Stagflation 2023: The Looming Economic Nightmare You Can't Afford to Ignore

Submitted by Wega58 t3_125wsx4 in wallstreetbets

Stagflation is a term used to describe a situation where the economy is stagnating, there is high inflation, and rising unemployment. It's a bad situation because as the economy slows down, people lose their jobs, and the cost of daily living expenses continues to go up. This creates a double whammy effect, and investments see lower returns. Stagflation has happened twice before in the US, in 1974-75 and 78-82. It's caused by supply shocks, bad monetary policy, or bad fiscal policy. Supply shocks happen when something goes wrong in the supply chain, and it could be de-globalization or an oil embargo, as it was in the 70s. Bad monetary policy or bad fiscal policy can overpower the recessionary effects and keep stagflation high.

81

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Walla_Walla_26 t1_je6bxhw wrote

We have yet to see unemployment increase in any meaningful way. Tech companies are shedding the highest paid workers that can find new jobs in less than two weeks. We have a job market where there’s 2 jobs for every available worker. Covid caused many to leave the job force for good and they ain’t coming back. This is creating an interesting environment and we def are in for some pain, I’m just not sure where it’ll come from

69

Outrageous-Cycle-841 t1_je78xx9 wrote

Unemployment is a lagging indicator. Jfc it’s like people can’t read a simple chart.

16

Walla_Walla_26 t1_je7bsdf wrote

Banks failing are also a lagging indicator. If JPOW stops raising rates now, we’ll feel the effects towards the end of the year. It’ll be interesting to see if unemployment ticks up meaningfully in the next few months or not

11

Outrageous-Cycle-841 t1_je7eji1 wrote

Timing is difficult to pin down, but a fairly difficult recession is baked in the cake at this point. Love how the goal posts have moved from “soft/no landing” to “shallow recession”.

5

gargeug t1_je8fu3j wrote

Well it started as "transitory inflation". Recession wasn't even in the discussion!

1

gargeug t1_je8flsg wrote

I don't think it will unless something drastic happens. I get the feeling like this is a unique situation in that the largest generation in history just jumped out of the workforce, but they are still alive and consume the same. So while the amount of net work required hasn't changed, there are no longer enough people to do it, who are now demanding more money. So inflation is rising, but unemployment is not going down because it literally can't unless the amount of work required to run society gets whittled down to the bare bones of what the current workforce can handle based on their numbers.

There are only 2 solutions I see. First, that the FED kills all unnecessary/unprofitable work via interest rates and a lot of people have to downgrade their job functions or just not work, which could last 20 years or longer based on the fact that lots of people have been deciding to not have kids. Second option is that AI rides in to save the day. That 300 million jobs affected figure should be viewed as a godsend, not a doomsday predictor. Countries should be dumping funding in to AI or it is going to get real bad for the kids currently being born.

1

MotosyOlas t1_je78f44 wrote

Unemployment calculations were changed in 2008 or 09 to allow part time/temp/short term work to count as "employed" removing you from the unemployment #'s.

Numbers haven't been true since then

14

Walla_Walla_26 t1_je7avkh wrote

I know they changed the formula somehow. You’re saying the number is higher than what is presented right?

5

MotosyOlas t1_je7ri86 wrote

Much higher. I'll dig up the info for you. There were multiple ways the calculations changed.

3

MicroBadger_ t1_je7pn8b wrote

Not in the U6 they aren't. And that number is low as shit.

1

samnater t1_je7rqnw wrote

U6?

1

MicroBadger_ t1_je7sw30 wrote

Unemployment number has several categories. U3 is what's commonly reported in the news and looks at people who are unemployed and looked in the past 4 weeks. U6 doesn't include that time restriction, includes people who've given up looking either cause they are discouraged or have left the work force but plan to come back at a later date, and includes part time workers who want full time work.

4

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6he58 wrote

Unemployment numbers are fudge.

If you go to the poorest housing project the unemployment rate will be under 3% because nobody is eligible to collect unemployment.

Employment rate is around 60%

6

zoiddirkoid t1_je6sf3n wrote

🤦

Please stop using the internet

14

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6wm28 wrote

What would happen to the unemployment rate if they changed the amount of time people could collect benefits to 99 weeks like in 2009?

Would we still have a super strong job market with 3% unemployment?

People who get their news from Good Morning America think 3% unemployment = 97% employment.

1

zoiddirkoid t1_je6xnz0 wrote

Those who fall off unemployment benefits are not seeking jobs. They are not unemployed.

Senior citizens don't have jobs so should they be counted as unemployed?

No.

5

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6y9d2 wrote

Unemployment rate uses the same math as Chairman Maos grain harvests.

8

Archimedes_Redux t1_je7p41m wrote

Always a drought.

1

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je7q8bm wrote

Always excellent grain harvests. Economy is strong.

3

Archimedes_Redux t1_je7u2bo wrote

5 year plan going well?

3

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je7uimp wrote

No because of the (insert minority party) meddling.

1

Archimedes_Redux t1_je7x9n7 wrote

Same as it ever was.

2

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je7y4gi wrote

Only since Nixon. Before that the US built all sorts of massive infrastructure projects like China does now.

We're only affluent now because everyone believes our tulips are actually worth something.

1

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6y09j wrote

So if they eliminated unemployment, nobody would be looking for a job and the rate would be 0%?

2

zoiddirkoid t1_je6z0wo wrote

That's an utterly moronic thing to say.

Unemployment rates reflect those who are seeking jobs and can't find one.

There are complexities with skill set misalignment and other factors that are hard to gauge.

Your claim that true unemployment is at 40% is absolutely absurd. There are millions of job openings currently. A stay at home mom who is not seeking a job is not unemployed. There are people who will not work, ever.

9

NBA_Fan_76 t1_je73sei wrote

Learn what the labor force participation rate is ffs

2

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je76m42 wrote

What do you prefer as your source of propoganda? USA today or Good Morning America?

−1

Moist_Lunch_5075 t1_je6x2os wrote

> Employment rate is around 60%

*Hands 5 year olds and 90 year olds shovels to work in the mines because u/Fun-Transition1230 thinks they should be included in employment metrics*

7

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6xb42 wrote

It was around 60% in the 1950s when women stayed at home. Now workforce is about 46% women and it is still 60%?

0

Moist_Lunch_5075 t1_je6y4sx wrote

Most adult women actually worked in the 1950s, you're thinking about the 1920s.

And it's ALWAYS in the 60% range because about 1/3rd of the population is always either not of working age or infirm in some sense. This is why we don't judge unemployment against the whole census population.

The fluctuation over 100 years of the workforce participation rate is about 5%, topping off as the baby boomers hit the nadir (that means top) of their working age curve.

Basically, you're complaining about a roughly 4% difference between now and the top in 1998 and hoping no one else is smart enough to realize what you're doing LOL.

Against trend from 2000-2019, the participation rate is actually about 1% OVER projections and that's against 2020 census numbers, so it's an undercount.

7

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je7395k wrote

LOL yes the same amount of women were in the workforce in the 1950s as today. Truck drivers, police officers, engineers, surgeons, etc... women didn't stay at home in the 1950s..

All of the baby boomers were raised by single moms too?

−2

Moist_Lunch_5075 t1_je8lxqs wrote

It doesn't surprise me that you're a binary thinker, because that's how people like you are.

So it's either "women worked in everything" or "women didn't work."

What they did in the 1950s, like my baby boomer grandmother, was to work part time jobs because demand was so high and pay was so good. Typically it was in the service industry, manufacturing, or administrative work... many worked as nannies, nurses, and teachers.

You're thinking of the 1920s and 1930s and prior when women were career-locked to specific positions like nurses. That ended with WWII when women entered the workforce and filled jobs as men were drafted.

Remember Rosie the Riveter and the drive to employ women in manufacturing during WWII?

Of course you don't, you don't actually know anything about this... in fact, you don't have any opinion that hasn't been given to you.

But go on, binary thinker, take that shovel and keep digging that binary thinker hole. Eventually you'll get it deeper than 2 inches LOL. Just try harder.

6

Bryguy3k t1_je6u6d0 wrote

Real unemployment is approaching 20%

Yes the unemployment numbers are BS. Also the recently let go tech workers are not finding new jobs in 2 weeks.

U6 is at 7.7% currently which is the closest we can get as it’s still based on people who have answered surveys about employment status.

4

Highzenbrrg t1_je6xzeq wrote

U in Walla Walla, WA? Just had some Cayuse Syrah last night. funky like this market.

1

dsidnt t1_je7e0pf wrote

Cayuse is lovely stuff. Bionic Frog? Or?

0

Highzenbrrg t1_je8gn2r wrote

Oh, a fellow cult wine bro. Just had their Cailloux. Bionic Frog's definitely for special occasions. I've only had one of their bionic frogs (02') and it was on another level. Didn't even taste like wine anymore.

Like if Rick Sanches made it on Gazorpazorp.

Can't wait to pop my 17' 'god only knows' grenache.

I like Cayuse because it's the bridge between conventional wine and natural wine in the PNW (and maybe even the US). Critics scoring it 100 and saying they don't like biodynamic wines, yet with Cayuse, they make an exception.

Cheers!

0

mmabet69 t1_je7ribw wrote

Unemployment on its own though doesn’t tell You the full picture.

Shifting demographics can cause labour force participation to be lower which would keep the unemployment rate low as well.

1

CoolFirefighter930 t1_je8y58r wrote

You are 100% Correct. Inflation will fix itself (because JPOW cannot) ,when things are to expensive people will not buy them. Interest rates should always run about 5 to 7 percent. I agree on the job market I personally will not be going back into the workforce.

1

VisualMod t1_je6a1pk wrote

>Stagflation is definitely a difficult situation to be in. The economy slows down, people lose their jobs, and the cost of living expenses goes up. This creates a very tough environment for investments, as they tend to see lower returns during periods of stagflation.

7

Key_Security_1569 t1_je6idr3 wrote

More fear porn.. market will not fall under $380 the bottom is in.. calls on AI

4

theriskitbisquit t1_je77ync wrote

So you're saying there's a chance it goes back to 380? Like b4 Friday?

3

CartoonistHumble3027 t1_je70cst wrote

Just waiting for the rug pull if revenues drop like a brick.

4

DrBoby t1_je8b404 wrote

This is the thing. Due to inflation, revenues could actually grow... but will be worth less...

2

CartoonistHumble3027 t1_je8iwne wrote

Consumption would slow because of affordability. Revenues would be impacted beyond inflation. They try to price in inflation until they can't anymore.

1

xmustangxx t1_je7is0u wrote

Is this the support group for put holders? Fear mongering seems to help justify mistakes

4

StockMixology t1_je7kgoz wrote

And this sub will still not buy value. Small cap V is gonna kill it over the next decade my ass will be sipping martinis with gold flakes in them.

4

Archimedes_Redux t1_je7pypo wrote

But in the late 70s, early 80s, mortgages were 13%, 15%, even higher. Auto loans were in the low 20s. I don't see interest rates getting that high or even close to it. Color me skeptical of comparisons of today's economy to the stagflation when Eagles were pre-Joe Walsh.

3

mmrrbbee t1_je8r00d wrote

We’ll need to see the gamblers go nuts over 25bps, as long as they do, 100bps is in the future

2

skilliard7 t1_je8cxde wrote

We've seen stagflation play out in the past year. We will soon be heading into just straight up stagnation/deflation very soon.

2

VisualMod t1_je6a11i wrote

User Report
Total Submissions 9 First Seen In WSB 1 year ago
Total Comments 25 Previous Best DD
Account Age 5 years [^scan ^comment ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_comment&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20comment%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20comment%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.) [^scan ^submission ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_submission&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20submission%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20submission%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.)
1

peepo55 t1_je8hbol wrote

Is it puts? On what? History lesson was great but get to the point.

1

CoolFirefighter930 t1_je8xqil wrote

Are you really still taking about supply chain? You absolutely belong here. lmfao

1

Jifeeb t1_je90hs3 wrote

wsb : where chimps who gamble like to have delusions of grandeur that they are economists

1

trish196609 t1_je9p498 wrote

We never had it with a gold standard. We avoided it after the unofficial PEG of oil to dollars. The petro dollar system is eroding, especially after the deal between Brazil and China

1

Ra93qu1t t1_jea9rar wrote

And I don't see much being headlined in the news about the US Dollar's dominance coming to it's end, about It's impact here at home. It's really concerning given the current situation with these regional banks and big ones.

1

OneDishwasher t1_je6x8cr wrote

Agree stagflation is bad, but that seems to me a particular phenomenon of the mid-to-late 1970s and not anything to worry about now.

0

AwesomeParker t1_je7mqe6 wrote

I live in ID. I was mailed 2 papers.

1 was a paper stating that I was denied my unemployment request.

The 2nd was a paper stating that I was denied PUA with my unemployment request.

I have been self employed since 2017. I have NEVER filled unemployment from 2017 forward OR PUA. It shows my unemployment quarterly earnings was $9k each for 2019?🤷🏻‍♂️ but nothing after that.

Is Idaho Labour Department shadow filing for people to inflate unemployment or denile of unemployment benefits to alter statistics? I know of 2 others here locally, that are self employed, that have recieved the same papers. NEVER FILING. I don’t know what this would do for statistics. I’m only asking questions.

PUA = Pandemic Unemployment Assistance The $200/wk or $600/mo thing that people were given.

I never got it. It ended in 2021 June as far as i know.🤷🏻‍♂️

0

Ayy_boi3 t1_je9mafu wrote

Inflation is coming down too fast still. It’s a topic for debate apparently but I don’t think we will see stagflation. Unless it will last for 3-6 months, in which case, who cares

0