Yes, one quarter of decreased profits. Sales for the same quarter are only down 20%.

Another article says “The company still expects full-year net sales in a range between 23.2 billion euros and 24.6 billion euros, sticking to its forecast.”

I understand that it’s sometimes necessary for companies to trim the fat. But with annual net sales still on track and the company making healthy profits for many quarters running, it sure sucks for those 14,000 people that one bad quarter is being used as the reason that they’ll no longer be able to pay their bills.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/nokia-to-cut-up-to-14000-jobs-after-profit-plunges-.html

Yeah, and I have no idea where you are, but this goes far beyond the suspect cities like San Francisco. Not only are many of these workers spread out in tons of cities across the US (and world), it will also hurt wherever their funds were flowing to and the supply chains associated with them. Travel, electronics, food/dining, home furnishings, hobbies of all sorts, etc.

Another big difference is that a lot of these are “new money” people. And I’m not using that in a derogatory sense. It just means that their spending is likely to be much higher than “old money” individuals hitting the same payday.

If you’ve always had $10 million, you don’t go out and start buying shit like crazy even if you make another $2 m. But if it’s your first $2 m, you’re likely to go spend A LOT of it.

And that’s real economic growth. It’s the opposite of trickle-down economics (which just causes more hoarding of wealth and slowing of money exchanging hands).

As much as I feel for the people hit hard right now, I think this is an economic indicator that‘s going to cause many downstream consequences if it continues.

On top of the downward trends by the tech titans, venture capital funding is plummeting. That’s because the VC investors can see that the likelihood of a big successful buyout is decreasing, mostly because the big fish are tightening their belts and facing higher borrowing costs (interest rates).

Many big companies have effectively outsourced R&D, waiting until a startup creates something worth buying instead. Then the VC employees either got a nice payout or employment with the big company (or both).

These often massive transactions were the source of serious economic growth. Those people had stability to spend in a way that many others wish. In the face of crappy outlooks and flat wages in tons of other fields, tech has long been the outlier making plenty of middle income people shoot up in wealth. And it did bring along others for the ride.

That growth drying up is not good for anyone. Well, unless you’re waiting on a market crash.

Absolutely. It’s political suicide for many of them. So they don’t rock the boat.

It’s a great example of where term limits could help. Great leaders will sometimes take actions that won’t get them re-elected. Immigration reform is one of those bullets someone needs to catch. But no one is willing to.

Even on the right where you might think anti-immigration stance is an easy winner, the corporate interests (donors) clash with the public opinion (voters). Immigrants are workers, a critical cog in the wheel of big business. But the right’s base LOVES a good “keep ‘em out” campaign. So what does the politician do? Say/do one thing (BIG WALLS) and turn a blind eye to another (massive amounts of undocumented workers employed by domestic firms). This side would usually go for the “it’s good for business” line (which holds a lot of truth). But they’ve been told it’s the immigrants’ faults they aren’t getting their fair share of the financial pie. So this false narrative to shed blame for wealth inequality causes a conflict in immigration policy with donor interest. Political suicide to act on it. Lose your voters or your donors.

The left is tricky too, believe it or not. Many left-leaning Americans have negative views about immigration and see border security as a huge issue. Even those that want increased ways to legal status also say they want more border security. The humanitarian view actually doesn’t have that much sway in voter opinion. And this side also isn’t likely to be convinced by the economic view (corporations will do better with more cheap labor) as that’s more aligned with right-leaning economy first views. This is where I think term limits would be useful because some left-leaning leaders could choose to handle true immigration reform in a way that appeases corporate donors but slightly disappoints voters. The kickback would be unlikely to last as long (not an entire party issue), but it would lose voters for that individual, almost definitely.

The executive branch has to deal with how to execute laws passed, even when they are in conflict with one another. So there is a lot of leeway provided to deal with those conflicts.

It’s hard to say exactly how necessary it is for the DHS to waive these 26 laws, but the argument is that in order to abide by the more pressing matter (the immigration laws and funding), they must ignore the other 26.

I am not as willing to concede that this is entirely out of the Biden administrations control. Instead of waiving all the 26 laws, why not use them to drag out the time and costs? They are mainly be about environmental studies, public feedback, and other measures that soak up funds and take a lot of time. If this administration was truly serious about not wanting to build the wall, they’re basically going against that by fast-tracking it.

I’m much more inclined to think there is a quid pro quo going on and them giving in on the wall - especially in this particular manner - is in exchange for something else. But that’s not something political leaders will be transparent about. We see checkers, but a chess game is happening (out of our vision).

The weirdest part to me is how “support the troops” is always a priority for most in the group opposing Ukrainian support. In fact, military support is usually so critical that they can set aside many of their primary targets of small government and fiscal responsibility.

I get that this isn’t the “our” troops they usually chant about, but it easily could be, especially if Russia continues its aggressive action. It doesn’t seem that it’s that hard to understand that if you’re willing to give the US military nearly a trillion dollars, it isn’t a bad idea to give support to a country actively fighting against this threat.

I guess it really does just come down to people convinced that Russia is somehow not a threat to the US, even though the leaders of “our troops” feel differently.

https://news.usni.org/2021/08/18/russia-is-top-military-threat-to-u-s-homeland-air-force-general-says

Without knowing the costs, it sounds like you’re good candidates for the supplemental life or even an additional life policy. A year of salary can go quite quickly, as can the time and the costs of taking it off work. Term can be fine to start with, then later in life as it becomes a larger concern (especially with kids) you may consider whole life. But if you have substantial liquid savings, then you might just be fine with the 1-1.5x coverage for now. Once again, just all about your risk tolerance and savings.

Disability is very difficult to plan for and make a purely rational decision about. There are so many moving factors with the medical costs and length of the problem. For people who want total security, that $700 can be well worth it to sleep soundly. For others with more savings and a little room in their finances to cut back expenses, it might not be worthwhile. The more savings and the more you can rely on your partner for income, the less important it is.

But tackling it from a quantitative perspective may help. For $700, you’re getting 20% of your income. It’s a low-cost premium because the risk is usually low (unless you have reason to believe you’re likely to become disabled). You can also shop for separate plans to see how the premium lines up against competitors. It’s also important to understand the elimination period (how long you have to wait before you can claim benefits) and if it will pay out if you can perform ANY job vs your actual profession.

This is a pretty decent article on an approach to disability coverage: https://www.usbank.com/financialiq/plan-your-future/health-and-wellness/is-your-employer-long-term-disability-insurance-enough.html

Wayyyy too long of an answer. But I have some experience and might as well not let it go to waste. Definitely doesn’t hurt to talk with a financial advisor about it.

Always a good idea to check out market rates but your employer provided one likely has better premium rates as part of the group and with part of the payment possibly covered by your employer.

Deciding how much life insurance you should get is dependent on your personal situation, your desired coverage, and your risk tolerance.

But it’s likely that both of you having spousal coverage is a little toward overkill. I’d be more concerned about your disability coverage or the coverage of the highest-earning partner, especially if there’s a large disparity in earnings.

The main reason many people get life insurance is to make sure a non-working surviving spouse has the resources they need to get by with the same lifestyle and hopefully in the same house. So when you or your partner is not working, it’s usually the working partner that you want to have the most coverage (perhaps aligned with what would be needed to comfortably “retire” which really means just live the same lifestyle but only off investment income).

The second reason people get life insurance is to help with the short term consequences and expenses. Funerals are expensive. Debt can pile up with end of life care. Taking time off work can cause income drops. Daycare costs might need to be incurred. This is usually where the spousal coverage comes into play. Typically much lower coverage to give the working, surviving spouse a temporary boost due to death-related expensive, but not retire. Child policies are similar.

The more savings or investments you have, the lower your true need for this insurance is. If you can already comfortably retire, then it’s not a huge deal if either one passes (financially). And you have the cash to pay for short term death-related expenses.

Disability is a bigger deal to many people with substantial savings. It can mean a serious increase in expenses (to handle the disability) with a simultaneous decrease in earnings.

But some people also treat life insurance as an investment or a way to hedge specific risks. If you don’t want to work again if your spouse/partner passes, you can get increased coverage. Or if you simply like the security of getting a lump sum if one of your passes early, the premium cost might be worth it. Those are a personal decision and risk/reward calculation only you can make.

On the open market, you’ll find term and whole life. Term insurance is much lower cost because it only lasts a certain period (term). Whole life can be paid as a continuous premium until you file a claim (someone passes). People who are serious about life insurance get whole life policies and treat them as a wealth building investment. Many have cash values, where part of your premium goes into a savings-like account that builds at a certain interest rate. If you’re thinking of this, talk with a qualified advisor. And get at least 2 quotes from highly-rated and stable insurance companies.

They’ll also use the customer donations in their own marketing materials with carefully chosen wording.

“We put $X in the hands of X charity!” Sounds cute, until you realize why they don’t say they “donated $X” instead. It’s because it’s often not their money or donation.

Especially if you don’t give a flying fuck about using an established process or doing so legally

I know your comment isn’t truly asking, but I want to answer just because there was a time when I used to put a lot of pressure on myself to generate something truly insightful, creative, deep, etc. before voicing my thoughts or opinion. Then I realized you don’t need to do that. I still have a tendency to - and I’m not saying everyone should just voice their loud-ass bullshit without thinking.

You likely have an insight that someone would find interesting, even if it seems entirely obvious to you. Great conversation can sometimes be a very simple volley back and forth of extremely basic observations.

Run with whatever logic this makes your mind go to… even if it’s something like “crazy that people vote to give rich people more money” or another basic interpretation of this. It gets the ball rolling for other people, let’s them put a new spin on it, and may be that little spark needed to create something more impactful.

The worst part is that many of those who fall for this lie are some of the worst off, financially speaking. And they’re often surrounded by people in similar positions.

They know they’re fucked. They’ll watch neighbors lose homes, avoid doctors, go through times when they can’t pay bills, etc.

Then they’ll turn around and vote against their own interests. Against the interests of those they’re close to.

Fucking wild that the propoganda machines are that powerful.

It applies to anywhere. The problem isn’t one situation. It’s this same story, repeated thousands of times in every city across the globe.

Bobby wants to live in a house. Monthly rent prices are usually around $1,000 per month in his home town.

Joe wants to make money by renting out a house on AirBnb. Hotel prices are usually around $200 per night in the same location. If Joe rents out his house for just 10 nights a month, he can make $2,000. This easily covers Joe’s expenses and puts the extra cash in his bank account. If he rents it out for 25 nights, he’s putting away a lot of cash.

When houses are up for sale, Bobby can only spend a similar cost as his rent. Joe has been watching his bank account climb and is ready to spend a lot on another house to put on AirBnb. Joe can make a profit even if the house is double the price.

Bobby’s landlord sees housing prices rise. Decides to either (1) increase Bobby’s rent to $2,000 - which he can’t afford or (2) sell the house to someone like Joe for a major markup.

Bobby has to move in with roommates and will never be able to afford to buy a home when competing against all the Joes out there.

Huge. The short term rental housing boom is unlike almost anything we’ve seen before. Estimates put short term rentals as about 20% of the global real estate market.

If that demand drops rapidly, it will mark a major shift. Tons of buyers and capital will be wiped off the table.

I agree with the usual perspective that housing prices almost always rise over time. But this is an unprecedented event in scale, and if reversed, it will have unprecedented ramifications.

It is a serious crisis in many places throughout the world. Especially considering the income stagnation. I have lived in many cities and have heard this cry across multiple continents, from coast to coast, and at most income levels (except the ultra wealthy).

What I’m hoping becomes more popular are ways to make the short term rentals not as profitable. I really like the idea what other cities are doing by limiting the number of days they can rent it out.

Sure, rent it out for 45 days a year and get $10k total revenue and try to scrape out a profit. Or rent out the unit as your primary residence for the entire year for a similar cost.

It’s not absolutely perfect, but it will greatly reduce those willing to buy places to use as an investment for short term rentals. And that should put negative pressure on housing prices, while also opening up more units for primary residence housing.

Nope. First production one completed in July, nearly four years after the first press release. Supposedly customer deliveries at some point of Q3 2023, which is basically down to a month left.

https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1519/tesla-officially-completes-first-cybertruck-but-we-ll-have-to-wait-for-first-deliveries

Setting aside anything related to Musk, Tesla really doesn’t seem to be staying competitive.

Cybertruck (and the “indestructible” window press conference) is probably the easiest example. Years of attempted hype that haven’t paid off in a meaningful manner, while rivals have been releasing in-class competition. Anyone can see that’s a problem.

Tesla cars used to be pretty revolutionary, now they’re in an entirely different era that’s filling with exciting EV alternatives around every corner. Yet Tesla style still looks the same. The shoddy construction is still around and becoming more widespread knowledge. They’re failing to attract their target audience due to a long series of missteps. More problems.

Not to mention that Tesla was downright overpriced at its height. It’s a fraction of the volume yet made other automaker valuations look minuscule. The logic for that was never there.

This next election is going to be wild. Stacked full of unpopular candidates.

Biden’s approval rating is abysmal, and his age is actively working against him. Sure, he’s likely to get most D votes, but unlikely he’ll get extra voters to come out from any fringe group or independents.

If Trump is selected as the R candidate, his supporters will come out in droves to vote. But independents aren’t looking like they’ll give him support. Then again, a lot of people said they wouldn’t vote for Trump in 2016, but did anyway.

If Trump isn’t on the R ticket, another person could grab hold of independents and a good chunk of the R party voters. But impassioned Trump supporters are a wild card. Will they just write in Trump? Vote third party out of vengeance? I guess they’ll probably do whatever Trump says, which seems like it has a good chance of splintering the R vote.

Honestly, this is all just wild. And the only certain thing is that there is no certainty.

I really hope young voters show up.

Very interested to see how the “small government” crowd deals with this.

And one of the main people who put an end to it was then-Attorney General William Barr. He basically said “Mueller says Trump didn’t obstruct” when Mueller’s actual report basically said he can’t say for certain either way (obstruct or not) and provided a mountain of evidence that could be seen as obstruction. Most legal professionals see Mueller’s report as “we can’t say he’s guilty without charging and convicting, so we’re just going to say the door’s open and hand over the evidence.” Barr’s interpretation was complete bullshit.

The other giant elephant in the room is charging a sitting president with a crime. It’s never been tested in the US whether it can actually happen or not, but there are a lot of strong arguments against. The damage that can do to a country is extreme… I see it as a matter of absolute last resort. One that’s more likely to come after impeachment and removal unless absolutely necessary. And that’s one ugly situation that’s basically showing complete dysfunction to the world.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/20/1118625157/doj-barr-trump-russia-investigation-memo