14 ms·
The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade
- BluSyn 8y ago"The report said worry about an economic slowdown was the main driver of companies' layoff intentions." I sometimes wonder if these sorts of economic projections end up being self-fulfilling prophecies. If everyone tightens up spending because they expect a recession, that essentially guarantees there will be one.
- mtw 8y agoIt's not just projections or worries. Companies have real hard data, such as sales pipeline, inventories, orders etc. If your sales pipeline is down, inventory is stocking up, and your warehouse is idle compared to a year before, it is a manager's job to lay off employees. a few interesting reports: https://www.reddit.com/r/StockMarket/comments/aydpbu/first_hand_evidence_of_a_coming_recession/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StockMarket/comments/aydpbu/first_h... https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1110161228507348992 https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1110161228507348992
- everdev 8y agoTrue but there's also a lot of unknowns and variables in any business and mangers have to guess sometimes. In that sense mood and atmosphere can matter if you're on the fence.
- CydeWeys 8y agoI think their point is that all of that hard data may be a result of self-fulfilling prophecies of other companies cutting back their business because there's a general sense that a recession might be coming.
- mywittyname 8y agoI mean, if you're running a burger joint and fewer people are coming in to buy burgers, why would you continue to order the same amount of beef each week? I get that the real world more complicated than this, as forecasting can be done for months out, but businesses can't magically fix the economy by continuing to spend the way they have been because it isn't sustainable.
- diminoten 8y agoThe problem being pointed out is that fewer people aren't coming in to buy burgers yet, but because the store managers heard rumors of a recession, they preemptively fire employees and order less meat, which puts fewer dollars in their employees pockets, which means less spending power per person on average which means people actually do spend less, even though there wasn't actually anything wrong in the first place.
- coralreef 8y agoBased on what I know about American consumer spending habits, people basically spend whenever they can (which is why consumer debt is so high). It's when they "physically" can't spend that it starts to slow down (slowing income, access to credit).
- rabidrat 8y agoMore of a positive feedback loop than a self-fulfilling prophesy.
- cheez 8y agoYay proper use of positive feedback loop.
- olleromam91 8y agoYay proper use of a positive feedback loop.
- menzoic 8y agoYay proper use of a positive feedback loop.
- fiter 8y agoThis could leave you flat-footed when the economy picks back up or you realize it was a 'blip', so it's not an easy/clear decision to make because you see one or two numbers going down.
- VBprogrammer 8y agoNot to mention, laying off people has a non-negligible impact to real peoples lives.
- philwelch 8y agoThis is the "bullwhip effect": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect
- mashThemeSong 8y agoSort of like Cardi B is popular because there's near zero supply of new music, so it seems as though people actually like Cardi B, when in reality, they lack choices, and yet, have terabytes of bandwidth and flash memory, and high dynamic range, sound isolating neodymium speakers to listen to former strippers brag about how much money they spend.
- cylinder 8y agoIt's a stupid fucking mentality pervasive amongst the American corporate MBA set. It treats people as disposable and is usually not in the company's best interests. It's a short term boost to a company with long lasting and often disastrous implications down the track.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago>... it is a manager's job to lay off employees. I feel awful for those people whose lives have just been disrupted so. I’m particularly empathetic because, as a foster parent, I know very well what may happen to some of those families.
- dba7dba 8y agoI've never been a manager or had any role in laying someone off. But I've been laid off myself and know plenty people who get laid off and suffer the consequences, some quite severe. So I sometimes wonder, how do these managers who lay off people sleep at night? I mean they are just doing their job so that THEY themselves don't get laid off. And next I wonder, who are these rich rich people who want more money so that they hire people to lay off other people? But I guess that's life.
- jmvoodoo 8y agoI've had to lay off a decent number of people over the course of my career. The way I have always justified it is that I'm keeping the company healthy, and allowing far more people to keep their jobs in doing so. I'm sure there are cases where restructuring was done to the detriment of the business. I don't believe I've personally participated in any of those. That is part of the reason I took those jobs. Someone was going to do it, and I felt that I could do it in a way that kept the business healthy and was as respectful and careful about the humans impacted as possible (ensuring severance, having 1-1 conversations with every impacted person on my team, etc). For context I was an executive brought in to restructure software companies after they were purchased or tucked in by the LBO side of a PE firm.
- Symmetry 8y agoIn theory it would be better to cut everyone's pay than to lay off some people. But this brings lots of complications. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/09/why_dont_wages.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/09/why_dont_wages.html
- kbenson 8y agoRegarding the yield curve tweet, I'm pretty well acquainted with that whole theory since I listen to The Indicator from Planet Money podcast, and it's a favorite topic of theirs. I was going to note that it generally signals a recession when it's inverted for a whole quarter, but then I read the Tweet. And it's about how the lower than usual rates it's currently at matter for what it says, which makes sense. Then I noticed it was Paul Krugman making the observations. Any prior points I had no longer seem worth adding now. ;)
- datavirtue 8y agoIt's the managers job to run the company in a way that they never have to lay off employees.
- natalyarostova 8y agoThat's an oldschool wonder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_spirits_(Keynes) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_spirits_(Keynes)
- jacquesm 8y agoThe whole economy is powered by belief. No bank would be able to handle a bank run.
- xxpor 8y agoBecause people believe in the FDIC, not that there won't ever be a bank run.
- behindmyscreen 8y agoBelieve in it? Trusting FDIC is tantamount to trusting the full faith and credit of the US Government. If you don’t trust it what are you doing here?
- xxpor 8y agoThat's my point.
- geggam 8y agoInteresting isnt it ? The banks are secured by the govt which happens to be the biggest debtor to the banks. Problem being the govt is really the people and when it comes down to it the people are on the hook for their own debts regardless of how it gets paid. AND we bail out the corporations who spend too much.
- manfredo 8y agoNot really. The government has the authority to print money. They can ensure banks never run out of cash. But it may cause inflation if they overdo it. I suppose inflation is paying for it, but I get the feelings that the semantics around whether inflation is "paying" for things have changed recently (or maybe I've been hearing too many ardent MMT evangelists).
- geggam 8y agoThe ability to print money was outsourced to the Federal Reserve, while regulated by the govt it is not the govt. When we "borrow" money from the Fed it is at interest. We have created a debt based system where everything is a borrow. Fiat currencies are based on the value of the peoples ability to create value. When the people owe the banks more value than they can generate they are bankrupt. When the people and the govt ( the people ) owe money to the banks to the point they cannot generate enough value to cover the debts what will happen ? I think we will see soon :)
- pascalxus 8y agoanytime you grow at an unsustainable rate, a slowdown is inevitable. It's not a question of if, its a question of when.
- Ma8ee 8y agoThe question is what is a sustainable rate.
- r_smart 8y agoThe one where interest rates aren't being artificially lowered.
- muro 8y ago"artificially" - is that a thing? Isn't it just "lowered"? What is artificial about it?
- r_smart 8y agoIt's artificially lowered because the Federal Reserve is manipulating interest rates, rather than allowing them to fluctuate based on the conditions in the market. Interest is basically the adjustment made to value having money now vs having money in the future (how much would I have to pay you next year in order for you to not ask me to pay you now). An interest rate of 0% means $100 now vs some arbitrary point in the future are of equal use to you, which is irrational. Obviously getting $100 now is better than getting $100 in 5 years. In fairness, interest rates aren't that low. I'm not sure if interest rates equal to inflation would be the same thing as interest of 0% in a 0 inflation world. I'm not an economist.
- moorhosj 8y agoIf the deficit is 3.8% of GDP [1] and growth is only 2.9% [2] during a supposed economic "boom", something is wrong. [1] https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_percent_gdp https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_percent_gdp [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-economic-growth-in-2018-misses-trumps-3-percent-target-idUSKCN1QH0HO https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-economic-...
- DigiMortal 8y agoYes they do play a part and can affect the market, building upon themselves. Then consumer mentality, "consumer confidence" may fall, then spending might fall, things can multiply on each other like this. Market contraction...but with 10+ years of growth, a contraction is historically likely soon, right? Tough to time a market for sure, but I think the historical trends play into these self-fulfilling consumer sentiment prophecies as well.
- polskibus 8y agoThere are so many contradicting predictions all the time. You could for example say that it's because everyone thinks that the robots that are to steal everyone's job are around the corner, so everyone is preparing for it.
- vkou 8y agoThe stock market finds the 'correct' price for stocks, by aggregating conflicting beliefs and predictions of traders. When the beliefs are overwhelmingly pessimistic, stock prices drop. Why should companies behave any differently with respect to layoffs?
- Rooster61 8y ago> The stock market finds the 'correct' price for stocks, by aggregating conflicting beliefs and predictions of traders. 10-20 years ago, maybe. It's now driven largely by semi-autonomous algorithms monitoring swings/trends. I'd argue that it finds a 'simulated' price rather than a 'correct' price. The stock market is much less susceptible to emotional speculation than it used to be, for better or for worse. A quick google yields multiple articles claiming various percentages for algorithmic vs meatspace trading. Investopedia claims that as early as 2010, upwards of 60 percent of all trading was done by algorithm. That number has risen since as computation has become cheaper. Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/algorithmictrading.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/algorithmictrading.asp
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoBut won't these algorithms be based upon the whatever the meatspace traders were feeling? We've added indirection, but I don't know if it's in any way better.
- Rooster61 8y agoYes, but in a very different way, with a very different dynamic. While before, it was as OP said in that it's based on an aggregation of speculative sentiment from traders, it's now a pebble in pond ripple effect, where a panic of a few can trigger a runaway snowball effect MUCH faster than organic trading (algorithmic trading happens on the order of milliseconds). Also, I didn't say it was better. IMO it's probably just as volatile/dangerous. It's just harder to predict as it's not as rooted in actual emotion/speculation.
- draw_down 8y agoPretty much the entire system is a function of belief. Even money; it works because we all have a collective belief in its value. Unfortunately you don’t get to cherry-pick only the good parts of a system that runs on belief.
- asveikau 8y agoSounds a bit like Roosevelt's "only thing we have to fear is fear itself".
- stcredzero 8y agoThat's exactly what it is.
- malvosenior 8y agoThis definitely happens in the VC world. VCs are absolutely herd mentality and when one of them jumps at a shadow, they all jump and you get a bunch of blog posts talking about bubbles and how they're moving back to enterprise... Meanwhile nothing has changed other than VC perception but it will have a very real impact on early stage (especially seed and Series A) funding opportunities.
- temp-dude-87844 8y agoThis has long been empirically observed (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift), but different schools of economic thought have different opinions about whether it's sufficient to result in a vicious cycle.
- hopler 8y agoThe escape from the paradox of thrift is to create things now that will be valuable in the future (durable goods, or education), or to lend money to people who need things now (aka investing). (Or give money away for that's but that's economically equivalent to lending, in a general sense.)
- jklein11 8y ago"The report said worry about an economic slowdown was the main driver of companies' layoff intentions." Has anyone seen this happen in practice? Any HNer who is management have to lay people off because their executives say “we have no problem getting capital right now but we think it might become more difficult in the future.”
- carrja99 8y agoNot really. The only time I saw something like this was as a contractor at a certain Fortune 500 company. As each fiscal year was approaching the end and budgets were running close, they'd quickly lay off all the contractors. They'd then be aggressively hiring contractors once they were in the new fiscal year. I never quite understood that one. Feels like the churn would be more costly than keeping those contractors onboard for a month.
- throw0101a 8y agoNot even contractors sometimes. I've seen full-time employees laid off at one point, given severance, told not to look "too hard" for a new job, companies reported numbers, and hired back the same people in the same roles a few months later.
- bitcoinmoney 8y agoHopefully at a higher rate to make up for lost $$?
- kaikai 8y agoPart of the deal with contractors is they're not supposed to be working there for years at a time, otherwise they're employees. Those layoffs might be justification for cycling people out to avoid having to convert them.
- Shebanator 8y agoAdobe used to lay people off pretty much every winter to make their Q4 numbers look better, then hire many of the same folks back a few months later. It sucked. From what I've heard they don't do this is as much now that their business is subscription-driven.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoThe actual reason is debt payments not being met due to erroneous growth assumptions, which then cascade down the system. There are always people calling a peak or bottom, but at the end of the day, if your revenue projections aren't met, then you're going to have to cut costs. Whenever there is money sloshing around looking for return, the bets get riskier and riskier (i.e. assumptions about revenues get fantastical), and at some point that's not going to reflect reality. Perhaps it's due to job losses due to automation, or a weather event, or a war, etc.
- ineedasername 8y agoCountries that implement "austerity measures" often find themselves in this sort of cycle too. In most countries the government is a significant employer and its spending a significant portion of GDP. Significantly cutting that is going to have a negative impact.
- throwawaymanbot 8y agoWelcome To capitalism... Dont act surprised.
- sixothree 8y agoMaybe boom/recession cycle height/depth is the resolution of human reaction time.
- maxxxxx 8y agoThat's how the economy works. Everybody watches each other and makes adjustments. And with the financial sector being so big there are also a lot of feedback loops.
- cp9 8y agocool fun times. glad we just gave billionaires and mega corporations a trillion dollars
- natalyarostova 8y agoIs HN going to turn into just another boilerplate low-quality, sarcastic tribal sniping comments section? Seems like it's well on its way...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- schnable 8y agoGarbage in garbage out... post a vapid factoid article that's spun to make a specific number look bad, with little context, and what else is there to say?
- cheesymuffin 8y agoThe article throws a wrench in the economic argument for isolationist and xenophobic policies, though we really shouldn't need that to know that our president is not a good person.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- r_smart 8y agoNot taking isn't the same as giving. If you oppose something, it's a good idea to demonstrate you understand what you're against, otherwise you risk looking stupid.
- isoskeles 8y agoBully: Give me $5 today. Bully: Give me $5 today. Bully: Give me $5 today. Bully: Give me $4 today. You: That bully just GAVE his victim $1.
- cwarnold 8y ago> The impact: It's the highest number of job cuts in a quarter since 2015. Highest since 2015 is less surprising than “ highest in a decade”
- mawburn 8y agoAlso generates less clicks. I probably wouldn't have clicked this if it said "most job cuts in a quarter since 2015". I also feel like the scale of this graph makes this look a lot worse than the numbers indicate.
- scruple 8y agoI feel like saying in a decade also attempts to lay a bunch of things at the current administrations feet by implying it's worse than anything that happened during the previous adminstration. For the record, my honest opinion is that both of these (and other, yet, previous) administrations share fault. This sort of headline writing is for cowards and weasels.
- tzs 8y agoHeadline:> The U.S. just had the most Q1 layoffs in a decade Article:> The U.S. saw its highest level of layoffs in a first quarter since 2009 This seems like a reasonable headline for the article.
- learc83 8y agoYou can always find catchy headlines if you get specific enough. "The worst performing Friday the 13th in a non leap year ever."
- TAForObvReasons 8y agoThis isn't a particularly contrived analysis. Year-over-year quarterly financial statistics are extremely common, especially in company analysis since many filings are quarterly.
- pascalxus 8y agoAnd yet, markets are nearly at all time highs. I'd like to see a breakdown of who's buying stocks/equities. EDIT: I know earnings are high, but much of our growth over the last 20 years has been during 2-4% GDP deficit. I don't think that's been priced into the markets. Markets may be assuming that the deficit party will continue.
- bb2018 8y agoThe unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 50 years. That stat isn't perfect but it is still that the number of people with jobs is about as high as it has ever been.
- systemBuilder 8y agoTotally wrong! The employment population ratio age 25-54, just climbed out of a sewer where it has wallowed BELOW the lowest gross employment ratio since the recession bottom in 1992! Unemployment has been HORRIBLE since Bush left office! https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060 You read too many Clinton-era Arkansas lies. Clinton's racist "discouraged workers" unemployment stats - that only racists quote - says that poor people and minorities don't matter and a lack of jobs for them is their own dang fault, due to a lack of internsl motivation! signed - another Democrat.
- reallydude 8y agoIt's interesting how there's so much "information" about how well the employment rate was over the last 10 years, but everyone knows people who became/are unemployed (or part time only employed). Somehow every just assumes it's a localized situation to them, despite the ubiquity across observers. Part of it is the misinformation, but is that the only factor in the strength in the mischaracterized narrative? This still puzzles me.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoAssuming the unemployment rate is > 0%, shouldn't you know someone who's unemployed, just by the logic that there are unemployed people, and you know people?
- rb808 8y agolayoffs in retail, who knew?
- nytesky 8y agoSo basically the fear of recession may trigger a recession? Laying off, cutting spending and thus cascading economic contraction? Don’t think that would be a liquidity trap, but this type of recession always makes me think of Krugmans Baby-Sitting COOP model: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-op https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-...
- systemBuilder 8y agoHow is 4 years a decade? I think people should think twice before posting garbage blog posts to hackernews...
- thsowers 8y agoIt's been the most _Q1_ layoffs in a decade
- adrianmonk 8y agoAnd the most layoffs in any quarter since 2015. So there are two different statistics being given. The article could have probably done more to make that clear.
- Leary 8y agoThis metric is incomplete without noting the number of hires. This does not mean a net loss in jobs.
- ryansmccoy 8y agoi don't know why Reedx decided to post this story, but would be interested in his/her reason for posting it.
- passthefist 8y agoI would like to see those numbers. Even if it's evened out with I'd be curious if there's more churn now, which anecdotally seems to be the case.
- __HYde 8y agoAnd yet: "Applications for US Unemployment Aid Fall to 49-Year Low"[0] "Unemployment Rate Reached a Record Low in 19 States Last Year"[1] [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-04-04/applications-for-us-unemployment-aid-fall-to-49-year-low https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-04-04/app... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/unemployment-rate-reached-a-record-low-in-19-states-last-year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/unemploym...
- golemotron 8y agoLayoffs plus hiring. Will people realize at some point that volatility is a sign of health?
- untog 8y ago> volatility is a sign of health Say that to the workers that got laid off, lost earnings and perhaps even the health insurance their family depends on.
- ishjoh 8y agoIn defence of OP, it can be a sign of health for the country but devastating to an individual.
- astrodust 8y ago"It's a sign of health," he says from the comfort of his yacht, taking a slow sip of champagne between big spoonfuls of Beluga caviar all while watching the city burn. "Just look at all those construction and health-care jobs being created."
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bduerst 8y agoVolatility is a calculation. What volatility range is a sign of health? What range is problematic?
- cimmanom 8y agoIs it possible that that mostly just signifies the highest holiday season short-term hiring in a decade?
- huffmsa 8y agoBut then: Job market bounces back in March with 196,000 gain in payrolls https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/nonfarm-payrolls-march-2019.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/nonfarm-payrolls-march-2019.... Everyone just kinda shuffled around it seems.
- bjourne 8y agoThat's what left wing economists have been saying for ages. Cutting taxes for the rich does not create more jobs. Cutting welfare programs for the poorest destroys jobs. Trump did both: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax-cuts-were-a-bust-2019-01-30 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax... https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18260271/trump-medicaid-social-security-medicare-budget-cuts https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18260271/t... According to them, cutting taxes can create some short-term growth spurs (like what we have been seeing) but is not sustainable. In 2022-2023 we'll see what state the US economy is in and who was right. Maybe Trump is the financial genius who will finally make Reaganomics work after so many neo-liberal failed attempts. But I wouldn't bet on it.
- partiallypro 8y agoThe layoffs are almost all lead by the retail sector, which is undergoing a shift due to digital disruption from the likes of Amazon. There is no evidence the tax breaks have created (many) jobs...but there is even less evidence that it has "destroyed" jobs. If you can point me to a peer reviewed study that says that, and not a Vox article, I'll gladly read it. But I skim FRED sometimes and have never seen such claims from a legitimate economist. In fact a lot of these jobs were reabsorbed elsewhere in other sectors, that's actually a sign of a fairly healthy economy. Which is actually pretty astonishing given the weakness in Asia at the moment; but as someone I've read (can't remember the author) pointed out the US has never imported a recession, even during the currency crisis of the early 90s and all the problems that Japan has had with growth since the early 90s.
- bjourne 8y agoI did not say that tax cuts destroyed jobs. I said that cutting welfare programs, that Trump has decided to do, will destroy jobs. This idea is prevalent among Keynesian and Marxian economists as you can easily find out for yourself by reading Wikipedia. Whether they are right or not, well, we will see about that in two to three years.
- bduerst 8y ago
- fideloper 8y agoMeanwhile, over here: https://www.apnews.com/eac21eae21bb474c82bdd09069619cb7 https://www.apnews.com/eac21eae21bb474c82bdd09069619cb7 > Hiring rebounds as US employers add a solid 196,000 jobs
- hackerz2 8y agoalt take from Bill McBride of CalculatedRISK: https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2019/04/comments-on-march-employment-report.html https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2019/04/comments-on-march... Summary: The headline jobs number was above expectations, and the previous two months were revised up slightly. The headline unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.8%. This was a solid jobs report, and was probably boosted by some bounce back from the poor weather in February. What's with the HN editor's obsession with posting "bad economy" reports lately? It certainly conflicts with their boosting SV unicorn IPOs.
- ryansmccoy 8y agoIMO, politics seems like possible reason.
- bsamuels 8y agois # of layoffs a misleading metric? if the workforce is always increasing in size, doesn't the number of layoffs each quarter have to go up?
- seppin 8y agoI would guess job losses work the same way
- rchaud 8y agoHow many of these jobs are full-time versus part time? It's ridiculous that the only numbers reported on are these aggregate stats, when we live in a time where many people cannot make ends meet working two or more part-time jobs.
- mlacks 8y agoI wonder if this is a net loss or a gross loss; I would love to compare this article with another detailing the amount of hires in the same period
- dgjrhgi 8y agoMost of the job logs in retail sector is because of Amazon.
- maerF0x0 8y agomeanwhile "Hiring speeds up as U.S. economy adds 196,000 jobs in March" (ie adds as many jobs in 1 month as layoffs in 1 quarter) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hiring-speeds-up-as-economy-adds-196000-jobs-in-march-unemployment-flat-at-38-2019-04-05 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hiring-speeds-up-as-econom...
- SubiculumCode 8y agoBest join the YangGang. Those layoffs will be coming for ya...
- williesleg 8y agoOf course, the obstructionist left is in charge of the house. They don't care about employment only votes
- mashThemeSong 8y agoSuicide is painless. It brings on many changes.
- tenpies 8y ago> Axios Well that certainly explains the clickbait and built-in opinion.
- ccnafr 8y agoNot according to Trump
- vondur 8y agoThat's weird, I just saw this from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/nonfarm-payrolls-march-2019.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/nonfarm-payrolls-march-2019.... So, what the heck it going on then?
- mandeepj 8y agoJob report came out strong today - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock-market-news-april-5-2019-120248366.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock-market-news-april-5-201...
- egberts 8y agoAxios.com, cherry-picking news for the Democrats since 2009.