4 ms·

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

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

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