Stolen from somewhere I can't remember: one (possibly) underrated aspect of The Great Resignation is older workers moving their retirement dates up. The run-up in asset prices over the last 18 months or so has made quite a few people on the plus side of age 50 feel wealthy enough that they no longer need to work, as they've seen the values of their 401k's and other retirement assets increase by 50% or more during that time period. They may be in for a rude awakening if there's a major correction, though, in the next couple years.
Not sure if there is any data out there to support this idea or not, but it certainly sounds plausible. My company had more retirements than normal in 2020, anecdotally, but obviously I wasn't going to ask these people whether their portfolio valuations had affected their decision to head for the door, so who knows if that was it or not.
I think you're exactly right - this a lower class movement, more difficult to understand because it has no native media class voices to explain what's going on. Also it does seem to be a study of protest against blue collar jobs objectively getting much worse.
But I wonder if that 'protest' has been largely enabled by a short term savings glut from pandemic aid which is going to run out very quickly. Working class may be returning to their (worse) jobs very soon regardless of wage increases.
I think the phenomenon is affecting white collar employment as well, even if its not to the same extent. My place of employment is currently experiencing a burnout spiral, and I'm getting the feeling working from home makes the market more liquid.
It is extremely hard to job search when you are commuting to work 10h+ days in the office. WFH allows for more awareness of the alternatives, along with the flexibility to pursue them.
I think you are generally right that a lot of the adjustment is coming from people who are leaving jobs that require masks and vaccines, either by resigning or waiting to get terminated. I would assume people would do the latter to get unemployment, but then I am not sure it matters considering that applications seem to be getting rubber stamped yes without much scrutiny.
I think the big questions are what are these people doing for money in the interim, and whether the government is limiting supply of labor, intentionally not. Presumably the government paying people to be idle isn't helping, by competing for workers. Making it illegal to hire people who are not vaccinated isn't helping either. Heavily subsidizing college attendance is probably bidding against employers. I am not sure that really explains why job market participation is so low, however. It was low before the pandemic, and worse now, which suggests to me it is a structural problem and not a passing thing.
Wouldn't this predict that trucking jobs would still be quite attractive, since the covid security theater burden is pretty light when you spend most days on the road?
You write that “deficit spending has created too much paper wealth relative to the economy’s productive capacity. Too much money chasing too few goods, as it were.” But *paper wealth* ≠ *money*; borrowing is not inflationary.
Suppose you liked the existing ratio of paper wealth to the economy’s productive capacity. Then I borrowed some money from you, giving you my IOU. There would then be more paper wealth (sc., my IOU in your hands) than before; evidently, in your view the optimal ratio would have been disturbed—the new ratio would be *too high*. But it is unclear (to me) what you are complaining about. What harm does it do if more borrowing occurs?
Yes, nothing new. In the 1960s, the Latin American "structural" view of inflation --heavily influenced by the British post-WWII "structural" view of inflation-- claimed that high inflation (even as high as 20% per year) was caused by markets out of equilibria. But this inflation is persistent (meaning it continues for several years) only if it goes accompanied by the need to finance persistent government deficits by printing money. The traditional example is Argentina: for the past 70 years, the government has often relied on printing money to finance its deficit, but to control inflation it has relied on some price controls (usually starting with the exchange rate after a large devaluation).
Indeed, we can argue that in all countries the government response to Covid-19 has thrown many markets out of equilibria (well beyond what could have been the effect of people's response to Covid-19). The simultaneity of their nonsense response aggravated the impact on the world economy and thus why we can think of it as the Great Global Shock, the most nonsense shock in human history.
Fortunately, there have been differences across countries in that response and researchers may exploit them to understand what has happened. It's hard work but necessary to understand what has been happening. We should regret that the barbarians' servile economists have been trying to blame the virus for the negative Great Global Shock --it'd amount to celebrate Mao for the positive Great China Shock.
One possible solution is that employers will just end COVID theatre. Where I live some businesses make them wear masks all day and some don't. This usually correlates to small vs corporate business. There is no state law forcing them to mask employees.
The last place to move on will likely be government. I expect this to mean that those that remain in government will be even less competent, and anyone that could or desire to do better moves on. The person teaching my kid next year left a public school job last year over pandemic theater and other recent nonsense to work for a private school that treats her and the kids like human beings. There has always been a salary premium to work in public vs private school because private school is so much more pleasant of a work environment than public school. Expect that to accelerate.
Stolen from somewhere I can't remember: one (possibly) underrated aspect of The Great Resignation is older workers moving their retirement dates up. The run-up in asset prices over the last 18 months or so has made quite a few people on the plus side of age 50 feel wealthy enough that they no longer need to work, as they've seen the values of their 401k's and other retirement assets increase by 50% or more during that time period. They may be in for a rude awakening if there's a major correction, though, in the next couple years.
Not sure if there is any data out there to support this idea or not, but it certainly sounds plausible. My company had more retirements than normal in 2020, anecdotally, but obviously I wasn't going to ask these people whether their portfolio valuations had affected their decision to head for the door, so who knows if that was it or not.
I think you're exactly right - this a lower class movement, more difficult to understand because it has no native media class voices to explain what's going on. Also it does seem to be a study of protest against blue collar jobs objectively getting much worse.
But I wonder if that 'protest' has been largely enabled by a short term savings glut from pandemic aid which is going to run out very quickly. Working class may be returning to their (worse) jobs very soon regardless of wage increases.
I think the phenomenon is affecting white collar employment as well, even if its not to the same extent. My place of employment is currently experiencing a burnout spiral, and I'm getting the feeling working from home makes the market more liquid.
It is extremely hard to job search when you are commuting to work 10h+ days in the office. WFH allows for more awareness of the alternatives, along with the flexibility to pursue them.
I think you are generally right that a lot of the adjustment is coming from people who are leaving jobs that require masks and vaccines, either by resigning or waiting to get terminated. I would assume people would do the latter to get unemployment, but then I am not sure it matters considering that applications seem to be getting rubber stamped yes without much scrutiny.
I think the big questions are what are these people doing for money in the interim, and whether the government is limiting supply of labor, intentionally not. Presumably the government paying people to be idle isn't helping, by competing for workers. Making it illegal to hire people who are not vaccinated isn't helping either. Heavily subsidizing college attendance is probably bidding against employers. I am not sure that really explains why job market participation is so low, however. It was low before the pandemic, and worse now, which suggests to me it is a structural problem and not a passing thing.
Wouldn't this predict that trucking jobs would still be quite attractive, since the covid security theater burden is pretty light when you spend most days on the road?
“Perform cleansing rituals” - I love it.
You write that “deficit spending has created too much paper wealth relative to the economy’s productive capacity. Too much money chasing too few goods, as it were.” But *paper wealth* ≠ *money*; borrowing is not inflationary.
Suppose you liked the existing ratio of paper wealth to the economy’s productive capacity. Then I borrowed some money from you, giving you my IOU. There would then be more paper wealth (sc., my IOU in your hands) than before; evidently, in your view the optimal ratio would have been disturbed—the new ratio would be *too high*. But it is unclear (to me) what you are complaining about. What harm does it do if more borrowing occurs?
Yes, nothing new. In the 1960s, the Latin American "structural" view of inflation --heavily influenced by the British post-WWII "structural" view of inflation-- claimed that high inflation (even as high as 20% per year) was caused by markets out of equilibria. But this inflation is persistent (meaning it continues for several years) only if it goes accompanied by the need to finance persistent government deficits by printing money. The traditional example is Argentina: for the past 70 years, the government has often relied on printing money to finance its deficit, but to control inflation it has relied on some price controls (usually starting with the exchange rate after a large devaluation).
Indeed, we can argue that in all countries the government response to Covid-19 has thrown many markets out of equilibria (well beyond what could have been the effect of people's response to Covid-19). The simultaneity of their nonsense response aggravated the impact on the world economy and thus why we can think of it as the Great Global Shock, the most nonsense shock in human history.
Fortunately, there have been differences across countries in that response and researchers may exploit them to understand what has happened. It's hard work but necessary to understand what has been happening. We should regret that the barbarians' servile economists have been trying to blame the virus for the negative Great Global Shock --it'd amount to celebrate Mao for the positive Great China Shock.
Morlocks eat Eloi, is my prediction. Have a nice day.
One possible solution is that employers will just end COVID theatre. Where I live some businesses make them wear masks all day and some don't. This usually correlates to small vs corporate business. There is no state law forcing them to mask employees.
The last place to move on will likely be government. I expect this to mean that those that remain in government will be even less competent, and anyone that could or desire to do better moves on. The person teaching my kid next year left a public school job last year over pandemic theater and other recent nonsense to work for a private school that treats her and the kids like human beings. There has always been a salary premium to work in public vs private school because private school is so much more pleasant of a work environment than public school. Expect that to accelerate.
Have a nice day.