I suppose it’s in how you word it. I’ve given up on trying to get a job because there is no point in trying. I can’t afford to pay my rent, but I guess you could call that early retirement.
If you can stomach it, the seafood canning and fishing industry in Alaska will usually (IDK what the situation is this year) hire anyone off the street, work them 16 hours a day for several months, and give them "free housing." You'll get dumped back in Seattle in several months with at least $10k in your pocket.
Edit: genuinely perplexed on the response. This saved my ass one winter when I had nothing for rent.
If you are working 16 hours a day, you won't even go to your "free housing", you will sleep next to your workplace on a mat and then try and finish toilet/bath in office restroom in 1hour, so you can at-least get some restful hours of sleep before the next day.
> However, in June the biggest plunge came from what is defined as “prime age” workers, or those between the ages of 25 and 54. That rate fell 0.6 percentage point to 83.3%, its lowest since December 2023.
It's great how two sources can tell a completely different story about the same numbers.
The first FRED link shows how noisy that subgroup is. It’s bounced around with 83-84% during that time. It was 83.8% in March and 83.5% through much of 2024.
An aging population means 25-54 represent less workers and people "retiring" from the labor force before social security age is likely to be deeply negative for their finances into old age and not just a decision from the relative luxury of being able to select jobs with quick vesting pensions like in past decades.
If pension ages were going down over the years and the average worker were well vested by 55 then in that reality all would be fine.
I think you are grossly overestimating the number of people >55 years old who free willingly retire early because of having enough new worth. Already millenials' CVs are written off in recruitment pipelines.
> millenials' CVs are written off in recruitment pipelines
I think you've got something wrong here, "millennials" refers to people currently between 30 and 45 and are surely the least likely to be discriminated based on either age or inexperience.
Or they hit that sweet spot of being old enough to have commitments so they can't be a fresh grad slave and young enough to not have benefitted when the getting was good and easy and so they are discriminated against.
It's likely not even people retiring early, just demographics shifting up the ages. The youngest baby boomers are 61. The percentage of Americans over the age of 60 increased from 22.8% in 2020 to 25% in 2025. Also the younger cohorts moving into the labor force are smaller as well.
Prime age is meant to filter college kids and retirees which makes sense but it is likely hiding the minor crisis in hiring for college grads. But I agree it's not disastrous just a yellow flag. The 20 year bull market has minted a lot of millionaires amongst the upper middle class and a lot of them are retiring early.
There's nothing wrong with retiring a few years early if you're comfortable doing so. I sorta did. On the other hand, I didn't really want to hang around too long after either.
55+ crushing it on the asset inflation mania they got at ~zero interest, the youngins left holding the bag of the inflationary cost renting out houses their seniors got negative real interest mortgages for.
Not all of them, some of them have just been pushed out of the workforce unwillingly due to ageism while still financially insecure.
I'm all about people being angry with the current situation and pushing for class war, but blanket assumptions about any demographic, including those of a certain age, is not helpful.
"retired" at 25-30 is also pretty common, or at minimum self employed and fully sustainable while putting in only 10-20 hours a week usually for 2-3 days a week.
Take an hour off at 2-3pm in any major US city and look at how many people are just milling about. Mostly shopping. There are a lot of people in the US that are not working.
Pre-2008 retail was quiet in the middle of the day, now it booms. I can’t comment on if this is a good or bad thing, but I am surprised at how many people are causally walking their dog as I am rushing to compete an essential errand and get back to work.
Asking because I'm genuinely curious myself, how much of this is unemployment vs the fact that so many more people work from home now compared to pre-2008? Many of those that WFH work a more flexible schedule and probably structure their days a lot differently than 20+ years ago.
I used to encounter maybe one person who did not have a head of gray hair, i.e. obviously retired, in a variety of mid peninsula parks in Silicon Valley on weekdays pre covid during the work day and nowadays I run into a dozen or more in a typical half day outing on a week day and this trend definitely started during pandemic. But I don’t know if it’s unemployment or WFH now.
I think this is going to be a much more common sight in most major western economies - many of them have a rapidly growing aged retired population and a declining young working segment etc.
The effects of this change are definitely being felt, good and bad, in many countries already.
I wonder what degree to which the shopping is inspired by a mixture of
- People anticipating high interest and price hikes in a world where many products are very-slowly-depreciating assets, in the case of game consoles and RAM, even appreciating, and
- A low current of suicidality, with an ambivalent regard towards the prospect of death once the account reaches $0.
- Alternatively, unemployed people in our field often find themselves free from a noncompete to work on profitable projects during unemployment.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I get my errands done at 12 - 3ish.
I work 8 AM - noon, 3 PM - 2 AM. (Exact ranges vary.)
I don't have an office and I've never met most of my coworkers.
I'm exceedingly angry that restaurants and stores are no longer open until midnight. I used to do 11 PM Target shopping, 2 AM Walmart shopping, etc. Nothing is open late anymore, and it sucks.
You realize not everyone works a normal 9 to 5 right, you honestly think every person shopping are unemployed? Are tech workers this deeply out of touch with normal people?
Heh. I had a manual labor job once where I got off work at 4:00. A quick beer after work becomes "I hope I still have beer in the fridge", since in California you can't buy one until 6:00.
I don't think they implied that. They just noticed what they say is a large increase in 9 to 5 shopping compared to pre-2008 and are speculating that this increase is because more people now are out of the labor force.
Today I read about Accenture Norway taking in 56 summer internship students from over...1600 applicants. Record year, they reported.
Previously I imagined only the top-top tier firms could enjoy low single-digit acceptance rate, but here we have Accenture crushing it. Competition must be tough.
(But for what I know, could be that AI has made it easier for people to spam everyone with applications)
My guess is that it's simultaneously easy for a lot of companies to do automated filtering and for candidates to do a lot of automated applications in a way that's easier than sending out a bunch of envelopes. Which makes it harder for candidates who don't have either networks or impressive credentials.
On the other side, I notice it's so much easier to apply for a job today that people apply for thousands of jobs. When I graduated from college I applied at 70 different places, and my peer group thought that was a crazy high number.
When I was graduating from grad school I certainly sent many dozens of letters. Which I think was pretty typical. When I went to another grad school a few years later, I probably traveled to a good dozen interviews in addition to a whole bunch of other letters.
There are plenty of services to send mail form the internet for a small fee, so this will only discourage the most poor candidates and add friction for the best ones.
The "small fee" is the point though as it stops practically all automated submissions. I doubt the price of a stamp excludes poor candidates unless you think that poor people could never get jobs before online applications were a thing (and internet connections and phones cost money as well).
It’s not that poor people can’t afford a stamp it’s that they aren’t going to spend money on an automated service or stamp if there are other places to apply to that don’t require this.
So I think it’s going to lower recall a a lot - it reduces volume of good and bad actors equally. Anecdotally, I’m not going to bother with such an application unless it’s my top choice or I’m desperate. For small companies that probably means throwing the babies out with the bathwater.
An interesting question but arguably a lot of the most qualified applicants will go FU at that point and only the most desperate will put a stamp on an envelope which is probably not what you want.
Honestly, it probably comes down to more networking and credentials.
They're based in Ireland. There's like 42k software developers in the entire country* and Accenture has 779k staff**, so they had to hire people in foreign places like Norway and the USA.
Not exactly on top of it but I had a related conversation the other day.
People at my work were talking poor of gen z and how they are bulk of neets and how they are lame and etc.
There is always some cringe in different generations apart, but even being older, I can empathise with them.
You have zero forecast to buy a home for yourself, to buy a car, to even pay for a university. Whatever they want to do, they will be sucked dry, even if it is a video game.
The f our generation is doing. We are being evil towards the elderly and the young.
We blame the rich, the game, the system. All of them we power of our utmost selfishness, transfering the guilty for someone like we couldn't do anything about it.
The money printing during COVID screwed everything up. Most of the capital was directly given to banks and businesses, fraudulently in many cases and unnecessarily in most, and everything pooled up into real estate and stocks so anyone who had already owned a large proportion of those became absurdly wealthy in the span of a couple years and everyone else effectively lost 20-30% of their income through inflation. The majority of all money was printed during COVID, no one voted for this to happen, no one bothered to even communicate how it was decided how much money would be printed and who would get it, and no retrospective has ever been done. It’s never been more clear that a small group of the wealthiest investors in the US run the show and the majority of people are wage slaves who had the ladder kicked out above them. Now we’re seeing an administration and elite class that is openly ransacking the country for whatever profits it can extract from a dying empire. I have no idea how this ever gets fixed.
> The capital was either directly given to businesses, fraudulently and unnecessarily in many cases
Especially concerning when a bunch of politicians were in on it, ensuring that the money went out willy-nilly and that $700+ billion in "loans" were turned into a straight up gift from the taxpayers.
>ensuring that the money went out willy-nilly and that $700+ billion in "loans" were turned into a straight up gift from the taxpayers.
Wasn't that widely understood during the pandemic? All the coverage I've seen mentioned that the loans for forgivable if certain criteria were met, and nobody was like "yeah it's fine because it's a loan!".
The problem is that these loans went to _businesses_, not workers. There was an orgy of corruption, with newly formed LLCs claiming to have dozens of workers.
And then these loans were just forgiven. And since they went to businesses, Republicans are completely silent about that.
The loans went to businesses as a bribe to keep on employees they didn't need until the pandemic was over. If you just gave out money to unemployed people it's almost impossible to stop when the emergency is over.
Sorry, but "both sides" went out of the window in 2024.
There are _some_ decent Democrats in the Congress. There are also plenty of bad ones. There are NO decent Republicans in the Congress. And yes, reality appears to be partisan.
To the topic in question, PPP was not really a big deal. The real culprit is this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP - the corporate profits literally DOUBLED since 2020 because of earlier Trump's tax cuts.
>To the topic in question, PPP was not really a big deal. The real culprit is this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP - the corporate profits literally DOUBLED since 2020 because of earlier Trump's tax cuts.
Not really. If you add data series for pre-tax profits and index both series to 2020, you see the two lines are basically on top of each other.
Nobody paid those high tax rates. Everybody was writing off cars, home offices, hobbies, "business" dinners, and everything else.
The tax simplification that occurred in 1986 struck a bargain: We'll lower your tax rate, but we're not going to allow you to take all those BS deductions anymore. The effective tax rates barely budged.
An effective 94% tax rate is a huge drag on the economy, since it makes risk taking impossible to justify. You'd be stupid to start a business or invest in a startup at that rate. There's no surer way to throw half your work force out of work.
The effective tax rates have went down modestly, but approximately no one was paying anywhere near that. They were playing the same financial engineered fuck fuck games that are played today to get around it. It's the poor and middle class that can't get around those tax rates.
Yea the covid money printing is regularly pointed to as a reason why MMT is clearly bad but that ignores that there’s literally a solution to this problem in MMT. Raise taxes to reclaim the money. It’s a trivial solution which is sadly politically incredibly challenging.
Huh what is dystopian about that? I’m just referencing how MMT prescribes to solve for inflation and the reality that it’s hard in a democracy to raise taxes.
And yet, the amount of redistribution that's happening has never been higher, far exceeding the era of "94% tax rate on the rich", never mind that nobody actually paid that rate because the tax code was full of exemptions at the time.
I don’t see how this graph shows that claim. It says it’s graphing the effect of welfare on income ratios between top 10% vs the bottom 50% then just has an arrow pointing down saying “Stronger redistribution”
Where is the connection between the percentage being graphed and whatever their definition of “stronger redistribution” is?
And I just realized the second graph includes capital gains for the fiscal income but not for the after tax income? This just seems blatantly misleading with that detail being hidden in an asterisk.
>I don’t see how this graph shows that claim. It says it’s graphing the effect of welfare on income ratios between top 10% vs the bottom 50% then just has an arrow pointing down saying “Stronger redistribution”
The chart is supposed accompany an article, which explains what the metric is:
"""A simple measure of progressivity involves comparing the distribution of income both before and after tax. By this measure America redistributes about twice as much today as in the 1960s (see chart 1). Germany and Japan, the next biggest rich economies, also redistribute a lot more than they used to. So do Britain and Canada. Indeed by our estimate, seven in ten countries have more progressive tax-and-benefit systems than in 1990. The ones that have become less progressive tend to be dysfunctional (Belarus, Eritrea, Haiti) or were exceptionally redistributive to begin with (Norway, Sweden)."""
>And I just realized the second graph includes capital gains for the fiscal income but not for the after tax income? This just seems blatantly misleading with that detail being hidden in an asterisk.
1. If you read the original paper[1], they seem to be doing it for weird economics reasons:
"We then sequentially remove capital gains, which are not in national income"
I don't know enough about economics to dispute this, but given that they bothered to adjust for other factors like imputed rent and "corporation retained earnings", I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt unless there's convincing reason otherwise.
2. On page 16 they have an actual breakdown of all the adjustments, which lists the effect of removing capital gains at between 0.7% to 1.4%. In other words, not enough to change the conclusion.
> The chart is supposed accompany an article, which explains what the metric is:
> 1. If you read the original paper[1], they seem to be doing it for weird economics reasons:
You should probably link a reference to the required extra information if you are expecting people to believe your sourced data instead of assuming they already know it.
> I don't know enough about economics to dispute this…
> In other words, not enough to change the conclusion.
If you don’t know enough about economics to dispute this, why would anyone trust your conclusion?
You’ve not changed my mind, only solidified that this is misleading data given your follow up.
Oh the sweet shock therapy. Kids sniffing glue, women emigrating to prostitute, emergency services and doctors killing people for kickbacks, oligarchs, organized crime. Fun times.
Everything outside of the AI data centre build-out is not growing. And the hyperscalers are having to cut costs to help pay for those datacentres full of GPUs.
Based on this exact scenario after 25 years in the tech industry, here are a few things you can do:
Deplete your retirement savings, have daily panic attacks, add roommates, stop eating healthy, give pets away, stop taking medications, downgrade car, find and recycle aluminum, use coupons, go to several grocery stores to capture distinct loss leaders, drive only when necessary, stop volunteering, visit crisis centers, cancel all subscriptions, wear clothes and shoes until they fall apart, learn to do your own plumbing, stop going to meetups unless they have free food, have trouble both waking up and going to sleep, stop reading the news, buy in bulk, check the thrift store first, stop donating at checkout, cut your own hair, have more panic attacks, air dry your clothes, stop playing games, stop exercising, sell off your sentimental items, buy generic products, juggle interest rate deals, ask for discounts on imperfect items, usenet/bittorrent, curse at the "gifted" system, drink only water, look around and in dumpsters, pick up that penny, and make a mental note about which bridges have the best living conditions.
I just genuinely don't believe this is a thing that happens. Yes if you expect 150k then it is a thing that happens, but... there is always a job somewhere. You can join the military, become a ditch digger, fisherman, whatever.
The labor shortage crisis has been going for over 200 years now, yet nobody can name a company that has died or otherwise suffered negative consequences as a result of it.
It was never AI, it’s not “recession”, it’s not xyz, it’s simply since covid the wealth distribution got worse, further. It’s why you see the very few are with an exponential networth increase while the majority are suffering, at the same time, those who hold that networth are pulling all sort of shenanigans to keep the market alive and far from crashing for as long as possible, but it’s eminent and it will happen soon, the only exception is starting a major war to meat grind all these young men otherwise they will revolt for sure.
As someone who's looking for a job, this is what I fear. How does one distinguish themselves from the thousands of other people who say "Claude, write a cover letter for this company, make no mistakes", and their cover letter has the same tone as every other cover letter?
Perhaps the old recommendation of "Deliver a resume in person, shake their hand" that many of us younguns have rolled our eyes at will actually come back?? How else to prove your humanity to the hiring manager?
Networking turned from a suggestion into being the only way of getting hired. I don't need a job, but I've gotten several emails from recommendations and I didn't have any 3 years ago or so, maybe an odd one here and there.
I think getting scouted is also one of the better ways of getting hired by having an active github profile with at least one popular open-source project even if it is AI slop.
The current regime and the previous regime both reported extremely low unemployment outside of the pandemic but don't let your partisan bigotry get in the way of facts. You are the reason why the uniparty is able to do this, as you will always be willingly blind to it as long as it has the right color coating on it. You are personally at fault.
I mean, the current party in power is making out in the open moves to profit directly from tanking the federal government. What's the centrist view in this one? A little robber baroning as a treat?
And I'm not going back, either. Reckon I can slowly liquidate assets for as long as I have left to live. To hell with all this shit, my farm is enough.
The amount you can capture by directly enjoying it is crazy. You get double taxed on your labor. Once when you earn it, another when you spend it, and then the people you pay get taxed yet again on that! Plus their regulatory costs of licensing, insurance, property taxes, compliance, the cut of the shareholders/owners.
If you just do it yourself... there is no one to tax or take anything off the top. It often ends up you double your "income" from your work or better.
America has $0 property taxes in unincorporated Alaska, and possibly a few other places. The rates are determined locally. I pay very little but we also have no public roads and basically no fire or police -- you can pretty much pick what property tax rate you want if you're a little bit mobile.
We live in a capitalist society. This means we prioritize making money via capital rather than through labor. It looks like we just got what we've asked for. I'm not sure what the problem is.
If you're playing labor in a capitalist society, you're playing a losing strategy.
Tech WAS such a great career now it's total crap! The hey day of tech jobs when you received tons of prospective jobs offers via Linkedin feels like that's drying up (tho it could be my age which is not listed anywhere on Linkedin). From 2012 up until Spring 2025 each month I'd receive 3 to 6 recruiters offering a new UX Research, Design and or Front End Development job. Not anymore and now these jobs you are now competing with 100s to 1000s for just one job and if you are lucky enough to get an interview you have to go through 5 to 12 interviews LOL. Im laughing even more as i vibe code a project in which my previous personal projects i hired some help like a back-end developer or two. Nope I can do it all myself and save money like so many businesses are and will continue to.
Overall I can't imagine the killing all this head count cause blossomed too much and now AI definitely reducing head count futher is a good thing for an economy. An economy where these jobs let you buy nice single family homes in nice areas.
For me I havent left the job market but it's a huge joke now for techies and soon will be for a lot workers who use a computer to complete their work tasks. AI agents will be reducing all white collar jobs where only a few will be needed vs. 10 or 20 were needed before.
Sounds more like people retire somewhat early - for 25-54yo labor force participation near all time high: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
And here is one for 55+yo: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11324230
All is fine
I suppose it’s in how you word it. I’ve given up on trying to get a job because there is no point in trying. I can’t afford to pay my rent, but I guess you could call that early retirement.
Point of labor participation is that it's independent of whether you want to be employed or not.
That sounds kinda pointless unless the point of the stats is to make the State and Enterprise look good and justify cuts to non-corporate WELFARE
You and gp agree that characterizing non-paticipation as (voluntary) "early retirement" is unsupported.
If you can stomach it, the seafood canning and fishing industry in Alaska will usually (IDK what the situation is this year) hire anyone off the street, work them 16 hours a day for several months, and give them "free housing." You'll get dumped back in Seattle in several months with at least $10k in your pocket.
Edit: genuinely perplexed on the response. This saved my ass one winter when I had nothing for rent.
If you are working 16 hours a day, you won't even go to your "free housing", you will sleep next to your workplace on a mat and then try and finish toilet/bath in office restroom in 1hour, so you can at-least get some restful hours of sleep before the next day.
People who have been aged out of tech aren't going to be able to physically pull off 16 hour days in Alaska.
Surely it's not actually 16 hours a day, that would leave maybe 6 hours for sleep after other needs are taken care of.
I thought the fishing industry paid … way more than 10k / 3 months. Color me surprised o.O
It is a seasonal low skilled work. How much should it pay? Overall it is comparable to a seasonal farm work: mostly done by immigrants
That's net after housing, perhaps a good deal depending on what your rent would've been otherwise.
my brother did that 20 years ago; I didn't realize it was still a thing today
You can’t pay your rent? But then where will you live?
> Sounds more like people retire somewhat early
I know many ex-colleagues who have been retired early -- they face age discrimination and cannot find work.
> However, in June the biggest plunge came from what is defined as “prime age” workers, or those between the ages of 25 and 54. That rate fell 0.6 percentage point to 83.3%, its lowest since December 2023.
It's great how two sources can tell a completely different story about the same numbers.
>>its lowest since December 2023.
That should already make you skeptical, and after looking at the chart, I'm more on side "all is fine" than the doom narrative the article is pushing.
In other news, June worst full month since May.
The first FRED link shows how noisy that subgroup is. It’s bounced around with 83-84% during that time. It was 83.8% in March and 83.5% through much of 2024.
Additionally these number aren't trust worthy. Many time these number don't include full data like NEET and are manipulated so much etc..
> All is fine
An aging population means 25-54 represent less workers and people "retiring" from the labor force before social security age is likely to be deeply negative for their finances into old age and not just a decision from the relative luxury of being able to select jobs with quick vesting pensions like in past decades.
If pension ages were going down over the years and the average worker were well vested by 55 then in that reality all would be fine.
I did retire somewhat early but also somewhat involuntarily and only after a somewhat fruitless search.
I consider myself to have retired at age 41 in hindsight, because a job never materialized and I also found that apparently I didn’t really need one.
Its so important to know your outcome (in financial terms)
Let them eat Gpu's
Only if you view jobs as fungible, which they are obviously not.
I think you are grossly overestimating the number of people >55 years old who free willingly retire early because of having enough new worth. Already millenials' CVs are written off in recruitment pipelines.
> millenials' CVs are written off in recruitment pipelines
I think you've got something wrong here, "millennials" refers to people currently between 30 and 45 and are surely the least likely to be discriminated based on either age or inexperience.
Or they hit that sweet spot of being old enough to have commitments so they can't be a fresh grad slave and young enough to not have benefitted when the getting was good and easy and so they are discriminated against.
Yeah, hiring managers seem to think they can hire people who have no life outside of work.
This guarantees you will only get people who are young or childless or single
Yes I mean this age group.
So you’re saying that even millennials are being rejected? Rather than this age group in particular being more likely to be rejected?
you're too old to apply already starting at the age around 35
It's likely not even people retiring early, just demographics shifting up the ages. The youngest baby boomers are 61. The percentage of Americans over the age of 60 increased from 22.8% in 2020 to 25% in 2025. Also the younger cohorts moving into the labor force are smaller as well.
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...
Prime age is meant to filter college kids and retirees which makes sense but it is likely hiding the minor crisis in hiring for college grads. But I agree it's not disastrous just a yellow flag. The 20 year bull market has minted a lot of millionaires amongst the upper middle class and a lot of them are retiring early.
The 20-24 year olds seem to be at roughly the same point as since the great recession. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300036
Worth noting this is people who have a job, it includes the under-employed.
There's nothing wrong with retiring a few years early if you're comfortable doing so. I sorta did. On the other hand, I didn't really want to hang around too long after either.
55+ crushing it on the asset inflation mania they got at ~zero interest, the youngins left holding the bag of the inflationary cost renting out houses their seniors got negative real interest mortgages for.
> 55+ crushing it on the asset inflation mania
Not all of them, some of them have just been pushed out of the workforce unwillingly due to ageism while still financially insecure.
I'm all about people being angry with the current situation and pushing for class war, but blanket assumptions about any demographic, including those of a certain age, is not helpful.
Sure, 55+ and on the fringes are welcome in the tent. We need more people angry and vocal about it.
"retired" at 25-30 is also pretty common, or at minimum self employed and fully sustainable while putting in only 10-20 hours a week usually for 2-3 days a week.
Citation very much needed. Actually, it's not because we have the employment statistics to show that this isn't common at all.
Take an hour off at 2-3pm in any major US city and look at how many people are just milling about. Mostly shopping. There are a lot of people in the US that are not working.
Pre-2008 retail was quiet in the middle of the day, now it booms. I can’t comment on if this is a good or bad thing, but I am surprised at how many people are causally walking their dog as I am rushing to compete an essential errand and get back to work.
Asking because I'm genuinely curious myself, how much of this is unemployment vs the fact that so many more people work from home now compared to pre-2008? Many of those that WFH work a more flexible schedule and probably structure their days a lot differently than 20+ years ago.
Yes, remote and part-time. Shopping on Monday afternoons is enjoyable.
Been remote since 2013 and can confirm Monday afternoon shopping is the alpha. ;-)
I used to encounter maybe one person who did not have a head of gray hair, i.e. obviously retired, in a variety of mid peninsula parks in Silicon Valley on weekdays pre covid during the work day and nowadays I run into a dozen or more in a typical half day outing on a week day and this trend definitely started during pandemic. But I don’t know if it’s unemployment or WFH now.
I think this is going to be a much more common sight in most major western economies - many of them have a rapidly growing aged retired population and a declining young working segment etc.
The effects of this change are definitely being felt, good and bad, in many countries already.
I wonder what degree to which the shopping is inspired by a mixture of
- People anticipating high interest and price hikes in a world where many products are very-slowly-depreciating assets, in the case of game consoles and RAM, even appreciating, and
- A low current of suicidality, with an ambivalent regard towards the prospect of death once the account reaches $0.
- Alternatively, unemployed people in our field often find themselves free from a noncompete to work on profitable projects during unemployment.
Some people get days off.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I get my errands done at 12 - 3ish.
I work 8 AM - noon, 3 PM - 2 AM. (Exact ranges vary.)
I don't have an office and I've never met most of my coworkers.
I'm exceedingly angry that restaurants and stores are no longer open until midnight. I used to do 11 PM Target shopping, 2 AM Walmart shopping, etc. Nothing is open late anymore, and it sucks.
100% agree that places close too early for folks that work into the evening.
When I worked at Meta, in the NYC office, any time I had 2-3 hours midday without meetings, I'd use it for errands.
You realize not everyone works a normal 9 to 5 right, you honestly think every person shopping are unemployed? Are tech workers this deeply out of touch with normal people?
(Health)care work is mostly shift work, and as society ages more and more people are going to be working in that sector.
Also if you live in a tourist destination like a major city there's going to be lots of people with time off walking around everywhere.
I think a lot of people forget this. Similar to how the retired/disabled people in my life forget how busy life with a job can be.
At the gas stations I worked at, the shifts were 7AM-3PM, 3PM-11PM, and 11PM-7AM.
I used to do a lot of things at abnormal times. What does a quick beer after work look like when you're done at 7AM?
I also don't know many unemployed people cruising around malls looking for ways to spend money.
Heh. I had a manual labor job once where I got off work at 4:00. A quick beer after work becomes "I hope I still have beer in the fridge", since in California you can't buy one until 6:00.
I didn’t forget this. I worked for pennies in retail longer than I ever did anything else. I see a clear change over the past few decades.
I don't think they implied that. They just noticed what they say is a large increase in 9 to 5 shopping compared to pre-2008 and are speculating that this increase is because more people now are out of the labor force.
This is literally what they implied tho, let's not beat around the bush here. They are disgustingly antihuman.
Why are we shocked that tech workers also share deeply antihuman views like those of their masters?
Today I read about Accenture Norway taking in 56 summer internship students from over...1600 applicants. Record year, they reported.
Previously I imagined only the top-top tier firms could enjoy low single-digit acceptance rate, but here we have Accenture crushing it. Competition must be tough.
(But for what I know, could be that AI has made it easier for people to spam everyone with applications)
My guess is that it's simultaneously easy for a lot of companies to do automated filtering and for candidates to do a lot of automated applications in a way that's easier than sending out a bunch of envelopes. Which makes it harder for candidates who don't have either networks or impressive credentials.
On the other side, I notice it's so much easier to apply for a job today that people apply for thousands of jobs. When I graduated from college I applied at 70 different places, and my peer group thought that was a crazy high number.
When I was graduating from grad school I certainly sent many dozens of letters. Which I think was pretty typical. When I went to another grad school a few years later, I probably traveled to a good dozen interviews in addition to a whole bunch of other letters.
> easy for a lot of companies to do automated filtering and for candidates to do a lot of automated applications
I know this is as real as "a matter of fact" but it's so stupid.
I wonder if there'd be some value to only taking job applications by post.
There are plenty of services to send mail form the internet for a small fee, so this will only discourage the most poor candidates and add friction for the best ones.
The "small fee" is the point though as it stops practically all automated submissions. I doubt the price of a stamp excludes poor candidates unless you think that poor people could never get jobs before online applications were a thing (and internet connections and phones cost money as well).
It’s not that poor people can’t afford a stamp it’s that they aren’t going to spend money on an automated service or stamp if there are other places to apply to that don’t require this.
So I think it’s going to lower recall a a lot - it reduces volume of good and bad actors equally. Anecdotally, I’m not going to bother with such an application unless it’s my top choice or I’m desperate. For small companies that probably means throwing the babies out with the bathwater.
I don't know what the options are these days but MCI used to do it. Yeah, it's some friction on both sides.
An interesting question but arguably a lot of the most qualified applicants will go FU at that point and only the most desperate will put a stamp on an envelope which is probably not what you want.
Honestly, it probably comes down to more networking and credentials.
Adding more hops to the process you filter people so only desperate enough will apply. Excellent if you are looking for cheap labor!
It’s too easy to apply now, the acceptance rate is not really a meaningful number
Companies like Accenture/Infosys/TCS is the reason people are losing job. They outsource so much and tries to bribe managers to hire in India.
Accenture exists only because there are enough companies willing to hire contractors. The root cause is not a vendor but buyer.
Of course Accenture outsources stuff.
They're based in Ireland. There's like 42k software developers in the entire country* and Accenture has 779k staff**, so they had to hire people in foreign places like Norway and the USA.
* OK, it says "Computer Programming": https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/publications/publication-files/...
** and I have no idea how many of them do "Computer Programming"
Not exactly on top of it but I had a related conversation the other day.
People at my work were talking poor of gen z and how they are bulk of neets and how they are lame and etc.
There is always some cringe in different generations apart, but even being older, I can empathise with them. You have zero forecast to buy a home for yourself, to buy a car, to even pay for a university. Whatever they want to do, they will be sucked dry, even if it is a video game.
The f our generation is doing. We are being evil towards the elderly and the young. We blame the rich, the game, the system. All of them we power of our utmost selfishness, transfering the guilty for someone like we couldn't do anything about it.
I agree and am open to ideas about what to do about it!
Well in the U.S. you can start by participating in civic engagement and in your local community.
Civic engagement across the U.S. is at historic lows. We are giving up social society for digital screens these days.
We’re all neets in the near future lol
The money printing during COVID screwed everything up. Most of the capital was directly given to banks and businesses, fraudulently in many cases and unnecessarily in most, and everything pooled up into real estate and stocks so anyone who had already owned a large proportion of those became absurdly wealthy in the span of a couple years and everyone else effectively lost 20-30% of their income through inflation. The majority of all money was printed during COVID, no one voted for this to happen, no one bothered to even communicate how it was decided how much money would be printed and who would get it, and no retrospective has ever been done. It’s never been more clear that a small group of the wealthiest investors in the US run the show and the majority of people are wage slaves who had the ladder kicked out above them. Now we’re seeing an administration and elite class that is openly ransacking the country for whatever profits it can extract from a dying empire. I have no idea how this ever gets fixed.
> The capital was either directly given to businesses, fraudulently and unnecessarily in many cases
Especially concerning when a bunch of politicians were in on it, ensuring that the money went out willy-nilly and that $700+ billion in "loans" were turned into a straight up gift from the taxpayers.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/cre...
https://fortune.com/2020/07/08/ppp-loan-recipients-members-o...
>ensuring that the money went out willy-nilly and that $700+ billion in "loans" were turned into a straight up gift from the taxpayers.
Wasn't that widely understood during the pandemic? All the coverage I've seen mentioned that the loans for forgivable if certain criteria were met, and nobody was like "yeah it's fine because it's a loan!".
The problem is that these loans went to _businesses_, not workers. There was an orgy of corruption, with newly formed LLCs claiming to have dozens of workers.
And then these loans were just forgiven. And since they went to businesses, Republicans are completely silent about that.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Protection_Program
The loans went to businesses as a bribe to keep on employees they didn't need until the pandemic was over. If you just gave out money to unemployed people it's almost impossible to stop when the emergency is over.
Your partisan obsessed brain is why the political class gets away with this.
Sorry, but "both sides" went out of the window in 2024.
There are _some_ decent Democrats in the Congress. There are also plenty of bad ones. There are NO decent Republicans in the Congress. And yes, reality appears to be partisan.
To the topic in question, PPP was not really a big deal. The real culprit is this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP - the corporate profits literally DOUBLED since 2020 because of earlier Trump's tax cuts.
>To the topic in question, PPP was not really a big deal. The real culprit is this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP - the corporate profits literally DOUBLED since 2020 because of earlier Trump's tax cuts.
Not really. If you add data series for pre-tax profits and index both series to 2020, you see the two lines are basically on top of each other.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1X0JM
I don't know why they keep voting republicans, they haven't done anything to benefit Americans.
But the bill in question passed the house 419 - 6 and the senate 96 - 0?
You get the money back the same way Roosevelt did, 94% tax rate on the rich.
Nobody paid those high tax rates. Everybody was writing off cars, home offices, hobbies, "business" dinners, and everything else.
The tax simplification that occurred in 1986 struck a bargain: We'll lower your tax rate, but we're not going to allow you to take all those BS deductions anymore. The effective tax rates barely budged.
An effective 94% tax rate is a huge drag on the economy, since it makes risk taking impossible to justify. You'd be stupid to start a business or invest in a startup at that rate. There's no surer way to throw half your work force out of work.
The effective tax rates have went down modestly, but approximately no one was paying anywhere near that. They were playing the same financial engineered fuck fuck games that are played today to get around it. It's the poor and middle class that can't get around those tax rates.
Wealth reform is needed more than any point in American history
Yea the covid money printing is regularly pointed to as a reason why MMT is clearly bad but that ignores that there’s literally a solution to this problem in MMT. Raise taxes to reclaim the money. It’s a trivial solution which is sadly politically incredibly challenging.
> Raise taxes to reclaim the money
Only works if the government doesn't turn around and spend the money. And feeding dollar bills into a furnace just looks bad.
What a horribly dystopian thing to say
Huh what is dystopian about that? I’m just referencing how MMT prescribes to solve for inflation and the reality that it’s hard in a democracy to raise taxes.
And yet, the amount of redistribution that's happening has never been higher, far exceeding the era of "94% tax rate on the rich", never mind that nobody actually paid that rate because the tax code was full of exemptions at the time.
https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260221_IRC...
https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260221_IRC...
Those graphs are about income, not wealth.
So was "the same way Roosevelt did, 94% tax rate on the rich"
No, that tax rate was on income, not wealth.
Are you trying to conflate the two?
I don’t see how this graph shows that claim. It says it’s graphing the effect of welfare on income ratios between top 10% vs the bottom 50% then just has an arrow pointing down saying “Stronger redistribution”
Where is the connection between the percentage being graphed and whatever their definition of “stronger redistribution” is?
And I just realized the second graph includes capital gains for the fiscal income but not for the after tax income? This just seems blatantly misleading with that detail being hidden in an asterisk.
>I don’t see how this graph shows that claim. It says it’s graphing the effect of welfare on income ratios between top 10% vs the bottom 50% then just has an arrow pointing down saying “Stronger redistribution”
The chart is supposed accompany an article, which explains what the metric is:
"""A simple measure of progressivity involves comparing the distribution of income both before and after tax. By this measure America redistributes about twice as much today as in the 1960s (see chart 1). Germany and Japan, the next biggest rich economies, also redistribute a lot more than they used to. So do Britain and Canada. Indeed by our estimate, seven in ten countries have more progressive tax-and-benefit systems than in 1990. The ones that have become less progressive tend to be dysfunctional (Belarus, Eritrea, Haiti) or were exceptionally redistributive to begin with (Norway, Sweden)."""
>And I just realized the second graph includes capital gains for the fiscal income but not for the after tax income? This just seems blatantly misleading with that detail being hidden in an asterisk.
1. If you read the original paper[1], they seem to be doing it for weird economics reasons:
"We then sequentially remove capital gains, which are not in national income"
I don't know enough about economics to dispute this, but given that they bothered to adjust for other factors like imputed rent and "corporation retained earnings", I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt unless there's convincing reason otherwise.
2. On page 16 they have an actual breakdown of all the adjustments, which lists the effect of removing capital gains at between 0.7% to 1.4%. In other words, not enough to change the conclusion.
[1] https://davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter-Tax_Data_and_Inequal...
> The chart is supposed accompany an article, which explains what the metric is:
> 1. If you read the original paper[1], they seem to be doing it for weird economics reasons:
You should probably link a reference to the required extra information if you are expecting people to believe your sourced data instead of assuming they already know it.
> I don't know enough about economics to dispute this…
> In other words, not enough to change the conclusion.
If you don’t know enough about economics to dispute this, why would anyone trust your conclusion?
You’ve not changed my mind, only solidified that this is misleading data given your follow up.
Google Disaster Capitalism.
What we've done to other countries has finally turned inwards. It was just a matter of time.
Oh the sweet shock therapy. Kids sniffing glue, women emigrating to prostitute, emergency services and doctors killing people for kickbacks, oligarchs, organized crime. Fun times.
a big war, probably
AI has made experience less valuable.
Seeing a lot of age "bias" * in recent job cuts and comments by CFOs.
* Which may be rational, if unfair, if experience counts for less with the advent of the LLM coder.
Everything outside of the AI data centre build-out is not growing. And the hyperscalers are having to cut costs to help pay for those datacentres full of GPUs.
Imagine spending 6 to 8 hours a day looking for opportunities and nothing for 1, 2 years. What are people supposed to do?
Based on this exact scenario after 25 years in the tech industry, here are a few things you can do:
Deplete your retirement savings, have daily panic attacks, add roommates, stop eating healthy, give pets away, stop taking medications, downgrade car, find and recycle aluminum, use coupons, go to several grocery stores to capture distinct loss leaders, drive only when necessary, stop volunteering, visit crisis centers, cancel all subscriptions, wear clothes and shoes until they fall apart, learn to do your own plumbing, stop going to meetups unless they have free food, have trouble both waking up and going to sleep, stop reading the news, buy in bulk, check the thrift store first, stop donating at checkout, cut your own hair, have more panic attacks, air dry your clothes, stop playing games, stop exercising, sell off your sentimental items, buy generic products, juggle interest rate deals, ask for discounts on imperfect items, usenet/bittorrent, curse at the "gifted" system, drink only water, look around and in dumpsters, pick up that penny, and make a mental note about which bridges have the best living conditions.
I just genuinely don't believe this is a thing that happens. Yes if you expect 150k then it is a thing that happens, but... there is always a job somewhere. You can join the military, become a ditch digger, fisherman, whatever.
The labor shortage crisis has been going for over 200 years now, yet nobody can name a company that has died or otherwise suffered negative consequences as a result of it.
It was never AI, it’s not “recession”, it’s not xyz, it’s simply since covid the wealth distribution got worse, further. It’s why you see the very few are with an exponential networth increase while the majority are suffering, at the same time, those who hold that networth are pulling all sort of shenanigans to keep the market alive and far from crashing for as long as possible, but it’s eminent and it will happen soon, the only exception is starting a major war to meat grind all these young men otherwise they will revolt for sure.
> the only exception is starting a major war to meat grind all these young men otherwise they will revolt for sure
Or they will start electing people like Trump/Mamdani to shake the system on both sides
Headline cropped. It's the lowest participation rate "outside the Covid era".
Original headline: "Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation rate falls to lowest in 50 years, outside of the Covid era"
In other words, the job market is as bad as during a global pandemic, on this particular metric.
What happened 50 years ago?
Our HR department has given up.
They are being inundated with thousands of AI slop applications each week.
Hiring has devolved to word of mouth recommendations.
As someone who's looking for a job, this is what I fear. How does one distinguish themselves from the thousands of other people who say "Claude, write a cover letter for this company, make no mistakes", and their cover letter has the same tone as every other cover letter?
Perhaps the old recommendation of "Deliver a resume in person, shake their hand" that many of us younguns have rolled our eyes at will actually come back?? How else to prove your humanity to the hiring manager?
> Hiring has devolved to word of mouth recommendations.
that may be an evolution, not a devolution
this!!
Networking turned from a suggestion into being the only way of getting hired. I don't need a job, but I've gotten several emails from recommendations and I didn't have any 3 years ago or so, maybe an odd one here and there.
I think getting scouted is also one of the better ways of getting hired by having an active github profile with at least one popular open-source project even if it is AI slop.
Word of mouth isn’t even a way in anymore because HR demands you be plugged into the dysfunctional rube goldberg hiring machine.
C’mon! So, when HR manages to get real candidates, why do we have to go through 8 stage of interviews that take months? It’s humiliating.
You are a compliance candidate, to show that they follow the mandated process.
The real candidate has already been recommended by someone trusted on the team and is going through a much shortened version of the same process.
"Council staff dubbed the ‘Pink Ops’ allegedly promoted friends, NSW anti-corruption watchdog hears"
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/11/counc...
I really wanna say out loud what im building but I cant lol.
The issues in this thread will be addressed with what I am building and you will all thank me one day.
Thank you!
As an employer, the endless government red tape and regulations make me far more hesitant to hire people.
The current regime's policies are causing an economic recession.
The current regime and the previous regime both reported extremely low unemployment outside of the pandemic but don't let your partisan bigotry get in the way of facts. You are the reason why the uniparty is able to do this, as you will always be willingly blind to it as long as it has the right color coating on it. You are personally at fault.
I mean, the current party in power is making out in the open moves to profit directly from tanking the federal government. What's the centrist view in this one? A little robber baroning as a treat?
There's a lot of real things you can criticize the current admin for, but "recession" isn't one of them.
It's deliberate sabotage by an anti-growth movement.
And I'm not going back, either. Reckon I can slowly liquidate assets for as long as I have left to live. To hell with all this shit, my farm is enough.
I’m doing the same, and currently in the process of buying said farm.
Man rebels against capitalist system by living off of proceeds of ownership shares of capitalist system
Laborer rebels against capitalist system by directly enjoying the fruits of his own labor.
The amount you can capture by directly enjoying it is crazy. You get double taxed on your labor. Once when you earn it, another when you spend it, and then the people you pay get taxed yet again on that! Plus their regulatory costs of licensing, insurance, property taxes, compliance, the cut of the shareholders/owners.
If you just do it yourself... there is no one to tax or take anything off the top. It often ends up you double your "income" from your work or better.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Well, things don’t just appear from thin air. Someone has to work. Foraging isn’t much of an option in non tropical regions.
ok but systems that are more favorable to workers are possible
What kind of silly take is this?
“You deserve to starve instead!!” - is this really the position you want to argue?
Man didn't say capitalist system. If anything, he's rebelling against what looks more like a centrally-planned economy than capitalism.
But you must pay tribute in the form of thousands of dollars in property taxes. Your first born child may also be acceptable.
€98/yr
Not everywhere is America, fellow hacker.
America has $0 property taxes in unincorporated Alaska, and possibly a few other places. The rates are determined locally. I pay very little but we also have no public roads and basically no fire or police -- you can pretty much pick what property tax rate you want if you're a little bit mobile.
To be fair, we were talking about Capitalism. There are few places more capitalistic than America currently.
But wow, 98€ is about how much it takes for me to take my family out to lunch at a fast food restaurant.
china being the obvious example?
the US seems much more speculation and leverage based, rather than capital being used by private owners to apply labour to to make useful goods
Whoa nice, that's nuts. Curious what country if you don't mind sharing! No worries if not
No idea where they are but when I had a very cheap house in Ireland the property taxes were only a bit over €100 per year.
We live in a capitalist society. This means we prioritize making money via capital rather than through labor. It looks like we just got what we've asked for. I'm not sure what the problem is.
If you're playing labor in a capitalist society, you're playing a losing strategy.
What?
Huh?
Tech WAS such a great career now it's total crap! The hey day of tech jobs when you received tons of prospective jobs offers via Linkedin feels like that's drying up (tho it could be my age which is not listed anywhere on Linkedin). From 2012 up until Spring 2025 each month I'd receive 3 to 6 recruiters offering a new UX Research, Design and or Front End Development job. Not anymore and now these jobs you are now competing with 100s to 1000s for just one job and if you are lucky enough to get an interview you have to go through 5 to 12 interviews LOL. Im laughing even more as i vibe code a project in which my previous personal projects i hired some help like a back-end developer or two. Nope I can do it all myself and save money like so many businesses are and will continue to.
Overall I can't imagine the killing all this head count cause blossomed too much and now AI definitely reducing head count futher is a good thing for an economy. An economy where these jobs let you buy nice single family homes in nice areas.
For me I havent left the job market but it's a huge joke now for techies and soon will be for a lot workers who use a computer to complete their work tasks. AI agents will be reducing all white collar jobs where only a few will be needed vs. 10 or 20 were needed before.
I wish I could quit working. It is hell. Employers DGAF about people, so why should we care about them?
Save over 50% of your salary for relatively few years and you can.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...