4 ms·

It’s interesting that fuel prices are literally at the bottom of the list. Government/poor leadership is 19%. Inflation, 18%; Economy 12%. Then we’re in sing

by aksss 4y ago

It’s interesting that fuel prices are literally at the bottom of the list. Government/poor leadership is 19%. Inflation, 18%; Economy 12%. Then we’re in single digits: Top of single digits is Immigration at 8% - no clarity on what angle but I think everyone can agree it’s a mess, no matter how you want it changed, which probably accounts for its comparatively frequent mention. Fuel prices are at 3%. Also of note is that 70%+ of respondents thought economy was getting worse, while 20% thought it was getting better. I wonder what those 20% are comparing to? Depths of Covid lockdowns?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
> It’s interesting that fuel prices are literally at the bottom of the list. Why is it so interesting? The average person's budget is less than 5% gasoline. The reason gasoline is historically this all important thing is because Exxon and auto manufacturers used to be the biggest, most important companies in the US (and to some extent airlines) - not because gasoline is the stable of the American consumers spending.
- Izikiel43 4y ago
  Gasoline also has an indirect impact on inflation, as the cost of transporting goods increases due to fuel cost rising.
- aksss 4y ago
  I find it interesting because I would not have expected it to rank at the literal bottom of the list. Many people’s relationship to fuel price is pretty inelastic, so it’s an income hit. As another said, fuel prices impact many other costs, particularly for any margin-based business like groceries. That business doesn’t pay the higher fuel bill; you do. I imagine summer may be helping blunt the impact, but gasoline avg itself is $1.60 above last year - not good. So it’s higher visibility with more immediate practical consequences than some of the other items. That’s why it’s interesting to me. But maybe many people think exactly like you do - a 35% y/y increase to something I spend 5% of my income on directly, how bad can that be?
adrr 4y ago
Still a labor shortage and low unemployment rate. I am amazed that 20% isn't higher.
- meepmorp 4y ago
  Wage shortage, not labor shortage. There's more than enough workers, but not everyone wants to take the jobs on offer for the money they'd be paid for doing them.
  - aksss 4y ago
    Talent shortage, not human shortage. There’s been a severe talent shortage for many years. When we post jobs, we don’t have a lack of applicants, just a lack of decently qualified applicants, let alone stand-out ones we’d like to hire. People want the job, but are not qualified for the job. That seems more like a labor shortage in that paying more money is only going to rob talent from company A to Company B, but not somehow magic up more workers with the skills needed at both. I’m not sure I buy the idea that there are immensely qualified people who are choosing to “not work”. If that’s the case - presuming they were paid such inflated numbers that they are basically retiring decades too early, it doesn’t buttress the wage shortage argument either. Now burnout is very real, but I’d argue that what’s driving burnout is lack of talent to spread the load across. People pay good money for talent - I always say that in America, there’s more money than there is talent. If you want that money, it’s there for you. The barriers are extraordinarily low. And granted that’s my view from professional services. In the basic service industry you may be right. Reliable labor is not cheap, and on top of that, we (as consumers) are not terribly interested paying more for it. Not sure what the fix for that is. Many answers I’ve heard seem far too simplistic, or come back to a talent shortage on the top end (pay CEO less).
- nostromo 4y ago
  Unemployment is a b.s. number. What matters is working-age labor participation rate, and it's been declining since 1999. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060

by aksss 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

> It’s interesting that fuel prices are literally at the bottom of the list. Why is it so interesting? The average person's budget is less than 5% gasoline. The reason gasoline is historically this all important thing is because Exxon and auto manufacturers used to be the biggest, most important companies in the US (and to some extent airlines) - not because gasoline is the stable of the American consumers spending.

Izikiel43 4y ago
Gasoline also has an indirect impact on inflation, as the cost of transporting goods increases due to fuel cost rising.
aksss 4y ago
I find it interesting because I would not have expected it to rank at the literal bottom of the list. Many people’s relationship to fuel price is pretty inelastic, so it’s an income hit. As another said, fuel prices impact many other costs, particularly for any margin-based business like groceries. That business doesn’t pay the higher fuel bill; you do. I imagine summer may be helping blunt the impact, but gasoline avg itself is $1.60 above last year - not good. So it’s higher visibility with more immediate practical consequences than some of the other items. That’s why it’s interesting to me. But maybe many people think exactly like you do - a 35% y/y increase to something I spend 5% of my income on directly, how bad can that be?

adrr 4y ago

Still a labor shortage and low unemployment rate. I am amazed that 20% isn't higher.

meepmorp 4y ago
Wage shortage, not labor shortage. There's more than enough workers, but not everyone wants to take the jobs on offer for the money they'd be paid for doing them.
- aksss 4y ago
  Talent shortage, not human shortage. There’s been a severe talent shortage for many years. When we post jobs, we don’t have a lack of applicants, just a lack of decently qualified applicants, let alone stand-out ones we’d like to hire. People want the job, but are not qualified for the job. That seems more like a labor shortage in that paying more money is only going to rob talent from company A to Company B, but not somehow magic up more workers with the skills needed at both. I’m not sure I buy the idea that there are immensely qualified people who are choosing to “not work”. If that’s the case - presuming they were paid such inflated numbers that they are basically retiring decades too early, it doesn’t buttress the wage shortage argument either. Now burnout is very real, but I’d argue that what’s driving burnout is lack of talent to spread the load across. People pay good money for talent - I always say that in America, there’s more money than there is talent. If you want that money, it’s there for you. The barriers are extraordinarily low. And granted that’s my view from professional services. In the basic service industry you may be right. Reliable labor is not cheap, and on top of that, we (as consumers) are not terribly interested paying more for it. Not sure what the fix for that is. Many answers I’ve heard seem far too simplistic, or come back to a talent shortage on the top end (pay CEO less).
nostromo 4y ago
Unemployment is a b.s. number. What matters is working-age labor participation rate, and it's been declining since 1999. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060