3 ms·

This argument is like watching multiple Tarot-card readers arguing over tea leaves. Hilarious content. This entertainment is why I come to HN. Everything you sa

by Lendal 4y ago

This argument is like watching multiple Tarot-card readers arguing over tea leaves. Hilarious content. This entertainment is why I come to HN. Everything you said is a guess, but you say it with such sincerity and conviction, as if it could have been written by the new Bing-powered-by-ChatGPT. Good work all.

RestlessMind 4y ago
> Everything you said is a guess I saw GP's arguments less as guesses and more as statistical probabilities. We are discussing layoffs, which is a socio-economic topic after all. So unlike Physics, you should expect probabilistic reasoning here. Regarding conviction / sincerity, do you see any problem with any of the 4 arguments GP presents? If so, let's discuss that instead of just ad-hominems.
- Lendal 4y ago
  The reason I'm suspicious of these claims is because there's no empirical evidence to support them. I have this pet peeve about news people when they say "the market was up|down today on fears of _" and all the news does it, from Fox to PBS. As if there was some kind of survey attached to every trade asking "Why are you paying more|less for this stock than you were previously?" and the news people are all analyzing this data. They're not. There's no such polling data, and so how could they possibly know the reasons millions of people move in a certain direction on a certain day? They're just guessing. Or else, it's a way to prop up their own credibility. Anything the market does must be due to whatever other stories they've decided to report on today. It's narcissism.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    > The reason I'm suspicious of these claims is because there's no empirical evidence to support them. Really? Let's go one by one. 1. "Cuts are companies preparing for recession. We are long overdue for a down cycle and every indicator says its here or on its way." - we are indeed overdue for a down cycle. COVID could have been that but it was short lived due to massive stimuli. And all the traditional indicators (like yield curve, fed's statements) are pointing towards a recession (empirical evidence, as you ask). 2. "Workers increased salaries were passed to consumers. No problem until consumers stop purchasing. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT" - there is empirical evidence right there in that line. 3. "In a recession cash flow is everything. For most companies labor is the largest variable element of cash flow." - first part is objectively true. No cash flow, no viable business. And for second part, just go read the 10-Q's. It has labor costs spelled out. 4. "Wages don't go down. Not that they cannot, they just don't. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ECIWAG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ECIWAG" - again, GP is cognizant of possibilities and says so. And also provides evidence. What are you really objecting to?

by Lendal 4y ago

RestlessMind 4y ago

> Everything you said is a guess I saw GP's arguments less as guesses and more as statistical probabilities. We are discussing layoffs, which is a socio-economic topic after all. So unlike Physics, you should expect probabilistic reasoning here. Regarding conviction / sincerity, do you see any problem with any of the 4 arguments GP presents? If so, let's discuss that instead of just ad-hominems.

Lendal 4y ago
The reason I'm suspicious of these claims is because there's no empirical evidence to support them. I have this pet peeve about news people when they say "the market was up|down today on fears of _" and all the news does it, from Fox to PBS. As if there was some kind of survey attached to every trade asking "Why are you paying more|less for this stock than you were previously?" and the news people are all analyzing this data. They're not. There's no such polling data, and so how could they possibly know the reasons millions of people move in a certain direction on a certain day? They're just guessing. Or else, it's a way to prop up their own credibility. Anything the market does must be due to whatever other stories they've decided to report on today. It's narcissism.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  > The reason I'm suspicious of these claims is because there's no empirical evidence to support them. Really? Let's go one by one. 1. "Cuts are companies preparing for recession. We are long overdue for a down cycle and every indicator says its here or on its way." - we are indeed overdue for a down cycle. COVID could have been that but it was short lived due to massive stimuli. And all the traditional indicators (like yield curve, fed's statements) are pointing towards a recession (empirical evidence, as you ask). 2. "Workers increased salaries were passed to consumers. No problem until consumers stop purchasing. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT" - there is empirical evidence right there in that line. 3. "In a recession cash flow is everything. For most companies labor is the largest variable element of cash flow." - first part is objectively true. No cash flow, no viable business. And for second part, just go read the 10-Q's. It has labor costs spelled out. 4. "Wages don't go down. Not that they cannot, they just don't. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ECIWAG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ECIWAG" - again, GP is cognizant of possibilities and says so. And also provides evidence. What are you really objecting to?