, people collecting Medicaid in more than one state, 800 tax returns going to one address. It's crazy stuff, but real.

I guess it's fair to complain about the method that Trump is using, but so far the results are encouraging

 

[NittanyLionRoar]

I think the apples and bananas thing is a colorful take on the issue, and I get where you're coming from.

Granted, I'm far from an economics expert and don't pretend to be, but your analysis is not how things worked for 150 years of American history when protectionism...and tariffs...were a powerful influence on our economic policy and played a key role in making America an economic superpower.

Perhaps the biggest problem, as I see it, with unfettered free trade in this globalized economy is that American workers are forced to compete with foreign nations whose labor forces are employed at slave wages...thus exerting a powerful downward influence on wages here at home and ultimately leading to the destruction of our manufacturing base, the deindustrialization of our economy, the export of entire industries, some of them impactful to national security, to foreign lands...and so forth.

This in turn contributes significantly to the impoverishment of the non-college educated working class, the hollowing out of our own middle class, the decimated communities by the hundreds or thousands, the growing gap between the Haves and Have-Nots...and a whole range of thorny issues.

I get it...none of this is simple...nor is there a simple answer. In fact, as I noted in an earlier post, it may be there is no longer a fix available for the problems created by the inexorable globalization of the economy. Perhaps the Powers That Be, who have enriched themselves by writing and imposing the new rules, have no particular interest in the welfare of their fellow citizens and don't much care who gets hurt. It may be that our ruling elites intend to preside over what appears to be an ultimately unsustainable system and ride this horse until it collapses.

But it's hard for me to fault those who are exploring a different course.

I disagree there, I think it prevented us from ascending to superpower status faster. If you check the charts of GNP and what existed of the stock market back then, the U.S. economy experienced wild swings up and down, with a series of major depressions, one after the other, until the bottom of the Great Depression in the 1930’s. After 130 years, growth was mostly flat. But as the 1930’s progressed, there became a bipartisan appetite for doing away with tariffs, which persisted for almost 90 years, through one of the most incredible macro bull runs the world has ever seen.

Basically, we only took firm grasp of sole superpower status after we dropped tariffs drastically and the world nearly destroyed itself in a world war, leaving us relatively unscathed in the process.

Of course, many factors have influenced markets over time, but there’s a clear historical correlation between tariff reductions and periods of strong economic growth.

I think too many people have a romanticized view of old school manufacturing. The economy is so much more than that as evidenced by how some of our strongest economic times were post-industrial age. I’ve said before, yes, we have to manufacture our own national security products, but unless we’re willing to return to 10-year-olds assembling widgets and ultra low wages, I don’t think our goal should be to choke ourselves in attempt to bring t-shirt factories back.

 

[PSUWrestlingFanSince2011]

If we divide the national debt by the number of households in the country we get $275K per household. At 4-5% interest that's like carrying a second mortgage. But it's worse than that for the middle class. Half the country can't pay their next unexpected expense. They are strapped. That means the middle class is stuck covering for them. The "middle" gets a second mortgage on the order of a half million. That roughs out to $20-25K per year. That is quite a tax when we consider that the middle class starts with incomes below $100K.

I consider this to be a hurdle to reverse direction -- interest without paying down principal. We have to pay even more before we can get better. It's a staggering cost. The middle class gets cooked.

This is all before inflation too. It's just the starting point.

The only people who will be able to support corporate profit growth will be the uber wealthy. Everyone else will be cutting. That is your support for the E in PE.

Wall Street is in dreamland.

The National Debt will never be paid off.

 

[NittanyLionRoar]

Edwardo incorrectly predicted the stock market would crash during the Biden presidency, so I just did the opposite of what he said every time and was rewarded significantly for it. I called it the "Edwardo Buy Signal." Every time he came here to complain about the stock indexes and claim Biden was going to cause a collapse, I knew it was time to go dip buying.

With the economic ingredients that Trump is mixing together for his next term, there surely will be turmoil in the markets. Don't expect trade wars to be good for your portfolios. And whatever you think about how illegal immigration is handled, just don't be surprised when grocery prices, construction, and trade services aren't what you hoped because the labor was all deported.

The only thing I feel pretty confident about the next four years is gold.

I'll just place this right here. It's what I said on page 1 of this thread back in December. So far--spot on. And a number of you posted laughing emoji's. Guess who's in the green in 2025?

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

The National Debt will never be paid off.

True. No one is saying that is what is necessary. But debt service per GDP has to be in a downward trajectory and get to a level that isn't a burden on the average household. As it is today we hide the debt service cost through the inflation tax.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I'll just place this right here. It's what I said on page 1 of this thread back in December. So far--spot on. And a number of you posted laughing emoji's. Guess who's in the green in 2025?

Me and you perhaps.

 

[PAstr]

Me too!!!……..actually thinking about fully divesting my 401k (mostly s&p index) and going “all-in” on pgld and pslv…….

 

[bdgan]

again not being specific but some thoughts... for the first time in decades at least someone is actually trying to cut spending. So far the doge guys seem to have identified $150billion savings, and I assume these were recurring parts of the federal budget so that would be $150billion a year in budget savings (remember there's a major outcry over finding $880 billion over 10 years or $88Billion/year for the Medicaid). Additionally Trump wants to add work requirements to Medicaid and the CBO found 5% fraud out of a $631billion medicaid outlay so there's an additional $30billion a year. Plus, the feds NEED to reduce the matching formula for Medicaid. If the states want to expand the program, they should pay for it. Look at California. They have $3billion deficit in their Medicaid budget because they decided to open the program to illegal migrants. No reason for a taxpayer in Pennsylvania to pay for that.

We haven't even gotten into Medicare fraud. I'd bet that there's a lot of money to be found there. And this time people look to be really interested in finding it.

I have always believed that the objectives the leader sets out determine the mindset of everyone else. If the mindset is we need to cut $X billion out of the budget, people will find a way to do that. On the other hand just setting a goal of cutting funds is meaningless.

Now, if what DOGE is finding relative to our federal management systems is accurate - outdated computers, software, systems that don't "talk" to each other etc) than there are significant productivity enhancements that can be made reducing the need for manpower. It's clear to me that management programs are woefully inadequate...20 million people over 100 years old on social security roles, people collecting Medicaid in more than one state, 800 tax returns going to one address. It's crazy stuff, but real.

I guess it's fair to complain about the method that Trump is using, but so far the results are encouraging

• $150 billion is a good start but I'm not sure how much of it will stick. There are lawsuits saying that we have to spend what congress approved. Even if these cuts stick I we need another $300 billion just to get our deficit down to $1.5 trillion.
• The CBO has reported roughly $250 billion in improper payments. I'd be elated if we could cut that in half.
• Beyond that I'm not too optimistic. Nobody has the courage to cut granny's payments by even a dime. Democrats want higher taxes on the rich but those only amounted to $50 billion when proposed. The political will to fix things simply doesn't exist.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Did you think we were headed for economic collapse before the tarrifs? I think you did so in your view and what you posted earlier is the whole economy is going to fall off a cliff and I guess nothing is going to stop that.

Yes, I did. The tariffs are merely making us face reality -- that we can't go on as we were. Debt payments are now well over the military budget, and rising. Doing anything about this problem to avert a financial crisis comes with a price tag. The recent drop in equities is just a start. It is showing what will happen.

With the tariffs Trump is realizing that the bleeding of capital -- deficit spending essentially financed through a trade deficit -- cannot go on. He chose an approach that might incentivize business to relocate to this country. He hopes that foreign sources might bear some of the cost. (Actually, they already do, by financing our debt through buying treasuries.). In the end the American Consumer will probably pay a "tax" through higher prices on imported goods. The consumer is already getting taxed through inflation -- pressure driven up by deficit spending without private sector production growth.

Another way to have a tax increase would be to collect more through the IRS. This would have the effect of taking money out of the private sector economy and causing a recession/depression. It's the least inflationary solution, and one that I kind of expected a decade ago. In fact when I retired I got financial advice that suggested I should work down deferred-tax retirement accounts as quickly as possible, because taxes were sure to increase. Then we got Trump #1 -- a major kicking of the can down the road. More sugar for our drug addiction and a harder time coming clean. The advice made even more sense provided the money went into a Roth.

Then we had the Biden Administration / Pelosi Congress and all of the malfeasance that went into a massive increase in federal spending. Now we REALLY kicked the can, to the point that someone like me would say that we are past the point of return (without a very significant cost in living standards). Supporters of that side are applauding the sugar high.

It's now routine for each side to claim they are better because they kicked the can harder.

This is how I see it. It's why I know that the S&P is living on borrowed time. Maybe some can make money by timing the market and getting out before the crash. Good luck to them. The government has a way of kicking the can. They have delayed and delayed and now reasonable people see that it's an equation with no positive value solution.

PS: We should always look at stock index valuations on an inflation-adjusted basis. That is a little better at telling the true story. You can have the market be flat, as it was during the 70s, and yet lose your shirt. That is still a "crash."

 

[NittanyLionRoar]

Me too!!!……..actually thinking about fully divesting my 401k (mostly s&p index) and going “all-in” on pgld and pslv…….

We'll need to start being careful though, gold will likely roll over eventually as well. The time to buy it was when people were posting laughing emojis about it. Now's the time to hold--as tonight proves, there's more uncertainty and poor tariff negotiations happening. My sell target is somewhere between now and $3,600. As long as we continue the trade war path, it will be closer to $3,600. After that, I'll need to reassess, but I'll be taking profits approaching that number.

Everything will drop in a recession/depression crash, even gold. There's one scenario where gold doesn't drop, and unfortunately it's not out of the question, though unlikely. That's if the U.S. government and FED fold, along with a number of other governments and central banks. In that case, the U.S. will uselessly try to print infinite amounts of dollars to pay its debts, causing interest rates to soar to a point the money printing can't keep up and bonds become worthless.

When treasuries and bonds aren't safe, there's literally nothing else but gold. Maybe Bitcoin, but I don't have enough conviction in that yet (even though I've traded crypto for years) because all it takes is someone turning off the electricity to lose access to it.

 

[SLion]

Seems so fitting..

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Me too!!!……..actually thinking about fully divesting my 401k (mostly s&p index) and going “all-in” on pgld and pslv…….

Good choices. No K-1.

I have chosen a different path. Just have more money in it compared to what I would otherwise feel comfortable having in gold/silver, which can be volatile.

If you like the advice of Peter Schiff he would say to buy the miners, e.g., GDX. He is ignoring a bit of history though, which shows that a broad selloff usually brings down the miners with it. I guess he is modeling the stagflation scenario. He has often said that one should look at what worked during the 1970s. It did not include stocks and bonds. Bonds, of course, got killed as interest rates rose.

One difference ... In the 70s we did not have inflation-protected bonds. Funds are available now that can keep you in a short duration and liquid. The only concern is the government lying about inflation, thereby reducing all kinds of government liabilities. Your weighting basis -- for your personal needs -- will likely be different from their (dynamic) weighting basis. They have an incentive to adjust the basis and cheat you over time.

 

[NittanyLionRoar]

Good choices. No K-1.

I have chosen a different path. Just have more money in it compared to what I would otherwise feel comfortable having in gold/silver, which can be volatile.

If you like the advice of Peter Schiff he would say to buy the miners, e.g., GDX. He is ignoring a bit of history though, which shows that a broad selloff usually brings down the miners with it. I guess he is modeling the stagflation scenario. He has often said that one should look at what worked during the 1970s. It did not include stocks and bonds. Bonds, of course, got killed as interest rates rose.

One difference ... In the 70s we did not have inflation-protected bonds. Funds are available now that can keep you in a short duration and liquid. The only concern is the government lying about inflation, thereby reducing all kinds of government liabilities. Your weighting basis -- for your personal needs -- will likely be different from their (dynamic) weighting basis. They have an incentive to adjust the basis and cheat you over time.

I was very, very tempted to buy the miners for the reasons Peter Schiff suggested, but I did not for the reason you point out. When a market crash really gets going, the miners get crushed more than the price of gold.

 

[Jerry]

I disagree there, I think it prevented us from ascending to superpower status faster. If you check the charts of GNP and what existed of the stock market back then, the U.S. economy experienced wild swings up and down, with a series of major depressions, one after the other, until the bottom of the Great Depression in the 1930’s. After 130 years, growth was mostly flat. But as the 1930’s progressed, there became a bipartisan appetite for doing away with tariffs, which persisted for almost 90 years, through one of the most incredible macro bull runs the world has ever seen.

Basically, we only took firm grasp of sole superpower status after we dropped tariffs drastically and the world nearly destroyed itself in a world war, leaving us relatively unscathed in the process.

Of course, many factors have influenced markets over time, but there’s a clear historical correlation between tariff reductions and periods of strong economic growth.

I think too many people have a romanticized view of old school manufacturing. The economy is so much more than that as evidenced by how some of our strongest economic times were post-industrial age. I’ve said before, yes, we have to manufacture our own national security products, but unless we’re willing to return to 10-year-olds assembling widgets and ultra low wages, I don’t think our goal should be to choke ourselves in attempt to bring t-shirt factories back.

Well I think the historical record is that American economic policy was basically protectionist from the early days of the nation until roughly the end of World War II.

And I think the record also shows that it was during that time and specifically toward the end of the 19th century that America became the world's largest and most productive economy.

Therefore, it's hard not to see a correlation between protectionism and the explosive economic growth of our country during her first 150 years of existence.

I think the stock market is a different issue. We've had a bull market for many years now but the lion's share of benefits from it have been reaped by a fairly small minority of the population.

To be clear, I'm not arguing any of this from self-interest. I receive a generous government pension pegged to inflation and live comfortably in retirement, which I expect to continue doing -- knock on wood -- unless the government goes under, in which case we're all screwed.

The point being, I'm not looking at this from the standpoint of what's most financially beneficial to me but rather from the angle of what's best for the future of my children, grandchildren, and fellow citizens who are less fortunate than I.

 

[joeaubie21]

Let's keep supporting those who don't want to work.

 

[bdgan]

Let's keep supporting those who don't want to work.

Along those lines....

The median family income in this country is less than $80k. McDonalds is paying $19/hr where I live (which is not a high cost area). Local manufacturers are advertising $20/hr to start with full benefits and no experience necessary. My point is that dual income family can easily earn $80k plus benefits to start with full benefits yet half the country doesn't achieve that level. Something is wrong that we haven't been able to motivate a large percent of the population to do better.

 

[Obliviax]

Along those lines....

The median family income in this country is less than $80k. McDonalds is paying $19/hr where I live (which is not a high cost area). Local manufacturers are advertising $20/hr to start with full benefits and no experience necessary. My point is that dual income family can easily earn $80k plus benefits to start with full benefits yet half the country doesn't achieve that level. Something is wrong that we haven't been able to motivate a large percent of the population to do better.

...and those are entry-level jobs. You do that for a year or two, build your resume, show you can report to work on time with a good attitude, and move up.

 

[NittanyLionRoar]

...and those are entry-level jobs. You do that for a year or two, build your resume, show you can report to work on time with a good attitude, and move up.

I'm a school counselor and work in a district that has great access to training and certification programs in things like construction, welding, HVAC, auto, electrical training, etc. It's so good kids can be certified and working right out of high school, sometimes before they even graduate. Employers in our area are absolutely begging us to train more kids and get them out into the workforce. So much so that many of these jobs are paying $80,000 to $120,000 locally in the first five years.

I have been advertising this and intentionally going into their classrooms and having every single student walk through it, so they know exactly what to do and what kind of job security they'll have. I am having the hardest time getting anyone to actually do it. Kids would rather go to college and get $100,000+ in debt for a job that pays $45,000 than get paid twice as much with no debt.

The only kids I've been able to successfully convince to go into these fields are Afghan refugees, Ukrainian refugees, and kids of undocumented Latin American parents.

I'll preface this by saying I 100% believe in orderly and legal immigration - but the idea that the refugees and illegal immigrants were taking jobs from citizens is outright false. I can count on one hand the number of white students who've chosen to go into one of those programs the past five years. It's been almost entirely immigrants.

 

[NittanyLionRoar]

Market up nicely today

I used to have the "Edwardo Buy-the-Dip" indicator. Do I need to start a "PSUWrestlingFanSince2011 Sell-the-Rip" indicator?

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I'm a school counselor and work in a district that has great access to training and certification programs in things like construction, welding, HVAC, auto, electrical training, etc. It's so good kids can be certified and working right out of high school, sometimes before they even graduate. Employers in our area are absolutely begging us to train more kids and get them out into the workforce. So much so that many of these jobs are paying $80,000 to $120,000 locally in the first five years.

I have been advertising this and intentionally going into their classrooms and having every single student walk through it, so they know exactly what to do and what kind of job security they'll have. I am having the hardest time getting anyone to actually do it. Kids would rather go to college and get $100,000+ in debt for a job that pays $45,000 than get paid twice as much with no debt.

The only kids I've been able to successfully convince to go into these fields are Afghan refugees, Ukrainian refugees, and kids of undocumented Latin American parents.

I'll preface this by saying I 100% believe in orderly and legal immigration - but the idea that the refugees and illegal immigrants were taking jobs from citizens is outright false. I can count on one hand the number of white students who've chosen to go into one of those programs the past five years. It's been almost entirely immigrants.

They want to go away and have a 4 year party with friends while free of parents. Maybe find a mate.

They also abhor the idea of doing something physical. They've been programmed to like being sedentary. Once you're over weight the inertia for change is even greater.

The cell phone and video games have been very detrimental to society. Social skills are terrible. You could have a group of kids in one room and they will be texting each other.

This isn't complicated. We don't need Harvard social science research to tell us this.

 

[bdgan]

I'm a school counselor and work in a district that has great access to training and certification programs in things like construction, welding, HVAC, auto, electrical training, etc. It's so good kids can be certified and working right out of high school, sometimes before they even graduate. Employers in our area are absolutely begging us to train more kids and get them out into the workforce. So much so that many of these jobs are paying $80,000 to $120,000 locally in the first five years.

I have been advertising this and intentionally going into their classrooms and having every single student walk through it, so they know exactly what to do and what kind of job security they'll have. I am having the hardest time getting anyone to actually do it. Kids would rather go to college and get $100,000+ in debt for a job that pays $45,000 than get paid twice as much with no debt.

The only kids I've been able to successfully convince to go into these fields are Afghan refugees, Ukrainian refugees, and kids of undocumented Latin American parents.

I'll preface this by saying I 100% believe in orderly and legal immigration - but the idea that the refugees and illegal immigrants were taking jobs from citizens is outright false. I can count on one hand the number of white students who've chosen to go into one of those programs the past five years. It's been almost entirely immigrants.

• I don't think most kids take on student loans expecting to get a $45.000 job. The problem is parents and school counselors don't tell them the hard truth and run them through the numbers. I remember school counselors telling my kid's "Do what you love" then telling them how they could apply for loans to cover the cost.
• I appreciate your comment about immigrants but I bet a lot of people collecting social welfare would take some of those jobs if it was their only choice.
• There's a manufacturing group in my area that advertises on the radio. Work 3 days and go to school 2 days while you get paid for 5 days. They struggle to get people.

 

[bdgan]

They want to go away and have a 4 year party with friends while free of parents. Maybe find a mate.

They also abhor the idea of doing something physical. They've been programmed to like being sedentary. Once you're over weight the inertia for change is even greater.

The cell phone and video games have been very detrimental to society. Social skills are terrible. You could have a group of kids in one room and they will be texting each other.

This isn't rocket science. We don't need Harvard social science research to tell us this.

That used to be a woman thing. I remember when I was in college girls questioned why guys were majoring in Accounting, Engineering, or IT. They said that's so boring! They were mostly liberal arts majors and I think their primary focus was to find a husband. Fortunately I didn't notice as much of that when my daughter was in college.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Today's market decline is Nvidia complaining about being hurt by China tariffs? Do I have this right?

 

[Jerry]

I'm a school counselor and work in a district that has great access to training and certification programs in things like construction, welding, HVAC, auto, electrical training, etc. It's so good kids can be certified and working right out of high school, sometimes before they even graduate. Employers in our area are absolutely begging us to train more kids and get them out into the workforce. So much so that many of these jobs are paying $80,000 to $120,000 locally in the first five years.

I have been advertising this and intentionally going into their classrooms and having every single student walk through it, so they know exactly what to do and what kind of job security they'll have. I am having the hardest time getting anyone to actually do it. Kids would rather go to college and get $100,000+ in debt for a job that pays $45,000 than get paid twice as much with no debt.

The only kids I've been able to successfully convince to go into these fields are Afghan refugees, Ukrainian refugees, and kids of undocumented Latin American parents.

I'll preface this by saying I 100% believe in orderly and legal immigration - but the idea that the refugees and illegal immigrants were taking jobs from citizens is outright false. I can count on one hand the number of white students who've chosen to go into one of those programs the past five years. It's been almost entirely immigrants.

I've mentioned JD Vance's book Hillbilly Elegy once or twice in this thread and highly recommended it.

I don't recommend the book because it was a best-seller or as praise of Vance whose politics I happen to favor but many obviously don't.

Rather, I recommend it as an important description of and commentary on the now broken-down White working-class communities where he grew up in hard-scrabble fashion while being raised by his grandmother.

On the one hand, it's a vivid and depressing depiction of the impact of a rapidly globalizing economy on working-class people whose jobs and industries have been basically shipped away to foreign lands.

On the other hand, it's a disturbing picture of the effects of an epidemic of family breakdown, drug addiction, and the abandonment of traditional moral codes on people and communities where dysfunction and delinquency have become normalized and accepted as a way of life.

Basically the social pathologies that have devastated the lower-class Black demographic for decades have arrived big-time among the White working-class in states like West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and others.

Vance takes a hard look at all this and doesn't flinch from some pretty hard statements about his own people...or those who used to be his own people.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I've mentioned JD Vance's book Hillbilly Elegy once or twice in this thread and highly recommended it.

I don't recommend the book because it was a best-seller or as praise of Vance whose politics I happen to favor but many obviously don't.

Rather, I recommend it as an important description of and commentary on the now broken-down White working-class communities where he grew up in hard-scrabble fashion while being raised by his grandmother.

On the one hand, it's a vivid and depressing depiction of the impact of a rapidly globalizing economy on working-class people whose jobs and industries have been basically shipped away to foreign lands.

On the other hand, it's a disturbing picture of the effects of an epidemic of family breakdown, drug addiction, and the abandonment of traditional moral codes on people and communities where dysfunction and delinquency have become normalized and accepted as a way of life.

Basically the social pathologies that have devastated the lower-class Black demographic for decades have arrived big-time among the White working-class in states like West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and others.

Vance takes a hard look at all this and doesn't flinch from some pretty hard statements about his own people...or those who used to be his own people.

I think government policy can support conservative "values" without legislating them. For example, I am guessing that these communities are at least somewhat sustained by some kind of government welfare, or they would truly be ghost towns. Cut off the benefits. Force taking the local job or better, relocate to where there are better jobs.

My wife grew up in an area where four states come close to intersecting. She said people would go from one state to the next as benefits would expire. They did not have to move far. She comes from a poor sharecropper lineage, so she has seen the full range.

One of the worst things you can do to a person is to make them dependent and teach them that you can get something for nothing. Covid policies did tremendous damage on top of bad stuff that was already there.

 

[junior1]

• $150 billion is a good start but I'm not sure how much of it will stick. There are lawsuits saying that we have to spend what congress approved. Even if these cuts stick I we need another $300 billion just to get our deficit down to $1.5 trillion.
• The CBO has reported roughly $250 billion in improper payments. I'd be elated if we could cut that in half.
• Beyond that I'm not too optimistic. Nobody has the courage to cut granny's payments by even a dime. Democrats want higher taxes on the rich but those only amounted to $50 billion when proposed. The political will to fix things simply doesn't exist.

there was a decision back in the Nixon days where he was required to spend what Congress approved. There was some kind of a nuance, which I can't remember, that Trump is hanging his hat on, where by that earlier decision doesn't apply. Nonetheless, even if he has to spend the money this year, it doesn't have to be appropriated in subsequent years.

 

[junior1]

Along those lines....

The median family income in this country is less than $80k. McDonalds is paying $19/hr where I live (which is not a high cost area). Local manufacturers are advertising $20/hr to start with full benefits and no experience necessary. My point is that dual income family can easily earn $80k plus benefits to start with full benefits yet half the country doesn't achieve that level. Something is wrong that we haven't been able to motivate a large percent of the population to do better.

we will never get those non motivated folks moving as long as the government continues to dole out funds for food, housing, rent, medical, heat etc. We started on this downward cycle with the advent of the great society and neither political party has the will or courage to put an end to it.

 

[joeaubie21]

Along those lines....

The median family income in this country is less than $80k. McDonalds is paying $19/hr where I live (which is not a high cost area). Local manufacturers are advertising $20/hr to start with full benefits and no experience necessary. My point is that dual income family can easily earn $80k plus benefits to start with full benefits yet half the country doesn't achieve that level. Something is wrong that we haven't been able to motivate a large percent of the population to do better.

It's more fun to loaf and sell drugs.

 

[lazydave841]

It's more fun to loaf and sell drugs.

Many just loaf.

 

[PurposePitch]

On the other hand, it's a disturbing picture of the effects of an epidemic of family breakdown, drug addiction, and the abandonment of traditional moral codes on people and communities where dysfunction and delinquency have become normalized and accepted as a way of life.

Basically the social pathologies that have devastated the lower-class Black demographic for decades have arrived big-time among the White working-class in states like West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and others.

Those "social pathologies" have ALWAYS been in the "white working-class" and filtered toward the "lower-class Blacks." Ironically, these are the places religious belief, especially ardent religious belief, is most prevalent. And that's what you want us going toward. Before long, you have the true deviants calling up their bookies in front of their own kids, using codes to try to disguise their sad, debilitating addictions.

 

[PurposePitch]

Today's market decline is Nvidia complaining about being hurt by China tariffs? Do I have this right?

No. Try again.

 

[PurposePitch]

To be clear, I'm not arguing any of this from self-interest. I receive a generous government pension pegged to inflation and live comfortably in retirement, which I expect to continue doing -- knock on wood -- unless the government goes under, in which case we're all screwed.

You and Elon are two peas in a pod ... you sucked at, and still suck at, the government teet (and still do) as you lambast it.

 

[lazydave841]

Ironically, these are the places religious belief, especially ardent religious belief, is most prevalent.

As someone who lives in a rural area with people like the discussion describes, these people aren't the ones going to church.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

So, Powell spoke this afternoon and the market is making a second move down. What did he say that was so damaging?

That agency does need to be eliminated. It is a menace.

 

[NittanyLionRoar]

So, Powell spoke this afternoon and the market is making a second move down. What did he say that was so damaging?

That agency does need to be eliminated. It is a menace.

I watched it. Essentially:

• Tariffs may have knock-on effects that cause the temporary inflation it induces to become longer-term (i.e. increased auto prices make insurance more expensive a year down the road).
• There is significant uncertainty and they need to wait for data to see how Americans are reacting to the uncertainty.
• Employment, so far, is not a red flag, so no need to cut rates.
• Powell prefers a more moderate approach of holding rates steady rather than whipping them up and down trying to guess what the market will do.

In other words, tariffs are likely to make the economy worse--and not in a way that would compel him to lower rates.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I watched it. Essentially:

• Tariffs may have knock-on effects that cause the temporary inflation it induces to become longer-term (i.e. increased auto prices make insurance more expensive a year down the road).
• There is significant uncertainty and they need to wait for data to see how Americans are reacting to the uncertainty.
• Employment, so far, is not a red flag, so no need to cut rates.
• Powell prefers a more moderate approach of holding rates steady rather than whipping them up and down trying to guess what the market will do.

In other words, tariffs are likely to make the economy worse--and not in a way that would compel him to lower rates.

Thanks. In the clip I just saw he also said that "unemployment is likely to go up as the economy slows."

All of these points should be obvious, and yet as Powell says them the market crashes.

I will reiterate that ANY attempt to reverse the spiraling cost of debt service is likely to have a negative impact. The party of the last half decade of stimulus goes into reverse, and improvements in productivity, such as AI, get consumed somewhat in paying for that debt service.

Trump is trying to address the debt problem and the worker dislocation problem with one policy change. The cost as that gets rolled out in the short term will be stagflation, just as a recession/depression would occur if we tackled debt through taxation. There is no free lunch.