And so...the "recession" begins

The only way one can lose money in our stock market is to sell their stock when it is lower than when they bought it! You should not put your money in the market if it is something you may have to use in the future. It should be extra savings that you are willing to risk. Otherwise, you are taking a risk that could be avoided. In our history the stock market has always recovered from a drop in value (exceptions being individual stocks, you have to diversify your investments in stocks and bonds), the trick is how long will the recovery take. So don't invest money you may need in the future, in the market.

Investors use savings accounts and other safe investments to grow their investments. Obviously with less risk you get slower growth.
 

mathjak107 said:
Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than we can remain solvent
Click to expand...
Who would invest so much of their money in the market that if prices dropped for a long period, they would go broke (insolvent)? NOT I! The market is considered a risk investment, don't invest what you cannot afford to lose...!
 
like i said , define future .

at one time the future was money you put in and won’t need for 10 years .

well we saw markets stall for 20 years after the 1965 debacle and we saw markets stall for more than 10 years in 2000 .

and remember , draws are based on balances in retirment not whether you sell or not.

so selling is not the only problem as being down effects your draw rate
 

Last edited:
Timewise 60+ said:
Who would invest so much of their money in the market that if prices dropped for a long period, they would go broke (insolvent)? NOT I! The market is considered a risk investment, don't invest what you cannot afford to lose...!
Click to expand...
again , being down effects, ones draw rate when retired and spending down .

even a 60/ 40 or 50/50 portfolio has failed to last at 4% inflation adjusted draw rates 6x over the 123 rolling 30 year retirements we have had to date. those are the most popular retiree allocations .

and fixed income alone h as failed to make it thru 65% of the 123 cycles we have had at a 4% draw making it totally unsafe without 35-40% equities.
one would have to take 25% less if fixed income alone


it isn’t a question of so much money . it’s a question of sequence of returns hurting your draw

even a modest drop lasting a long period of time can effect your rate and force a pay cut .

no one likes pay cuts , not when working and not in retirement
 
Last edited:
I received an email from my main supplier Friday afternoon advance warning of "not insignificant" price hikes across the board effective June 1st or sooner. Among other things, it said: "While our supply chain is diverse—we produce in 24 countries—all of our factory partners are affected by tariffs to some degree."

Most tellingly:

"As soon as possible, we'll shift as much production as we can from high-tariff to low-tariff countries like Honduras."

There was no mention of building factories in the US, merely shifting countries. This company's sales total nearly $4 billion/year, so it's no small operator.

Per hour, Honduras's minimum wage is $2.12, Cambodia: 97¢, Vietnam: 76¢, Mexico: $1.47.
US minimum hourly wages range from $7.25 (Yikes - who can survive in the US on $15K/year?) to $20.00, depending on state and local laws.

Even from highest tariff countries, few companies making labor-intensive goods will find it advantageous to move factories to the lowest minimum wage areas of the US.

Tariffs will not bring appreciable numbers of jobs back to the US, instead they're effectively a national sales tax on Americans.
 
StarSong said:
I received an email from my main supplier Friday afternoon advance warning of "not insignificant" price hikes across the board effective June 1st or sooner. Among other things, it said: "While our supply chain is diverse—we produce in 24 countries—all of our factory partners are affected by tariffs to some degree."

Most tellingly:

"As soon as possible, we'll shift as much production as we can from high-tariff to low-tariff countries like Honduras."

There was no mention of building factories in the US, merely shifting countries. This company's sales total nearly $4 billion/year, so it's no small operator.

Per hour, Honduras's minimum wage is $2.12, Cambodia: 97¢, Vietnam: 76¢, Mexico: $1.47.
US minimum hourly wages range from $7.25 (Yikes - who can survive in the US on $15K/year?) to $20.00, depending on state and local laws.

Even from highest tariff countries, few companies making labor-intensive goods will find it advantageous to move factories to the lowest minimum wage areas of the US.

Tariffs will not bring appreciable numbers of jobs back to the US, instead they're effectively a national sales tax on Americans.
Click to expand...
spot on .

i have a lot to say but the borderline between this discussion and politics is not very well defined
 
StarSong said:
I received an email from my main supplier Friday afternoon advance warning of "not insignificant" price hikes across the board effective June 1st or sooner. Among other things, it said: "While our supply chain is diverse—we produce in 24 countries—all of our factory partners are affected by tariffs to some degree."

Most tellingly:

"As soon as possible, we'll shift as much production as we can from high-tariff to low-tariff countries like Honduras."

There was no mention of building factories in the US, merely shifting countries. This company's sales total nearly $4 billion/year, so it's no small operator.

Per hour, Honduras's minimum wage is $2.12, Cambodia: 97¢, Vietnam: 76¢, Mexico: $1.47.
US minimum hourly wages range from $7.25 (Yikes - who can survive in the US on $15K/year?) to $20.00, depending on state and local laws.

Even from highest tariff countries, few companies making labor-intensive goods will find it advantageous to move factories to the lowest minimum wage areas of the US.

Tariffs will not bring appreciable numbers of jobs back to the US, instead they're effectively a national sales tax on Americans.
Click to expand...
Not be in able survive on minimum wage in the US is one of the classical myths. There are few living alone. Minimum wage generally allows for access to endless government and privately funded programs. I am right now observing it with the 20 year old daughter of a friend. No job, just got her GED, pregnant, baby daddy no job, no education, no intentions of getting married as it would cut support from full medical/dental, food, housing to who knows what. They live with her mothed/husband/adopted nephew. My cash offed of 20/hour to pull weed got the response "have better things to do".

Minimum wages times two plus add one is a liveable wage. It requires living on a budget. But who wants to vacation in the park, cook at home and wear Faded Glory?
 
This is really a silly issue. By and large a populist thinks that it is a great thing. And if you are a globalist cats and dogs are living together, mass hysteria.
 
StarSong said:
I received an email from my main supplier Friday afternoon advance warning of "not insignificant" price hikes across the board effective June 1st or sooner. Among other things, it said: "While our supply chain is diverse—we produce in 24 countries—all of our factory partners are affected by tariffs to some degree."

Most tellingly:

"As soon as possible, we'll shift as much production as we can from high-tariff to low-tariff countries like Honduras."

There was no mention of building factories in the US, merely shifting countries. This company's sales total nearly $4 billion/year, so it's no small operator.

Per hour, Honduras's minimum wage is $2.12, Cambodia: 97¢, Vietnam: 76¢, Mexico: $1.47.
US minimum hourly wages range from $7.25 (Yikes - who can survive in the US on $15K/year?) to $20.00, depending on state and local laws.

Even from highest tariff countries, few companies making labor-intensive goods will find it advantageous to move factories to the lowest minimum wage areas of the US.

Tariffs will not bring appreciable numbers of jobs back to the US, instead they're effectively a national sales tax on Americans.
Click to expand...
... and very importantly, businesses don't perform well when there is so much uncertainty. Many decisions need to be made 3 mos to 6 months out, and when you have to factor in uncertainty, it's very difficult to proceed with orders and shipping. It's also difficult to anticipate manufacturing when you don't know how many of your products will end up getting ordered.

When there is a range war going on, your crops and livestock are in jeopardy. It's easier to deal with other countries than get embroiled in the war. I would not want to be a businessman in the current climate. Businesses need stability they can count on in the market. If you take that away, it is pulling the rug out from under them. They may know inflation will result, but how much is it going to change spending.

This is a nightmare for companies. Operating capital is evaporating, consumer confidence is going down the drain, inflation will surely affect the market, recession fears are escalating, and you have no idea what other half-baked decisions will be implemented.
 
Twostep said:
Not be in able survive on minimum wage in the US is one of the classical myths. There are few living alone. Minimum wage generally allows for access to endless government and privately funded programs. I am right now observing it with the 20 year old daughter of a friend. No job, just got her GED, pregnant, baby daddy no job, no education, no intentions of getting married as it would cut support from full medical/dental, food, housing to who knows what. They live with her mothed/husband/adopted nephew. My cash offed of 20/hour to pull weed got the response "have better things to do".

Minimum wages times two plus add one is a liveable wage. It requires living on a budget. But who wants to vacation in the park, cook at home and wear Faded Glory?
Click to expand...
My point was that even the lowest US minimum wages are far higher than in many of the countries where most of our goods are manufactured.

Therefore, global corporations will not be moving labor-intensive factories back to the US.
 
StarSong said:
My point was that even the lowest US minimum wages are far higher than in many of the countries where most of our goods are manufactured.

Therefore, global corporations will not be moving labor-intensive factories back to the US.
Click to expand...
the epa are a big expensive obstacle here .

we had to stop manufacturing our industrial water pumps here . to meet epa requirements on some of the processes would have made it terribly costly .

so we moved to offshore for manufacturing.

we assemble , design and quality control them here in the states .

we will close the company before we can manufacture here .

all pumps will have 40.00 to a few hundred dollars added to the prices next week.

our competitors are doing the same
 
Teacher Terry said:
Many businesses are going to go bankrupt and people will severely cut back on their spending out of necessity. None of this is good for our economy. It’s such a shame because it’s unnecessary as everything was going well.
Click to expand...
it’s near impossible to discuss any of this stuff without discussing the politics behind it

investing , markets and the politics behind the causes are all one and the same now and joined at the hip so pretty much if you can’t talk about the politics of it there is little to discuss.

it is like telling someone you can talk about staying in shape but you are forbidden from talking about food and exercise

you simply can’t because these political decisions are part of what’s happening to us now

so i said all i can on this subject
 
Last edited:
Teacher Terry said:
Many businesses are going to go bankrupt and people will severely cut back on their spending out of necessity. None of this is good for our economy. It’s such a shame because it’s unnecessary as everything was going well.
Click to expand...
We were starting to come out of inflation, the market was testing new highs, and I wasn't hearing anyone complaining, and all of a sudden, it was declared broken with no compelling evidence for immediate action. I've worked for administrators that tried to innovate with no understanding of the objective, but as administrators, they felt compelled to do something without understanding that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top