I believe the economy may be really bad right now. (1 Viewer)

[Todem]

Some of this is not correct. For example, there is no reason why someone making 80k/year can't get credit at decent interest rates if they've been fiscally responsible.

JVD can clarify, but I thought he was making a relative comparison -- a person making $80k might get "decent rates" if "responsible" ... but will never get access to the rates and limits a 1% can get.

And why is this a bad thing?

It’s all relative.

I will give a perfect example.

Clients have the ability to borrow against marketable securities (stocks, bonds, treasuries etc) I am not talking
About margin but more like customized lending.

The more assets under management a client has the more fees they generate but also the more leverage they can generate for themselves in terms of the amount of credit and rate they get.

Someone with 10MM under management is going to get a better rate than 500K.

And there is nothing wrong with that. The ROI is better on the 10MM client.

It’s business.

 

[JAA]

Im not sure how someone can answer those questions without describing different groups. I get that it seems ive been criticizing one group vs the other, but honestly Im not trying to.

How I read that first article you linked was that it described an overall economic system that we're existing within -- Warren Buffet, a well-compensated CEO, a high-powered attorney, a white-collar middle manager, a small-business owner, an auto mechanic, a waiter, a fast-food employee, a produce-picker without papers, someone washing car windows at a stoplight, and someone sleeping in a downtown doorway every night. All part of the same overall system.

Not so much about adversarial teams: "Grrr ... we non-1%-ers need to get mad and DO something about those infernal 1%-ers!"

ty

 

[humpback]

You take a person that makes $80k a year—that is carrying a mortgage, feeding a family—and reduce his/her worth by 30%— their lives change drastically for the worse. They might be forced to sell assets, they have to really cut down the standard of living in order to make things through.

If you’re talking about net worth, like your previous sentences, this is inaccurate. If you’re talking a salary cut, sure. But that’s not where you had started.

Sure it does. The average person that is making $80k a year is more likely to carry some credit card debt, their jobs and ability to make money are more in jeopardy than the top 1%, and their ability to stay afloat during temporary downturns is far more in question in downturns. A top 1% person has no problem getting loans or credit extended to them even in economic downturns. A person making $80k a year is going to have access to limited credit, the credit that thy do get will come at much higher interest—which will further hurt their spending power..etc. Like I said—the losses that the super wealthy suffer in economic downturns are hypothetical and temporary—but they end up owning more as a result of economic downturns. If economic downturns disproportionately hurt the top 1%—you should see the wealth gap dropping as a result of them. This doesn’t happen. The wealth gap tends to increase as a result of them. The top 1% tend to come out of economic distress owning more assets or are in a position to own more—and most citizens end up owning less and suffering more through the turmoil.

His point may be nitpicky but it's accurate. You're conflating income and net worth here IMO- most people making $80k a year have little to no net worth and their standard of living is almost entirely funded by their income not assets. Losing 30% of their salary would obviously have a huge impact.

 

[JAA]

I'll assume this isn't schtick- there was zero in the OP (including the small part you quoted) that even alluded to your rant about the rich rigging the system against us. He wrote about what he's seeing in his local economy and asked if others were seeing it as well- he was clearly focused on geography and industry, both of which are FAR more relevant (and productive) to discuss in this context than your buckets.

I'd prefer that the Kardashians didn't exist either (okay, not literally), but the only reason they do is because we the people give them oxygen. Same thing applies here, and the irony is that you don't seem to be able to see it. This is exactly what "they" want you to do. The obsession with these buckets may be the biggest red herring known to man.

OK

I conveyed my points poorly, sure ... conceded. You are right, I am wrong. I will try and do better next time.

What part of my points would you like to dispute and/or debate? Or maybe just not want to talk about them nor see them in the thread? Did you just want to correct how I chose to convey my points, thats it?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Some of this is not correct. For example, there is no reason why someone making 80k/year can't get credit at decent interest rates if they've been fiscally responsible.

JVD can clarify, but I thought he was making a relative comparison -- a person making $80k might get "decent rates" if "responsible" ... but will never get access to the rates and limits a 1% can get.

And why is this a bad thing?

It’s all relative.

I will give a perfect example.

Clients have the ability to borrow against marketable securities (stocks, bonds, treasuries etc) I am not talking
About margin but more like customized lending.

The more assets under management a client has the more fees they generate but also the more leverage they can generate for themselves in terms of the amount of credit and rate they get.

Someone with 10MM under management is going to get a better rate than 500K.

And there is nothing wrong with that. The ROI is better on the 10MM client.

It’s business.

I dont dispute that- but the point that I was making was the economic turmoil and recessions might temporarily hurt the net worth of the top 1% disproportionately- the result of these turmoils tend to be massive net positives for them. 60% of people in this country live paycheck to paycheck. Do you think these people will have access to friendly credit during a dowturn? If these people are lucky enough to own assets- there is a real chance that they are forced to sell if their employment gets reduced or cut— which is a real possibility in economic turmoil. I was replying to a comment where the premise was that the top 1% get hit the most and suffer disproportionately more in economic downturns. I disagree with that. The top 1% will own a greater percentage of total net worth as a result of economic turmoil and a large percentage of the gains will be at the suffering and sacrifice of average citizens that had to do what they can to stay afloat. Sure- I concede that some of this can be attributed to poor financial discipline- but a LOT of it is also due to a system where over time wage growth for a lot of necessary sectors had not kept up with cost of living. In this day and age- a person making $80k a year is not going to have a ton leftover to invest after paying rent/mortgage, paying utilities, insurance, feeding their families..etc.

 

[-OZ-]

You take a person that makes $80k a year—that is carrying a mortgage, feeding a family—and reduce his/her worth by 30%— their lives change drastically for the worse. They might be forced to sell assets, they have to really cut down the standard of living in order to make things through.

If you’re talking about net worth, like your previous sentences, this is inaccurate. If you’re talking a salary cut, sure. But that’s not where you had started.

Sure it does. The average person that is making $80k a year is more likely to carry some credit card debt, their jobs and ability to make money are more in jeopardy than the top 1%, and their ability to stay afloat during temporary downturns is far more in question in downturns. A top 1% person has no problem getting loans or credit extended to them even in economic downturns. A person making $80k a year is going to have access to limited credit, the credit that thy do get will come at much higher interest—which will further hurt their spending power..etc. Like I said—the losses that the super wealthy suffer in economic downturns are hypothetical and temporary—but they end up owning more as a result of economic downturns. If economic downturns disproportionately hurt the top 1%—you should see the wealth gap dropping as a result of them. This doesn’t happen. The wealth gap tends to increase as a result of them. The top 1% tend to come out of economic distress owning more assets or are in a position to own more—and most citizens end up owning less and suffering more through the turmoil.

Your argument now is that people making under $80k are more likely to make poor financial decisions. I suppose that’s statistically true.
Still, many people making that much find a way to be fiscally responsible.

Frankly, I’m just tired of the whole “them against us” argument. Fiscal responsibility can work for just about anyone. It’s harder for different people, sure.

 

[Todem]

Some of this is not correct. For example, there is no reason why someone making 80k/year can't get credit at decent interest rates if they've been fiscally responsible.

JVD can clarify, but I thought he was making a relative comparison -- a person making $80k might get "decent rates" if "responsible" ... but will never get access to the rates and limits a 1% can get.

And why is this a bad thing?

It’s all relative.

I will give a perfect example.

Clients have the ability to borrow against marketable securities (stocks, bonds, treasuries etc) I am not talking
About margin but more like customized lending.

The more assets under management a client has the more fees they generate but also the more leverage they can generate for themselves in terms of the amount of credit and rate they get.

Someone with 10MM under management is going to get a better rate than 500K.

And there is nothing wrong with that. The ROI is better on the 10MM client.

It’s business.

I dont dispute that- but the point that I was making was the economic turmoil and recessions might temporarily hurt the net worth of the top 1% disproportionately- the result of these turmoils tend to be massive net positives for them. 60% of people in this country live paycheck to paycheck. Do you think these people will have access to friendly credit during a dowturn? If these people are lucky enough to own assets- there is a real chance that they are forced to sell if their employment gets reduced or cut— which is a real possibility in economic turmoil. I was replying to a comment where the premise was that the top 1% get hit the most and suffer disproportionately more in economic downturns. I disagree with that. The top 1% will own a greater percentage of total net worth as a result of economic turmoil and a large percentage of the gains will be at the suffering and sacrifice of average citizens that had to do what they can to stay afloat. Sure- I concede that some of this can be attributed to poor financial discipline- but a LOT of it is also due to a system where over time wage growth for a lot of necessary sectors had not kept up with cost of living. In this day and age- a person making $80k a year is not going to have a ton leftover to invest after paying rent/mortgage, paying utilities, insurance, feeding their families..etc.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment that the top 1% do not suffer more. They don’t. Just on paper on their asset statements….but that’s not real unless you sell.

People living pay check to pay check typically do not have nearly enough cash savings to withstand a temporary job loss….they liquidate everything to stay afloat etc etc.

But unfortunately capitalism is not designed to be fair. It does not exist.

 

[Todem]

You take a person that makes $80k a year—that is carrying a mortgage, feeding a family—and reduce his/her worth by 30%— their lives change drastically for the worse. They might be forced to sell assets, they have to really cut down the standard of living in order to make things through.

If you’re talking about net worth, like your previous sentences, this is inaccurate. If you’re talking a salary cut, sure. But that’s not where you had started.

Sure it does. The average person that is making $80k a year is more likely to carry some credit card debt, their jobs and ability to make money are more in jeopardy than the top 1%, and their ability to stay afloat during temporary downturns is far more in question in downturns. A top 1% person has no problem getting loans or credit extended to them even in economic downturns. A person making $80k a year is going to have access to limited credit, the credit that thy do get will come at much higher interest—which will further hurt their spending power..etc. Like I said—the losses that the super wealthy suffer in economic downturns are hypothetical and temporary—but they end up owning more as a result of economic downturns. If economic downturns disproportionately hurt the top 1%—you should see the wealth gap dropping as a result of them. This doesn’t happen. The wealth gap tends to increase as a result of them. The top 1% tend to come out of economic distress owning more assets or are in a position to own more—and most citizens end up owning less and suffering more through the turmoil.

Your argument now is that people making under $80k are more likely to make poor financial decisions. I suppose that’s statistically true.
Still, many people making that much find a way to be fiscally responsible.

Frankly, I’m just tired of the whole “them against us” argument. Fiscal responsibility can work for just about anyone. It’s harder for different people, sure.

Agree with the us against them crap too. We all have opportunity in this great country…..go out and stake your claim the best you can.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Some of this is not correct. For example, there is no reason why someone making 80k/year can't get credit at decent interest rates if they've been fiscally responsible.

JVD can clarify, but I thought he was making a relative comparison -- a person making $80k might get "decent rates" if "responsible" ... but will never get access to the rates and limits a 1% can get.

And why is this a bad thing?

It’s all relative.

I will give a perfect example.

Clients have the ability to borrow against marketable securities (stocks, bonds, treasuries etc) I am not talking
About margin but more like customized lending.

The more assets under management a client has the more fees they generate but also the more leverage they can generate for themselves in terms of the amount of credit and rate they get.

Someone with 10MM under management is going to get a better rate than 500K.

And there is nothing wrong with that. The ROI is better on the 10MM client.

It’s business.

I dont dispute that- but the point that I was making was the economic turmoil and recessions might temporarily hurt the net worth of the top 1% disproportionately- the result of these turmoils tend to be massive net positives for them. 60% of people in this country live paycheck to paycheck. Do you think these people will have access to friendly credit during a dowturn? If these people are lucky enough to own assets- there is a real chance that they are forced to sell if their employment gets reduced or cut— which is a real possibility in economic turmoil. I was replying to a comment where the premise was that the top 1% get hit the most and suffer disproportionately more in economic downturns. I disagree with that. The top 1% will own a greater percentage of total net worth as a result of economic turmoil and a large percentage of the gains will be at the suffering and sacrifice of average citizens that had to do what they can to stay afloat. Sure- I concede that some of this can be attributed to poor financial discipline- but a LOT of it is also due to a system where over time wage growth for a lot of necessary sectors had not kept up with cost of living. In this day and age- a person making $80k a year is not going to have a ton leftover to invest after paying rent/mortgage, paying utilities, insurance, feeding their families..etc.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment that the top 1% do not suffer more. They don’t. Just on paper on their asset statements….but that’s not real unless you sell.

People living pay check to pay check typically do not have nearly enough cash savings to withstand a temporary job loss….they liquidate everything to stay afloat etc etc.

But unfortunately capitalism is not designed to be fair. It does not exist.

I agree- and am certainly not attempting to sound socialist or make any sort of political statement or leaning. I do want to make that clear in case my comments read that way

 

[Todem]

Some of this is not correct. For example, there is no reason why someone making 80k/year can't get credit at decent interest rates if they've been fiscally responsible.

JVD can clarify, but I thought he was making a relative comparison -- a person making $80k might get "decent rates" if "responsible" ... but will never get access to the rates and limits a 1% can get.

And why is this a bad thing?

It’s all relative.

I will give a perfect example.

Clients have the ability to borrow against marketable securities (stocks, bonds, treasuries etc) I am not talking
About margin but more like customized lending.

The more assets under management a client has the more fees they generate but also the more leverage they can generate for themselves in terms of the amount of credit and rate they get.

Someone with 10MM under management is going to get a better rate than 500K.

And there is nothing wrong with that. The ROI is better on the 10MM client.

It’s business.

I dont dispute that- but the point that I was making was the economic turmoil and recessions might temporarily hurt the net worth of the top 1% disproportionately- the result of these turmoils tend to be massive net positives for them. 60% of people in this country live paycheck to paycheck. Do you think these people will have access to friendly credit during a dowturn? If these people are lucky enough to own assets- there is a real chance that they are forced to sell if their employment gets reduced or cut— which is a real possibility in economic turmoil. I was replying to a comment where the premise was that the top 1% get hit the most and suffer disproportionately more in economic downturns. I disagree with that. The top 1% will own a greater percentage of total net worth as a result of economic turmoil and a large percentage of the gains will be at the suffering and sacrifice of average citizens that had to do what they can to stay afloat. Sure- I concede that some of this can be attributed to poor financial discipline- but a LOT of it is also due to a system where over time wage growth for a lot of necessary sectors had not kept up with cost of living. In this day and age- a person making $80k a year is not going to have a ton leftover to invest after paying rent/mortgage, paying utilities, insurance, feeding their families..etc.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment that the top 1% do not suffer more. They don’t. Just on paper on their asset statements….but that’s not real unless you sell.

People living pay check to pay check typically do not have nearly enough cash savings to withstand a temporary job loss….they liquidate everything to stay afloat etc etc.

But unfortunately capitalism is not designed to be fair. It does not exist.

I agree- and am certainly not attempting to sound socialist or make any sort of political statement or leaning. I do want to make that clear in case my comments read that way

Oh I know you are not a socialist!! All good.

 

[opensourcebeer]

Frankly, I’m just tired of the whole “them against us” argument. Fiscal responsibility can work for just about anyone. It’s harder for different people, sure.

I despise the whole "us versus them" argument. It feels like something that those with hundreds of millions+ in net worth came up with to keep everyone else bickering and blaming the other guy.

 

[culdeus]

I might argue, if I was in the mood, that things like gas, electronics, and travel are too cheap relative to the true cost to the wider economy and environment.

We are at a tipping point wherein we are burning things that we cannot replace, but insist that they remain cheap enough to use as defacto toys. A lot of what the economy is facing now is the very very early phase of the collapse of capitalism. The price sensitivity to gas and food being a canary for these.

Whether this impacts the top 1% or bottom 50% first is really immaterial. The end of cheap resources will affect everyone. And in ways we can't possibly predict.

 

[humpback]

I despise the whole "us versus them" argument. It feels like something that those with hundreds of millions+ in net worth politicians came up with to keep everyone else bickering and blaming the other guy.

Far more accurate IMO.

 

[opensourcebeer]

I despise the whole "us versus them" argument. It feels like something that those with hundreds of millions+ in net worth politicians came up with to keep everyone else bickering and blaming the other guy.

Far more accurate IMO.

Sure. But who do you think controls these politicians?

 

[JAA]

Frankly, I’m just tired of the whole “them against us” argument. Fiscal responsibility can work for just about anyone. It’s harder for different people, sure.

I despise the whole "us versus them" argument. It feels like something that those with hundreds of millions+ in net worth came up with to keep everyone else bickering and blaming the other guy.

There is no them. Them is a construct used by folks who are for some reason feeling attacked. There is only us. Each of us plays a role in this economy. There are not better or worse roles. There is no role which is happier or sadder than another role. However, I believe there are a finite set of roles, each set have distinct attributes.. Each of these groups is a part of 'us'.

This thread has me thinking about a different thread topic. Something like "The great American Dream". Exhibit A would be "Mark Zuckerberg". I think MZ is an excellent example of having a great idea, the gumption to make it happen, and profit from it such that to create generational .01% wealth. The discussion aspect of the thread would be to show how many million/billion-aires MZ had to bring along the way so /he could/ have the American dream. Meaning - sure, MZ is uber elite now. However, MZ didnt, and one could argue couldnt, do have his American dream on his own. It required a number of other millionaire/billionaires to help him. Other more interesting examples may be Bill Gates (I think he did it on his own), maybe Bezos also.

In closing, sure MZ had the American dream, but many other rich people got more rich off of him.

 

[-OZ-]

I might argue, if I was in the mood, that things like gas, electronics, and travel are too cheap relative to the true cost to the wider economy and environment.

We are at a tipping point wherein we are burning things that we cannot replace, but insist that they remain cheap enough to use as defacto toys. A lot of what the economy is facing now is the very very early phase of the collapse of capitalism. The price sensitivity to gas and food being a canary for these.

Whether this impacts the top 1% or bottom 50% first is really immaterial. The end of cheap resources will affect everyone. And in ways we can't possibly predict.

And your argument would be fully valid.
The true cost for many things isn’t paid for by the beneficiaries.

 

[JAA]

I might argue, if I was in the mood, that things like gas, electronics, and travel are too cheap relative to the true cost to the wider economy and environment.

We are at a tipping point wherein we are burning things that we cannot replace, but insist that they remain cheap enough to use as defacto toys. A lot of what the economy is facing now is the very very early phase of the collapse of capitalism. The price sensitivity to gas and food being a canary for these.

Whether this impacts the top 1% or bottom 50% first is really immaterial. The end of cheap resources will affect everyone. And in ways we can't possibly predict.

Good points. With respect to the economy, my mind drifts less to what we are destroying, but more about what we are creating.

It feels to me we have a consumption driven economy (i'm not the first to say this, but it's the camp im in). So much is buy and consume where consume is often "use for a short period of time and then throw away (broke, no longer wanted/needed, out of style, etc)." I worry about what we are going to do with all this stuff? Where is it going to go? Which NIMBY is going to get it in their backyard? My gut tells me it will impact the more economically depressed as that is typically how it works. But I worry about trash, especially the hard plastics which are so hard to eliminate. At what point will there be a tax on trash? I have to believe we are close to the point where it is cost prohibitive to just throw everything away.

 

[massraider]

But I worry about trash,

I used to worry about trash, but now I think the worldwide flooding will kill us all before then, so hey, silver lining.

 

[humpback]

I despise the whole "us versus them" argument. It feels like something that those with hundreds of millions+ in net worth politicians came up with to keep everyone else bickering and blaming the other guy.

Far more accurate IMO.

Sure. But who do you think controls these politicians?

That wasn't the topic, but the answer is debatable. They are ultimately elected by voters are they not?

In any event, I think it's counterproductive to constantly point fingers (regardless of where they're pointed). IMO we'd be much better off (and happier) looking in the mirror more often instead. Focus on what's important and what you can control.

 

[JAA]

But I worry about trash,

I used to worry about trash, but now I think the worldwide flooding will kill us all before then, so hey, silver lining.

Im no doomsday prepper, but from an economic impact new beachfront would be profitable for a number of folks.

i kid, i kid

 

[JAA]

I despise the whole "us versus them" argument. It feels like something that those with hundreds of millions+ in net worth politicians came up with to keep everyone else bickering and blaming the other guy.

Far more accurate IMO.

Sure. But who do you think controls these politicians?

That wasn't the topic, but the answer is debatable. They are ultimately elected by voters are they not?

In any event, I think it's counterproductive to constantly point fingers (regardless of where they're pointed). IMO we'd be much better off (and happier) looking in the mirror more often instead. Focus on what's important and what you can control.

... and how each of us can leave the world a better place when we leave

 

[skol asylum]

I noticed gas is up to 4.999 a gallon here in AZ again. If we are ever going to tame inflation and stabilize the economy it seems like we need to get that under control so we aren't paying premium prices for the transport of everything.
- Mr. Obvious

I work in healthcare and we are dumping millions into new hospitals and expanding campuses. The first quarter has also been a good one with our net operating revenue double that of our budget.

Apparently about half of our 1Q profit is due to $55 million in FEMA payments to offset prior year Covid costs so maybe not quite as impressive as it looked.

 

[Terminalxylem]

So a 22 OZ bag of chicken wings is $12.xx at the store. That's comprised of 10 wings and probably 10 oz of ice crystals. Everyday I'm shocked by the prices of food. Something is going to have to give.

Meanwhile milk is still $2.99 like it's been for three decades.

Shop around a little, unless you live in Hawaii you can get a much better price on wings.

No bargain wings, and milk is $5-6/gallon here.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Healthcare is booming. Not sure how it converts to dollars and cents, but hospitals in HI are eternally bursting at the seams, with patients consistently bedded in hallways, because all the rooms are taken.

It‘s terrible for privacy and patient care. Just waiting for an adverse event, to help the c-suite understand the problem(s) with too many customers.

They may have a lot of patients, but most hospitals have been absolutely bleeding money. Have to pay nurses, and their comp has skyrocketed

Can’t say I know much about their bottom line, but hospitals bleeding money to overworked patient care providers, rather than administrative siphons, doesn’t sound like too horrible an outcome to me.

The top brass of hospitals are doing just fine. Whether they be corporations or individuals. The daily workings of the hospitals may struggle financially, but not the owners/ceos.

I'm well aware. Like someone else mentioned upthread, larger hospitals are expanding like crazy (often to the detriment of smaller facilities). This is badly needed, but hardly indicative of financial dire straits.

Ultimately, healthcare is just like any other big business, only customers have a lot more to lose if the product sucks.

 

[MTskibum]

I am going to Denver on a ski trip this weekend and just got out of the Uber. My Uber driver said he is normally a long haul truck driver who owns his own 18 wheeler.

He said he has parked it the last month because he usually makes 4 dollars a mile but said that he was down to 1.50 a mile before driving for Uber.

 

[massraider]

I am going to Denver on a ski trip this weekend and just got out of the Uber. My Uber driver said he is normally a long haul truck driver who owns his own 18 wheeler.

He said he has parked it the last month because he usually makes 4 dollars a mile but said that he was down to 1.50 a mile before driving for Uber

This will definitely be a real problem, and soon. There's not enough drivers, and they aren't good jobs anymore.

You used to be able to support a family on this job, and now it's a bad job, let alone support anyone. When these older drivers die off, there is no next generation.

 

[MTskibum]

I am going to Denver on a ski trip this weekend and just got out of the Uber. My Uber driver said he is normally a long haul truck driver who owns his own 18 wheeler.

He said he has parked it the last month because he usually makes 4 dollars a mile but said that he was down to 1.50 a mile before driving for Uber

This will definitely be a real problem, and soon. There's not enough drivers, and they aren't good jobs anymore.

You used to be able to support a family on this job, and now it's a bad job, let alone support anyone. When these older drivers die off, there is no next generation.

The next generation should hopefully be solved with self driving trucks. It should be easier to automate self driving trucks on interstates/highways and then have someone in a remote facility take control for the first/last mile.

 

[AAABatteries]

I'd have to quit drinking beer.

Scariest thing I’ve read so far. PANIC!

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I don’t really care for labels but middle class is fine.

What do you believe is the /actual/ difference between lower class and upper middle class in the US?

• 12 years of free education
• healthcare either through employer or long wait emergency room
• 40 hour week vs 65 hour week
• Newer car vs public transportation
• Where you buy clothes
• Crime rate where you live
• Amount and distance of vacation
• The age you retire

What am I missing?

The genetic lottery

 

[massraider]

The next generation should hopefully be solved with self driving trucks. It should be easier to automate self driving trucks on interstates/highways and then have someone in a remote facility take control for the first/last mile

I'm not as optimistic. I don't think we can be trusted with self driving cars. First, you'll have people throwing themselves in front of them, then kids will be climbing on top of them and making Tik Toks. Heck, the first time I get into a self driving cab with a lady friend, we are going to join the Holland Tunnel club, or whatever it winds up being called.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Healthcare is booming. Not sure how it converts to dollars and cents, but hospitals in HI are eternally bursting at the seams, with patients consistently bedded in hallways, because all the rooms are taken.

It‘s terrible for privacy and patient care. Just waiting for an adverse event, to help the c-suite understand the problem(s) with too many customers.

They may have a lot of patients, but most hospitals have been absolutely bleeding money. Have to pay nurses, and their comp has skyrocketed

Can’t say I know much about their bottom line, but hospitals bleeding money to overworked patient care providers, rather than administrative siphons, doesn’t sound like too horrible an outcome to me.

The top brass of hospitals are doing just fine. Whether they be corporations or individuals. The daily workings of the hospitals may struggle financially, but not the owners/ceos.

I'm well aware. Like someone else mentioned upthread, larger hospitals are expanding like crazy (often to the detriment of smaller facilities). This is badly needed, but hardly indicative of financial dire straits.

Ultimately, healthcare is just like any other big business, only customers have a lot more to lose if the product sucks.

Pretty much. I’m a nurse at a large hospital. All we’ve heard over the last six month is how they are bleeding money and recently how they want to bring our traveler numbers down to zero. Travelers make up 30% of our staff and even with them we are short staffed so not sure how those numbers work. Maybe if they didn’t drive out a large percentage of our permanent staff to greener pastures. All this while they are in the process of building a half billion dollar addition. No idea how they plan to staff it.

 

[massraider]

Pretty much. I’m a nurse at a large hospital. All we’ve heard over the last six month is how they are bleeding money and recently how they want to bring our traveler numbers down to zero. Travelers make up 30% of our staff and even with them we are short staffed so not sure how those numbers work. Maybe if they didn’t drive out a large percentage of our permanent staff to greener pastures. All this while they are in the process of building a half billion dollar addition. No idea how they plan to staff it.

The travelers make more money generally?

I have a buddy who buys homes in St Louis and rents exclusively to travelers. He's not running out of customers.

 

[-OZ-]

I am going to Denver on a ski trip this weekend and just got out of the Uber. My Uber driver said he is normally a long haul truck driver who owns his own 18 wheeler.

He said he has parked it the last month because he usually makes 4 dollars a mile but said that he was down to 1.50 a mile before driving for Uber

This will definitely be a real problem, and soon. There's not enough drivers, and they aren't good jobs anymore.

You used to be able to support a family on this job, and now it's a bad job, let alone support anyone. When these older drivers die off, there is no next generation.

The next generation should hopefully be solved with self driving trucks. It should be easier to automate self driving trucks on interstates/highways and then have someone in a remote facility take control for the first/last mile.

Are we even really there with aircraft yet? I know we’re like 95% there.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Pretty much. I’m a nurse at a large hospital. All we’ve heard over the last six month is how they are bleeding money and recently how they want to bring our traveler numbers down to zero. Travelers make up 30% of our staff and even with them we are short staffed so not sure how those numbers work. Maybe if they didn’t drive out a large percentage of our permanent staff to greener pastures. All this while they are in the process of building a half billion dollar addition. No idea how they plan to staff it.

The travelers make more money generally?

I have a buddy who buys homes in St Louis and rents exclusively to travelers. He's not running out of customers.

They do. Double what staff make and while some are generally very good, I’d say on the whole they are worth half as much, at least in the operating room. I have to carry most of them for the majority of their contract which lasts 12 weeks. That’s what a lot of our prior permanent staff are doing. They saw what they were making, it’s common knowledge, saw their abilities and were like…..screw this.

 

[Mitchie]

The next generation should hopefully be solved with self driving trucks. It should be easier to automate self driving trucks on interstates/highways and then have someone in a remote facility take control for the first/last mile

I'm not as optimistic. I don't think we can be trusted with self driving cars. First, you'll have people throwing themselves in front of them, then kids will be climbing on top of them and making Tik Toks. Heck, the first time I get into a self driving cab with a lady friend, we are going to join the Holland Tunnel club, or whatever it winds up being called.

Just hope you don't get in an accident. Watch The World According to Garp if you don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Mitchie]

So a 22 OZ bag of chicken wings is $12.xx at the store. That's comprised of 10 wings and probably 10 oz of ice crystals. Everyday I'm shocked by the prices of food. Something is going to have to give.

Meanwhile milk is still $2.99 like it's been for three decades.

Shop around a little, unless you live in Hawaii you can get a much better price on wings.

No bargain wings, and milk is $5-6/gallon here.

10 bucks at my local Target.

 

[Scoresman]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

 

[Orange&Blue]

Another quick point about "classes" in the US: What percentage of households in the US at, or below, the poverty line dont have at least one iphone?

i might have given that some consideration couple of years ago, but these cell companies are giving away iphones like crazy.

$40/month for 2 years and get an iphone13+

That's $960 over 2 years.

 

[Orange&Blue]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

which store?

 

[JAA]

Another quick point about "classes" in the US: What percentage of households in the US at, or below, the poverty line dont have at least one iphone?

i might have given that some consideration couple of years ago, but these cell companies are giving away iphones like crazy.

$40/month for 2 years and get an iphone13+

That's $960 over 2 years.

And yet people in poverty have "smart phones". We live on the greatest country on earth.

 

[Mister CIA]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

Ha, I've got 8 pounds of skinless, boneless chicken thighs that I have to figure out how to cook. Thanks, Costco.

We need to revive the frugal thead.

 

[Mister CIA]

Another quick point about "classes" in the US: What percentage of households in the US at, or below, the poverty line dont have at least one iphone?

i might have given that some consideration couple of years ago, but these cell companies are giving away iphones like crazy.

$40/month for 2 years and get an iphone13+

That's $960 over 2 years.

Yeah, I'd like to see the data plans that accompany those free phones. $$$

 

[Andrew74]

This was an interesting thread - really enjoyed the anecdotal info from around the country. Then it devolved into some weird *** socio-political discussion. Let’s get back to the info sharing.

I work for a top 10 tax and consulting firm. We are hiring across the board but having a difficult time with a shrinking labor pool. Our labor costs are up 15%+ this fiscal year. Firm is pushing hard for double-digit price increases. My subsidiary in the wealth advisory arena is not as bad but labor is hard to find. Overall we haven’t seen a broad based pullback in our customer base yet.

 

[Bogeys]

Pretty much. I’m a nurse at a large hospital. All we’ve heard over the last six month is how they are bleeding money and recently how they want to bring our traveler numbers down to zero. Travelers make up 30% of our staff and even with them we are short staffed so not sure how those numbers work. Maybe if they didn’t drive out a large percentage of our permanent staff to greener pastures. All this while they are in the process of building a half billion dollar addition. No idea how they plan to staff it.

The travelers make more money generally?

I have a buddy who buys homes in St Louis and rents exclusively to travelers. He's not running out of customers.

They do. Double what staff make and while some are generally very good, I’d say on the whole they are worth half as much, at least in the operating room. I have to carry most of them for the majority of their contract which lasts 12 weeks. That’s what a lot of our prior permanent staff are doing. They saw what they were making, it’s common knowledge, saw their abilities and were like…..screw this.

They may only make double, but the companies are paid 3-4 times as much vs base pay, depends on area (ICU, Medsurge, ED, etc).
Travelers also don't pay for their apartments or utilities. There is a reason lots of young, childless RNs travel.

 

[massraider]

This was an interesting thread - really enjoyed the anecdotal info from around the country. Then it devolved into some weird *** socio-political discussion. Let’s get back to the info sharing.

I work for a top 10 tax and consulting firm. We are hiring across the board but having a difficult time with a shrinking labor pool. Our labor costs are up 15%+ this fiscal year. Firm is pushing hard for double-digit price increases. My subsidiary in the wealth advisory arena is not as bad but labor is hard to find. Overall we haven’t seen a broad based pullback in our customer base yet.

What kind of labor is lacking? What skills, what positions?

 

[PIK95]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

Ha, I've got 8 pounds of skinless, boneless chicken thighs that I have to figure out how to cook. Thanks, Costco.

We need to revive the frugal thead.

I grill a dozen bone in chicken thighs EVERY DAY. At 99 cents to $1.50 a pound, it's become a daily meal for my son and I. Wife eats pasta on her own. Yogurt and blueberries for breakfast is another staple. McD's Diet Coke for a buck is our drink of choice. I roll up and get four large and everyone knows my name "Norm!" There is definitely an us vs them outlook at my house fwiw. Also, don't forget to submit your Pink Floyd song lists soon.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

Ha, I've got 8 pounds of skinless, boneless chicken thighs that I have to figure out how to cook. Thanks, Costco.

We need to revive the frugal thead.

I grill a dozen bone in chicken thighs EVERY DAY. At 99 cents to $1.50 a pound, it's become a daily meal for my son and I. Wife eats pasta on her own. Yogurt and blueberries for breakfast is another staple. McD's Diet Coke for a buck is our drink of choice. I roll up and get four large and everyone knows my name "Norm!" There is definitely an us vs them outlook at my house fwiw. Also, don't forget to submit your Pink Floyd song lists soon.

Chicken thighs are the so underrated. Juicy, easy to cook, and (relatively) inexpensive.

 

[-OZ-]

Groceries are ****ing ridiculous. I've started using the store's coupon app.

Ibotta and buying beef and pork directly from a local farmer have been solid moves for us. The meat isn’t cheap at $5 for beef and $5.75 for pork per lb, but the quality is so much better.

 

[Doug B]

There is definitely an us vs them outlook at my house fwiw. Also, don't forget to submit your Pink Floyd song lists soon.

(Laugh emoji was for this part)

 

[Todem]

The next generation should hopefully be solved with self driving trucks. It should be easier to automate self driving trucks on interstates/highways and then have someone in a remote facility take control for the first/last mile

I'm not as optimistic. I don't think we can be trusted with self driving cars. First, you'll have people throwing themselves in front of them, then kids will be climbing on top of them and making Tik Toks. Heck, the first time I get into a self driving cab with a lady friend, we are going to join the Holland Tunnel club, or whatever it winds up being called.

Welcome to Johnny Cab! Enjoy the Ride!

Hell freaking no.....I will never let a car drive itself for me. Ever.

Commercial Jets? That’s another story.....they practically fly themselves FYI. But it is a whole other level of technology and safety. You don’t have air rage in the sky....LOL.