[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by chassis

A driving force behind the present increased emphasis on automation.

Yeah, many have threatened "automation" to rid themselves of those pesky workers. Given the problems we have finding people to do these jobs, they may have no choice but to finally do it. I await the results.

My guess is that it ends up costing even more. First you need to design the hardware and the software. Then you need to manufacture it, install it, maintain it, upgrade it and fix it. All by very highly paid specialists. Then, because it becomes obsolete, you start all over again. Meanwhile you pay the electric bill. And when a machine goes down, you wait days for the repair guy to show up and tell you, the only available replacement part needs to be obtained from a mud hut in Java.

[ASAP]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/07/here...one-chart.html

jobs report is disastrous if you read thru the details... most growth coming from 2 sectors... one driven by govt which is currently being butchered... white collar workers looking for jobs over a year

[DrVenture]

I expect the Labor Participation Rate to get worse, adding government white collar jobs to those numbers. Rejuvenation of the manufacturing sector may not help white collar workers either. Certainly not in the next few years. I don't see these white collar workers moving into healthcare or construction either.

My understanding is that the white collar workers that cannot find jobs are in tech, finance and professional services. High interest rates are cited as one reason for these layoffs. And over-hiring during CoVid. I'd also assume some obsolescence in skills.

What is the solution?

[chassis]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

My guess is that it ends up costing even more. First you need to design the hardware and the software. Then you need to manufacture it, install it, maintain it, upgrade it and fix it. All by very highly paid specialists. Then, because it becomes obsolete, you start all over again. Meanwhile you pay the electric bill. And when a machine goes down, you wait days for the repair guy to show up and tell you, the only available replacement part needs to be obtained from a mud hut in Java.

That's not it.

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

I expect the Labor Participation Rate to get worse, adding government white collar jobs to those numbers. Rejuvenation of the manufacturing sector may not help white collar workers either. Certainly not in the next few years. I don't see these white collar workers moving into healthcare or construction either.

My understanding is that the white collar workers that cannot find jobs are in tech, finance and professional services. High interest rates are cited as one reason for these layoffs. And over-hiring during CoVid. I'd also assume some obsolescence in skills.

What is the solution?

Labor participation rate is people of working age who choose to work and are looking for work if unemployed, as a percent of the total people of working age who could work. Layoffs won’t affect participation; early retirements can affect it as can just giving up.

Have you seen how fast AI is moving? ChatGPT, Grok (free on X), and others are in an exponential expansion right now. If plastics was the thing in The Graduate, it is AI applications now. Would not be hard to set up a consultancy in corporate finance, strategy, budgeting, or any number of other fields using AI tools. Create your own models/datasets/training. All you’d need is salespeople and presenters. That is just one arena for white collar workers to migrate to. There are others; but the old job of searching a database or writing a draft white paper on an accounting topic are soon to be gone (automated).

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by chassis

That's not it.

It costs a lot less, orders of magnitude are possible. Fast Food can be heavily automated (ordering, cooking, much of cleaning); doesn’t need seating anymore, so the whole model is changing. And that is just one “manufacturing” area.

If it was expensive, auto makers wouldn’t have so many robots already.

[DrVenture]

I was talking about older white collar workers simply giving up, if unable to find suitable work. LPR is 62.6 right now, been dropping since last peaking in summer of 2023. Normally when unemployment gets so low the opposite happens. People start re-entering the workforce. Likely that some came back and some left, leading to a net loss in LPR. Could also be related to return to work policies, I suppose. And definitely scheduled retirement, in addition to "unscheduled retirements".

Both automation and AI have the potential to kill jobs, and create jobs. Far too early to see how that plays out, sum total. I am neither an optimist or a pessimist. But, people seem to resist change and retraining, based on historical experience.

I'd assume that automation favors those entities with big upfront capital. It takes years to recoup the initial investment. Plus, my post was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

[stbm5]

my pick of the year has been RTX. i bet it goes to 150-155 in next 12 mos. big backlog and its not like people will be buying fewer missiles.

[Watching The World Burn]

Originally Posted by stbm5

my pick of the year has been RTX. i bet it goes to 150-155 in next 12 mos. big backlog and its not like people will be buying fewer missiles.

Right, but isn't old Elon about to slice and dice the defense budget? If so, not sure overpriced missiles will be high on the reorder list? They may have backlog, no idea, but if they do...might those contracts just simply be cancelled if they are with the US Gov?

I think there's going to be a period of uncertainty hitting the markets here with DOGE, but we'll see what happens, and if DOGE really does anything substantial. If they don't, then they won't have an impact on markets...but if they are successful in cutting a certain area, then I think the markets will be fearful of the next area and that will lead to the uncertainty.

[ASAP]

cpi report roaring back lmao...

fed cut rates way too quick as i've said here before...

watch the ensuing fight that happens between the admin and fed on where rates go moving forward

[DrVenture]

We have gone from 2.4% YOY, just 4 months ago, to 3% YOY. I doubt that tariffs have even begun to influence entrenched inflation. Not yet reflected in these numbers. I also doubt any more FED funds rate cuts in 2025 and I could see rate hikes, even. Then in 2026, when Powell is booted from office, we may be looking at rate cuts in the face of inflation, leading to even more inflation. The last statement that I read was that we "need rate cuts to go hand-in-hand with tariffs".

No idea how any of this will impact the economy. Or the markets. But, as I stated before, I am de-risking. I took the opportunity to sell last Thursday and again this Monday. A lot. I will sell more in the coming weeks. If the market corrects, I'll scoop up bargains. If not, I'll sleep better taking less risk.

"Analyst Cody Acree estimated that the average sticker price would rise about $5,790, based on the impact of the currently paused 25% levies on cars and components from Mexico and Canada. That would raise the cost of an average new car above $54,500, or nearly 12% higher than in 2024". Now, we are hearing, that autos and pharmaceuticals may be exempt. But, that (other) reciprocal tariffs are coming this week.

What is not clear in all of this are boycotts. And shifts of trade strategies. Other countries grass roots (and corporate) reactions to our exports. Acquiring customers can be difficult. Losing them easy. Getting them back, after hard feelings? Who knows. There are plenty of companies that I will not ever do business with. All they had to do was annoy me once.

“From my vantage point, the bombastic rhetoric, the damage has already been done,” Griffin (Citadel CEO) said Tuesday at the UBS Financial Services Conference in Key Biscayne, Florida. “It’s a huge mistake to resort to this form of rhetoric when you’re trying to drive a bargain because ... it tears into the minds of CEOs, policymakers that we can’t depend upon America, as our trading partner.”

[Watching The World Burn]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

We have gone from 2.4% YOY, just 4 months ago, to 3% YOY. I doubt that tariffs have even begun to influence entrenched inflation. Not yet reflected in these numbers. I also doubt any more FED funds rate cuts in 2025 and I could see rate hikes, even. Then in 2026, when Powell is booted from office, we may be looking at rate cuts in the face of inflation, leading to even more inflation. The last statement that I read was that we "need rate cuts to go hand-in-hand with tariffs".

No idea how any of this will impact the economy. Or the markets. But, as I stated before, I am de-risking. I took the opportunity to sell last Thursday and again this Monday. A lot. I will sell more in the coming weeks. If the market corrects, I'll scoop up bargains. If not, I'll sleep better taking less risk.

"Analyst Cody Acree estimated that the average sticker price would rise about $5,790, based on the impact of the currently paused 25% levies on cars and components from Mexico and Canada. That would raise the cost of an average new car above $54,500, or nearly 12% higher than in 2024". Now, we are hearing, that autos and pharmaceuticals may be exempt. But, that (other) reciprocal tariffs are coming this week.

What is not clear in all of this are boycotts. And shifts of trade strategies. Other countries grass roots (and corporate) reactions to our exports. Acquiring customers can be difficult. Losing them easy. Getting them back, after hard feelings? Who knows. There are plenty of companies that I will not ever do business with. All they had to do was annoy me once.

“From my vantage point, the bombastic rhetoric, the damage has already been done,” Griffin (Citadel CEO) said Tuesday at the UBS Financial Services Conference in Key Biscayne, Florida. “It’s a huge mistake to resort to this form of rhetoric when you’re trying to drive a bargain because ... it tears into the minds of CEOs, policymakers that we can’t depend upon America, as our trading partner.”

I think the potential issue is that if the other countries get their backs up enough, then they take the position: "Well, fine, if the States wants to nationalistic and focus solely on themselves, let them to their thing and we'll just trade with each other (rest of the world) and exclude them just as they want." That would have a very significant impact on the markets and also a very troubling one I think. Especially what happens to the US Dollar - would it potentially be replaced as the global currency - I think it would in that scenario because no other country would want to run the risk you guys just print into oblivion and devalue it. But then by what does it get replaced?

Realistically though, I don't see this happening - there is resentment sure, but the ties developed are deeper than what I suspect will be a short period of time, though even if it lasts the full term, I still don't see ties fully breaking. I think it will be a period of resentment that will soon be forgotten and everything goes back to normal to some degree.

Frankly, as a Canadian I'm kind of happy about the threat of tariffs. I think its a good wake up call to start developing more markets, getting stuff out to the rest of the world and making that kind of investment in our country that has been sorely lacking for so long. That's going to boost the economy and in some small part, maybe even have some larger market impacts.

[DrVenture]

If I were Canada, I'd be looking hard to limit leverage and do what you say in your last paragraph. National pride is probably already kicking in. Your leaders will have Carte Blanche to stand firm and form new trade alliances, even if it requires short term disruption. I'd assume this is not going away, and not assume that anything changes in 2028. Sometimes arrangements of convenience, become far less convenient.

My understanding is that Canada already imports more from the U.S. than it exports to the U.S. once oil is taken out of the equation. And we seem to want your oil badly enough to build you a new pipeline. I don't expect a policy of complete disentanglement, but I think in both Canada's (and Mexico's) best interests, they need to diversify trade and open new alliances. Everyone will at first feel the pain, who gains the most is up for grabs. This will be determined on the basis of GDP, prices, jobs, wages, etc. Europe may find that overseas trade becomes less advantageous and leans into trade partners who are less demanding. There is a cost to constant disruption of supply chains and too frequent changes of policy. Both make long term planning much more difficult.

Lots of interesting stuff in last week's Barrons, but it focuses on DOGE, Musk and leans into government, perhaps too much for this forum.

[DrVenture]

December PPI (wholesale) up more than expected. Mostly on food and energy. Eggs and diesel being primary drivers. December PPI also revised upwards.

Commodity index funds are up 10% in two months. I also wonder if the rush to stockpile ahead of tariffs has put so much pressure on supply that tariffs are actually an indirect driver of current inflationary pressures, ahead of implementation.

[Jodedor]

My $0.02 and my opinion only as it will most likely not pertain to you amd you must seek the help of a professional as the following is only about me.

I learned not to listen to friends and co-workers.

I got into an S&P500 index fund and started buying stocks with decent dividend yield.

I cant do day trading.

I have a co worker taking an online class on charting...are you serious??? during wotk hours!!!

Here is a fundamental I heard from a Jim Rohn talk. And, he will state that he did not create it as there are no new fundamentals.

One with which I have trouble is to spend 70% of what I earn.

The other 30%...10 goes to savings...10 goes to charity...and 10 goes to investment(your own business...or stocks, etc.)

I have been fortunate that the company stock has done decently.

Looking at whatever retirement date, my goal is to have enough high dividend stock to get ~ $100,000 a year in dividends by age 62.

This, SS, and 401K should do it.

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by Jodedor

My $0.02 and my opinion only as it will most likely not pertain to you amd you must seek the help of a professional as the following is only about me.

I learned not to listen to friends and co-workers.

I got into an S&P500 index fund and started buying stocks with decent dividend yield.

I cant do day trading.

I have a co worker taking an online class on charting...are you serious??? during wotk hours!!!

Here is a fundamental I heard from a Jim Rohn talk. And, he will state that he did not create it as there are no new fundamentals.

One with which I have trouble is to spend 70% of what I earn.

The other 30%...10 goes to savings...10 goes to charity...and 10 goes to investment(your own business...or stocks, etc.)

I have been fortunate that the company stock has done decently.

Looking at whatever retirement date, my goal is to have enough high dividend stock to get ~ $100,000 a year in dividends by age 62.

This, SS, and 401K should do it.

Adjust your $100k for inflation between now and retirement; compound at least 3% annually (4-5% would be safer). Don’t count on SS, at least at full amount. Consider that a potential bonus. Don’t forget taxes (401(k) withdrawals, SS, dividends) at retirement. That said, I think you’re on the right track.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by Jodedor

My $0.02 and my opinion only as it will most likely not pertain to you amd you must seek the help of a professional as the following is only about me.

I learned not to listen to friends and co-workers.

I got into an S&P500 index fund and started buying stocks with decent dividend yield.

I cant do day trading.

I have a co worker taking an online class on charting...are you serious??? during wotk hours!!!

Here is a fundamental I heard from a Jim Rohn talk. And, he will state that he did not create it as there are no new fundamentals.

One with which I have trouble is to spend 70% of what I earn.

The other 30%...10 goes to savings...10 goes to charity...and 10 goes to investment(your own business...or stocks, etc.)

I have been fortunate that the company stock has done decently.

Looking at whatever retirement date, my goal is to have enough high dividend stock to get ~ $100,000 a year in dividends by age 62.

This, SS, and 401K should do it.

Sounds good. A few minor points. Don't put too much into company stock. I get a 'free' share for each two shares that I buy. And the share price appears undervalued. I take full advantage of that, but never put too much into that basket. Consider selling some at vesting, if you are acquiring too much. then reinvest elsewhere.

Don't focus too much on dividend stocks, especially in the accumulation stage. Focus on growth. Dividends are not extra or a bonus, they come out of the stock price (ex-dividend). I understand the appeal. But, as an example look at T or VZ, who pay a hefty dividend, however their total return sucks. For years it has been virtually dead money. Many dividend stocks underperform on total return.

Compare each of your individual stock investments to the S&P, if they are not beating the S&P, then there is no point to holding them. For example, I have built portfolios in both my taxable and tax-deferred accounts comprised of individual stocks that I see as opportunities. I look at the return of each of those total portfolios to see if they beat the S&P. I sell stocks that have run their course, and replace (or not) as I see opportunity. I look at recent performance and 1, 3, 5 year returns to make determinations. This takes into account both up and down years. I think that everyone should do this with all their investments.

The younger that you are, the more important to take advantage of any Roth options available to you, and fill those buckets with the best long term growth products you can find. Keep on eye on tax strategy, keeping more is just as important as making more.

[DrVenture]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/14/reta...expected-.html

"Consumers sharply curtailed their spending in January, indicating a potential weakening in economic growth ahead, according to a Commerce Department report Friday.

Retail sales slipped 0.9% for the month from an upwardly revised 0.7% gain in December, even worse than the Dow Jones estimate for a 0.2% decline. The sales totals are adjusted for seasonality but not inflation for a month in which prices rose 0.5%.

Excluding autos, prices fell 0.4%, also well off the consensus forecast for a 0.3% increase. A “control” measure that strips out several nonessential categories and figures directly into calculations for gross domestic product fell 0.8% after an upwardly revised increase of 0.8%.

With consumer spending making up about two-thirds of all economic activity in the U.S., the sales numbers indicate a potential weakening in growth for the first quarter."