4 ms·

This is garbage. They quoted only the words "we hope", disingenuously made up the rest of the quote, and then try to pass it off as a mere paraphrase. The actu

by avalys 4y ago

This is garbage. They quoted only the words "we hope", disingenuously made up the rest of the quote, and then try to pass it off as a mere paraphrase. The actual quote is "By the end of next year, we hope the ratio of job openings to unemployed is down to the more normal highs of the last business cycle."

dragonwriter 4y ago
That is, literally and exactly, hoping that conditions for labor get worse, so while you assert that it is disingenuous and not an accurate paraphrase, that doesn't seem to be the case.
- frumper 4y ago
  Or they could be hoping more people join the labor pool. If you listened to Powell speak, you'd have heard him say they had hoped the labor participation rate would have started to go up by this point. People re-entering the job market would fill the open jobs without increasing unemployment
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Or they could be hoping more people join the labor pool. That’s not an “or” to “things get worse for labor”, that’s a cause (more competitors for the same set of openings) for the effect of “things get worse for labor”.
    - frumper 4y ago
      The system is out of whack. Price stability needs to happen. If you only look at the issue from how easy of a time does labor have getting a job, then sure. Going from stupidly fantastic to great is worse. The world is more complex and these workers are all seeing the economic value of their labor shrink even as they earn more money. The economy needs some semblance of balance. They'll feel better off if potatoes don't cost twice as much next year.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > The system is out of whack. Price stability needs to happen. Yes, that’s an argument for why one might wish conditions to become more adverse to labor (and its fairly expressly the argument underlying current monetary policy, and that adversity to labor may sometimes be desirable in setting monetary policy is central to the Fed’s dual mandate.) That doesn’t change that it is wishing conditions to become more adverse to labor.
  - throwaway_75369 4y ago
    To be fair, it could still be argued that this is "worse for labor", because there would be more competition among laborers for those job openings. They'd have less negotiating power since more of them would be available to apply for the same position. I do agree the headline is unecessarily inflammatory, though.
    - frumper 4y ago
      That's a very reasonable way to look at it.
      - theknocker 4y ago
- legitster 4y ago
  > That is, literally and exactly, hoping that conditions for labor get worse No it's not. If I say "I hope I can find some cheap veggies at the market today", you wouldn't be accusing me of trying to rip off a farmer. It's a bizarre and bad faith conclusion to jump to.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    A higher than usual “ratio of job openings to unemployed” means workers have higher than usual power. By “hoping” for the reverse, they are hoping for workers to have lower power.
    - legitster 4y ago
      But it also leads to inflation - which is good for corporations and bad for workers. You're jumping to conclusions on other people's behalf, but only picking the conclusions you have pre-decided.

by avalys 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

That is, literally and exactly, hoping that conditions for labor get worse, so while you assert that it is disingenuous and not an accurate paraphrase, that doesn't seem to be the case.

frumper 4y ago
Or they could be hoping more people join the labor pool. If you listened to Powell speak, you'd have heard him say they had hoped the labor participation rate would have started to go up by this point. People re-entering the job market would fill the open jobs without increasing unemployment
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Or they could be hoping more people join the labor pool. That’s not an “or” to “things get worse for labor”, that’s a cause (more competitors for the same set of openings) for the effect of “things get worse for labor”.
  - frumper 4y ago
    The system is out of whack. Price stability needs to happen. If you only look at the issue from how easy of a time does labor have getting a job, then sure. Going from stupidly fantastic to great is worse. The world is more complex and these workers are all seeing the economic value of their labor shrink even as they earn more money. The economy needs some semblance of balance. They'll feel better off if potatoes don't cost twice as much next year.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The system is out of whack. Price stability needs to happen. Yes, that’s an argument for why one might wish conditions to become more adverse to labor (and its fairly expressly the argument underlying current monetary policy, and that adversity to labor may sometimes be desirable in setting monetary policy is central to the Fed’s dual mandate.) That doesn’t change that it is wishing conditions to become more adverse to labor.
- throwaway_75369 4y ago
  To be fair, it could still be argued that this is "worse for labor", because there would be more competition among laborers for those job openings. They'd have less negotiating power since more of them would be available to apply for the same position. I do agree the headline is unecessarily inflammatory, though.
  - frumper 4y ago
    That's a very reasonable way to look at it.
    - theknocker 4y ago
legitster 4y ago
> That is, literally and exactly, hoping that conditions for labor get worse No it's not. If I say "I hope I can find some cheap veggies at the market today", you wouldn't be accusing me of trying to rip off a farmer. It's a bizarre and bad faith conclusion to jump to.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  A higher than usual “ratio of job openings to unemployed” means workers have higher than usual power. By “hoping” for the reverse, they are hoping for workers to have lower power.
  - legitster 4y ago
    But it also leads to inflation - which is good for corporations and bad for workers. You're jumping to conclusions on other people's behalf, but only picking the conclusions you have pre-decided.