Welcome to Thunderdome

TheCatt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 12:14 pmSmall pee pees.

I think that goes without saying.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 12:14 pmSmall pee pees.

Says the guy with a Porsche.

Cakedaddy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 6:47 pm

TheCatt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 12:14 pmSmall pee pees.

Says the guy with a Porsche.

Porsche owners are well known to have big pee pees. The cars are how we communicate that in a safe for work manner.

ChatGPT says you're lying:

No. There is no credible evidence—medical, statistical, or otherwise

If you disagree with ChatGPT a few times it will agree with you. On anything.

Cakedaddy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 9:53 pm ChatGPT says you're lying:

No. There is no credible evidence—medical, statistical, or otherwise

we all know you can't trust AI!

But why?

The first picture shows that the cost to build a new home has corrected.
The second picture shows that money is more expensive to borrow.
The third shows the price of existing inventory is higher.

So three relatively unrelated pictures.

At least that's my interpretation.

We have seen the prices of houses dropping fairly quickly.

Leisher wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 2:23 pmBut why?

just pay cash. It's a house Michael, how much could it cost?

Cakedaddy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 3:15 pm We have seen the prices of houses dropping fairly quickly.

They are indeed. Still a ways to go to get to affordability though.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 3:51 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 2:23 pmBut why?

just pay cash. It's a house Michael, how much could it cost?

I actually do know someone who just closed on a house. Other than her, I don't know anyone that's even looking.

40% of employers admitted to posting job listings with no intention of filling them, per Forbes.

Posting jobs that do not exist or have already been filled should be illegal.

They're using a loophole to get around laws stating they must publicly post open jobs. It negatively affects job data. It wastes people's time. It's simply dishonest. One could also make an argument that it can mislead stock traders about a company's health.

Goodbye Amazon Go and Amazon Fresh.

They're opening 100 new Whole Foods, which worked out well the last two times that was attempted.

The second graph: I'd like to know what businesses are included (all the way down to mom and pop? Am I on that graph?) and what workers are. Middle management on there?

What makes up the pie, and who makes up the workers. WAY to vague.

There is that often cited graph showing that corporate profits and salaries started to dramatically split back in the 1970s. (It's here somewhere and posted many times.) I don't remember the details on that one either.

I don't think it'd be much of a stretch for that number to be at a record now.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hey Catt, you're our economist, let me ask you:

If tomorrow a law was passed where the lowest paid worker at any publicly traded company must make 10% of the CEO's base salary (say by the end of April), what happens?

-CEO salaries get dropped in favor of stock options and/or contractual benchmarks. Duh, and this law would need to account for that. Perhaps tying the CEO's base salary to annual profits?
-Stocks might drop a minute, but they'll recover.

I purposely said "publicly traded", but perhaps it should be Fortune 1000 companies? I don't think a company should be given a competitive advantage here. I'm just trying to do a different "raise up the lower tier" exercise that is usually just aimed at minimum wage.

You cannot do this to mom and pop's as it would crush them all.

It's not realistic for say, Elon owned companies, because the mailroom guy/gal doesn't need to be paid $100M. Perhaps for situations where a single person is the CEO of several companies, you go by the next highest ranking person?

Just wondering how this differs from the minimum wage argument?

Leisher basically has it right. It's percent of revenue that goes to payroll, iirc. It's made holding stocks more productive. They try to include all businesses. All workers.

Leisher wrote: ↑Tue Jan 27, 2026 4:31 pm -CEO salaries get dropped in favor of stock options and/or contractual benchmarks. Duh, and this law would need to account for that. Perhaps tying the CEO's base salary to annual profits?

CEO compensation moves to marginal compensation, with their salary adjusted way down. And the "marginal" compensation is very easy to hit.

Well, you said base pay, not total comp.

I think you were trying to get to a world of wage/salary compression. It's just a different way of structuring it. You would get that from either form. Typically at the bottom, lots of wages being the same.

Probably related, they went super woke. I would wager their core demographic is conservative men. When you abandon your base, you lose. This is why both political parties constantly do dumb shit that only appeals to their base.

Huh, Eddie Bauer wasn't already bankrupt?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/adp-j ... x8qw%3D%3D

Another bad job report: 22k jobs in ADP private report.