@Sketchy please resolve NO, thanks.

😊

The Fed should have cut in their last meeting, probably ex ante but definitely ex post.

But the data since is regular noisy economic data, not an emergency. They'll definity cut at the next meeting and everyone knows it, so long-term interest rates have already declined in anticipation. That knowledge is enough.

Holding an emergency meeting might even do more harm than good because it would signal that the Fed thinks things are worse than they appear, and panic can become self-fulfilling. Best to stick to the schedule.

For those noticing that the above comment is now grossly at odds with the consensus view, please do note I wrote it before the Bank of Japan decided to give the economy a panic attack - I was just talking about the unemployment data. Sounds like an emergency cut is totally on the cards now. Amazing.

Edit: hang on, they did the hike five days ago? What? Is the meltdown because the minutes released today were more hawkish than expected? Or it's just a panic that took a few days to build? Maybe I don't get to claim ignorance then.

@chrisjbillington I still don't think you were wrong persay, but just a good reminder for me that when betting NO in the ~10% range, your justification needs to consider unlikely scenarios and 10th percentile outcomes in economic data.

Macro always panics after complacency. Always. It's never, "ah, ok not so rosy, back to normal then." Thus it's always fine, even prudent, to claim ignorance.

Also worth noting, this question has now become politicized (used to be the "pivot this year" war, now it's "this month or die"), so of course a whole new set of pundits want it pushed toward 50%.

This is going to resolve NO.

The stock market and talking heads on TV are overreacting. Unemployment is 4.3%, which is full employment. It's not like we have 8% or 10% unemployment, where people who want jobs can't find them. If you've tried to get accurate orders and given up on eating out at restaurants, you've understood how having 3% unemployment is actually detrimental to society. There's no reason for anyone to do a good job when they can just walk down the street and get a new one if fired.

4.3% unemployment means that people who don't work hard can't find work. 6% means that hardworking people suffer. If the Fed cuts interest rates by 0.25, they'll be well ahead of unemployment getting to actual dangerous levels.

"There's no reason for anyone to do a good job when they can just walk down the street and get a new one if fired."

How often have you tried this?

No, because I take pride in my work. When I was employed by the Olive Garden and prepared takeout orders for eight months, I never had a single order returned for being inaccurate.

Things may be different where you live, but around here, the inaccuracy rate is about 50%. One woman delivered an obviously wrong order to me, and started walking away. I stopped her and gave it back because it wasn't what I paid for, and she said she was going back to her car to call the restaurant. She went back to the car and drove away, and DoorDash didn't fire her.

Meanwhile, the pools are closing most days because of the labor shortage, and Sheetz offers $19 to work without any experience. She can actually walk into Sheetz and apply on the spot, just listing that she has never had a job, and she would probably get a raise given what DoorDash drivers net.

Yeah. I've never been fired, and get told I do a good job, too. Received bonuses, in fact. But in this day and age where they have access to every single bit of data about you, I doubt lying about one's past like that would work. Perhaps this is true for "McJobs" and not career work.

If Sheetz is paying $19/hr, I may just quit what I'm doing now.

In regards to both points:

1. I don't know if this fact is specifically true about career work. I only am stating that for a lot of jobs in the service industry, the labor shortage is so extreme that even if someone was fired, it wouldn't make a difference unless it was for a criminal offense because the bar needs to be set so low.

2. With career work, most people don't know that 95% of résumes that come in are fraud. Besides wages rising above what I was willing to pay, one of the reasons I stopped hiring developers is because I wasn't able to figure out which of the résumes were fraudulent. At least 50% of them are obvious - one, for example, listed a candidate as having worked with Ethereum in 2013, before it was invented. I spent $600 on someone to go through background checks and he submitted a transcript and I never did figure out why the transcript didn't match up with what the background check was showing.

If you're having trouble getting a career job, it's because it is indeed true that thousands of résumes come across recruiters' desks, and yours is getting buried in all the fraudulent ones - and simply being more qualified isn't going to work. If you're having trouble finding a job in the service sector, it's simply because you didn't expand your horizons enough to look around.

I can believe it about the resumes. Personality is valued over character, these days.

Warren calls for an unscheduled meeting to cut rates:

cute rates can easily be optimized by holding more babies