The Viral Economy

[Blackhawk]

Just to be clear, I don't shop at Walmart (or Sam's) because they have better deals. I shop there because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to afford what I need. It's not about building up a bigger savings account for me, it's about having any money at all. And the only time I shop at Amazon anymore is when there's no comparable alternative, and I always look elsewhere first.

[YellowKing]

I gave up long ago trying to tailor my shopping based on political/work ethic reasons. There are exceptions, of course. I always support my local game store over the online retailers, ditto my local record store, provided they have what I want. But for general goods and groceries with a family of four, I do what I have to do.

[Zarathud]

Worker mistreatment doesn’t rival the Great Depression, but we hoped for things to get better. And they did, until business undermined the system and workers became replaceable again. Some industries workers were always cogs, but others it’s just recently become true. Mega software companies are on the recent side, while manufacturing had it long ago. Lots of promises were never delivered, but long ago those promises weren’t even made.

[Smoove_B]

So weird that the U.S. economy is booming and yet...

Office vacancies hit a new record high in the US, per Axios:

[Isgrimnur]

Won't someone think of the REIT investors‽

[Carpet_pissr]

Won't someone think of the REIT investors‽

Anybody with a typical/classical balanced portfolio is a REIT investor (or at least RE ETFs which are also mostly involved in commercial RE AFAIK)

[Unagi]

‽

What's this witchcraft‽

[Smoove_B]

The elite class uses interrobangs.

[Isgrimnur]

http://interrobang.dlma.com/

[Unagi]

http://interrobang.dlma.com/

It has a nice æsthetic.

[Madmarcus]

Since this is all warring anecdotes, here's a question to those who knew about how awful things were going into that world:

How did you find out prior to starting work? What was the source of this knowledge?

I'm late to the conversation but I'll bite. My source of knowledge was my dad. He's never been the most talkative person but on history, geography, and economics (including the workplace level we're talking about) he was always willing to talk. He worked for one company for his whole career but he was very open about how that wasn't the norm any more. He was also very clear about needing to always be willing to move or change to get ahead; he'd simply managed to do that within the one company. Plus a lot of discussions about salaried vs. union, college as a way to a good career but also that it didn't guarantee anything especially if you didn't chose a useful major, and the need for deferred gratification. By the late 70s I was being passively (and by the 80s not always to passively) exposed to investing as a perfectly normal thing (Wall Street Week in Review on TV and various magazines around) and the news (TV, the Sunday paper). He'd made it from a poor WV farm to a solid middle class career and wanted to make sure we started with any insight he could give us.

It was clear even then that this was not the norm although my experiences in college and soon after college seemed to indicate that it wasn't that odd among that people I ran into in college, grad school, and at my wife's industrial chemistry/engineering coworkers.

[Blackhawk]

I only got a few answers, but they all seemed to be centered around personal things (someone who intentionally taught the person), or things that most people didn't do at that age (watch the news, read the news.) Typically, only about a third of adults actively follow the news, and I can promise you that number is smaller for teens. I still say that pre-internet boom, unless you either had proactive people around you, or you had an interest/mindset that drove you to look for it, the kind of information wasn't the kind of thing that most people encountered beyond the surface level.

In other words, 30 years ago, young people knowing about corporate culture was an exception to the rule. I think it's also noteworthy that a much larger slice of the regulars on OO had the 'interest/mindset' I mentioned than you'd find in most other places. We're not a representative sample - we've always had a larger population of doctors/attorneys/writers/other professionals on OO than the norm.

Today, kids are talking about corporate culture from a younger age because the information is relevant to them. My own kids have started conversations on the topic - but every time it was in relation to a game company. That kind of relevance to the average young reader just wasn't there before. And that, combined with the fact that it is likely showing up in the form of a tweet or Facebook post built around outrage draws them in. It isn't just buried in the business section of a newspaper or talked about by a monotone, jargon-loving business reporter that most young people wouldn't have taken the time to look at if it weren't already an interest for them.

[Kraken]

I guess this is the best thread for this. Trump's tax cut fueled investment but didn't pay for itself.

The corporate tax cuts that former president Donald Trump signed into law in 2017 have boosted investment in the US economy and delivered a modest pay bump for workers, according to the most rigorous and detailed study yet of the law’s effects.

Those benefits are less than Republicans promised, though, and they have come at a high cost to the federal budget. The corporate tax cuts came nowhere close to paying for themselves, as conservatives insisted they would. Instead, they are adding more than $100 billion a year to America’s $34 trillion-and-growing national debt, according to the quartet of researchers from Princeton University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the Treasury Department.

The researchers found the cuts delivered wage gains that were “an order of magnitude below” what Trump officials predicted: about $750 per worker per year on average over the long run, compared with promises of $4,000 to $9,000 per worker.

...

...a key provision targeting investment, which the authors identify as the most cost-effective corporate cut. That benefit, which allowed companies to immediately deduct investment spending from their income taxes, would be renewed as part of a bipartisan tax bill that passed the House in January.

It also challenges narratives about the bill on both sides of the aisle. Democrats have claimed the tax cuts only rewarded shareholders and did not help the economy. Republicans have called them a cost-free boon to the middle class. Both appear to have been wrong.

“The evidence that taxes matter for investment really is there,” Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, a Harvard economist and one of the paper’s authors, said in an interview. “And the evidence that corporate tax cuts are expensive also is there. They’re both just features of the data.”

Yeah, that extra $25 a week really made a difference in my life.

[LawBeefaroni]

Feb jobs:

Job creation topped expectations in February, but the unemployment rate moved higher and employment growth ofrom the previous two months wasn’t near as hot as initially reported.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 275,000 for the month while the jobless rate moved higher to 3.9%, the Labor Department reported Friday.

I know I say this every time but why do we bother? It always "blows away" expectations and but then when revised is much more in line with expectations. Just wait an extra few months.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for payroll growth of 198,000, a step slower from the downwardly revised gain of 229,000 in January. The December gain also was revised down to 290,000 from 333,000.

January reported: 353,000
Expected: 185,000
Revised: 229,000

[Carpet_pissr]

Feb jobs:

Job creation topped expectations in February, but the unemployment rate moved higher and employment growth ofrom the previous two months wasn’t near as hot as initially reported.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 275,000 for the month while the jobless rate moved higher to 3.9%, the Labor Department reported Friday.

I know I say this every time but why do we bother? It always "blows away" expectations and but then when revised is much more in line with expectations. Just wait an extra few months.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for payroll growth of 198,000, a step slower from the downwardly revised gain of 229,000 in January. The December gain also was revised down to 290,000 from 333,000.

January reported: 353,000
Expected: 185,000
Revised: 229,000

Same for GDP (or at least it used to be like that, haven't looked in a long time).

[Kurth]

Looking at real estate today, I am realizing that we are pretty much trapped in our current home by our 2.5% 30 year mortgage. At the current rates I'm seeing (~7%), if we were to cash out our equity and simply move it over to a new home at the same price point, our monthly payments would be double what they are now. That's nuts!

[Don't get out the tiny violin for me: I also appreciate that we were very lucky to take out a significant mortgage at such an incredibly low interest rate, but it really does lock you in.]

[Zenn7]

Looking at real estate today, I am realizing that we are pretty much trapped in our current home by our 2.5% 30 year mortgage. At the current rates I'm seeing (~7%), if we were to cash out our equity and simply move it over to a new home at the same price point, our monthly payments would be double what they are now. That's nuts!

[Don't get out the tiny violin for me: I also appreciate that we were very lucky to take out a significant mortgage at such an incredibly low interest rate, but it really does lock you in.]

I can strongly relate to this one. Not that I think we can find a better house to "upgrade" to.

Sure, my house is supposedly worth twice what we bought it for, but if I can't afford any amount more payment than what I'm paying (slightly more interest than Kurth, but not much) and I don't want a longer mortgage (really want the house paid off by the time I retire), even if I could move for the same interest rate, I can basically only get a different house worth the same amount as this one. Since I have a great location, how could I benefit from this move?
Part of the problem for me at least is that we've lived here for over 20 years and barely dented the mortgage vs original value of the house. We had 0% down, added closing costs to the mortgage and started with negative equity. refinancing 3 times total now hasn't been super helpful (though the latest refi with cutting the interest in 1/2 and going to a 15 year mortgage, we're making real progress finally).

But even still, it just doesn't seem like you can really get ahead from your first house purchase unless your income changes or you are saving up other money. As your house increases in value, so does anything else that would be an upgrade. Found that a very frustrating feeling as a home owner.

[Smoove_B]

They're doing everything they can to try and make us all forget that working from home was possible:

After reversing its position on remote work, Dell is reportedly implementing new tracking techniques on May 13 to ensure its workers are following the company's return-to-office (RTO) policy, The Register reported today, citing anonymous sources.

Dell has allowed people to work remotely for over 10 years. But in February, it issued an RTO mandate, and come May 13, most workers will be classified as either totally remote or hybrid. Starting this month, hybrid workers have to go into a Dell office at least 39 days per quarter. Fully remote workers, meanwhile, are ineligible for promotion, Business Insider reported in March.

Now The Register reports that Dell will track employees' badge swipes and VPN connections to confirm that workers are in the office for a significant amount of time.

Although maybe there's something else going on here:

Michael Dell, Dell's CEO and founder, also used to support remote work and penned a blog in 2022 saying that Dell "found no meaningful differences for team members working remotely or office-based even before the pandemic forced everyone home."

Some suspect Dell's suddenly stringent office policy is an attempt to force people to quit so that the company can avoid layoffs. In 2023, Dell laid off 13,000 people, per regulatory filings [PDF].

Dell didn't respond to Ars' request for comment. In a statement to The Register, a representative said that Dell believes "in-person connections paired with a flexible approach are critical to drive innovation and value differentiation."

[gilraen]

Some suspect Dell's suddenly stringent office policy is an attempt to force people to quit so that the company can avoid layoffs.

Ding-ding-ding. That is the correct answer. Any fully remote worker that's actually good will be looking to leave because what's the point in staying in a company where you are literally told you don't qualify for any promotions?

[stessier]

Some suspect Dell's suddenly stringent office policy is an attempt to force people to quit so that the company can avoid layoffs.

Ding-ding-ding. That is the correct answer. Any fully remote worker that's actually good will be looking to leave because what's the point in staying in a company where you are literally told you don't qualify for any promotions?

In my experience, surprisingly few people care about promotions after a certain point. As long as there are still yearly salary increases, they are happy to carry on.

[ImLawBoy]

Some suspect Dell's suddenly stringent office policy is an attempt to force people to quit so that the company can avoid layoffs.

Ding-ding-ding. That is the correct answer. Any fully remote worker that's actually good will be looking to leave because what's the point in staying in a company where you are literally told you don't qualify for any promotions?

In my experience, surprisingly few people care about promotions after a certain point. As long as there are still yearly salary increases, they are happy to carry on.

Yeah, I've seen good employees who were offered promotions turn them down because they don't want to deal with the higher expectations. They're good at what they do, they make a decent living and are setting themselves up for retirement, and they see no need to add stress to their lives in exchange for more money.

[Max Peck]

The Canadian federal is starting to walk back it's remote work policy.

Government confirms more details of return-to-office plan

The federal government has released more details about its plan to bring public servants back to the office three days a week, and says it expects departments to implement the updated hybrid schedule by early September.

On its website Wednesday, the Government of Canada published a detailed directive on "prescribed presence in the workplace" for deputy heads of departments to follow.

Earlier this week, a federal government source who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter confirmed to Radio-Canada the federal government will expect public servants back in the office three days a week beginning later this year. Major public sector unions said the news came without warning or consultation.

It's a major change to the twice-a-week hybrid model that prompted some 155,000 Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) members to walk off the job last year in what their union called a "watershed moment" for workers' rights.

Federal unions file complaints over increase to office time

"We believe last week's announcement … was not about improving productivity but about political gains," he said, nodding to the fact some politicians and business leaders want workers back in central Ottawa.

There has been a push from the Ontario provincial government for Federal employees to be sent back to the office and for them spend their money where they work.

[LordMortis]

Some suspect Dell's suddenly stringent office policy is an attempt to force people to quit so that the company can avoid layoffs.

Ding-ding-ding. That is the correct answer. Any fully remote worker that's actually good will be looking to leave because what's the point in staying in a company where you are literally told you don't qualify for any promotions?

In my experience, surprisingly few people care about promotions after a certain point. As long as there are still yearly salary increases, they are happy to carry on.

I literally never cared about promotions and hated that "goals" were a way to sneak in ever increasing responsibility without all the baggage of tracking you to your path of rising to your level of incompetence. Raises remained the same in spite of goals but goals eventually got built in your job description. The only time the piper was paid when they did an industry comparison and then suddenly, I'd get 20% spike in pay because 3% a year while making adding more and more to the job never seemed track with my "value."

I so don't miss working.

[gilraen]

Some suspect Dell's suddenly stringent office policy is an attempt to force people to quit so that the company can avoid layoffs.

Ding-ding-ding. That is the correct answer. Any fully remote worker that's actually good will be looking to leave because what's the point in staying in a company where you are literally told you don't qualify for any promotions?

In my experience, surprisingly few people care about promotions after a certain point. As long as there are still yearly salary increases, they are happy to carry on.

Promotions don't mean actual "move to management" type things. Many companies have strict salary bands for titles, and in order for you to get a real raise, you must be "promoted" to the next title. E.g. going from "integration engineer" to "sr. data engineer". No promotion literally means no raise beyond CoL.

[GreenGoo]

The Canadian federal is starting to walk back it's remote work policy.

Government confirms more details of return-to-office plan

The federal government has released more details about its plan to bring public servants back to the office three days a week, and says it expects departments to implement the updated hybrid schedule by early September.

On its website Wednesday, the Government of Canada published a detailed directive on "prescribed presence in the workplace" for deputy heads of departments to follow.

Earlier this week, a federal government source who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter confirmed to Radio-Canada the federal government will expect public servants back in the office three days a week beginning later this year. Major public sector unions said the news came without warning or consultation.

It's a major change to the twice-a-week hybrid model that prompted some 155,000 Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) members to walk off the job last year in what their union called a "watershed moment" for workers' rights.

Federal unions file complaints over increase to office time

"We believe last week's announcement … was not about improving productivity but about political gains," he said, nodding to the fact some politicians and business leaders want workers back in central Ottawa.

There has been a push from the Ontario provincial government for Federal employees to be sent back to the office and for them spend their money where they work.

+1 to all of that.

I am one of the public servants in question. My job is particularly well suited for working remotely, and is particularly poorly suited for *literally* any productivity benefit of being in an office. Particularly when the team members are geographically diverse, and I have to haul 2 laptops (some have 4) back and forth each day, since we no longer have permanent offices and must reserve space in shared work locations. And that's not touching on the security risks of sharing office space in a 2.0 environment where I will be unable to recognize anyone as authorized to be there, and there will be LoS to my screens from 1/2 the room. My work is infrastructure related. If it gets compromised, several departments will literally shutdown (10's of thousands of workers and services) until it is resolved.

I should mention that my job and team are an exception to the 40% in office rule until now. We were/are 100% remote, in September we'll be 60% in office (rotating, reservable workspaces more like), with the 4 members of my team still being in different cities and buildings.

I am particularly vexed that politicians believe that we "owe" our money to any specific business. While I am sympathetic to businesses in the downtown core struggling, the economy is constantly shifting. Yes, this was an earthquake sized shift, but it's still a problem for businesses to solve, not me personally. Grrr.

Anywho, if people think morale is bad in the public service before, and are unhappy with the service they are receiving, it's going to be years for the workforce to recover from this. Anger and resent are HIGH. I'm a pussycat compared to many.

Treasury Board is almost certainly doing this in part to force people to quit, as the federal government has promised a reduction in workforce, and this might be enough to meet their numbers.

I'm not close enough to retirement, unfortunately. However if they were to offer a decent package, it would be incredibly difficult to say no to it.

[stessier]

Some suspect Dell's suddenly stringent office policy is an attempt to force people to quit so that the company can avoid layoffs.

Ding-ding-ding. That is the correct answer. Any fully remote worker that's actually good will be looking to leave because what's the point in staying in a company where you are literally told you don't qualify for any promotions?

In my experience, surprisingly few people care about promotions after a certain point. As long as there are still yearly salary increases, they are happy to carry on.

Promotions don't mean actual "move to management" type things. Many companies have strict salary bands for titles, and in order for you to get a real raise, you must be "promoted" to the next title. E.g. going from "integration engineer" to "sr. data engineer". No promotion literally means no raise beyond CoL.

Yes, I understood that, my company has exactly such a structure, and my statement stands. CoL is good for a surprising number of people.