DHonks

Good points everyone. I truly valued my liberal arts degree. I liked that everyone was exposed to Western Civ through a genre of their choosing (lit, art history, history, etc). I learned great researching and writing skills as a history major that helped me later when I chose to add an Econ major. Econ really made sense because so much of it was about rationality.

College has needed disrupting. Why have college costs skyrocketed? If you ask colleges, it's because people want them to. They want new buildings, new dorms, new fitness centers, etc. Most of these are partly funded by philanthropic donors, but the rest falls on the new students. Students are demanding the newest and best, but then having to pay for them. And I don't favor eliminating of psychology, communications, history, etc. But I favor lower FAFSA amounts towards those. There are too many communications majors (some use it as a legit field, but for most students its the major for everyone that didn't find a major). I'd much rather the gov't and private loan services incentivize students into fields that are 21st century jobs--education, tech, lab sciences, engineering, math, business, languages, and some social sciences (econ). I've met a lot of people taking out crazy loans to get a history degree (not bashing it, it was one of my majors), communications, arts, English/Lit, without regard for the lack of their lack of prospects or ability to pay loans back. Additionally too many people view FAFSA as more of a grant-system rather than a loan system. I always warn my students about Psych degrees. They are fascinated by the topic--and our high school Psych teacher does a nice job--but statistically Psych majors are less likely to use their degree on a daily basis than other subjects in part because an Bachelors in Psych doesn't qualify someone to do much at all.

It's not due to consolidation. That statement was made based on projections of demand and not margins. It's why I (mistakenly) invested (thankfully a relatively small amount) in American back then - because every flight I was on was full. The industry had been incentivized to not expand supply (routes, seats) and use demand to raise seat prices because of low margins. Whenever airlines would announce that they were increasing supply (more seats/flights), their stock price would actually drop because investors would freak out and think it would decrease already low margins that are very sensitive to oil prices. I intentionally stayed away from American. They ran the oldest fleet in the US, were getting killed by high jet fuel prices, and somehow worked out the deal with US Airways that kept them afloat. As for praise of Southwest, part of their success in the last 10 years is the con-job they've pulled. In the 1990s and early 2000's they were a discount carrier. They eventually broke away from expedia and the travel sites, leveraging their loyal fan base against the market. They jacked up their prices and were upset when they were being out-competed by a better, true discount carrier that they ultimately decided to buy once they bumped into each other over routes (AirTran...I'm generally for the market and allowing mergers, but that was a big mistake by the gov't). Last study I found said that Southwest is only the cheapest airline around 20% of the time, but I still frequently hear people talk about how it's a great value. When people actually price shop, they are shocked to find SW is usually more expensive. It's brilliant on SW's behalf, as they're creating brand stickiness like we see with Coca-Cola, Apple, Google, and Amazon. I saw that a non-Prime shopper on Amazon only completes the purchase about 5% of the time, while Prime members were something like 80+%, with people buying unnecessary items because they perceive them as a deal. I personally try to avoid "Southworst." I give them credit for friendly staff, but I dislike their higher prices and that my flights are nearly always 30+ minutes late.

Arguably America's best run company--Apple--reports earnings today. The April quarterly report is also when they revise their capital return plans. I look forward to hopefully another 10% dividend raise and increasing the share buyback. It's been very good to me since I first invested in them in 2012. But they are dramatically helped that their revenues are not reliant on brick and mortar. Thanks to online purchases and services, they'll probably report profits of something like $5-8B for this quarter. I definitely feel for the brick and mortar stores. Many have struggled to reinvent their businesses in the Amazon-era. At least they were getting some business. But the pandemic has totally destroyed them. I always tell my students that I have no problem with the 2008-09 Bush/Obama bailouts. Did we need GM and Chrysler going under? I can't speak for Chrysler, but GM is much leaner, stronger company today and is building great vehicles. Did we need another half million or million workers hitting the unemployment lines if those companies had eventually failed? In a strong economy we could have made it work, but not in a terrible recession. My only peeves with the bailouts were that there were no bailouts for proprietorships AND that there was no coordinated effort to prevent banks from foreclosing. Banks saw high home prices and an opportunity to re-sell an asset and were quick to foreclose. I like that this time our government is supporting many small businesses and restricting credit seizures. One odd quirk this time is that small business loans were meant to keep paying employees. But I have some friends whose employees are furious that they weren't laid off, and they feel their employers cheated them out of the "pay increase" they would have gotten on unemployment. That's an odd quirk of the plans this year. The people want the guarantees of the jobs returning, but they want the higher benefits.

Can someone explain to me why average citizens living paycheck to paycheck are realistically expected to save 3-6 months of living expenses, but companies are bleeding after one month of reduced profits? Why can't they apply the same principles of saving 3-6 months of expenses in the event of a global economic catastrophe? I get this, but it also wasn't foreseen 4 months ago. Companies could have a better financial reserve, but it's up to them to choose how to use their capital. Individuals need to start at a young age saving $5 at a time. Most people should make a 3-6 month reserve a goal in their early 20s like paying off student loans and saving for retirement. It doesn't happen, but it would be a nice goal.

Perhaps a few will think twice before rushing out to stand in line in front of the Apple Store to fork over $2,000 for the newest iPhone that will be obsolete in 6 months when they release the next one. I can't wait for the 5.4" rumored phone this fall! and one note, Apple's phones aren't obsolete in 6 months, because they follow a 12-month release window. But point taken

My district has offered online learning for almost twenty years. Most use it to take a class here or there. Some take it so that they can spend time working on the sport they'll play collegiately (so they'll take 2 classes in person, the rest online, and be getting individual golf, tennis, baseball, etc instruction during normal school hours). There are a lot of safeguards put in so that students can't work through things too fast and actually have to spend required state hours on learning. But just as the 8-hour work day has evolved with many employers focusing on productivity more than watching clocks, that probably should happen with education as well. Is it better that a kid learns 10 objectives, or spends 6 hours in class each day? I'm finding this MUCH easier and less stressful than my normal job. Granted, I haven't started recording any lectures. It's helpful that I'm in Social Studies, and we have really good online books for them to use. It also helps that regular education students can't receive a lower semester grade than their 3Q grade, so most students with A's, along with others are choosing to not submit any work for grading. But I'm posting my weekly chapter with ~10 questions for them to respond to (based on the text, but also sometimes applying it to present times or requiring them to find some data online). I've had them do DBQ's as well. Why is it less stressful for me? Because instead of leading class 5 hours a day and not getting to plan/grade until the evening, I'm currently spending Sundays planning the weekly work and assignments, Mondays and Tuesdays grading, and a couple hours grading and emailing the rest of the week. Normally we really don't have time to plan and grade during school hours (a 50 min prep is nothing), so it all happens on weekends and evenings. In fact I'm almost fully planned out for the last 2-3 weeks of school, whereas I normally would only have a rough schedule on a calendar. I've wondered if a hybrid model could be used. I'm seeing stories of states considering restructuring the day to limit students on campus. I could see us with A and B days that alternate. Basically take our current classes of up to 40 students, and cut them in half. 1100 students on campus each day instead of 2200. Instead of having 5 big classes, I would effectively teach 10 smaller classes. Classtime would be spent with some lecture, discussion, review, and testing. Students would be required to read, complete questions, and work on projects on their days at home. I don't know how this could work for ES or MS, but for HS it could definitely work with students at home 1/2 time. Another way this works is if teachers utilize a flipped model. I've thought about it, but I think it works best in Math and Science. For those that don't know, students watch video lectures at home, then use in-class time to complete labs and work on problems. Especially since so few students do math homework these days, doing it in-class with the teacher present can overcome the group chats students use to copy (if you don't know about them sharing math answers, just honestly ask your kids. one kid does homework, 40+ just copy the screen shot from the group chat)

I don't know about that. They make up 70% of all businesses. What is "much smaller," 65%?

It would be nice if this helps us get lower class sizes. Our rooms were built for 25 or so, but typically our classes have 40. We can't effectively social distance. Additionally, how do kids social distance in the hallways? Lots of questions, but few answers. This is my first foray with distance teaching, but our district has offered online classes that a lot of students take for about 15 years. Hopefully parents are quick to keep sick kids home in the future. Too many sick kids come to school as it is. It's a giant petri dish

6.2% + 6.2%= 12.4% for Social Security And yes, when the alarm bells started ringing a decade ago, we could have made minor changes that would have bought the current structure decades of viability. It will always exist, but in 2034 it will have enough for only 2/3rds of its current projected payouts since the Trust Fund will be drained. Heck, today we could still make minor changes to make it viable. I warn my students that if they are living off Social Security checks, they did something wrong. $5/paycheck into a retirement account starting at age 20 would yield over $50k at retirement. They get excited and want to know what $20 would do, or $50. Since they all make $12/hour, it's easy to think of skipping one fast food meal or one Starbucks per pay period. While it made minimal impact for stimulus, Obama's SS tax cut hurt the viability a little. I believe we dropped our portion from 6.2 to 2.2% for a year or so. Maybe it impacted the longterm projections by a few months or years, not much in the greater scheme of things.

Regarding pension vs 401k, one very important point is being missed. Taxes. You can have a Roth 401k and pay no taxes on it later in life when you need it. Pension income is taxed, of course. Beyond that though, having direct control is the most important thing- and that's why I far prefer 401k to SS or pension where someone else has the account. regarding 401k/403b/IRA vs Roth versions, one key is to understand that depending on your current and future tax rates, the regular or the Roth version could be better for you. If your income tax bracket will be higher later in life, pay the taxes now with the Roth.

And the investment returns of defined benefit plans fail short of funding promises. Public Pensions in most states--including Minnesota (as mentioned)--are really a ponzi scheme. Like I said, they're good for us workers, but will come back to bite future workers and taxpayers down the road. Courts have also ruled that cities and states (Illinois in particular) cannot retroactively change the benefits in order to make the systems more viable long-term. This isn't just pensions, as many consider Medicare to be a gov't sponsored ponzi-scheme as well. The common denominator in these options is politicians that won't be around when the programs go bust

I hear teachers in AZ talk about how they used to contribute 5% of their pay to our pension in the 90s. Next year it will be 12.22%, despite pay increases the contribution rate goes up every year. Sadly much of the pension promises fall on younger workers, robbing these low wage newbies of money they need right away. But it's better than the alternative, as most would never fork over 12% of their salary to a retirement plan at age 24. I try EVERY year to get people so sign up for one of our 403b offerings, and many don't see the point of even $10/pay, even though I show them the spreadsheets. The main benefit to a pension is that a person doesn't have to be accountable for their future...it's just there for them

I hadn't thought of that. That's money that could be tossed back into the economy quite easily I would imagine. One flaw with praising pensions is that they are subsidized by younger workers and the government. A 401k vastly outperforms a pension over time. The difference is that in a 401k/403b/457b/IRA it is MY money earning a return, but in a pension it's often an unfunded promise that falls on later generations backs. I'm very grateful that my state has one of the better funded pension programs for educators.

I hadn't thought of that. That's money that could be tossed back into the economy quite easily I would imagine. What would be even better? Let people control at least half of the 12.4% paid in under SS. Then there would be no need for pensions or 401k. I always remember when Paul Ryan tried to make the case for greater use of private retirement options for ALL workers in a VP debate in 2012. Biden ranted about how Ryan and others like him always talk about the market, but "tell that to someone who lost half their money in the recession" (that's paraphrasing). I'm politically moderate and neutral on a lot, but that set me off as an Economist. Within a year or so of that debate, the market had surpassed pre-recession levels. People who kept their money in the market were ahead. But it sure made a great soundbite in the election

Not really. The rookie leagues don’t use them until mid-June. Teams could use the back Fields to allow minor leaguers to work out and practice. There’s no reason teams couldn’t have 15 to 30 minor leaguers also in quarantine

At least some minor leaguers would need to be at the team facilities to serve as injury replacements.

I always remember the Brewers-As brawl with Edwin Nunez clawing Surhoff. Who was it that Rob Dibble threw at like a week before we acquired him? Listach?

let's not forget...baseball players are entertainers. Let's be entertained!

Why not? outstanding resorts are running at 0% occupancy, and they don't see many guests in a typical summer anyways. One local resort with 750 rooms had 1 occupied last week. The hotel can occur 40+ rooms to essential support staff for free. MLB teams already have to give every player a nice room or suite. perhaps the resorts make it affordable for players or teams to add an extra room for family. My only issue with the plan is that since seemingly half of MLB players live in the Valley, how would we keep them from going home and interacting with the outside world (not that the outside world is doing much these days)? But these are questions that can be answered by MLB and MLBPA officials better than by armchair fans on a message board. The key is that there is a viable opportunity and plan. Sure they "can" give rooms to staff and such, but do those staff want to be quarantined so MLB can play baseball? How much do they have to sweeten the pot for those employees? Like you said, there's a lot of questions that we don't know the answer to, and that's stuff they have to work out. In the end, to me, I think there's a lot of logistics with a LOT of people that don't make sense. I'm just "a guy" and I'm probably wrong, but you're asking a lot of people to spend a few weeks or a few months away from their families and the outside world. You can say 'it's only a few weeks' and that sounds fine, but what if it goes into August? MLB can't ask players, support staff, hotel and food service staff to quarantine and then promise them it'll be 3 weeks. It could be 3 more weeks. It might be July. It might be September. I can imagine that's a chance a lot of people don't want to take. My thought was that if resorts saw their busiest 2 months with no occupancy and were approaching summer, they'd consider shuttering for the summer (like many AZ businesses do). Hotel employees would probably like their paychecks, even if it meant quarantining along with the teams. As for food, teams provide two meals per day in their clubhouses anyways. So feeding a team wouldn't be an issue, hotels would just need to provide one.

Why not? outstanding resorts are running at 0% occupancy, and they don't see many guests in a typical summer anyways. One local resort with 750 rooms had 1 occupied last week. The hotel can occur 40+ rooms to essential support staff for free. MLB teams already have to give every player a nice room or suite. perhaps the resorts make it affordable for players or teams to add an extra room for family. My only issue with the plan is that since seemingly half of MLB players live in the Valley, how would we keep them from going home and interacting with the outside world (not that the outside world is doing much these days)? But these are questions that can be answered by MLB and MLBPA officials better than by armchair fans on a message board. The key is that there is a viable opportunity and plan.

Nobody is talking about 3 or 4 or 5 months here. The word indefinitely just means there is no specific target date. If the league doesn't think they can move into normal stadiums for 3 months they just won't go along with this plan. This would almost certainly be a short term bridge to playing in normal stadiums. You have 2 weeks of spring training and then hopefully only 1 or 2 weeks of real games and then things have calmed down to where you go back to normal stadiums. In the past I said I thought we would get spring training in mid June and real games in July. This just allows this plan to move up 2-4 weeks earlier than what I thought would happen. If that's true, then why bother with these games in AZ? If it's only 2-4 weeks, just skip the weird baseball step. I would rather just start in July playing in regulat stadiums with fans, and make it exactly half a season, 81 games. I think it would be foolish for MLB and MLBPA to miss an opportunity to be part of the US getting over this. Like I said, some areas may still be under stay-at-home orders in mid-to-late May. this is an opportunity to get huge ratings and give people a distraction. Plus, one month less likely means less TV revenue for owners and lower salaries for players

To me it seems very feasible. Arizona's economy has been decimated by this. Our two busiest months for resorts and tourism are March and April. One major hotel near me had 1 of 750 rooms occupied last week. Not sure why they were even open. I would start some east coast games at 10am so that people stuck at home could watch all day. It's better than watching The Office re-runs like I've been doing. While I'm grading and planning for students, I would have baseball games on all day/evening. The reality is MLB wants to play, Americans need a distraction, players want to get paid, owners want to make money. The weather in May and June is usually beautiful here. Sometimes it can be like 100º, but some years it can be like 65-75º during the day. I'd guess 75-90º would be normal for day games, and anyone who has been in the dry heat knows that it's VERY comfortable at night. It's possible to nap in the shade on a 100º day because it's comfortable in the shade without humidity. My only issue with this is that I don't know how we could keep 900-1100 players (because they'd need extra minor leaguers working out at the facilities in case of injury) from venturing out of the hotels and interacting with society. Throw in that seemingly half of MLB lives in Phoenix/Scottsdale, and it would be hard to keep them from interacting much with family/friends (ie, social distancing). Perhaps families could be quarantined in the hotels with the players, with only families being allowed to use resort amenities like pools to keep kids busy. Every MLB player gets their own suite on the road anyways, so having some family along wouldn't be too much more of a cost.

Why would you think something like an oil supply crisis would happen? Trump filled the US oil reserves to the absolute tops couple weeks back or so when the oil prices were thought to be a great discount...one even better today. Here's where the economy will take a freefall, supply and demand with ongoing employment. I seen a Meier post early today letting customers be aware prices for many goods will be noticeably higher as we stay shut down. The last example which I remember was given eggs will have higher pricing. The millions of people that are or will be collecting unemployment, a reduced income that will end up purchasing less than what you could purchase with that same amount a week ago. It'll be a rippling effect. Food or clothing. Answer Food. Effect-say good bye to Kohl's in WI. Effect-jobs Lost. Effect-Unemployment increase. Effect-Market worsens. You get where this is trending. It'll only get worse when the money people get during this isn't saved and used for bills and rent. When that happens the housing market will take a bigger hit when mortgages are falling behind. But we'll see, what does the gov't do to slow that scenario? How long do we choose flattening the curve vs an economy slowly in ruins? The oil industry is about to crash. There's nowhere to store what's coming out of the ground. You can't just turn off a well and turn it back on again. Companies will fail and the drilling capacity will plunge. When demand eventually increases prices will skyrocket. I've been buying Energy companies on discount in the last two years, accelerating in the last 45 days. Most larger oil and gas companies are fairly well positioned to be around in the post-oil world. This oil surplus isn't new. Before COVID-19 we were already consuming less oil than a decade ago.

First of all, any scouting will be on old footage. Secondly, if every team stops going after high school kids, I'm going to hope that some high upside top high school kids are available in the top 5 rounds in spots where they otherwise wouldn't.