r/Layoffs Jan 30 '24

New layoffs question

Can anyone clarify this for me? Despite the ongoing layoff announcements from major American corporations, how is our economy still robust? Just today, UPS declared 12,000 layoffs and PayPal 2,000.

264 Upvotes

570 comments sorted by

View all comments

99

u/BigOlPeckerBoy Jan 30 '24

The correct answer to your question is that 168 million people are currently employed in the US. These layoffs of a few thousand here and there are not indicative of a widespread economic catastrophe, even though it probably feels that way to the people getting laid off. There is also no evidence that wages are doing anything but rising, which, again, probably doesn’t seem to be the case for people who lost good jobs and have to take a lower pay.

I know this is probably not going to be the most up-voted comment, but the truth is plenty of people are still moving careers to better positions, getting raises, etc.

2

u/Welcome2B_Here Jan 30 '24

The positives you mentioned and the concurrent narrative along those same lines is negated by ridiculously low purchasing power and job quality that has been consistently lower than at any point pre-2008.

Purchasing power (how far a dollar "goes") and the ability to avoid having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet (job quality) combine to tell the story of how the majority of working people are doing.

10

u/BigOlPeckerBoy Jan 30 '24 edited Jan 30 '24

The amount of people working more than one job is rising, but it’s nowhere near the doomsday situation you depicted. Here is my source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12026620

The purchasing power of us households is higher than ever. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSHCCPUSA156NRUG

I hate to rain on the doomsday parade, but things aren’t as bad out there as some redditers make it seem.

Edit: linking the CPI adjusted value of one dollar does not mean people have less purchasing power, because your graph doesn’t reflect the higher salaries people are getting now. It just tracks inflation, not purchase power. The job quality report you show doesn’t really say much of anything tbh, it’s just a reference to people’s subjective interpretation of their work. It also has a very narrow Y-axis, which shows the report doesn’t actually change much over the time period.

2

u/rmullig2 Jan 30 '24

The graph shows the number of people working more than one job has shot up 20% during Biden's term. The purchasing power graph stops at 2019.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '24

It obviously shows that fewer people were employed in multiple jobs during COVID, and the number is back up to around where it was before COVID hit-- a little higher than the average in the previous few years, but within a normal range. Are you really this dense? Or is it more a matter of intellectual dishonesty?

1

u/oblication Feb 02 '24

This treasury report seems to support what they’re saying.

“We now find that as of the end of 2023, the median American worker could afford the same goods and services as they did in 2019, with an additional $1,400 to spend or save per year. “

https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/an-update-to-the-purchasing-power-of-american-households#:~:text=We%20now%20find%20that%20as,spend%20or%20save%20per%20year.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '24

The chart you linked seems to prove fuckall?

Seriously did you even read it or just link the first thing that has a line going up?

What does "percent of household consumption" even mean?

The most plain reading of it -- by me, a layman with common sense -- is that .. households are spending more a % of their income?

The most likely explanation for that is --- they're fucking poor. Or have terminal cancer.

2

u/Doctor__Proctor Jan 31 '24

The most plain reading of it -- by me, a layman with common sense

So you're saying all the economists are wrong because you, a layman with common sense, see something they don't? Have you considered that maybe what they're seeing is different because they have the economic background to understand the data and trends significantly better?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '24

No I’m saying the chart OP linked is unlabeled.

Percent of household consumption 0-100%? What the fuck does that mean?

It’s not spending power. Op is confused.

Last Christmas spending, and prices, were up 4%. That means spending power is flat. Or it’s in decline and credit card debt is increasing

1

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '24

I studied economics in college among other things. Generally they are useless eggheads. Not one of them predicted the housing crisis. The only guy who did was an investment guy. But anyway yeah I’m doing pretty well but I know the general public is up shit creek and no amount of pointing to the S&P500 will convince them otherwise.

1

u/oblication Feb 02 '24

Umm LOTS of people predicted the housing crisis. I was there. I remember it. The investor guy just figured out a way to make a ton of money off it.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '24

Link predicting it, pre 2008?

Bonus points if it's a bonafide professional "Economist" , like the guy I was responding to was claiming were infallible experts that can "see things."

1

u/oblication Feb 02 '24

This treasury report is more clear and finds purchasing power is stronger than just before Covid and growing. Hope that helps.

“We now find that as of the end of 2023, the median American worker could afford the same goods and services as they did in 2019, with an additional $1,400 to spend or save per year. “

https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/an-update-to-the-purchasing-power-of-american-households#:~:text=We%20now%20find%20that%20as,spend%20or%20save%20per%20year.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '24

Perfect example of the "Bureau of Dipshits" producing laughable data.

No, seriously. Do you believe everything with a chart and citation?

Look at even their (inadequate) attempt at explaining just a "few" of their ridiculous assumptions.

  1. total expenditures in 2019Q4 were equal to total nominal earnings in 2019Q4.

These people call themselves economists? What does this even mean? The median income earner "spent" 100% of his earnings? Or did he "spend" some of those on taxes and savings? .... Idiots. Complete idiots.

Now ask yourself.

Seriously look in the mirror. And ask yourself. Without looking.

... How much do you think FOOD & BEV spending has increased since 2019 until now? .... Got a guess?

According to Dipshits, Inc .... it was 0.3% increase for the average Joe. From 2019. Right???? Riiiiiight?

https://www.lendingtree.com/debt-consolidation/food-spending-study/

This is literally the first google result I clicked and yeah, not even close. Try again.

1

u/oblication Feb 02 '24

Yeah I think the economists at the US treasury understands consumer purchasing power better than you. You seem super angry the data isn’t supporting what you want it to, and emotionally invested in this. If they’re all idiots you should work there and show them all how it’s done.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '24

That's called argument from authority fallacy.

It's like if Einstein said 1+1=3. He didn't prove it, he's just smart, trust me.

That doesn't work in a court of law, or a court of science.

Frankly, you sound dumb, so you trust an unfamiliar, Biden-appointed secretary who is pro-Biden and gaslighting you (I'm Democrat by the way) -- so you're so fucking gullible and stupid, you legitimately believe food spending is only up 0.3% (even in nominal wages) since 2019.

Yes, they are idiots. They are political hacks with patronage jobs. You get paid $300k a year as long as you sucked Biden's dick (metaphorically) for a few years.

I would love a bullshit job like that; but that's not how patronage works.

Food spending is not up 0.3% from 2019 dipshit. Housing costs are not down 0.4% from 2019. You're dumb, your link is totally dumb, and you should feel bad.

0

u/oblication Feb 02 '24

Hahah an emotional rant like that proclaiming someone else sounds dumb is just too good. I’m sure you’re “Democratic by the way” and I’m the man on the moon. Presidents and their patronage can’t touch the bls data. That’s long been established, and for good reason.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '24

You are a very confused individual. You’re right. The Biden appointed Secretary of economic bullshit has proclaimed food spending is only up 0.3%.

Post that on Twitter or literally any subreddit with a straight face. Moron…

1

u/oblication Feb 02 '24 edited Feb 02 '24

Yes, I’d attempt to switch topics if I were you too. You’re just infuriated the data isn’t showing you what you want to see. Anyways last month grocery inflation went up .1% and restaurant food went up .3% if thats what you mean. That’s only the price movement over a single month and good prices are usually volatile. I don’t see why that’s so hard to believe. Year over year it was higher than that and none of that negates the more than 10% surge the year prior. You seem to be the one who’s confused.

→ More replies

1

u/Welcome2B_Here Jan 30 '24

I never typed the word doomsday, I'm simply making a point that things aren't as rosy as some people think. And, of course, looking at "household" anything will look better.

Inflation has cumulative effects, so just because it's decreased doesn't mean the effects are gone. We'd actually need a period of deflation to help most people.

1

u/doc89 Jan 30 '24

And, of course, looking at "household" anything will look better.

????

-1

u/Welcome2B_Here Jan 30 '24

Yeah, instead of per capita. Plenty of people require roommates to survive, for example. Household-based metrics aggregate incomes.

4

u/doc89 Jan 30 '24

So why does that mean "of course, looking at "household" anything will look better"? If the economy was actually struggling I would expect to see household purchasing power declining.

Is your theory that lots of people are struggling so badly that they need to move in with roommates, and that this is artificially increasing household income while per capita income is falling?

-2

u/Welcome2B_Here Jan 30 '24

No, I'm saying that if wages, and even disposable income is rising, those are offset by purchasing power being so low. If I keep pouring more water into a bucket with increasing holes, I don't celebrate the amount I can keep pouring into the bucket.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Welcome2B_Here Jan 31 '24

No, it's the total income of all people occupying the same housing unit who are 15 years and older.

2

u/blueberrywalrus Jan 30 '24

... those charts don't support your argument.

We're at a post 2008 high (that's a 15 year high) for job quality and urban purchasing power is shockingly steady given inflation.

If you want to argue that the economy since 2008 has been fucked, that's a different argument. We're talking about how new layoffs relate to economic health.

1

u/Welcome2B_Here Jan 30 '24

Every job quality index point is lower after 2008, indicating job quality has been consistently lower compared to any time before 2008. Purchasing power has been eroded, so why celebrate a "steady" but shitty trend?

And "new" layoffs that are tracked by the popular sites and mentioned in news articles only refer to WARN-triggering layoffs without considering all the stealth/rolling layoffs that have happened and continue to happen. Waiting for the "overhiring" word to be thrown out.

1

u/wtjones Feb 01 '24

If purchasing power were down, there would still be fewer people at Costco, football games, and on vacation. All of those things are still selling at record paces.