There's no chance for survival just by glancing over the headlines.

> One bright spot was last month, when hiring increased by 130,000 roles. This was significantly more than the 55,000 additions that had been expected by economists.

But that's 2026 hiring, and the article's about the 2025 revisions. (And the January number, as they all do, may get revised in a few months.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bls-jobs-report-revision-trump-...

Both directions are common.

https://www.hiringlab.org/2026/02/11/january-2026-jobs-repor...

It would be quite hard in the long run to make faked BLS numbers line up with other independent data points, like ADP's payroll reports and the IRS's revenues.

Cheap publishing that reaches across the world has created a race to the bottom.

Almost no jobs were added net and the few that were, were all in health care, 131K i think the article said.

what i find interesting is that unemployment percent still looks low. is it accurate? even if it's wrong, shouldn't it be correct on a relative basis? why isn't this number climbing?

You might want to look at the 'not in labor force' numbers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU05026642

and also labor participation rate, but for 25-54 Yrs, so you exclude the effect of demographic changes https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060

Underemployment is already reported and is distinctly different so I don't think it's fair to say that not counting someone at Burger King who has a Master's degree as unemployed is a "flaw."

The current definition makes sense because it's linked to an overt action that can be objectively determined. "Not looking for a job but theoretically would like a job" gets into all sorts of issues like "I want a job as a king if it landed on my lap...".

"Marginally attached" and "discouraged workers" are already tracked and reported in U4, U5, and U6, so this is a strange hypothetical.

It’s been creeping up for sure, but still historically low. And I’d attest that the headline rate is still the “real” rate.

Just because U3 is the measure typically quoted doesn’t mean the others don’t exist.

The idea that the BLS lacks detailed labor market data is just internet conspiracy slop.

Source: 15 years ago I was one of the people they surveyed. Every month for a year they called me, once a month, to ask what my employment status last week was, if I was actively looking, etc. (It was all synchronized around one week a month, but I don't remember which one it was they cared about.)

I wonder what those folks in health care are doing, because (once again) after dealing with the US healthcare system, it seems like it's about 1% doctors, 10% other staff and 90% useless billing/scheduling/collections, designed to extract the maximum possible amount of money from a patient and provide the minimum amount of care.

More jobs being added in health care seems to be an indicator for it getting even worse.

So the unemployment rate is staying low, but the absolute number of workers is flat or declining.

latest edition was A.I, prediction markets, GLP-1s -- all indicative of a "Casino" economy where you know the odds are against you but you gamble anyway so you might become one of the few winners

the US is caught up in a weird middle - where its lacking labor capacity for essential manufacturing & other positive contributions while also lacking job making capacity

because all the money has gone into casino economy not capacity building

There's a potentially civilization-ending disasters looming over us (the climate crisis, increasing escalation between the major powers, rising risk of insurrection due to mismanagement and inequality) and what are the smartest people of our time doing?

Making sure you click that damn ad or create technology that lets you create slop ads more easily.

If you allocated capital to other stuff, the jobs go there with it?

Regulations on micro-targeting, data privacy, algorithm transparency, legal liability for content, etc.. all push back against the externalities of ads/social media.

Regulations on energy and land use can make eg data center build outs more expensive, pressuring back against speculative AI trash.

Taxing big tech companies, subsidizing manufacturing education, and judicious import tariffs.. would all create incentives for investing money and labor in hard capabilities

I have a feeling most folks here will disagree though.

is this possible?

Noam Chomsky is one of the loudest doomsayers and "critics" of the system (war, climate, politics) and yet simultaneously was good buddies with post-conviction Epstein. That ought to stimulate a reassessment of what you've believed about how (American) politics and society works.

Especially in humanities where you don't have hard data, contradiction is the only way to advance, and he forgot that. He became too full of himself and too confident.

I hate ads with passion for past 20 years and (very) actively avoid them at all costs, but I'd take those over what world llms seem to be bringing in soon.

For that to be true, there would have to be a ridiculous amount of money at a massive scale for those, which would imply that consumers are being gouged for it. That's really true of almost any bubble. This is still a negative situation.

Or finance. There was a pretty brutal takedown published recently: The Finance Industry Is a Grift. Let’s Start Treating It That Way. (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/06/opinion/capitalism-indust...).

Basically the finance industry is pivoting away from actually investing in real businesses to more and more elaborate paper pushing schemes (that make them money, but actually weaken the economy):

> Unlike Dawes’s Fidelity Fiduciary Bank, a modern investment bank mostly earns its money in a way that not even the bravest lyricist would set to music: providing advisory services, executing complex financial engineering schemes, trading stocks and bonds, managing other people’s money, issuing credit cards and so on. Assets get bought and sold, divided and packaged, and the bank collects fees at each step.

> David Solomon, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, could not sing to young Michael about the many productive uses to which he might put the tuppence because Goldman Sachs rarely invests in anything at all. Fostering economic progress appears to be beside the point.

> Less than 10 percent of Goldman’s work in 2024, measured by revenue, was helping businesses raise capital. Loans of Goldman’s own funds to operating businesses accounted for less than 2 percent of its assets. At JPMorgan Chase the figures were 4 and 5 percent; at Morgan Stanley, 7 and 2 percent. Even the efforts at helping to raise capital are misleading, because less than a tenth of it goes toward building anything new. The rest funds debt refinancing, balance sheet restructuring and mergers and acquisitions.

> These are symptoms of financialization. That’s the term for making financial markets and transactions ends unto themselves, disconnected from — and often at the expense of — the societal benefits that support human flourishing and are capitalism’s proper purpose. Chief among those benefits are good jobs that support families, and products and services that improve people’s lives.

If debt refinancing became illegal or widely impractical due to an interest rate spike, you’d quickly see how much of the productive economy it’s fueling!

You're missing the point. Read the article.

And no one is saying "don't refinance debt." The passage you're reacting to was making the point "less than a tenth of [the capital banks raise] goes toward building anything new."

> Why do you think large companies refinance debt? So they can invest in productive areas of the business.

The article is talking about banks and the finance industry, not non-financial companies.

Also, if you think they were restructuring debt to invest in productive areas of their businesses, don't you think more than 10% of the capital banks raise would be going to building something new? If you read the article, it spends a lot of time talking about how much money goes into "mergers and acquisitions" and how it's a waste.

AFAIK, manufacturers refinance debt to build more/better factories all the time, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market)

What’s pleasant to see is that the take-down and opinion piece is coming from the conservative side.

GLP, not sure.

We don’t need ads for it, we should hand it out over the counter to anyone who wants or needs it, but I digress.

Its all a mental problem (and here in Switzerland this is general consensus among doctors and I have one for wife), and an attempt to solve it anywhere else down the decision line apart from the head is just (temporarily, in case of glp) fixing the consequences.

If we're appealing to authority, my mother, my father, and my sister are all highly accomplished doctors, and they believe GLP-1s will become part of a standard drug package to older adults like Statins because it's far more achievable than education we don't have and wouldn't work in the food system that exists in the US.

Ah, that might explain why you'd think that healthy food is easily available and affordable everywhere. I haven't seen what stores are like in Switzerland for myself, but it sure sounds like a massive improvement and may be part of why the obesity rate there is around 10% instead of over 40% like it is here.

Yes, so let's just solve it. Okay, no more mental problem.

What's that? I didn't actually say a solution? Yeah, that's because I don't have one, and neither do you.

We can't just make people good people. It doesn't work, it's never worked, and it will never work. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. If you still think otherwise, you should think less because obviously it's not doing you any good.

We can sit here alllll day and tell people not to inject heroine or smoke cigarettes. But guess what? So long as the human brain is how it is, and we have those things available, people WILL continue to do them.

So while you have fake solutions you've made up in your head and can't even articulate, we have real solutions. GLP-1s. They work, as in they actually work. They actually help solve the problem.

So on one hand, you have an imaginary solution. On the other hand, you have a real solution. Hmm, which one should we gravitate towards? What a tough call!

The side effects are minor compared to the wins.

> because all the money has gone into casino economy not capacity building

What you're describing is referenced to as Fictitious Capital in Marxist thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_capital

But I suppose change needs both strategies.

Most modern capitalist views do not subscribe to labor theory of value or "earned" value. Though views on landlordism do originate more with Smith than with Marx, it's not wrong to also attribute many of those thoughts to Marx.

The AI companies really did spend every last cent (and more) of this capital.

Executives won't build on-shore capacity when they'll just get undercut by off-shore shops. It's less risky to just outsource.

1. Tariffs are frequently not targeted/precise enough, so come with lots of side effects.

2. Other countries retaliate, leading to trade wars and economic disruptions in both places.

3. Lower prices are usually better for local consumers - it leaves them with more money to buy other stuff. And tariffs do the opposite, as they are rarely 100% absorbed by the manufacturer.

How are AI and GLP medications in the same category as Kalshi or sports betting? One is (economically at any rate) a tool to produce code and the other is a weight loss drug that actually works. Neither are a “casino” in any meaningful sense.

Please don't comment on pharmacodynamics without a solid understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

Please don’t be a dick.

However bad their odds are gambling it's often the case that it's still the best chance they'll ever have to meaningfully improve their standard of living.

How are they a “gamble?” For patients, their efficacy rates are stunning. If you meant from an investing perspective, Eli Lilly and novo nordisk have very down to earth valuations when compared with AI companies.

But these are powerful medications that affect very highly conserved areas of tetrapod biology. We discovered GLPs in the mouths of gila monsters, after all. So you then can infer that that the mechanism is at least 300 million years old (our last common ancestor with lizards).

Actually, I tried looking this up, and glucagon is likely 5-600 million years old, back to all chordates, the Cambrian explosion essentially, though likely even before that. So, incredibly conserved. Like, if you are a multicellular animal, odds are you have some glucagon-like thing for digestion regulation.[0]

We're strongly messing with a system that is just tremendously old. Biology and evolution are ruthless about this stuff, it edits it out as fast as it possibly can. That it's been so closely held is a very big sign for us that we need to tread extremely carefully.

Like, clearly, other countries do not have these issues with weight. Yes, they are developing them, I know. But even the US didn't have these issues near as bad just two generations ago, a blink in biological terms. You and I both know that the solution is not a pill, but the root cause of the obesity epidemic itself. These injections and pill are just band-aids for a much deeper and more pernicious problem.

But then again, you and I both know that we're not going to get at the root cause anytime soon either.

[0] This is biology so you'll find exceptions everywhere though

As long as you have descendants, biology and evolution don't care, once that's done it's game over for them.

> That it's been so closely held is a very big sign for us that we need to tread extremely carefully.

It's been tested for over 20 years, the weight loss bit is the recent one.

> other countries do not have these issues with weight.

Yes they do, some are much worse than the US (https://data.worldobesity.org/rankings/), there are a lot of countries above 30% obesity rate.

> both know that the solution is not a pill

It's part of the solution, is how you help existing people with the issue.

Doing a restrictive diet is not easy (I know, I've been dieting since october, lost 15 pounds, but I can go on autopilot for this, which is not the case for others), it requires a lot of discipline that most people don't have, and our bodies are optimized to store calories, as well as being very efficient in consuming them, because for most of history famines were common, last ~100 years being the exception to the rule for most of the world population.

Future generations can be helped by better food culture and education, and that's the other part of the solution, long term.

I'm in the US and if my doctor had suggested such drugs before last year I'd have been reluctant because (1) they were expensive even with insurance, (2) just how expensive varied quit a bit from insurance provider to insurance provider and from plan to plan from a given provider, and (3) as I said I'm in the US, and so never knew for sure who my insurance provider would be next year and even if it was going to be the same provider I never knew what their plans would be like next year [1].

Starting a new drug that looked like it would be a "rest of your life" drug where the price could change year to year from reasonably affordable to painfully expensive would definitely feel like taking a gamble.

Now I'm old enough for Medicare, and they are something I would at least consider because Medicare seems to be less volatile. They are still expensive, if my understanding is correct, with the need to meet a deductible and with copays or coinsurance, but all that counts toward the part D annual cap of $2100 so there is at least a cap making it somewhat safer to make long term plans. (But Republicans in Congress want to eliminate or at least significantly raise that cap, so long term planning is still somewhat of a gamble).

[1] In the US around 80-85% of people under 65 who have health insurance that is not provided through the government get their health insurance via their employer's benefits package. Most of the rest get it through the ACA marketplace. Employers often renegotiate plans with their provider or switch providers when the old plans/provider prices go up. The ACA market is even more volatile.

Anecdata: I've gone from 260lb down to a minimum of 198ish, up to maybe 230, back down to 193, long slow climb up to 270 and now on a GLP-1 I'm under 230 and definitely look fat, but in the right light you can see my quad separation. The only people I know who've lost the kind of weight I've lost and kept it off (like a 5' man going from 250lb down to 145) went from logging every bite in My Fitness Pal (or similar) to keeping the log running in their head of what they're eating all day every day. Diabetics sometimes say they're making their prefrontal cortex do the work of their pancreas. That feels relatable.

So IDK if there's a weight loss solution that works that you don't have to do in perpetuity. "Eat less" yeah sure, but how? Magic Danish Gila monster potion that makes you want to eat less, or recording everything you eat and using that to tell yourself you're more full than you feel?

I was 326 lb when I took the physical that my college required incoming first year students to take. It slowly crept up over the years and by my mid 50s was generally in the 420-440 lb range. I had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes about 10 years before that but responded spectacularly well to cheap diabetes drugs like metformin and Glucotrol. Same for cholesterol--it has been very high but Lipitor brought it down to normal. If you had showed my blood work to a doctor with no other information than my age and sex they would have not found any sign of anything wrong.

But then A1C started going up again, despite steady weight and no diet changes. I decided to try to lower carbs to see if that would help. Most low carb diets aim for a very low amount of carbs which require a lot of work to achieve (especially if like me at the time you don't mostly cook at home), so I decided to just try lower the percent of calories that came from carbs rather than worry about the absolute amount.

I picked 40% because (1) that is lower that average and definitely lower than what I was consuming, and (2) it is real easy to track (more on that below).

I was just trying to see if this change in balance would affect blood sugar and wasn't actually trying to lower calories. So rather than do things like give up most bread like many of the low carb diets require, I got the carb calorie percent down by adding non-carbs. For example if my normal ham and cheese sandwich with low calorie mayo was 60% calories from carbs, I'd switch that to regular mayo and/or double meat and/or double cheese. That would add a couple hundred or so calories which would lower the percent from carbs. The grams of carbs wouldn't change.

Two things happened then. First, my blood sugar did start going down. Second, and unexpectedly, I started losing weight. I had been keeping a simple food log for years at that point and it revealed that I in fact was consuming less calories.

Apparently what was going on is that things like the double meat double cheese regular mayo sandwich were keeping me satisfied longer, so I naturally snacked less, and naturally started eating smaller portions.

In two years I was down to 280 lb, and completely off diabetes and cholesterol. (I'd always had high blood pressure, and going from 420-440 lb to 280 lb had no effect whatsoever on that).

Over the next maybe 18 months it crept up to 320-325 lb (so basically my high school weight) and it has been steady in that range ever since (6 or 7 years so far).

I said earlier that 40% is easy to track. That's because 1 g of carbs has ~4 calories. That means all you have to do is look at the nutrition label and if numerically calories/10 <= carb grams the thing is not over 40% calories from carbs. (You can subtract grams of fiber from the carb grams).

For a meal with multiple items, say a fast food burger and fast food fries and a diet soda you could total the calories and total the carbs and do the calculation on that, but an easier way is to do the burger and fries separately and add the over/under amounts together.

For example let's say you are contemplating a Burger King Whopper (670 calories, 51 carbs) and large fries (440 calories 59 carbs). For the burger calculate 670/10-51=16, and for the fries 440/10-59=-16. 16 + -16 = 0, and your burger and fries together is 40% calories from carbs.

It is also fairly easy to keep a running net for the day, so just remember that say at breakfast you came out say at -8 because you decided to treat yourself to a donut for desert. Then at lunch you could change that Whopper to a Whopper with Cheese (770 calories 53 carbs) which is +24 instead of +16, nicely cancelling out your breakfast donut as far as carb balance goes.

Right, so there it is: whatever you did to get to a calorie deficit you need to keep doing to be calorie neutral. If it's take a GLP-1 then that works. If it's using pen and paper or an app or even vibes-based reckoning to track everything you eat, then it's that. Regardless it just doesn't seem like a valid criticism of any given weight loss strategy when I have yet to hear of one that doesn't have that feature

How do GLP-1s indicate a casino economy?

Since banks like Wells Fargo bought up local ones, the equality distribution changes dramatically. Wells Fargo wants the big players while that little bank wanted local players. This causes the market to lack marbling in competition while creating a massive group think economic bubble.

Labor costs are a minority of expenses even in labor-heavy industries and most corporations profit margins far exceed even "ridiculous" raises in wages and pay for their average worker. But there is zero incentive to benefit average employees and customers and every incentive to try and screw as many over as possible.

Why earn 5% margin on a stable growth path that will remain secure 20+ years down the line when they can earn 10% margin through exploitation and outsourcing and then jump ship and reinvest that money in other business later on.

Very few place are still holding onto older equipment because the places still operating cleared the floor space for higher speed higher volume equipment to try and maintain contracts with big purchasers that did or were threatening to leave to get that cheap unregulated foreign production. Turns out that didn't last forever, China isn't letting companies freely pollute anymore nor are they dumping subsidy money into manufacturing businesses to buy new equipment, but they still have all the equipment running, while much of the US equipment was either sold off or sat decaying and unused for decades.

Even if you could prove starting up a US manufacturing business to satisfy these demands was profitable, who is going to put up the investment money? There is no way such a business is going to be able to promise the same kind of returns as investing into tech companies, financial companies, or the overall stock market, and so they continue to mostly not exist. People with the capital to change things are seeking the greatest profit, not mediocre profits, and manufacturing in the US is mediocre profits for all but a few specialized industries.

TL;DR New US manufacturing production and capabilities lacks capital investment because profit margins are not super high and there is basically zero chance of an investment windfall.

"Dr. Oz Says Americans Starting Work 'Right Out Of High School' Or Retiring One Year Later Would 'More Than Remove' The National Debt"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dr-oz-says-americans-starting...

I thought much of a slow population growth is due to lower immigration, not declining birth rates?

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/why-firing-bls-commissioner...

The fake economy is now about AI, gambling and cryptocurrencies. It does not help that the current administration contains several Epstein disciples when Epstein was into these tech fantasies as well.

The misallocation of capital claims to grow the pie, but it dilutes the pie with fake growth so people that own the fake parts have more money to buy up the good parts.

I disagree. While some AI related stuff is promising, much of it is consumerist or data harvesting. Many people are basically gambling on any sort of stock related to AI (vs diversifying). Education is likely declining as adoption allows students to avoid critical thought or applying concepts.

"It's frankly a miracle, and it keeps making more leaps and bounds every time the peanut gallery starts going on about it having hit a wall it can never improve from."

Explainable by engineering isn't a miracle. It's just an expanse on neural nets and the other predecessors from 30 years ago. In my experience, it has trouble following basic directions such as keeping a summary to a single page.

I highly doubt this will be the case. This common viewpoint is almost certainly no more than another iteration of Plato decrying the invention of books.

> Explainable by engineering isn't a miracle.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle

    2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment. "The bridge is a miracle of engineering."

I don't consider AI to be outstanding. Maybe that bridge they're talking about was. Seems that this comes down to opinion.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2025/11/10/openai-spe...

As far as I can tell, the math isn’t getting any better. The financial costs of running an AI service are enormous and it’s not clear where sufficient revenue is going to magically come from once the aggressive loss-leading ends.

"The strip mining of trust" is a metaphor describing the unsustainable extraction of social capital—honesty, reputation, and goodwill—for short-term, selfish efficiency or profit. Similar to ecological destruction, this process erodes long-term, foundational trust, leaving behind hollowed-out institutions and requiring massive future effort to restore.

> America’s economy added 130,000 jobs in January, almost double the number that analysts had been expecting, indicating that the labour market might have picked up after months of apparent stagnation. Unemployment also fell to 4.3%, a slight dip from the previous month. The figures may put off the Federal Reserve from lowering interest rates as quickly as Donald Trump would like.

The ADP is only reporting 22k for January. Which lines up very closely with the monthly pace of job creation for 2025 (~15k, on average).

The downward revisions on the BLS numbers for 2025 are the largest on record. There's a sentiment that the monthly numbers were purposely inflated for 2025.

Jobs data (which comes from a survey of employers) is always subject to revisions, and the revisions have gotten worse. But it's not necessarily political. Back when Trump unprecedentedly fired Erika McEntarfer (former head of the BLS) I looked into this and tried to understand where the data comes from, how it works.

Basically, the BLS surveys 50k out of the several million companies in the US. But response rates have dropped rather strongly since the Pandemic in particular. If you give them 3 months, it gets up to 90%, but after 1 month it is only 50%. This would be okay, except that the response rates turn out to be skewed: large companies almost always respond quickly, small companies respond more slowly. And small companies tend to be much more responsive to the state of the overall economy than large companies- for good and for bad. And even the response times of the small companies turn out to be sensitive to economic trends, for good and for bad: the companies that respond more slowly to surveys, it turns out, tend to be the most sensitive to the broader economy, the first to fire in a recession, but also the first to hire when the economy is getting better.

The final thing is that these companies can be highly correlated with each other and the broader economy. So there are always corrections, but in placid economic weather the corrections cancel out- some of the extrapolations are high, some are low, it ends up being close to 0. And the financial markets understand how to read these corrections. They understand that when the economy is shifting you will get all of the misses in the same direction- either high or low- and to pay attention these corrections data.

All of these misses low in 2025 are a very bad sign for the economy overall, not necessarily a sign of political pressure. That would probably show up in large, sustained differences to the ADP numbers or other privately reported numbers, rather than revisions announced by the BLS itself.

Both Trump I's appointee to head the BLS, William Beach (who served from 2019-2023) and Biden's appointee Erika McEntarfer (whom Trump fired in 2025) wanted to modernize the survey system, make it easier for companies to respond, and get better and faster data collection. But, because this system is so incredibly important to the markets, they wanted a larger budget to run the new system and the old system together for a significant portion of time (several years) so that everyone would be comfortable understanding the intricacies of the system, what revisions would mean, etc. And since they didn't get that budget (in fact it got cut) they decided to prioritize the old system rather than throw it away and experiment with something different.

1: American English language culture I can read as an insider, and I pay some attention to the UK culture as well. I'm sadly monolingual so I have vague understanding of other countries, but they seem on a broadly similar path.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-17/nintendo-... [0]

They produced a record number...your observation should be the expected result (they are aiming to produce 25% more than are expected to sell).

[0] https://archive.is/RInO7

It still sold out and was a little difficult to get on release, but consoles came out at a pretty quick pace and resellers basically could not unload their stock for a profit. It became a bit of a joke about the resellers not being able to unload their stock because stores were getting replenishment stocks so often and Nintendo was constantly sending out emails to players saying they had been selected to buy directly from Nintendo.

I had my personal Switch 2 from the store within about a month of casual checking around and got one for a Christmas gift directly from Nintendo the next week.

The Switch has been out since 2017 and has probably reached market saturation at this point. Keep in mind that consoles are pretty durable and lots of people buy used. The Switch 2 isn't selling well yet since it has the PS3 disease (no games).

Anyways, the economy is probably bad but I don't think Nintendo Switch sales are much of an indicator for that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/11/04/nintendo...

> Sales figures collated by The Game Business last month showed that U.S. Switch 2 sales over the holiday period were down around 35% versus the Switch 1's first holiday sales performance back in 2017. In the UK, a similar comparison saw Switch 2 lagging Switch 1 by 16%. Even in Nintendo's homeland of Japan, Switch 2 holiday sales couldn't match Switch 1, and were down by 5.5% over the year's final nine weeks.

> In France, 2025's final tally of Switch 2 sales was down by "over 30%" versus the amount Switch 1 notched up back in 2017

They sold more than 17 million units in less than a year. The Wii U only sold 13 million over its entire lifetime. The Switch 1 took 2 years to reach 20 million, and the Switch 2 will very likely reach that number in less than half the time. Nintendo may have expected even higher sales numbers but saying that

> The Switch 2 isn't selling well

is simply not true.

[0] https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/nintendo-switch-2-s...

Don't you expect demand to taper off as more people get their hands on it? It also doesn't help that the switch 2 is basically "the switch, but better".

Nintendo is notorious for under producing their consoles vs demand in recent years - the worst example was the mini NES or whatever they called it, they could not keep it on shelves for that one either.

Months of waiting for target to open sounds insane and is so far from my experience that I think this is actually a case of you were holding it wrong.

Well, I remember the same thing happening with the Wii for a long time, and then eventually it was easily available.

But now I can't find a Wii at a Target anywhere, so the economy must be booming?

Either people are waking up that Nintendo is selling nostalgia or the economy is not doing well.

I hope the former, there is something that feels sick to think Nintendo force fed corporate mascots to me when I was under the age of 1. To this day, I religiously buy Zelda games, even though I haven't enjoyed them since N64. FOMO mind control.

Wat

But seriously... Wat?

Do you realize what you said?

The anemic employment market calls for lower rates, but inflation still persistently being 50% higher than it should be calls for rate hikes.

My prediction: this inflation isn't going away without viciously painful rate hikes. It'll probably get worse.

The future picture on inflation also looks bleak[2]:

> Taken individually, lagged tariff pass‑through, tightening labor supply, looser fiscal policy, and accommodative financial conditions would each push inflation modestly higher. Taken together—and interacting with increasingly fragile household inflation expectations—they create a macro environment in which inflation rising above 4 percent by the end of 2026 is not only plausible but arguably the most likely scenario.

It's common knowledge that the spending in the current economy is very K-shaped: the top 10% are the only ones staying above water.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikestunson/2026/02/05/us-jobs-...

[2] https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2026/risk-high...

I can tell you about the people around me making below median income and still raising families, but it would not be interesting enough for YouTube.

- Jack Handey

U.S. jobs disappear at fastest January pace since great recession

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46925669

Is anyone looking at this and the CBO figures and not just realising the government is straight lying about the figures?

Gonna believe Powell and Waller on this one.

Job numbers need to be considered in the context of a lot of other numbers, including population growth. As the other top thread yesterday highlighted, the US is experiencing slowing population growth, which may also have been exacerbated by the recent upheavals in immigration.

I may be butchering the theory here, but the point is that the economy is a dynamic, inter-connected system, and a smaller population requires fewer jobs. (As a silly example, you need many more car mechanics for a town with a population of 1000 as opposed to a population of 100.) That actually has implications for GDP growth as well.

That's not to say the overall economy is doing great, just that these job numbers should not be taken as a complete indicator of it.

1Q 2026: 130,000 jobs added, unemployment 4.3%

"It is true that some of the fields that have been adopting A.I. fastest - such as information and professional and business services - have been shedding jobs. That is also partly because those fields hired much more quickly during the pandemic years, and have been going through a correction."

IT, finance losing jobs

Healthcare, manufacturing gaining jobs