The great resignation—where is the hired help?

Nice work there @DaveF - for both you and them. A lot of people, irrespective of age, have a hard time "giving things up" that they've been accustomed to. What cracks me up is not only the amount of people who buy way more than the need and/or can afford, it's the number of people who think that everyone else needs to do the same (part of the larger issue of consumerism!). When we bought our first house, my sister-in-law lost her mind when we were "only" buying a $181k house (despite being approved for much more). I asked her why would we buy "more" house for just two young newlyweds and a baby and she didn't have a real answer, just said we were going to "want more" (we now have a smaller house with +1 kid and +4 more pets!).


Expand here some if you would as I don't understand (or maybe I'm over-reading!) the point you're making. How does M1 supply (and thus asset prices) explain the sharp increase in home price to income ratios?

Are people using more liquid assets to purchase homes than previously or are people going more in debt (i.e. taking out larger mortgages) as compared to their income?

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the "ZIllow Deals" dissolution? Do you expect that to have any impact on the current market "forecasts"? (this is kinda separate to what we're talking about here but I'm curious).

High liquidity, artificially low interest rates and the lack of access by many in certain areas has pushed large banks (through shell companies) foreign investors (France's pension fund for example) and speculators to purchase single family homes as replacements for bonds as income generation investments for their investors.

Blackrock, Fidelity and many other investment organizations have access to liquidity and have investors who used to get yield in the bond market.... those things have come together in the form of investment vehicles designed to be relatively stable yet pay 5%+ yield based on the leasing of single family homes to those who can't buy. A couple ETF's are in regulatory approval currently that will open this to the "retail" investor soon.

Here in AZ a large part of the market is shadow sales of single family homes into these types of collective real estate vehicles. That M1 liquidity connects directly to the growth in the single family home value/cost in many areas of the country. Blackrock doesn't care if they pay 20% over asking as they have investors waiting for the yield on the other side as they will make it back on advisory fees. They have access to the money from the big banks who in turn have access to a never ending stream of cash from the Fed.

The Fed has created this with artificially low interest rates, they have also fueled it with QE/stimulus to the banking system. Asset inflation is everywhere. 20 stocks account for 80% of the S&P's gain over the last 5 years while most of the others are near flat to negative. Housing is the current asset bubble. Multi-family housing and Industrial real estate are also huge markets for these types of investment vehicles.

With $30T in national debt the interest rates aren't rising anytime soon if ever again. At current levels the debt will consume 60% of the federal budget in terms of GDP in 2028 and 90% by 2035. No way they will raise the rates on that kind of repayment structure. So... Boomers and X'ers who are going to retire are looking for alternate vehicles to convert their stock equity into during retirement years. Real Estate of all kinds is a relatively safe place to put a portion of that money that will yield 2 to 3x that of bonds for the foreseeable future.

What's interesting is that most people with a pension own part of these inside those pensions. Bonds used to account for a majority of pension holdings but at 2.2% yield they won't make it much longer with retirements moving higher so they need to find yield around that 5% area (that's how they were set up) with lower risk than the stock market. Foreign countries invest their pensions heavily in our markets and these real estate investment vehicles are also in their holdings.

This is why home prices are not tracking the individual's ability to buy one. A plan to help the economy has created bubbles.... Imagine that!
 
Last edited:
Very fitting....
_nc_ohc=2O3S5wv_9EkAX97xiJp&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.jpg
 
One of my employees pulls up next to my 2007 F150 and parks his Jeep GC SRT and thanks me for the hard work I do.

I get it is funny. But often in small business it is the opposite. my guys get paid first, payroll and payroll taxes are sacred. I get paid "once in a while". For some reason I really don't care when or how much I get paid.

We often run into customers who cannot pay thier bills but are building a new house in Havasu or headed out in their $150K rigs to play in the desert. So, ya those employers do exist but are a scorn to all of us.
 
One of my employees pulls up next to my 2007 F150 and parks his Jeep GC SRT and thanks me for the hard work I do.

I get it is funny. But often in small business it is the opposite. my guys get paid first, payroll and payroll taxes are sacred. I get paid "once in a while". For some reason I really don't care when or how much I get paid.

We often run into customers who cannot pay thier bills but are building a new house in Havasu or headed out in their $150K rigs to play in the desert. So, ya those employers do exist but are a scorn to all of us.

Oh I here this.... I'm the proud owner of a $1 tax return in 2001 as a partner (1 other partner) in a 18 person Architectural firm. We kept the firm together and everyone got to keep their job. It took 5 years to recoup 1/2 of that income from operations.
 
We identified a new problem...

Government COVID relief funding is drying up but people are still getting sick (it's really spiked in my area). Employees aren't allowed to show up to work with COVID. So they can either use PTO or just take the days off work unpaid.

Employees get 2 weeks PTO per year, and no sick days (basically sick days can be used as PTO so there's no incentive to being sick or lying about it). There has always been more than fair wages and bonuses — there's no reason why somebody couldn't pay their living expenses and have a savings account. Some employees use their PTO as soon as they earn it, but now that they're getting sick with COVID (no cases have spread because of work) and taking off 10-14 days on average they aren't able to get paid for. The people getting sick so far are those who are eating out regularly, going to social gatherings, and traveling to visit family. There are some trying to avoid getting sick and have highly altered their lives since covid started. We'd like to be fair to everyone regardless of their personal choices.

This is causing issues where these employees getting sick can't afford to pay their everyday bills.

So what's a company to do?

1) Withhold pay to create a "savings account" for each employee? (and don't let them manage their own money)
2) Pay employees who get sick so they can cover their bills? (and incentivize getting sick)
3) Let the employees not make ends meet and possibly quit their jobs because it doesn't matter anyway? (and then the company won't have jobs to offer to anyone)

Back when there was COVID relief funding, employees still got paid for being sick and the government reimbursed the company.
 
Last edited:
A change we should make (as Americans) after the civil war/revolution, is to go back to 1940 tax structure. Let the "citizen" pay their own taxes. Cut out the middle man and on April 15th, the individual cuts that check to the Fed and state governments. That action alone will end socialism.

Many employees think employers "take" the money. They do not realize we are the collection police and pass it on along with our cut as well.
 
We identified a new problem...

Government COVID relief funding is drying up but people are still getting sick (it's really spiked in my area). Employees aren't allowed to show up to work with COVID. So they can either use PTO or just take the days off work unpaid.

Employees get 2 weeks PTO per year, and no sick days (basically sick days can be used as PTO so there's no incentive to being sick or lying about it). There has always been more than fair wages and bonuses — there's no reason why somebody couldn't pay their living expenses and have a savings account. Some employees use their PTO as soon as they earn it, but now that they're getting sick with COVID (no cases have spread because of work) and taking off 10-14 days on average they aren't able to get paid for. The people getting sick so far are those who are eating out regularly, going to social gatherings, and traveling to visit family. There are some trying to avoid getting sick and have highly altered their lives since covid started. We'd like to be fair to everyone regardless of their personal choices.

This is causing issues where these employees getting sick can't afford to pay their everyday bills.

So what's a company to do?

1) Withhold pay to create a "savings account" for each employee? (and don't let them manage their own money)
2) Pay employees who get sick so they can cover their bills? (and incentivize getting sick)
3) Let the employees not make ends meet and possibly quit their jobs because it doesn't matter anyway? (and then the company won't have jobs to offer to anyone)

Back when there was COVID relief funding, employees still got paid for being sick and the government reimbursed the company.

I have a wild and crazy idea.

Get rid of the stupid use it or lose it policy so I can bank PTO for as long as I like. Sure, place restrictions on how much I can use in one shot, so people don't try to get a three month vacation. But then an unexpected illness isn't a problem.
 
I have a wild and crazy idea.

Get rid of the stupid use it or lose it policy so I can bank PTO for as long as I like. Sure, place restrictions on how much I can use in one shot, so people don't try to get a three month vacation. But then an unexpected illness isn't a problem.
So, employers should be responsible for employees illnesses'? Ya, that is a good idea, then it's like double income for the employee, disability, and a regular wage, plus whatever the employees health care covers, win, win ,win. 🫂
 
So, employers should be responsible for employees illnesses'? Ya, that is a good idea, then it's like double income for the employee, disability, and a regular wage, plus whatever the employees health care covers, win, win ,win. 🫂

So employees should just lose benefits because of an arbitrary time limit?

In no way does this make the employer "responsible" for anything. It simply allows the employee the flexibility to use their benefits in whatever way they like. And as a happy side effect would solve the problem you pointed out.
 
So employees should just lose benefits because of an arbitrary time limit?

In no way does this make the employer "responsible" for anything. It simply allows the employee the flexibility to use their benefits in whatever way they like. And as a happy side effect would solve the problem you pointed out.
I was kidding. Sorry if it was mistook. The laws are fairly set on those topics. We pay the employees' benefits once a year, they can take the time off whenever they choose.
 
I was kidding. Sorry if it was mistook. The laws are fairly set on those topics. We pay the employees' benefits once a year, they can take the time off whenever they choose.

Ah, sorry, I got the wrong idea. All good.
 
Get rid of the stupid use it or lose it policy so I can bank PTO for as long as I like. Sure, place restrictions on how much I can use in one shot, so people don't try to get a three month vacation. But then an unexpected illness isn't a problem.

That's how it is, it's just that most people want to use it as soon as they earn it.
 
You apparently do not know why companies do not provide benefits within a month.

Here is what happens, a guy with experience is job shopping, you hire him and invest in training, workers comp, etc. He finds a better job, quits and you absorb all the benefit costs. The health benefit (by far the most costly benefit) is the only one not required, so it is not a loss. My company shells out 70k in health care a year, we have 5 employees (and I am one of them). Shitty benefits are not the companies fault. Talk to the guy the left voted in 2008.

All that and even I would not work for a company that did not immediately provide GOOD BENEFITS. In fact, I would not work for them with GOOD BENEFITS. I am in the "un-employable" category at this point.
They are run by mba’s and cheap…
 
One of my employees pulls up next to my 2007 F150 and parks his Jeep GC SRT and thanks me for the hard work I do.

I get it is funny. But often in small business it is the opposite. my guys get paid first, payroll and payroll taxes are sacred. I get paid "once in a while". For some reason I really don't care when or how much I get paid.

We often run into customers who cannot pay thier bills but are building a new house in Havasu or headed out in their $150K rigs to play in the desert. So, ya those employers do exist but are a scorn to all of us.
He is right- all owners can really have is what is left over. Also, all profit in the trades is speculation.

I paid service charges on 558 checks in 2010 because I could not get money in the bank fast enough. That was over $10,000.00. It was a deal for what my company is worth today.
 
He is right- all owners can really have is what is left over. Also, all profit in the trades is speculation.

I paid service charges on 558 checks in 2010 because I could not get money in the bank fast enough. That was over $10,000.00. It was a deal for what my company is worth today.
I spent many years waving cash to the bank manager Friday afternoon from my personnel account so my employees online ahead of me would have their paychecks cash. My record was 26 straight weeks of no paycheck written to myself - never rewritten. I know the saying is pay yourself first, but I can't live like that, the employees did their job...they get paid.
 
I spent many years waving cash to the bank manager Friday afternoon from my personnel account so my employees online ahead of me would have their paychecks cash. My record was 26 straight weeks of no paycheck written to myself - never rewritten. I know the saying is pay yourself first, but I can't live like that, the employees did their job...they get paid.
Your last name isn't "Johnson" is it? I used to work for a guy we all called "Rubber Check Johnson" as his paychecks would bounce UNLESS you cashed them at the bank he wrote them on. They knew that he'd cover the checks "next week".
 
Your last name isn't "Johnson" is it? I used to work for a guy we all called "Rubber Check Johnson" as his paychecks would bounce UNLESS you cashed them at the bank he wrote them on. They knew that he'd cover the checks "next week".
No! my cash was there before (or at least when) they cashed their checks. My banks were never that nice.
 
Back
Top