Latest / The Financial Exchange Show / The era of big raises for low-paid workers is over

Transcript

The era of big raises for low-paid workers is over · The Financial Exchange Show

0:00
Speaker 1: The Financial Exchange is produced by Money Matters Radio and
0:02
Speaker 1: is hosted by employees of the Armstrong Advisory Group, a
0:05
Speaker 1: registered investment advisor. All opinions expressed are solely those of
0:08
Speaker 1: the hosts. Do not reflect the opinions of Armstrong Advisory
0:11
Speaker 1: or anyone else. Investments can lose money. This program does
0:14
Speaker 1: not offer any specific financial or investment advice. Please consult
0:17
Speaker 1: your own financial, tax, and estate planning advisors before making
0:20
Speaker 1: any investment decisions. Armstrong Advisory and the advertisers heard on
0:23
Speaker 1: this program do not endorse each other or their services.
0:26
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Money Matters Radio do not compensate each other
0:28
Speaker 1: for referrals and are not affiliated. This is the Financial
0:34
Speaker 1: Exchange with Mike Armstrong and Mark Vandetti. Your exclusive look
0:39
Speaker 1: at business and financial news affecting your day, your city,
0:43
Speaker 1: your world. Stay informed and up to date about economic
0:46
Speaker 1: and market trends, plus breaking business news every day. The
0:51
Speaker 1: Financial Exchange is a proud partner of the Disabled American
0:54
Speaker 1: Veterans Department of Massachusetts. Help us support our great American
0:58
Speaker 1: heroes by visiting dav five K dot Boston and making
1:02
Speaker 1: a donation today. Face is the Financial Exchange with Mike
1:06
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Mark Vandetti.
1:12
Speaker 2: Good morning, and welcome back to the Financial Exchange on
1:16
Speaker 2: a CPI Tuesday, where we had an eight thirty am
1:19
Speaker 2: release of the July July inflation report showing relatively little
1:26
Speaker 2: change from the prior month, and so investors seeing that
1:29
Speaker 2: as a green light for the Federal Reserve on their
1:33
Speaker 2: predicted rate cut come September. The President has been tweeting
1:36
Speaker 2: about the inflation report this morning, using it as confirmation
1:40
Speaker 2: that tariffs are are not driving inflation to this or
1:44
Speaker 2: at all, is his conclusion. We we'll discuss that a
1:47
Speaker 2: bit more in the coming segment. The overall read here
1:52
Speaker 2: again headline inflation coming in at two point seven percent
1:56
Speaker 2: year over year. When you factor in the core prices,
2:00
Speaker 2: so stripping out food and energy impact, you're at three
2:02
Speaker 2: point one percent year over year. More importantly, we generally
2:06
Speaker 2: cite the month over month numbers when we're looking at
2:08
Speaker 2: the trend, and you came in at point two and
2:10
Speaker 2: point three respectively CPI and CORE for the month of July.
2:15
Speaker 2: That gives you a three month average of about two
2:17
Speaker 2: point four percent on both of these readings. So if
2:21
Speaker 2: we're going to take those numbers and annualize them. That's
2:23
Speaker 2: where you land on CPI. That's not the best or
2:27
Speaker 2: only method. It's just one method I look at to
2:29
Speaker 2: kind of smooth things out a bit. But you know,
2:32
Speaker 2: June and July have been slightly elevated. If you're trying
2:35
Speaker 2: to stay under three percent, I think would be my conclusion.
2:39
Speaker 2: But there are plenty at the Federal Reserve right now
2:43
Speaker 2: who seem to be much more concerned about the slowdown
2:45
Speaker 2: and employment that we saw reflected in the last jobs
2:47
Speaker 2: report than they are about price movements at this point
2:50
Speaker 2: in time. And I think that's reasonable because you can
2:53
Speaker 2: make a compelling argument that even if tariffs have their
2:57
Speaker 2: effect on prices, which I think would, we will see,
3:01
Speaker 2: but it will take longer to come to pass that
3:04
Speaker 2: it could be one time and that's not something that
3:06
Speaker 2: the Fed should worry about it And again that's debatable.
3:10
Speaker 3: But that are raising a number of issues.
3:13
Speaker 2: I am where do you want to start with them?
3:16
Speaker 3: Let's talk about the trend in inflation sturing you alluded to.
3:19
Speaker 3: You did your moving average Mike Armstrong thing, which is
3:22
Speaker 3: useful you annualized the past few months because you wouldn't
3:24
Speaker 3: want to look too far back the trend may have changed.
3:27
Speaker 3: We also don't know what's coming in the future, so
3:29
Speaker 3: you would need to annualize things to put them in context.
3:33
Speaker 3: Another way of getting at the trend in inflation is
3:35
Speaker 3: to filter out the large price changes, no matter where
3:38
Speaker 3: they come from. It might just not It might not
3:40
Speaker 3: be just food and energy, It might be insurance, it
3:43
Speaker 3: might be motor vehicles. There are outlier trimming that get
3:47
Speaker 3: rid of the big and the biggest and the smallest
3:50
Speaker 3: movements which are likely just noise, such as Median, which
3:53
Speaker 3: is literally just the one in the middle. Trimming the
3:57
Speaker 3: mean using less extreme methods also give you similar a
4:01
Speaker 3: similar read on underlying inflation in the past few months,
4:04
Speaker 3: not counting this month because it's not available yet. The
4:06
Speaker 3: past few months readings of those probably better measures of
4:10
Speaker 3: underlying inflation point to trend inflation somewhere in the mid
4:15
Speaker 3: three So the FED does have something of an inflation
4:17
Speaker 3: problem on its hands. The question is does it view
4:19
Speaker 3: the economic problem that it may have on its hands.
4:22
Speaker 3: The GDP and unemployment I e. By it by that,
4:25
Speaker 3: I mean economic growth and the unemployment picture problem? Are
4:28
Speaker 3: those a bigger threat to our well being? Right now?
4:31
Speaker 3: FED governors are split on this. A couple one said
4:34
Speaker 3: this morning, inflation is still elevated, and I don't see
4:37
Speaker 3: enough data suggesting economic deterioration to warrant a large easing
4:42
Speaker 3: of monetary policy stance. So very much an open question.
4:45
Speaker 2: Call a spade, Call a spade a spade. Inflation is
4:48
Speaker 2: tremendously difficult to predict on a month to month basis.
4:51
Speaker 2: We can look at longer term trends, but.
4:53
Speaker 3: It is persistent, though there's a little bit of camp. Yeah,
4:56
Speaker 3: it is, so once it gets going, it tends to
4:59
Speaker 3: continue in the same direction.
5:00
Speaker 2: For this and frankly, you know, job creation on a
5:03
Speaker 2: month to month basis, the same can be said. Tremendously
5:06
Speaker 2: difficult to predict on a month to month basis. But
5:09
Speaker 2: I tend to think, in spite of everything the Federal
5:13
Speaker 2: Reserve says, I tend to think they still believe that
5:16
Speaker 2: the overall economic effects of higher unemployment outweigh what might
5:20
Speaker 2: be concerns about inflation, and that has been proven out
5:24
Speaker 2: multiple times in their actions, and I think that's probably
5:26
Speaker 2: the action they will take in September as well, because
5:29
Speaker 2: once again the weak jobs data that we got, which
5:32
Speaker 2: came out a day or two after the latest FED
5:36
Speaker 2: meeting was tremendously weak. And the president, you know, can
5:40
Speaker 2: can talk about how he thinks the person that puts
5:43
Speaker 2: out the numbers is faking them or is bad at
5:45
Speaker 2: their job, whatever it might be. The numbers that came
5:49
Speaker 2: out that weakness in the labor market is what would
5:52
Speaker 2: justify this next coming rate cut to a lot of
5:55
Speaker 2: the FED members.
5:55
Speaker 3: Yeah, the numbers almost certainly weren't rigged, because that would
5:58
Speaker 3: require a vast conspiracy. But it's always the and I
6:02
Speaker 3: hope I'm not. Let me just I'll make the point
6:05
Speaker 3: and you can judge it. It's always the case that
6:07
Speaker 3: the numbers are estimated with great error, because that's the
6:10
Speaker 3: nature of a statistic. We don't use the word statistic
6:13
Speaker 3: as a synonym for number because we're trying to be fancy.
6:15
Speaker 3: A statistic literally, in this context means an estimate. That
6:18
Speaker 3: estimate has an error banned around it, And in the
6:22
Speaker 3: case of payrolls, it's huge. I think it's plus or
6:24
Speaker 3: minus one thirty, maybe one twenty. I want to say
6:26
Speaker 3: one thirty, Meaning so.
6:28
Speaker 2: When the jobs numbers come out, it's basically if there're.
6:30
Speaker 3: One thirty, it could be zero, or it could you're
6:33
Speaker 3: ninety percent confident that the true number is somewhere between.
6:36
Speaker 3: In this example, if you get a payroll print of
6:39
Speaker 3: one thirty, let's say, just for convenience, ninety percent confident
6:42
Speaker 3: you're between.
6:43
Speaker 2: Zero and two sixty.
6:44
Speaker 1: Yeah.
6:44
Speaker 2: Right.
6:45
Speaker 3: This is and this is not the fault of the
6:47
Speaker 3: people that collect or analyze the data. It's the nature
6:50
Speaker 3: of sampling. It's the same reason why when you see
6:52
Speaker 3: a poll, the poll says plus or minus three percent
6:55
Speaker 3: or five percent, depends on the size of the sample
6:59
Speaker 3: and other other factors.
7:01
Speaker 2: So we went there. Let's talk about the new nomination
7:04
Speaker 2: to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I knew nothing
7:08
Speaker 2: about him until today. His names E. J. Anthony, chief
7:11
Speaker 2: economist at the Conservative Heritage Foundation, PhD economist, and somebody who,
7:17
Speaker 2: to put it lightly, his economic views seem well outside
7:21
Speaker 2: the established norm of economist.
7:23
Speaker 3: So he's not really a researcher. He's more of an activist.
7:26
Speaker 2: There's a lot of.
7:27
Speaker 3: Dissing of him online, sure, by academic economists, and a
7:32
Speaker 3: lot of it is borderline snobbery, you know, looking at
7:35
Speaker 3: where he got his PhD, the fact that he's never
7:37
Speaker 3: been published stuff like that. Oh so never having been published.
7:41
Speaker 3: I'm getting published is hard, okay. You go through grueling
7:44
Speaker 3: rounds of editing, and it can be hurtful some of
7:49
Speaker 3: the things the reviewers say about your work, frankly, but
7:51
Speaker 3: they make you a better researcher in the long run. Obviously,
7:54
Speaker 3: I'm talking from firsthand experience there. It's a lot of work,
7:57
Speaker 3: so there is something we said for getting published in
7:59
Speaker 3: area in which you claim to have expertise. I have
8:01
Speaker 3: a problem with him not being recognized as a researcher
8:05
Speaker 3: in this area. He's also more political activist than a
8:08
Speaker 3: serious economist. I've read through his stuff and it seems
8:11
Speaker 3: mostly like editorializing, not a lot of rigorous research. In
8:15
Speaker 3: some he doesn't appear to be qualified for this job, Mike,
8:18
Speaker 3: and it's not a good look. He man to being
8:20
Speaker 3: a great administrator, a great motivator, a great manager, which
8:23
Speaker 3: I think is what the commissioner of the BLS has
8:25
Speaker 3: to be. You lead an organization, you know, you know
8:28
Speaker 3: what qualities I'm speaking about. He could turn out to
8:31
Speaker 3: be a great boss, but he does. He's not the
8:34
Speaker 3: obvious choice for this job, and it's going to feed
8:37
Speaker 3: speculation that the president wants to cook the books here,
8:40
Speaker 3: and that's that's unfortunate.
8:41
Speaker 2: But let's just say, let's see how it plays out.
8:44
Speaker 3: See how plays out?
8:44
Speaker 2: Thanks? I agree, Yeah, you know some of his more
8:47
Speaker 2: I guess, extreme economic views. Last year, he co authored
8:49
Speaker 2: a paper stating that the US economy was in recession
8:53
Speaker 2: last year. That's okay, twenty twenty two.
8:56
Speaker 3: A reasonable That was a little bit unreasonable at the time.
8:59
Speaker 3: But that's not really what I'm talking about. When I
9:02
Speaker 3: say his lack of serious research, I just mean the
9:06
Speaker 3: fact that he editorializes a lot yes and doesn't use
9:09
Speaker 3: the type of methods that trained economists use to answer questions.
9:14
Speaker 2: I think what it comes down to, once again for me,
9:16
Speaker 2: is that I have serious doubts that there was a
9:19
Speaker 2: grand conspiracy at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, And so
9:22
Speaker 2: whoever you appoint is probably going to come to the
9:25
Speaker 2: same conclusion that and will know pretty quickly. Either there
9:28
Speaker 2: was a grand conspiracy at the Bureau of Labor Statistics
9:31
Speaker 2: and you're going to have to fire everybody there because
9:33
Speaker 2: they all had to be in on it if there were,
9:36
Speaker 2: or you're going to come to the conclusion that there
9:37
Speaker 2: was no grand conspiracy and they're going to continue to
9:40
Speaker 2: produce the data, and you're either going to refuse to
9:43
Speaker 2: release it because you don't believe in it, or you're
9:45
Speaker 2: going to just continue producing the data that the way
9:48
Speaker 2: the Bureau of Laboratistics has I can't imagine there's learning
9:51
Speaker 2: to be some huge shift in how we produce it.
9:54
Speaker 3: What does this guy have to if he turns out
9:57
Speaker 3: to be a political hack just a puppet. Yeah, he's
10:00
Speaker 3: got a lot to lose. He might get a job
10:03
Speaker 3: on a conservative news channel after his tenure, but he's
10:06
Speaker 3: not going to be employable professionally. And he's invested a lot.
10:09
Speaker 3: This Antoni, I don't know him. Uh, he's invested a
10:13
Speaker 3: lot into his education and to him, he's invested a
10:16
Speaker 3: lot professionally in himself. Is he willing to compromise? I'd
10:20
Speaker 3: like to believe that he is not, As.
10:21
Speaker 2: My That's my point. I think that what we're going
10:23
Speaker 2: to have, Broker, is somebody that's going to come in
10:26
Speaker 2: and largely do the same thing that the BLS has
10:28
Speaker 2: been doing for decades now, which has produced highly reliable
10:32
Speaker 2: statistics about the US economy.
10:33
Speaker 3: Mike Antoni's gonna find and I'm just pronouncing his name
10:36
Speaker 3: as I think it should be pronounced. I'm not sure
10:37
Speaker 3: that's how he pronounces it. I think he's going to
10:39
Speaker 3: find that he doesn't have any like I wouldn't you
10:42
Speaker 3: go in there. You don't know what's going on. He's
10:46
Speaker 3: going to spend the first six months just getting the
10:47
Speaker 3: leg He does nothing like this today. He's a spokesperson
10:50
Speaker 3: for a i'll say formally conservative think tank because they've
10:55
Speaker 3: kind of gone off the rails to a traditional conservative
10:57
Speaker 3: like me. Anyhow, he's going to spend six months to
10:59
Speaker 3: a year just get in the lay of the land.
11:02
Speaker 3: It would be very difficult for him to impose his
11:04
Speaker 3: will on estimates.
11:06
Speaker 2: Let's take a quick break when we come back, a
11:09
Speaker 2: little bit of trivia. Here is next on the Financial Exchange.
11:13
Speaker 1: The Financial Exchange is Life on Series XM's Business radio
11:16
Speaker 1: channel one thirty two weekdays from eleven to noon. Get
11:20
Speaker 1: the latest business and financial news from across the country
11:23
Speaker 1: and around the world, and keep up to date on
11:25
Speaker 1: how it might affect your wallet. That's the Financial Exchange
11:29
Speaker 1: weekdays from eleven to noon on Series XM's Business Radio
11:32
Speaker 1: Channel one thirty two. This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
11:37
Speaker 1: Find daily interviews and full shows of the Financial Exchange
11:40
Speaker 1: on our YouTube page. Subscribe to our page and get
11:43
Speaker 1: caught up on anything and everything you might have missed.
11:46
Speaker 1: This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
11:53
Speaker 4: Time now for trivia on the Financial Exchange and on
11:57
Speaker 4: this day. In twenty thirteen, Whitey Bulger was found guilty
12:00
Speaker 4: of thirty one of his thirty two racketeering and firearms charges,
12:05
Speaker 4: and he's also implicated in eleven murders. Bulger was on
12:08
Speaker 4: the run for sixteen years before his capture in California.
12:12
Speaker 4: Today's question which actor portrayed Whitey Bulger in the twenty
12:17
Speaker 4: fifteen film Black Mass. Which actor portrayed Whitey Bulger in
12:21
Speaker 4: the twenty fifteen film Black Mass. Be the fourth person
12:26
Speaker 4: who texts us at six one seven three six two
12:29
Speaker 4: one three eighty five with the correct answer, and you'll
12:31
Speaker 4: win a Financial Exchange Show t shirt. The fourth correct
12:34
Speaker 4: response will be our winner. See the complete contest rules
12:37
Speaker 4: at Financial Exchange Show dot com.
12:39
Speaker 2: Uh mark the Wallstreet Journal reporting UH, I'm gonna give
12:44
Speaker 2: you the headline, which I think is a little bit mislead.
12:48
Speaker 2: The era of big raises for low paid workers is over. Specifically,
12:52
Speaker 2: what the article citing is the pace of wage growth
12:56
Speaker 2: for workers in the bottom quartile of the income spectrum
13:00
Speaker 2: compared to the top quartile. And so what they found was,
13:04
Speaker 2: you know, while that top quartile had relatively outpaced that
13:09
Speaker 2: bottom quartile for many years, starting around twenty fifteen and
13:14
Speaker 2: right through COVID, the pace of change for that lower
13:18
Speaker 2: quartile of income threshold was gaining faster than that upper group.
13:23
Speaker 2: And while that doesn't really speak to overall affordability in
13:29
Speaker 2: this country and overall, you know, success of that bottom
13:32
Speaker 2: quartile and their ability to make a living and make
13:35
Speaker 2: a living wage, it does speak to I don't know
13:37
Speaker 2: if it was a unique period of time, but a
13:40
Speaker 2: period of time where, yeah, you did see pretty big
13:43
Speaker 2: wage gains for that bottom income section, which I think
13:49
Speaker 2: has to be taken as good news when we look
13:51
Speaker 2: back on that.
13:52
Speaker 3: Yeah, there was an explosion in services and services hiring
13:56
Speaker 3: coming out of the COVID restrictions that pulled a lot
13:59
Speaker 3: of i'll just call the lower wage, even though it
14:00
Speaker 3: sounds rude, less skilled, less experience maybe is a better
14:04
Speaker 3: way to say it. Less experienced and thus less skilled
14:07
Speaker 3: and thus lower wage people.
14:08
Speaker 2: Go ahead, and I think many people would point to
14:10
Speaker 2: this that is really the only way to make that happen.
14:14
Speaker 2: When I look at when I see this, it's it
14:17
Speaker 2: was defined by a really low period of unemployment.
14:21
Speaker 3: Yeah, so right like that when you opened up after COVID,
14:23
Speaker 3: think of it as a vacuum you're unseiling.
14:25
Speaker 2: Even late twenty tens, though, you saw this trend occurring
14:28
Speaker 2: where yeah, I mean.
14:29
Speaker 3: Yeah, strong economies typically do they suck the I was,
14:31
Speaker 3: are you thinking of the vacuum analogy? You're unsealing a
14:34
Speaker 3: vacuum tube and it sucks all the air and a
14:37
Speaker 3: very strong, a high pressure things. There's pressure. There's to
14:40
Speaker 3: continue with the metaphor whatever your favorite metaphor is, you
14:43
Speaker 3: can you conjure something up? Point is, Yeah, this is
14:45
Speaker 3: typical of a rapidly expanding economy, which is what we
14:49
Speaker 3: had also created a lot of inflation. And we will
14:51
Speaker 3: all recall in twenty twenty one to twenty twenty three
14:55
Speaker 3: or so, before the labor market kind of leveled.
14:57
Speaker 2: Off, the unemployment rate had gotten as low as what
14:59
Speaker 2: three two point four percent or something like that, and that.
15:02
Speaker 3: Was quite low. Yeah, that is still quite low. As
15:04
Speaker 3: you pointed out earlier, that.
15:05
Speaker 2: Is when you see those big wage gains, is when
15:07
Speaker 2: your unemployment rate gets that low, it means that just
15:10
Speaker 2: about everybody that wants a job can have a job,
15:12
Speaker 2: and therefore that bottom quartle goes up. It's it's you know,
15:16
Speaker 2: I think arguably much more successful than say, raising the
15:19
Speaker 2: minimum wage for certain industries and things like that, in
15:22
Speaker 2: terms of growing that wage base. Although there are plenty
15:25
Speaker 2: of trained economists would debate me on that.
15:28
Speaker 3: I think again, what would they What would they quibble with?
15:31
Speaker 2: That's running an economy at full capacity is a better
15:35
Speaker 2: strategy for raising wages than implementing across the board minimum
15:40
Speaker 2: wage loss.
15:41
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, you want to push it as hard as
15:43
Speaker 3: you can without generating inflation.
15:45
Speaker 2: I don't.
15:45
Speaker 3: Minimum wages are generally viewed as a blunt They're not
15:47
Speaker 3: viewed as with as much hostility as they used to be,
15:50
Speaker 3: because a lot of work in the early nineties suggested, oh,
15:52
Speaker 3: they don't appear to effect unemployment. I think that changed
15:56
Speaker 3: a lot of people's views on the tech on the
15:59
Speaker 3: textbook effect of the minimum wage. But yeah, I think
16:01
Speaker 3: most economist would agree with you.
16:04
Speaker 2: The question then becomes why have we reversed now, because
16:07
Speaker 2: we did reverse in twenty twenty.
16:09
Speaker 3: Five and already answered it where back.
16:11
Speaker 2: To that point, Is it just weakness in the economy. Yeah,
16:14
Speaker 2: this is.
16:14
Speaker 3: Totally a typical cyclical behavior of the of the wage.
16:19
Speaker 3: I'm getting a little bit out of my depth here.
16:21
Speaker 3: This is a labor This is a weedy labor economics
16:24
Speaker 3: type question. But I think this is typical cyclical behavior.
16:28
Speaker 3: By that, I mean what wages do throughout the business cycle.
16:31
Speaker 3: They grow strongly early on level off, and then maybe
16:34
Speaker 3: even start to decline depending on skill level, as labor
16:39
Speaker 3: supply starts to outpace the growth, and labor supply starts
16:43
Speaker 3: to outpace the growth and labor demand. And that's probably
16:45
Speaker 3: where we are.
16:46
Speaker 2: Probably. It is just the most confusing part of this
16:49
Speaker 2: economy to me, though, is we are clearly seeing a
16:52
Speaker 2: slowdown and hiring. I don't think that's really.
16:54
Speaker 3: Debate businesses are saying, and it's the numbers.
16:57
Speaker 2: It didn't start during the Trump administration. It started during
16:59
Speaker 2: the Biden ministry. Now, so this isn't a political comment.
17:03
Speaker 2: It is a pretty observable fact that the pace of
17:07
Speaker 2: hiring has slowed down significantly over the course of the
17:10
Speaker 2: last couple of years. The question to me is does
17:15
Speaker 2: that actually end up driving the unemployment rate higher? Because
17:19
Speaker 2: what we are also seeing at the same time is
17:22
Speaker 2: a big shift in the demographics of this country, the
17:25
Speaker 2: pace of baby boomers retiring and their comfortability and doing so.
17:29
Speaker 2: And just you know, face facts, right, they're becoming eligible
17:32
Speaker 2: for SoCal security, they are they are becoming eligible for
17:35
Speaker 2: medicare it be abnormal to not see them retire.
17:38
Speaker 3: So what you're saying is the unemployment rate is a
17:40
Speaker 3: numerator and a denominator. That's the that's what a rate is.
17:44
Speaker 3: You got to look at what's going on in the
17:45
Speaker 3: denominator too, and that's shrinking.
17:48
Speaker 2: Look, I mean, if we only create twenty thousand jobs
17:51
Speaker 2: over the course of three months, then you're going to
17:53
Speaker 2: see the unemployment rate go up. I have no doubt
17:55
Speaker 2: about that. But I do wonder what that new neutral
18:00
Speaker 2: hiring rate is.
18:01
Speaker 3: I guess it's tough because they I've estimated it statistically,
18:04
Speaker 3: meaning you just solve the problem of well, what rate
18:07
Speaker 3: do you need to keep the unemployment rate at zero?
18:09
Speaker 3: That's not very a sound way of doing it, fundamentally speaking.
18:14
Speaker 3: I come up with like eighty, but that number will
18:16
Speaker 3: change as we get more data. It was as high
18:18
Speaker 3: as three hundred A couple of years ago. I don't
18:21
Speaker 3: know where it's going to be in six months. There
18:22
Speaker 3: are people who follow far more rigorous methods in estimating
18:27
Speaker 3: it and they end up with something close to that.
18:29
Speaker 3: So I'm confident in saying somewhere between fifty and one
18:32
Speaker 3: hundred keeps the unemployment rate stable. The problem I have
18:35
Speaker 3: with that is you're talking about numbers from two different surveys. Yes,
18:38
Speaker 3: so the relationship is just is just statistical when it
18:42
Speaker 3: comes down to it, which is always problematic.
18:44
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, I don't disagree. It is incredibly difficult to
18:47
Speaker 2: put your pulse, get the pulse on that and understand
18:51
Speaker 2: where that neutral hiring rate is. Just one mention that
18:55
Speaker 2: I thought was fascinating here about the continued stories about
18:57
Speaker 2: the labor market and specifically artificial intelligence impact. The rate
19:02
Speaker 2: of unemployment for computer science and computer engineering for those
19:06
Speaker 2: twenty two to twenty seven right now is six point
19:09
Speaker 2: one and seven and a half percent, respectively, according to
19:12
Speaker 2: the Federal Reserve of New York. That is more than
19:14
Speaker 2: double the unemployment rate among recent biology and art history graduates,
19:19
Speaker 2: which is just three percent.
19:21
Speaker 3: Well, because there were so few of the latter and
19:23
Speaker 3: so many demand I get it. Everybody swarmed into the
19:27
Speaker 3: former industry.
19:28
Speaker 2: But that AI demand, that AI is ACTUALI I don't know.
19:31
Speaker 2: Quick Break Wall Street watches.
19:33
Speaker 1: Next, bringing the latest financial news straight to your radio.
19:47
Speaker 1: Every day. It's the Financial Exchange on the Financial Exchange
19:50
Speaker 1: Radio Network. Time now for Wall Street. Watch a complete
19:56
Speaker 1: look at what's moving market so far today right here
19:59
Speaker 1: on the Financial Exchange Radio Network. Now.
20:04
Speaker 4: Markets are on the rise at eleven thirty four. The
20:07
Speaker 4: Dow Jones is up one percent or four hundred and
20:10
Speaker 4: thirty six points. The S and P five hundreds up
20:13
Speaker 4: eight tenths of a percent or fifty two points. The
20:15
Speaker 4: Nasdaq is up nine tenths of a percent or two
20:18
Speaker 4: hundred points, as markets continue to digest this morning's CPI report.
20:24
Speaker 4: T shirt maker Haynes Brands is up twenty four and
20:26
Speaker 4: a half percent after The Financial Times reported that Haines
20:29
Speaker 4: Brands was nearing a deal to be acquired by Guilden
20:32
Speaker 4: for nearly five billion dollars. Guilden shares are currently down
20:35
Speaker 4: five percent. Sinclair shares are up seventeen percent after Sinclair,
20:39
Speaker 4: one of the largest owners of television stations, started a
20:42
Speaker 4: strategic review of its business that could result in a
20:45
Speaker 4: merger or spinoff of its ventures business IT service management company,
20:50
Speaker 4: big Bear Ai is down twenty five percent after disappointing
20:54
Speaker 4: second quarter results. Big Bear AI lost seventy one cents
20:57
Speaker 4: per share, more than a loss of six cents per
20:59
Speaker 4: share estimated by analysts polled by Factset. Revenue of thirty
21:03
Speaker 4: two point five million trailed the street's forty point six
21:06
Speaker 4: million dollar forecasts. Stable coin issuer Circle Internet Group reported
21:10
Speaker 4: strong revenue growth in its first quarterly earnings as a
21:13
Speaker 4: publicly traded company. The stock is currently up seven and
21:16
Speaker 4: a half percent. President Trump called Intel CEO Lipboo Tenna
21:21
Speaker 4: success days after demanding his resignation. Intel shares are up
21:25
Speaker 4: three and a half percent. The semiconductor maker has been
21:28
Speaker 4: in Trump's crosshairs, who has gone back and forth in
21:30
Speaker 4: his approach to the CEO. In Nvidia shares are up
21:33
Speaker 4: a tenth of a percent. President Trump said he's open
21:36
Speaker 4: to allowing Nvidia to sell a downgraded version of its
21:39
Speaker 4: most advanced artificial intelligence chip to China. And finally, Apple
21:43
Speaker 4: shares are up one percent after Tesla CEO Elon Musk
21:46
Speaker 4: on Monday threatened legal action against Apple over alleged antitrust violations.
21:50
Speaker 4: On rankings of the grock ai chatbot app that's owned
21:54
Speaker 4: by Musk artificial intelligence startup Xai. Tesla shares are currently
21:59
Speaker 4: down half a percent. I am Ben Kitchenen. That is
22:02
Speaker 4: Wall Street Watch. Your trivia question today was who portrayed
22:09
Speaker 4: which actor portrayed Whitey Bulger in the twenty fifteen film
22:12
Speaker 4: Black Mass. That would be Johnny Depp. Your winner today
22:15
Speaker 4: is John from New Bedford. John will be taking home
22:19
Speaker 4: a Financial Exchange Show t shirt. We play trivia every
22:22
Speaker 4: day here on the Financial Exchange See complete contest rules
22:24
Speaker 4: at Financial Exchange Show dot com.
22:27
Speaker 2: Market Watch asks do roth ira conversion still make sense
22:30
Speaker 2: with the passage of the GOP tax law. If you're unfamiliar,
22:34
Speaker 2: a roth ira conversion is a specific strategy where you
22:38
Speaker 2: pull existing money out of a traditional ira or four
22:42
Speaker 2: oh one K and pay the taxes on a front
22:45
Speaker 2: in order to put it into your wrath. This draws
22:49
Speaker 2: a lot of confusion because people generally are aware that
22:52
Speaker 2: you can't contribute new money into a roth once you
22:55
Speaker 2: don't have earned income. This is different. This is not
22:58
Speaker 2: a contribution, it's conversion, and so it's treated differently. It's
23:02
Speaker 2: being brought up because well, let's talk about the basic
23:05
Speaker 2: premise of a roth Ira conversion. The basic premise is
23:08
Speaker 2: you do it because you believe you will be taxed
23:11
Speaker 2: at a lower rate today then you or I guess
23:15
Speaker 2: hypothetically your errors will be in the future. That's the
23:18
Speaker 2: entire premise of this is, Hey, if I can maybe
23:21
Speaker 2: get money out of here at a twelve percent tax
23:23
Speaker 2: rate to avoid twenty two down the road, that's some
23:27
Speaker 2: good math. And that math was pretty easy a few
23:30
Speaker 2: years ago when the current tax rates were, for instance,
23:35
Speaker 2: ten twelve and twenty two, but we're scheduled this year
23:40
Speaker 2: to go up to ten, fifteen and twenty five. Right,
23:43
Speaker 2: you could pretty easily do that math and say, look,
23:46
Speaker 2: by the time I'm retired or by the time i'm
23:48
Speaker 2: RMD age, tax rates are going to be higher with
23:51
Speaker 2: this new tax bill. It is a lot less clear
23:53
Speaker 2: to me if rates ever go back to those levels. Right,
23:56
Speaker 2: the current rates that are putting put in here are
23:59
Speaker 2: a pretty permanent lowering of those rates. Furthermore, you have
24:02
Speaker 2: special tax deductions for folks over the age of sixty
24:06
Speaker 2: five now, and that's another curve ball, because right, if
24:09
Speaker 2: you're doing your conversions at sixty two now, you have
24:12
Speaker 2: to do a more complex formula to figure out what
24:14
Speaker 2: your tax rate is going to be at seventy five,
24:17
Speaker 2: because there's more tax benefits to you at sixty five
24:21
Speaker 2: now than there were previously. The other near impossibilities figuring
24:25
Speaker 2: out which of these tax cuts are going to stick
24:27
Speaker 2: around and which ones are going to go away because
24:29
Speaker 2: a lot of these are new ones are due to
24:31
Speaker 2: sunset over the course of the next three years. I think,
24:36
Speaker 2: like with many other things financial planning, my conclusion is, yeah,
24:39
Speaker 2: roth Ira conversions still in many cases make a lot
24:42
Speaker 2: of sense, but not as many of them as three
24:46
Speaker 2: months ago before this tax bill was passed. That is
24:49
Speaker 2: my general conclusion is there are fewer people that this
24:53
Speaker 2: is going to make a lot of sense for than
24:55
Speaker 2: there were last year because of these changes to the
24:58
Speaker 2: tax code, and you don't want to put yourself in
25:01
Speaker 2: a position of overpaying in taxes now just to avoid
25:04
Speaker 2: lower tax rates down the road. That doesn't make sense. Clearly,
25:08
Speaker 2: this is a bit of a unique situation, and it
25:10
Speaker 2: is customized for each individual, but it's gotten more complicated now,
25:16
Speaker 2: I think, is just my general conclusion. Because tax rates
25:19
Speaker 2: will now diverge so significantly once you're over sixty five,
25:22
Speaker 2: that new standard deduction is a lot bigger because of
25:26
Speaker 2: the new state and local tax deductions caps that are
25:29
Speaker 2: in place for the next few years. You do really
25:32
Speaker 2: have to cross your t's and dot your eyes before
25:36
Speaker 2: you embark on one of these strategies that have become
25:40
Speaker 2: immensely popular over the last few years. They have been
25:43
Speaker 2: like this is the main tool that I feel like
25:45
Speaker 2: financial advisors go out there and tout these days as, Oh,
25:48
Speaker 2: we'll change your life because of rock conversions. My answer
25:51
Speaker 2: would be beware unless you're firmly in the camp of
25:54
Speaker 2: I really believe that tax rates are going to go
25:57
Speaker 2: through the roof over the course of the next thirty years.
26:00
Speaker 2: That'd be a good reason to convert money into roth
26:02
Speaker 2: if you were really convinced of that, But facts haven't
26:05
Speaker 2: been in evidence. Generally speaking, tax rates have moved down
26:08
Speaker 2: over the last thirty years and not much in the
26:10
Speaker 2: way of reversals on all of that.
26:12
Speaker 3: Our fiscal situation is so can I editorialize all this
26:15
Speaker 3: or ask a question anyway? Our fiscal situation is so bad.
26:19
Speaker 2: It would lead me to believe that income tax rates
26:21
Speaker 2: need to go up.
26:21
Speaker 3: Well, there's more tax uncertainty. I'll just leave it at that.
26:24
Speaker 3: And if you value certainty over uncertainty, and I hate
26:27
Speaker 3: to be a pointy head about this, Okay, well, piny heads.
26:30
Speaker 3: So economics says people value certainty and you'll pay to
26:33
Speaker 3: avoid uncertainty. If you think tax rates in the future,
26:37
Speaker 3: I'm not saying they're going to go way up, although
26:39
Speaker 3: I personally believe that they will. I also think inflation
26:41
Speaker 3: is going to go weig up. It's the only way
26:42
Speaker 3: to get out of our debt. I'll call it a
26:44
Speaker 3: debt crisis because it is a slow moving crisis and
26:47
Speaker 3: you shouldn't stay up at night thinking about it. But
26:49
Speaker 3: it is a fiscal crisis assuming we don't come up
26:52
Speaker 3: with a solution. Look, the solution is going to be
26:55
Speaker 3: print money, which is inflationary, or raise taxes. Neither one
26:58
Speaker 3: of those things is good. So in my view, you
27:00
Speaker 3: tax uncertainty, and I'm going to include inflation in that
27:02
Speaker 3: has gone up. So for someone that shares that view,
27:05
Speaker 3: it might be a little bit more nuanced. I'm not
27:09
Speaker 3: a financial planner of your caliber, so I think nobody
27:13
Speaker 3: should listen to me over what you just said, which
27:16
Speaker 3: is tried and true, sound financial planning advice. But I
27:19
Speaker 3: do wonder about tax uncertainty and why or not for
27:22
Speaker 3: some people it's worth paying a price to avoid.
27:24
Speaker 2: I do tend to agree there's something to be said
27:25
Speaker 2: for that predictability of knowing, Hey, this is going to
27:28
Speaker 2: be my tax rate and it's locked in from you.
27:31
Speaker 2: I don't know about children. If you have questions about
27:34
Speaker 2: your WROTH strategy, if you don't have a ROTH strategy,
27:37
Speaker 2: if you have no idea what I'm talking about and
27:39
Speaker 2: want to learn more about it, please give us a
27:41
Speaker 2: call at eight hundred three nine three four zero zero one. Again,
27:46
Speaker 2: this is one of the more complicated subjects that you
27:48
Speaker 2: will tackle as a retiree. It's probably not something you're
27:52
Speaker 2: going to do while still working, but if you want
27:54
Speaker 2: to learn more, the number again is eight hundred three
27:58
Speaker 2: nine three four zero zero one.
28:01
Speaker 1: Was paid for by Armstrong Advisory Group, a registered investment advisor.
28:04
Speaker 1: Nothing in the ad or in any Armstrong guide a
28:06
Speaker 1: specific financial, legal or tax advice. Consult your own financial
28:09
Speaker 1: tax into state planning advisors before making any investment decisions.
28:12
Speaker 1: Armstrong make contact you to offer investment advisory services.
28:16
Speaker 2: Well Mark, I think we might have spoken too soon
28:19
Speaker 2: when it comes to the new pick for the Bureau
28:21
Speaker 2: of Labor Statistics, What do you mean? E. J. Anthony
28:24
Speaker 2: in a interview with Fox Business. I don't know if
28:28
Speaker 2: this was today or when this was, but has now
28:33
Speaker 2: looked to be fair to him. He is not claiming
28:36
Speaker 2: that there is any sort of collusion or fraud happening
28:41
Speaker 2: at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He is claiming the
28:43
Speaker 2: President's already said that, yes, but he's not, probably because
28:47
Speaker 2: he doesn't have the protections of the president. But he's
28:48
Speaker 2: not saying. What he's saying is severe incompetence is what
28:52
Speaker 2: plagues the Buer of Labor Statistics. And so his suggestion
28:56
Speaker 2: is to stop producing the data.
28:58
Speaker 3: Oh god, he really did say that until well it's corrected.
29:00
Speaker 3: He said this. This is a quote. Apparently BLS should
29:03
Speaker 3: suspend issuing the monthly It's first, I'll finish the sentence.
29:07
Speaker 3: Should suspend issuing the monthly jobs report, but keep publishing
29:10
Speaker 3: the more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data.
29:15
Speaker 2: So here's the optics of this, and you can interpret
29:18
Speaker 2: it however you want. Bad jobs report comes out indicating
29:22
Speaker 2: a much weaker economy than previously thought. The President gets
29:25
Speaker 2: really upset and the president's handpicked successor to run the administration.
29:31
Speaker 2: Their solution, Yeah, it doesn't look good, is burying the data.
29:33
Speaker 3: No, it doesn't look good.
29:34
Speaker 2: Can I just it's bad optics? And it's precisely by
29:37
Speaker 2: the way what China did to their own government statistics
29:40
Speaker 2: about unemployment a few years ago when the Falla news
29:43
Speaker 2: came out. That was bad news for the government.
29:45
Speaker 3: I'll make a statistical point, which is you're never going
29:48
Speaker 3: to have more accurate data without a bigger sample or
29:52
Speaker 3: more frequent sampling, which requires money and work. So there's this.
29:57
Speaker 2: Or magically finding some way to get the response rates higher.
30:00
Speaker 3: Look, the political aspect of it is nauseating to be
30:04
Speaker 3: honest as a data person. The idea that you're not
30:06
Speaker 3: going to provide it because you don't like it under
30:09
Speaker 3: the pretext that we just want to make it better
30:13
Speaker 3: is blowny. Forgive me, but it is because making it
30:16
Speaker 3: better wouldn't just involve hiring more people spending a lot
30:18
Speaker 3: more money to increase your sample size, as anybody learns
30:21
Speaker 3: in a first year statistics class. So I don't unless
30:24
Speaker 3: he unless the next sentence out of his mouth, and
30:26
Speaker 3: they just don't report it is we're gonna put more
30:28
Speaker 3: money into it. We're gonna have more people in the field,
30:30
Speaker 3: and we're gonna get new computers for everybody and start
30:33
Speaker 3: paying for lunch at work so people work through it.
30:36
Speaker 3: I don't hear any of that. So what's been reported
30:39
Speaker 3: so far is actually pretty disturbing from my perspective as
30:42
Speaker 3: a data person, someone who who revers timely, competently compiled data.
30:49
Speaker 2: Again from a investor economics and just global perspective, the
30:56
Speaker 2: US government data on things like jobs and inflation is
31:01
Speaker 2: considered best in class.
31:02
Speaker 3: It is, Yeah, it is, and believe it or not, And.
31:05
Speaker 2: Don't get me wrong, there's still problems with it. Visions
31:08
Speaker 2: that we sampled.
31:08
Speaker 3: It's a sample. They're always always gonna be with a
31:11
Speaker 3: freaking sample of Pete's sake. Sorry, it's not like Tucker.
31:14
Speaker 2: But when you don't, when you do stuff like this,
31:18
Speaker 2: it challenges that credibility.
31:21
Speaker 3: He said it was rigged the president. Did I get
31:23
Speaker 3: where he's coming from. You could say that in private.
31:25
Speaker 3: I've muttered in private about my own paranoid little conspiracy theories.
31:30
Speaker 3: We all got him. You don't say that publicly. He's
31:32
Speaker 3: already tarnished.
31:34
Speaker 2: So again, this guy's got to be confirmed. We'll see
31:37
Speaker 2: if it all happens. But this is.
31:39
Speaker 3: Should he be in lighted? This Mike?
31:40
Speaker 2: Should he be? Should they?
31:41
Speaker 3: Should the Senate grow a pair and not confirm this guy.
31:44
Speaker 2: I don't have a vote, so I'm not gonna I'm
31:46
Speaker 2: not gonna jump in there.
31:47
Speaker 3: But I don't know.
31:48
Speaker 2: I think my opinions speculator like offering to kill the
31:51
Speaker 2: monthly jobs a.
31:52
Speaker 3: Deal breaker, is what I'm saying, shouldn't it be? I
31:55
Speaker 3: think this is the sole purpose of the BLS, Right, We're
31:58
Speaker 3: not gonna do it produce monthly data. We're not gonna
31:59
Speaker 3: do it.
32:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's take a quick break. When we come back, Stackord,
32:03
Speaker 2: let us next.
32:05
Speaker 1: Here The Financial Exchange every day from eleven to noon
32:08
Speaker 1: non Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two. Keep
32:12
Speaker 1: it here for the latest business and financial news and
32:14
Speaker 1: the trends on Wall Street. The Financial Exchange is now
32:18
Speaker 1: livee on Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two.
32:21
Speaker 1: Face He's the Financial Exchange Radio Network. The Financial Exchange
32:26
Speaker 1: streams live on YouTube. Subscribe to our page and stay
32:30
Speaker 1: up to date on breaking business news all morning long.
32:33
Speaker 1: Face He's the Financial Exchange Radio network.
32:39
Speaker 4: Now's a great time to register for the DAV five k,
32:42
Speaker 4: taking place on Saturday, November eighth, that ord Independence on
32:45
Speaker 4: Castle Island. The race has sold out each of the
32:47
Speaker 4: past four years, and slots are continuing to fill up quickly,
32:50
Speaker 4: so don't delay. Visit DAV five k to b Austin
32:54
Speaker 4: today and reserve your spot, or join our team here
32:57
Speaker 4: at the Financial Exchange by registering under team That's Saturday
33:02
Speaker 4: November eighth For this year's DAV five k. Sign up
33:05
Speaker 4: now at DAV five k Boston.
33:08
Speaker 2: I always love a good artificial intelligence side effect story,
33:14
Speaker 2: and one of those side effects is in the job
33:16
Speaker 2: application process. There are dueling things going on here. One
33:22
Speaker 2: many companies are now using artificial intelligence to sort through
33:26
Speaker 2: the hundreds of job applications that they get for jobs
33:30
Speaker 2: because it's so easy to apply for jobs that they
33:33
Speaker 2: need some way of filtering down and finding the credentials
33:36
Speaker 2: that they like. So they're having AI just go through
33:38
Speaker 2: these resumes and send off pre can responses. In response,
33:41
Speaker 2: employees are saying, Hey, if they're going to do that,
33:43
Speaker 2: then I'm just gonna have AI apply to jobs for
33:46
Speaker 2: me and write my cover letter specific to each job description.
33:49
Speaker 2: And it's leaving both employers and employees in a place
33:52
Speaker 2: where they feel like they can't trust what they're seeing
33:54
Speaker 2: on the jobs boards. So a few things that I've
33:56
Speaker 2: seen on this One employer that was interviewed talked about
34:01
Speaker 2: how they set up a job posting, but then they
34:04
Speaker 2: kind of include some like hidden instructions on a separate
34:07
Speaker 2: link you have to go to to actually apply to
34:09
Speaker 2: the job, And they only consider the resumes for people
34:11
Speaker 2: that figured out the puzzle of where you're actually supposed
34:14
Speaker 2: to apply here, because it's apparently pretty good at sorting
34:17
Speaker 2: through the AI tools that are trying to apply. The
34:21
Speaker 2: other piece is just that they're forcing interviews to be
34:25
Speaker 2: done in person, which like just speaking from personal interview
34:30
Speaker 2: experience here for a moment, I would not hire somebody
34:35
Speaker 2: to work on my team that I had never met
34:37
Speaker 2: in person. And I know this was a COVID thing,
34:40
Speaker 2: and like, you know, people feel differently about that. And
34:42
Speaker 2: you can do other things. You can have a zoom call,
34:44
Speaker 2: you can verify things via their their references, but I
34:50
Speaker 2: don't I mean, call me a grumpy old man, but
34:53
Speaker 2: I would generally not hire somebody for a serious position
34:57
Speaker 2: in my company, especially if that person was due to
35:01
Speaker 2: do was supposed to do in person work. But even
35:03
Speaker 2: if they weren't, even if they were going to be
35:04
Speaker 2: permanently remote, I want to meet you in person. I
35:07
Speaker 2: want to make sure you're a real, real human being,
35:09
Speaker 2: that I can trust you, and that I can, you know,
35:11
Speaker 2: shake your hand. I would not be willing to hire
35:14
Speaker 2: somebody in person, no remotely.
35:16
Speaker 3: Rather, no, no, the final decision should be made based
35:19
Speaker 3: on some sort of real time interaction.
35:20
Speaker 2: I would think, so, Yeah, if it's.
35:22
Speaker 3: A technical job, you could test technical I'm actually for
35:25
Speaker 3: testing technical expertise in real time if somebody claims to
35:28
Speaker 3: have it.
35:28
Speaker 2: I like that, And.
35:29
Speaker 3: AI could AI some sort of computer program designed to
35:34
Speaker 3: elicit that could be helpful.
35:36
Speaker 2: But on the other side, on the employer side of
35:38
Speaker 2: you know, these employers, part of what they have issue
35:40
Speaker 2: with is like, oh, we're giving a technical interview here,
35:44
Speaker 2: and we're trying to understand real skills, and so we're
35:47
Speaker 2: worried about people cheating via artificial intelligence. My response would be,
35:51
Speaker 2: if that person that you're interviewing is so damn good
35:55
Speaker 2: at artificial intelligence that they can trick you into believing
35:58
Speaker 2: that they know the answers to your technical question live
36:00
Speaker 2: while in an interview. You should hire them honestly, like
36:04
Speaker 2: you should hire that person that is impressive for them
36:07
Speaker 2: to be able to convince you a you know, I
36:10
Speaker 2: don't know a technical coder that you know this person
36:14
Speaker 2: knows what they're doing so well that they're able to
36:16
Speaker 2: produce the results at HOC. I don't really care. If
36:19
Speaker 2: you're using AI. That means that you are so good
36:21
Speaker 2: at it that you are going to be able to
36:23
Speaker 2: produce good results for my company. Yeah, I get that.
36:26
Speaker 2: If you're a doctor, I get that. If you're a doctor,
36:30
Speaker 2: then I actually want to know. I get that if
36:31
Speaker 2: you're an engineer that's going to build a bridge, that
36:34
Speaker 2: I need to know your actual skill set here. But
36:36
Speaker 2: for certain roles it's getting out. I don't care if
36:39
Speaker 2: you know the answer or not.
36:40
Speaker 3: Now, the term AI is getting thrown around mainly by
36:43
Speaker 3: companies who are seeking to entice you to use their
36:48
Speaker 3: product because you think it's more sophisticated than it is.
36:50
Speaker 3: It's being used far too liberally now to describe I'll
36:55
Speaker 3: just call it technologies.
36:57
Speaker 2: Well, I think the accusation here is they're using gender
37:00
Speaker 2: generative AI to get answers to questions.
37:02
Speaker 3: So I'm not going to be that's cheating for the
37:04
Speaker 3: most part. Yeah, because you can't assume that tool will
37:06
Speaker 3: be available to you on the job, nor can you
37:08
Speaker 3: assume that the answers are accurate. Yeah, fair and a
37:12
Speaker 3: person they are. I mean we've experimented with informally my
37:17
Speaker 3: own time, Me and others have experimented with it. And
37:20
Speaker 3: if you know your subject matter, you know that sometimes
37:24
Speaker 3: it's right, sometimes it's wildly off. You still need somebody
37:29
Speaker 3: with with subject matter domain, whatever you want to call it,
37:32
Speaker 3: expertise to judge the value of the finished product before
37:36
Speaker 3: you release it out there into the wild, whatever your business.
37:40
Speaker 2: As we close in on the noon hour, here markets
37:43
Speaker 2: strongly in positive territory, with SMP hovering around record territory.
37:47
Speaker 2: We've got the DOO, SMP, and NASDAK all strongly in
37:50
Speaker 2: positive territory. The DOO up four hundred and forty two
37:52
Speaker 2: points or one percent s and P five hundred up
37:56
Speaker 2: fifty four points or eight tenths of a percent, and
37:58
Speaker 2: the NASDAK close in on a full percentage point as well.
38:02
Speaker 2: And something that will be covering tomorrow Perplexity apparently offering
38:06
Speaker 2: to buy Google's Chrome browser for thirty four and a
38:09
Speaker 2: half billion dollars. More on that tomorrow, and a whole
38:12
Speaker 2: lot more, But that's all the time we have for today.
38:14
Speaker 2: Is to have a great rest of day, folks,