COVID Economy

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Despite the pandemic pushing up the timeline of retirements, has anyone's organizations been planning for the inevitable boomer retirements?

1. Hiring younger, less experienced people for more money and more flexibility.

2. Pray

[jesmu84]

1. Hiring younger, less experienced people for more money and more flexibility.

2. Pray

Is that possible across the whole economy? Is there enough workforce available?

[Hards Alumni]

Is that possible across the whole economy? Is there enough workforce available?

No.  First world population decline is a thing.  Countries that import workers will be able to compete in the global economy in the coming decades.  Those that expect more productivity from a smaller workforce and smaller wages will see instability.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

No.  First world population decline is a thing.  Countries that import workers will be able to compete in the global economy in the coming decades.  Those that expect more productivity from a smaller workforce and smaller wages will see instability.

And stagnation. Japan should be a warning for countries like the United States. You have to have a younger, productive workforce. And since we aren't having a lot of babies right now, growth is going to need to come through immigration.

It would do us a lot of good to fix our immigration issue, but of course we will never do that.

[JWags85]

No.  First world population decline is a thing.  Countries that import workers will be able to compete in the global economy in the coming decades.  Those that expect more productivity from a smaller workforce and smaller wages will see instability.

There is a weird gap in the employment workforce right now.  I'm seeing it in a variety of places.  It exists between management level and lower paid staff/worker bees.

It gets glossed over by people being like "well they don't want to do crap jobs for terrible pay" which may be true for some service industry work or whatnot, but not what I'm referring to.

For example, we've looked in the Milwaukee area for some roles that would traditionally pay $50-60K.  Previous people in that role made $40-45K, but given that was more 2018-2019, we realize thats not feasible.  In trying to source it, we're either seeing people that would be qualified but want more like $70-75K or people that are unqualified/would take a lot of work to make up the experience/expertise gap.  And that's not even factoring in people that want to be fully remote with little to no negotiating heft behind it  (sorry, I'm not going to hire someone with limited experience who worked in a hybrid role before for a position in a company that is primarily office based for a fully remote role.  One candidate removed themself from consideration because we asked for 2 days a week in office during onboarding and transitioning for 3-6 months and then reevaluation).

We've moved to hiring more staff at our office in India, as well as a contractor in Europe, not because of pure cost savings but availability and ability to work.

I know of multiple small to midsize companies who have a lot more managers/executives scrambling and doing lower level tasks cause they can't fill/backfill roles, which leads to myriad issues.  I spoke to the woman who runs operations for our apartment building, as well as 2 other complexes the company owns and manages, about staffing this morning.  She goes on maternity leave in May and is freaking out.  She's been trying to backfill her role with a much needed and overdo junior staffer and she's been having a HORRIBLE time.  Either candidates overshooting their salary range by $15-20K or people applying who have 1-2 years experience for something that would need 5-6 years.

I totally get overpaying for good talent.  We're not opposed to it.  We just hiked the salary for our controller significantly in order to compete with a job offer he received from an aggressive recruiter, but thats not always the right solution for unproven or nominally qualified talent.

TL;DR  There needs to be a coming together at the middle between employers expectations and the job seeker market in the post-COVID space both about work expectations as well as salary.  Employers need to be less rigid and stubborn and potential employees need to actually test the temperature of the job market instead of mainlining every thinkpiece they read from Twitter about what work/salary should look like in 2023.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

But I think that gap exists because people have been moved up into management positions due to retirements above them.  I had a position open due to a retirement during the pandemic. We ended up making a great hire. But she was by far, the youngest and least experienced person I have ever hired into that role.

And now to fill the roles under her, we just aren't getting the quality of candidates I would have, say a decade ago. (The is the gap you are talking about.) So we have to interview carefully, bite the bullet and hire almost entirely based on potential. Because they don't have much experience. 

[Hards Alumni]

There is a weird gap in the employment workforce right now.  I'm seeing it in a variety of places.  It exists between management level and lower paid staff/worker bees.

It gets glossed over by people being like "well they don't want to do crap jobs for terrible pay" which may be true for some service industry work or whatnot, but not what I'm referring to.

For example, we've looked in the Milwaukee area for some roles that would traditionally pay $50-60K.  Previous people in that role made $40-45K, but given that was more 2018-2019, we realize thats not feasible.  In trying to source it, we're either seeing people that would be qualified but want more like $70-75K or people that are unqualified/would take a lot of work to make up the experience/expertise gap.  And that's not even factoring in people that want to be fully remote with little to no negotiating heft behind it  (sorry, I'm not going to hire someone with limited experience who worked in a hybrid role before for a position in a company that is primarily office based for a fully remote role.  One candidate removed themself from consideration because we asked for 2 days a week in office during onboarding and transitioning for 3-6 months and then reevaluation).

We've moved to hiring more staff at our office in India, as well as a contractor in Europe, not because of pure cost savings but availability and ability to work.

I know of multiple small to midsize companies who have a lot more managers/executives scrambling and doing lower level tasks cause they can't fill/backfill roles, which leads to myriad issues.  I spoke to the woman who runs operations for our apartment building, as well as 2 other complexes the company owns and manages, about staffing this morning.  She goes on maternity leave in May and is freaking out.  She's been trying to backfill her role with a much needed and overdo junior staffer and she's been having a HORRIBLE time.  Either candidates overshooting their salary range by $15-20K or people applying who have 1-2 years experience for something that would need 5-6 years.

I totally get overpaying for good talent.  We're not opposed to it.  We just hiked the salary for our controller significantly in order to compete with a job offer he received from an aggressive recruiter, but thats not always the right solution for unproven or nominally qualified talent.

TL;DR  There needs to be a coming together at the middle between employers expectations and the job seeker market in the post-COVID space both about work expectations as well as salary.  Employers need to be less rigid and stubborn and potential employees need to actually test the temperature of the job market instead of mainlining every thinkpiece they read from Twitter about what work/salary should look like in 2023.

Part of the problem is that there is far too much middle management in the work force.   People have been promoted to those positions in positive conditions and won't go back to the day to day labor that is required.  Instead they'll job hop.  And why wouldn't they?  A ton of job opportunities and no desire to work somewhere where stress is high and pay is decreased.  There is no loyalty to a company any longer because companies have mostly done away with their loyalty to their employees.  It's a condition of the economic path we've chosen as a society.

As a good example, the local KFC has been closed going on three months now.  Prior to closing they were constantly hiring.  But unfortunately, if an entire group of people quits all at once the day to day operations cease.  The house of cards falls.  For a while the KFC was open from 2pm-8pm while they were 'hiring' up.  And now it sits empty because it turns out that if you hire three people to do the work of six people and ask them to work seven days a week they'll just eff off and find a job where the pay is similar without the unreasonable demands.  And the labor force has that power currently.  I don't see that ending any time soon. 

[JWags85]

Part of the problem is that there is far too much middle management in the work force.   People have been promoted to those positions in positive conditions and won't go back to the day to day labor that is required.  Instead they'll job hop.  And why wouldn't they?  A ton of job opportunities and no desire to work somewhere where stress is high and pay is decreased.  There is no loyalty to a company any longer because companies have mostly done away with their loyalty to their employees.  It's a condition of the economic path we've chosen as a society.

As a good example, the local KFC has been closed going on three months now.  Prior to closing they were constantly hiring.  But unfortunately, if an entire group of people quits all at once the day to day operations cease.  The house of cards falls.  For a while the KFC was open from 2pm-8pm while they were 'hiring' up.  And now it sits empty because it turns out that if you hire three people to do the work of six people and ask them to work seven days a week they'll just eff off and find a job where the pay is similar without the unreasonable demands.  And the labor force has that power currently.  I don't see that ending any time soon.

Thats part of the issue with some of the "large company" culture.  And it creates these weird Catch-22s.  I saw it first hand.  You have younger professionals in their late 20s, early 30s who got into large Fortune 100/500 type CPG, tech, finance type companies.  They become middle management and make good money, but its partially predicated on employment in waves where there are multiple hiring classes below/behind them.  Then many realize they either have a cap to their growth or don't want to be a big company middle management drone forever.

So they seek out smaller companies.  But they fall into that realm Ive been speaking of.  They aren't low paid entry level, but they're not going to be a director or true management at a company of 50-100 people.  So they aren't going to be paid like a "senior manager" or "Assistant Group Director" or whatever their title was at the big company.  And they won't have a bunch of people to pass stuff off to.

The smarter ones get that and adapt, but many don't.  And to be completely honest, I speak about it cause I did it myself.  I honestly got so much more out of what I do now because I needed to understand things holistically and do a bunch of busy work to learn other aspects of the business.  Then all of a sudden I could approach things with a big view.  Its not hard to see why people in my position see some of that as "beneath them" given previous work experience and thats messed up.

[Its DJOver]

For example, we've looked in the Milwaukee area for some roles that would traditionally pay $50-60K.  Previous people in that role made $40-45K, but given that was more 2018-2019, we realize thats not feasible.  In trying to source it, we're either seeing people that would be qualified but want more like $70-75K or people that are unqualified/would take a lot of work to make up the experience/expertise gap.  And that's not even factoring in people that want to be fully remote with little to no negotiating heft behind it  (sorry, I'm not going to hire someone with limited experience who worked in a hybrid role before for a position in a company that is primarily office based for a fully remote role.  One candidate removed themself from consideration because we asked for 2 days a week in office during onboarding and transitioning for 3-6 months and then reevaluation).

Isn't this not up to you to determine but the free market?  You acknowledge that pre Covid pay is insufficient, but you want to control how much it should increase.  If 40-45K isn't getting you quality candidates, and 50-60K isn't getting you quality candidates shouldn't that number just keep rising until you either get quality candidates or the job's value is less than the pay?   

[warriorchick]

Isn't this not up to you to determine but the free market?  You acknowledge that pre Covid pay is insufficient, but you want to control how much it should increase.  If 40-45K isn't getting you quality candidates, and 50-60K isn't getting you quality candidates shouldn't that number just keep rising until you either get quality candidates or the job's value is less than the pay?

That is assuming the company can remain a going concern paying those types of salaries. Not only do you have to pay the new people that kind of money, you have to adjust the current employees as well, or they are either going to quit or be extremely resentful.  Not every company can afford a 50% increase in their salary expense.

[🏀]

That is assuming the company can remain a going concern paying those types of salaries. Not only do you have to pay the new people that kind of money, you have to adjust the current employees as well, or they are either going to quit or be extremely resentful.  Not every company can afford a 50% increase in their salary expense.

Those companies just need to pull themselves up by the boot straps to keep paying exorbitant executive bonuses.

[Its DJOver]

That is assuming the company can remain a going concern paying those types of salaries. Not only do you have to pay the new people that kind of money, you have to adjust the current employees as well, or they are either going to quit or be extremely resentful.  Not every company can afford a 50% increase in their salary expense.

I guess I would say that if the only way a company can "remain going" is by paying their staff less than market value, then that is not a very successful company and capitalism would suggest that it ceases to exist.

[JWags85]

Isn't this not up to you to determine but the free market?  You acknowledge that pre Covid pay is insufficient, but you want to control how much it should increase.  If 40-45K isn't getting you quality candidates, and 50-60K isn't getting you quality candidates shouldn't that number just keep rising until you either get quality candidates or the job's value is less than the pay?

I guess I would say that if the only way a company can "remain going" is by paying their staff less than market value, then that is not a very successful company and capitalism would suggest that it ceases to exist.

Its not pre-Covid pay as much as its you can never accurately benchmark salaries against a figure from 4-5 years ago, regardless of pandemic.

And my point is there is a disconnect between "market rate" that candidates are looking for and what actually exists in the job market.  I don't see waves of hiring in small/medium sized companies at these spiked salary rates.  Job seekers thinking that things will be the same as 2020-2021 indefinitely and into the future aren't being realistic.

Its easy to be snarky, but assuming companies should be able to handle a 25% increase in salaries, without market conditions that concurrently bring significant increases in revenue, just because thats what people want...or they shouldn't be in business is asinine.  Benchmarking this against "exorbitant executive bonuses" that a publically traded billion dollar company has made is also misguided and unrealistic.

A successful company survives the pandemic, often with the aid of PPP funds or the like, and starts to get back to "normal" business conditions, which is not smooth sailing in MANY industries, still being affected by global logistical headwinds, product delays, and lagging consumer demand for many products.  So the only response to this company not being able to pay questionable job seeker rates is that "they shouldn't be in business then if they can't survive without underpaying employees" instead of examining maybe there is a disconnect in supply and demand that will work itself out in time?  Got it.

[Its DJOver]

I guess I just don't understand where you were getting your numbers from?  You seem to acknowledge that there needs to be a balance between what the working force realistically should be looking for and what the hiring force realistically should be offering, which I agree with.  I think our only disagreement is in how much of that bargaining power should be with the employer and how much should be with the employee. 

Going back to the example that you provided about your friend in the apartment operations business, what do you think she's going to end up doing? Hiring an experienced qualified candidate for more than she thinks that they're worth, or hire a less qualified, less experienced candidate for less money, but still more than she thinks that they're worth?  What would you do?

It seems like they're a lot of parallels between some of the struggles that the hiring force is currently facing and some of the struggles that those that are just entering the workforce are facing, and the difference in reaction is pretty stark. 

[JWags85]

I guess I just don't understand where you were getting your numbers from?  You seem to acknowledge that there needs to be a balance between what the working force realistically should be looking for and what the hiring force realistically should be offering, which I agree with.  I think our only disagreement is in how much of that bargaining power should be with the employer and how much should be with the employee. 

The salary numbers?  Its directly from interviews, conversations, and potential staffing situations we've had. 

From your posts, you make it seem like the employer should have none and any disagreement with the "market rate" is either greediness or a sign of a business that shouldn't be around.  And from the articles, thinkpieces, and whatnot that I read, people have taken "record corporate profits" which is nearly solely related to public companies where such information is freely available and extrapolated it to mean all companies, regardless of size or industry, are making money hand over fist and employees should be demanding more cause there is money to be had.  Ive lost track over how many times Ive seen business owners or managers quoted about rising wage demands and it being painted in a negative light.

Going back to the example that you provided about your friend in the apartment operations business, what do you think she's going to end up doing? Hiring an experienced qualified candidate for more than she thinks that they're worth, or hire a less qualified, less experienced candidate for less money, but still more than she thinks that they're worth?  What would you do?

Honestly, likely hire someone less qualified and deal with growing pains.  Businesses not flush with cash aren't keen to spend 15/20/25% than anticipated more on a candidate that meets qualifications but is still an unknown, as most low to mid level candidates are short of glowing recommendations or direct reference knowledge.

If I want to pay $80K for a position and find someone that is perfect and fits extremely well, I have no issue paying $90-$100K if thats what it takes.  As I mentioned, we did it with our Controller and similarly with a software engineer we hired last year.  But thats different than just overpaying a run of the mill candidate who fits cause "oh thats the market" when that market seems out of whack.

It seems like they're a lot of parallels between some of the struggles that the hiring force is currently facing and some of the struggles that those that are just entering the workforce are facing, and the difference in reaction is pretty stark.

Not sure what you mean.  Cause like I said, the reaction from everyone who isn't a business owner or running businesses/hiring/managing a P&L seems to be "yea, f' em, bout time people are paid way more".

[Its DJOver]

The salary numbers?  Its directly from interviews, conversations, and potential staffing situations we've had. 

From your posts, you make it seem like the employer should have none and any disagreement with the "market rate" is either greediness or a sign of a business that shouldn't be around.  And from the articles, thinkpieces, and whatnot that I read, people have taken "record corporate profits" which is nearly solely related to public companies where such information is freely available and extrapolated it to mean all companies, regardless of size or industry, are making money hand over fist and employees should be demanding more cause there is money to be had.  Ive lost track over how many times Ive seen business owners or managers quoted about rising wage demands and it being painted in a negative light.

From your posts it sounds like that because you're offering more than you were 5 years ago, you automatically think that the number that you came up with should be sufficient.  If one candidate comes in and says that you need to offer more for them to work there, that's one thing, but it sounds like all of your good potential candidates are saying something similar.  That would seem to suggest that even though you're offering more than you were in 2018, it's still not enough.

Honestly, likely hire someone less qualified and deal with growing pains.  Businesses not flush with cash aren't keen to spend 15/20/25% than anticipated more on a candidate that meets qualifications but is still an unknown, as most low to mid level candidates are short of glowing recommendations or direct reference knowledge.

If I want to pay $80K for a position and find someone that is perfect and fits extremely well, I have no issue paying $90-$100K if thats what it takes.  As I mentioned, we did it with our Controller and similarly with a software engineer we hired last year.  But thats different than just overpaying a run of the mill candidate who fits cause "oh thats the market" when that market seems out of whack.

And that's a risk that's going to have to get taken more and more.  It sounds like you understand this well and will mitigate this risk in certain circumstances, as evident by your willingness to do so with your controller and software engineer.  It varies company by company and industry by industry, but there will be a lot of grey area in-between controllers/software engineers and run of the mill candidates, and that's where a lot of the difficulties lie.

Speaking anecdotally as you have been, since I am at a company within the size range you originally specified (65 people), since I have been here (18 months) the number of active opening that we're looking to fill has never been zero and always been between 2-6.  I'm not involved in the hiring process so I'm unsure how the conversations regarding compensation with potential employees have gone, but since the referral bonus offered has risen from 1K to 10K, I would hope the salary being offered has increased as well.  If you know what you're worth, go out and get what you're worth. 

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

Not sure what you mean.  Cause like I said, the reaction from everyone who isn't a business owner or running businesses/hiring/managing a P&L seems to be "yea, f' em, bout time people are paid way more".

In running that P&L, have you contemplated loss of business/increased 3rd party service costs? Because that's a real thing when you are facing vacancy of 10% plus. I certainly have had to put together business cases for premium labor expenses to look forward 5 years when a company's contract is up for renewal and we have delivered crappy service due to the fact we were never staffed up. (Run a large regional P&L).

Seems like there are some difficult strategic plan conversations that companies needed to be having a long time ago.

[JWags85]

From your posts it sounds like that because you're offering more than you were 5 years ago, you automatically think that the number that you came up with should be sufficient.  If one candidate comes in and says that you need to offer more for them to work there, that's one thing, but it sounds like all of your good potential candidates are saying something similar.  That would seem to suggest that even though you're offering more than you were in 2018, it's still not enough.

I never suggested that.  And its not been a stream of candidates demanding more.  But you have a couple of bites, see salary expectations that don't necessarily fit, and you make alternative arrangements. 

Some of it also has to do with the remote work aspect like I mentioned.  Which I think a lot of people aren't considering.  If you're not looking to be in an office, companies are going to have no problem filling roles with someone from a lower cost country or region.  And its not call center employees making pennies.  I can hire programmers, software engineers, etc... from somewhere like Pakistan (where we have a contractor) who speaks great English, will work basically US hours, and costs 50% less...and he's more experienced and skilled than some people we hired.

And that's a risk that's going to have to get taken more and more.  It sounds like you understand this well and will mitigate this risk in certain circumstances, as evident by your willingness to do so with your controller and software engineer.  It varies company by company and industry by industry, but there will be a lot of grey area in-between controllers/software engineers and run of the mill candidates, and that's where a lot of the difficulties lie.

Speaking anecdotally as you have been, since I am at a company within the size range you originally specified (65 people), since I have been here (18 months) the number of active opening that we're looking to fill has never been zero and always been between 2-6.  I'm not involved in the hiring process so I'm unsure how the conversations regarding compensation with potential employees have gone, but since the referral bonus offered has risen from 1K to 10K, I would hope the salary being offered has increased as well.  If you know what you're worth, go out and get what you're worth.

Yeah I don't disagree.  Like I have said previously, there is going to be some leveling out to be done.  I don't think its just going to be some wholesale spike in salaries and concessions all in favor of the workforce that just sticks.  And thats not a "screw the serfs" mentality, its just that a balance needs to be found with running sustainable profitable businesses and a satisfied workforce.

And FWIW, I think the increase of referral bonus would mean salaries haven't increased.  Cause there is more financial incentive to bring in a candidate who fits.  If salaries had increased, aka the job benefits are more desirable bringing in more candidates, they wouldn't need to increase that.

In running that P&L, have you contemplated loss of business/increased 3rd party service costs? Because that's a real thing when you are facing vacancy of 10% plus. I certainly have had to put together business cases for premium labor expenses to look forward 5 years when a company's contract is up for renewal and we have delivered crappy service due to the fact we were never staffed up. (Run a large regional P&L).

Seems like there are some difficult strategic plan conversations that companies needed to be having a long time ago.

Absolutely.  Loss of business hasn't been utmost concern, mostly because we sacrifice proactive planning or biz dev moving forward, in the near term, in order to make sure our customer base is happy or serviced appropriately.

As for 3rd party services, we don't rely on them for the most part, unless you mean contractor/job work, which we have lean into more recently, but as I mentioned before, there may be increased time/less convenience, but actual dollar costs are lower.

Totally agree about the strategic planning conversations.  What its done is forced our hand and expedited our international staffing, as Ive alluded to.  We favored jobs in the office here for a variety of reasons including in person meetings, company culture, etc...  But there are ample benefits of some of the international staffing including adding to our India and HK/China offices where the staff would work directly with our customers in that region and work on their time zones, in the local language, etc...

Growing pains and difficult strategic planning?  Absolutely.  Potential benefits in the long run from a new way of working?  Maybe so.

[Its DJOver]

I never suggested that.  And its not been a stream of candidates demanding more.  But you have a couple of bites, see salary expectations that don't necessarily fit, and you make alternative arrangements. 

Some of it also has to do with the remote work aspect like I mentioned.  Which I think a lot of people aren't considering.  If you're not looking to be in an office, companies are going to have no problem filling roles with someone from a lower cost country or region.  And its not call center employees making pennies.  I can hire programmers, software engineers, etc... from somewhere like Pakistan (where we have a contractor) who speaks great English, will work basically US hours, and costs 50% less...and he's more experienced and skilled than some people we hired.

I obviously know next to none of the details concerning the position you're looking to fill, but IMO this is a much different tone than your original complaint which was more of a "woe is me, no one wants to work anymore without an exorbitant salary".  I may have misinterpreted your OP, but I see that attitude from so many boomers that it starts to stick.

[JWags85]

I obviously know next to none of the details concerning the position you're looking to fill, but IMO this is a much different tone than your original complaint which was more of a "woe is me, no one wants to work anymore without an exorbitant salary".  I may have misinterpreted your OP, but I see that attitude from so many boomers that it starts to stick.

Fair enough.  And no, I'm very much a millennial and I get the myriad factors.  My wife is basically full time remote these days, my younger sister, while talented and very smart, is one of those who definitely got overpaid recently despite being underexperienced, I see all the sides.  As far as business professionals are concerned, I definitely don't think its "nobody wants to work", just a lot of frothy circumstances and people not necessarily looking at or understanding all the scenarios.

[Skatastrophy]

GDP is high, with consumer spending headed higher. Inflation is significantly lower.

The deficit has been halved, matching Obama's accomplishment. Yet to top Clinton's 150% cut of the deficit he inherited, but the current president has some time there.

Recession averted, economy is off to the races?

[jesmu84]

GDP is high, with consumer spending headed higher. Inflation is significantly lower.

The deficit has been halved, matching Obama's accomplishment. Yet to top Clinton's 150% cut of the deficit he inherited, but the current president has some time there.

Recession averted, economy is off to the races?

How's consumer prices? Coming down?

Good news about the deficit. Assume that means there won't be a debt ceiling fight

[TSmith34, Inc.]

GDP is high, with consumer spending headed higher. Inflation is significantly lower.

The deficit has been halved, matching Obama's accomplishment. Yet to top Clinton's 150% cut of the deficit he inherited, but the current president has some time there.

Recession averted, economy is off to the races?

The last 18-24 have had the weirdest sets of contradictory indicators...I don't think there is any precedent for it.

There are still quite a few potential concerns that could each provide significant headwinds (China, Russia, Republicans intentionally crashing the global economy by refusing to lift the debt ceiling to name just a few), so while I'm more cautious than characterizing it as "off to the races", I'm optimistic enough to have been feeding money into the stock market once again.

I think Jamie Dimon's and Elon Musk's predictions of catastrophe are way off base.

[JWags85]

The last 18-24 have had the weirdest sets of contradictory indicators...I don't think there is any precedent for it.

There are still quite a few potential concerns that could each provide significant headwinds (China, Russia, Republicans intentionally crashing the global economy by refusing to lift the debt ceiling to name just a few), so while I'm more cautious than characterizing it as "off to the races", I'm optimistic enough to have been feeding money into the stock market once again.

I think Jamie Dimon's and Elon Musk's predictions of catastrophe are way off base.

Totally agree.  Dimon and Musk are way off, however, I don't think it was insane at the time.  Dimon said it at a time where it looked especially bleak and the most optimistic thing people had to say was "it gets better, it always does".

China is still a HUGE unknown.  I don't love consumer sentiment in a lot of places.  Anything thats priced in dollars, globally, is still very skittish due to inflation and interest rate uncertainty.  I know of sizeable players in the Middle East and Asia who are sitting on their hands for big purchases normally done in dollars/benchmarked in dollars for a bit longer.

But I agree that I don't think the floor is dropping out in the near future

[Skatastrophy]

How's consumer prices? Coming down?

Good news about the deficit. Assume that means there won't be a debt ceiling fight

CPI fell for the first time in years. Every reading since ~March 2020 has been a raise.