The "nightmare scenario" of a full employment recession is that their idea of controlling inflation is to reduce the number of people working, because the fed will keep the monetary policy restrictive until the unemployment rate increases. This speaks to a poor return in the stock market rather than the actual suffering that happens for the bottom 50% of the population.
It's not great for my visions of retiring early, but at some point the stagnant labor force has to be taken into account. between '16 and '19 had a 2.7% increase in the labor force - between '19 and '22 is nearly flat. (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/191750/civilian-labor-fo... )
We had a fair bit of early retirement. When we are talking about the number of the expectations of population growth against the reality, 2.65% is enough to distort the labor market.
Yes, that piece is written for the Wall Street crowd. To them, any time that ordinary people are given even a little bit of badly needed leverage, it's a nightmare scenario.
I'd argue that employment data is so manipulated it's basically useless at this point.
I'd say 4/6 people I know working in tech (devs, pm's etc) are unemployed at the moment. Those looking for work are getting maybe one interview per 30 applications. These are people with FAANG credentials and over 8yrs of experience.
And that's in tech, can't imagine how things are going in other industries.
But it entirely depends on where you're looking for work. If you're looking for a FAANG-style company, then yes, times are hard.
But that's a small segment of the industry. In most of the rest of the industry, jobs are as plentiful as ever -- but lots of programmers, mostly the younger ones, don't even consider anything that doesn't look like FAANG.
The "nightmare scenario" of a full employment recession is that their idea of controlling inflation is to reduce the number of people working, because the fed will keep the monetary policy restrictive until the unemployment rate increases. This speaks to a poor return in the stock market rather than the actual suffering that happens for the bottom 50% of the population.
It's not great for my visions of retiring early, but at some point the stagnant labor force has to be taken into account. between '16 and '19 had a 2.7% increase in the labor force - between '19 and '22 is nearly flat. (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/191750/civilian-labor-fo... )
We had a fair bit of early retirement. When we are talking about the number of the expectations of population growth against the reality, 2.65% is enough to distort the labor market.