Latest news with #GreatRecession
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Daniel Lurie didn't get everything he wanted in his first S.F. budget. Neither did his critics
Mayor Daniel Lurie 's first San Francisco budget negotiations were not as dramatic as they could have been, despite vigorous opposition from labor unions and nonprofits over his plan to close the city's huge deficit. When Lurie introduced his proposal to eliminate a roughly $800 million two-year shortfall, he sought to cut 1,300 vacant jobs and about 100 filled positions. But city lawmakers on Thursday reached a deal with Lurie to prevent 56 layoffs, blunting the impact on San Francisco's vast municipal workforce that is already one of the largest in the country. The mayor allocated funding for about 33,000 city employees next fiscal year. Unions sounded the alarm about the budget even before it was proposed by Lurie, unsuccessfully urging him to avoid deep cuts by calling on tech companies to drop lawsuits seeking tax refunds. As the Board of Supervisors vetted the budget plan, labor groups escalated their resistance, disrupting a meeting until police removed protesting workers in handcuffs. Nonprofits also vehemently objected to Lurie's proposal to cut about $185 million in grant and contract spending. Ultimately, the deal that the supervisors' budget committee brokered with Lurie scaled back some of his most aggressive plans. By tweaking the mayor's two-year spending proposal, supervisors freed up $15 million to reduce layoffs, and they reallocated $26 million to invest in a variety of services that Lurie originally intended to cut. The money is a drop in the bucket of San Francisco's $7 billion general fund, but it will help avoid some of the most painful belt-tightening originally envisioned by Lurie. The budget deal, which must still be approved by the full board of supervisors next month, illustrates how Lurie is trying to balance the demands of lawmakers and organized labor while making good on promises to reduce San Francisco's persistent deficits. He didn't give the unions or supervisors everything they wanted. But he also didn't seek a massive overhaul of the city bureaucracy or press for layoffs on the scale the city saw during the Great Recession. Lurie said in a statement that the budget deal would help the city avoid spending 'money we don't have, while focusing our resources on providing safe and clean streets, addressing the fentanyl crisis, and advancing our economic recovery.' 'Passing this budget also required painful decisions that were, unfortunately, necessary to set up our entire city for success,' Lurie said. 'Leadership means making those tough decisions, and this group of city leaders did that.' Supervisor Connie Chan, who chairs the board's budget committee, said Lurie was put in a difficult position partly because recent city budgets under his predecessor, London Breed, were balanced with a heavy reliance on temporary funding sources. Lurie used far less one-time money in his first budget proposal than Breed did last year, according to the city controller's office. The mayor and supervisors also set aside $400 million to help shield the city from federal funding cuts under the Trump administration. 'We are looking to the future about how we protect San Francisco and make sure that San Francisco is solvent,' Chan said. 'That really is the common goal that got us through this budget process… I recognize that and I think the mayor recognizes that.' Chan said she and her colleagues have tried to do 'whatever we can to reverse the layoffs for our front-line workers and to protect as many direct services to the most vulnerable as possible.' 'Under the circumstances, I think that we have delivered that,' she said. SEIU 1021, the city's largest public-sector union, had a mixed reaction to the budget deal. Union president Theresa Rutherford said in a statement that her group was relieved that the agreement between supervisors and the mayor 'reverses layoffs of frontline workers.' But she was 'disappointed and concerned' about cuts to nonprofits and city services that remain in the spending plan. The budget would still cut about $171 million from grants and contracts, a $14 million reduction from what the mayor first proposed. 'We've been fighting hard, but our work is not done,' Rutherford said. 'We will continue to fight to protect public services, especially for those in our community who need them the most, and the rights of all the workers who provide those services, public and nonprofit alike. And we will hold the mayor accountable for reversing these layoffs.' One of the biggest sticking points in this year's budget negotiations involved changes that Lurie proposed in how the city spends revenue from a 2018 business tax that funds homeless services. The tax measure, Proposition C, earmarked specific percentages of the proceeds for permanent housing, mental health services, homelessness prevention and shelter and hygiene services. Lurie wanted to redirect about $90 million in unspent revenue from the tax to fund his priorities, namely homeless shelters, which he thinks are in dire need of expansion to get more unhoused people off the streets. The mayor also sought more flexibility in how his administration spends future revenue from the tax. After an extended debate and negotiations with the mayor's office, the budget committee reduced Lurie's $90 million reallocation request down to about $30 million. The committee also agreed to let Lurie more freely spend up to $19 million in extra revenue from the tax if approved by a simple majority of the board. That prompted some intense pushback from Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who questioned why supervisors were 'going to do away with a key provision' of Prop C, which originally required a supermajority board vote to alter the funding categories. 'Should we even have a Board of Supervisors at this point?' Fielder asked at a budget committee hearing. The Coalition on Homelessness advocacy group also lamented the decision, calling it a 'mayoral power grab' in a news release. 'San Francisco is not a kingdom, and it is not a corporation, it is a democracy,' Jennifer Friedenbach, the coalition's executive director, said in a statement. 'Prop C … was carefully constructed to ensure that data-driven, voter-approved mandates existed to build a responsive and efficient homeless system that was protected from wrongheaded political winds.' Chan, the budget chair, defended the committee's decision as a fair compromise. 'We negotiated with the mayor the best outcome (possible) in a very balanced spending plan that supports homeless families and homeless transitional-age youth,' Chan said in an interview. 'I also understand that at this moment and this time, there is also an urgent need to solve the crisis that we see on our streets.' Aldo Toledo contributed reporting.
Atlantic
17 hours ago
- Business
- Atlantic
The College-Major Gamble
This is Atlantic Intelligence, a newsletter in which our writers help you wrap your mind around artificial intelligence and a new machine age. Sign up here. When I was in college, the Great Recession was unfolding, and it seemed like I had made a big mistake. With the economy crumbling and job prospects going with it, I had selected as my majors … journalism and sociology. Even the professors joked about our inevitable unemployment. Meanwhile, a close friend had switched majors and started to take computer-science classes—there would obviously be opportunities there. But that conventional wisdom is starting to change. As my colleague Rose Horowitch writes in an article for The Atlantic, entry-level tech jobs are beginning to fade away, in part because of new technology itself: AI is able to do many tasks that previously required a person. 'Artificial intelligence has proved to be even more valuable as a writer of computer code than as a writer of words,' Rose writes. 'This means it is ideally suited to replacing the very type of person who built it. A recent Pew study found that Americans think software engineers will be most affected by generative AI. Many young people aren't waiting to find out whether that's true.' I spoke with Rose about how AI is affecting college students and the job market—and what the future may hold. This interview has been edited and condensed. Rose Horowitch: There are a lot of tech executives coming out and saying that AI is replacing some of their coders, and that they just don't need as many entry-level employees. I spoke with an economics professor at Harvard, David Deming, who said that may be a convenient talking point—nobody wants to say We didn't hit our sales targets, so we have to lay people off. What we can guess is that the technology is actually making senior engineers more productive; therefore they need fewer entry-level employees. It's also one more piece of uncertainty that these tech companies are dealing with—in addition to tariffs and high interest rates—that may lead them to put off hiring. Damon: Tech companies do have a vested interest in promoting AI as such a powerful tool that it could do the work of a person, or multiple people. Microsoft recently laid thousands of people off, as you write in your article, and the company also said that AI writes or helps write 25 percent of their code—that's a helpful narrative for Microsoft, because Microsoft sells AI tools. At the same time, it does feel pretty clear to me that many different industries are dealing with the same issues. I've spoken about generative AI replacing entry-level work with prominent lawyers, journalists, people who work in tech—the worry feels real to me. Rose: I spoke with Molly Kinder, a Brookings Institution fellow who studies how AI affects the economy, and she said that she's worried that the bottom rung of the career ladder across industries is breaking apart. If you're writing a book, you may not need to hire a research assistant if you can use AI. It's obviously not going to be perfectly accurate, and it couldn't write the book for you, but it could make you more productive. Her concern, which I share, is that you still need people to get trained and then ascend at a company. The unemployment rate for young college graduates is already unusually high, and this may lead to more problems down the line that we can't even foresee. These early jobs are like apprenticeships: You're learning skills that you don't get in school. If you skip that, it's cheaper for the company in the short term, but what happens to white-collar work down the line? Damon: How are the schools themselves thinking about this reality—that they have students in their senior year facing a completely different prospect for their future than when they entered school four years ago? Rose: They're responding by figuring out how to produce graduates that are prepared to use AI tools in their work and be competitive applicants. The challenge is that the technology is changing so quickly—you need to teach students about what's relevant professionally while also teaching the fundamental skills, so that they're not just reliant on the machines. Damon: Your article makes this point that students should be focused less on learning a particular skill and more on studying something that's durable for the long term. Do you think students really will shift what they're studying? Will the purpose of higher education itself change somehow? Rose: It's likely that we'll see a decline in students studying computer science, and then, at some point, there will be too few job candidates, salaries will be pushed up, and more students will go in. But the most important thing that students can do—and it's so counterintuitive—is to study things that will give you human skills and soft skills that will help you endure in any industry. Even without AI, jobs are going to change. The challenge is that, in times of crisis, people tend to choose something preprofessional, because it feels safer. That cognitive bias can be unhelpful. Damon: You cover higher education in general. You're probably best known for the story you did about how elite college students can't read books anymore, which feels related to this discussion for obvious reasons. I'm curious to know more about why you were interested in exploring this particular topic. Rose: Higher ed, more than at any time in recent memory, is facing the question of what it is for. People are questioning the value of it much more than they did 10, 20 years ago. And so, these articles all fit into that theme: What is the value of higher ed, of getting an advanced degree? The article about computer-science majors shows that this thing that everyone thought is a sure bet doesn't seem to be. That reinforces why higher education needs to make the case for its value —how it teaches people to be more human, or what it's like to live a productive life in a society. Damon: There are so many crisis points in American higher education right now. AI is one of them. Your article about reading suggested a problem that may have emerged from other digital technologies. Obviously there have been issues stemming from the Trump administration. There was the Claudine Gay scandal. This is all in the past year or two. How do you sum it all up? Rose: Most people are starting to realize that the status quo is not going to work. There's declining trust in education, particularly from Republicans. A substantial portion of the country doesn't think higher ed serves the nation. The fact is that at many universities, academic standards have declined so much. Rigor has declined. Things cannot go on as they once did. What comes next, and who's going to chart that course? The higher-education leaders I speak with, at least, are trying to answer that question themselves so that it doesn't get defined by external forces like the Trump administration.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Is The Housing Market Is About To Crash? 4 Reasons You Should Wait To Buy
You've probably heard the rumors: Inflation is out of control, the economy is tanking and a housing market crash might be on the horizon. Are any of these true? Learn More: Consider This: Andy Heller, a professional real estate investment speaker at Regular Riches, LLC, noted that while no one can predict the timing and severity of crashes, 'a prospective homeowner and investors can turn to history for clues.' Specifically, Heller cited the recession that followed the Savings and Loan collapse in the late 1980s, another recession that came with the bubble burst in the late 1990s and finally, the Great Recession caused by the banking collapse of 2008. Taking history into account and learning from it, there still might be a few reasons to consider waiting to buy a house until the the coast is clear and the housing market looks stable. William London, a partner at Kimura London & White LLP, said if 'property values drop after your purchase, you can find yourself in a position where you owe more on your mortgage than the home is currently worth.' This, London highlighted, can severely limit your ability to refinance, sell or use your home as a financial asset. 'Holding out during a market downturn can lead to achieving a better long-term investment,' added London. Find Out: According to Londa, a high-pressure, inflated market, buyers may waive contingencies like inspections or appraisal clauses to stay competitive. However, as London pointed out, 'That leaves you legally vulnerable if hidden defects or appraisal gaps surface. If a downturn is likely, it's wise to wait and buy with full protections in place.' 'If interest rates stabilize or decline along with home prices, potential buyers can expect an increase in negotiating strength and financing options,' explained London. London detailed that in the current scenario of high rates and high prices leads to slim margins, so delaying the purchase may aid in cutting the acquisition price and better loan terms. In a correction, London highlighted that distressed properties and increased inventory often enter the market, offering buyers more choices and stronger leverage. 'You may avoid overpaying for a home that may soon face stiff competition from better-priced alternatives,' London described. 'Though timing the markets is inherently faulty, clever buyers consider not only economic signals but likewise the contractual and legal risks of picking assets at their high point.' Based on historical trends, Heller outlined that not only did real estate values fall during past recessionary times, government efforts to stimulate economic recoveries typically include lowering interest rates to aid with economic recovery effort, including the housing market. 'Therefore, assuming the prospective homeowner maintains employment and creditworthiness, timing purchases to follow resets should not only result in lower property prices, yet lower interest rates which will provide the purchaser with lower payments for the life of the loan,' Heller summed up. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 10 Used Cars That Will Last Longer Than an Average New Vehicle I'm a Retired Boomer: 6 Bills I Canceled This Year That Were a Waste of Money This article originally appeared on Is The Housing Market Is About To Crash? 4 Reasons You Should Wait To Buy
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
10x Returns Lost: Redditors Reveal Which Stocks They Sold Way Too Early
Investing in stocks isn't easy. You have to stay on top of multiple companies and predict how the future will unfold. While investors confidently hold on to stocks during bullish cycles, many of these same investors fold during bearish markets. Many Redditors discussed stocks they sold too early in a recent post that is gaining momentum. Some Redditors lost out on massive, life-changing returns just by exiting reliable companies during corrections. "If I waited a year, I would be 10x," one Redditor stated when talking about buying Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) in 2020 and selling at breakeven in 2022. Don't Miss: GoSun's breakthrough rooftop EV charger already has 2,000+ units reserved — become an investor in this $41.3M clean energy brand today. Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. One investor regretted selling Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) shares eight years ago. Another investor sympathized and said they also sold Tesla eight years ago, citing 10% daily swings as the main reason for exiting. Tesla was one of the biggest winners during the pandemic and has gone up by more than 1,000% over the past eight years. While some posts contained nothing more than people talking about their losses, this one contains a valuable lesson. If you invest in a company for the long run, you have to endure volatility. Sharp price swings are especially common for growth stocks that have tremendous long-term potential. Ignore the price swings and consider where the company will be in the next decade. Another Redditor mentioned that they owned 1,000 shares of Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) about 18 years ago. Netflix doesn't receive as much attention since the FAANG acronym is out of style, but it's still a top-performing stock, especially for early investors. Trending: This Jeff Bezos-backed startup will allow you to become a landlord in just 10 minutes, with minimum investments as low as $100. Netflix shares have gained anywhere from 30,000% to 50,000% since 2007, depending on when investors bought their shares. That's a massive gain to lose out on, but 2007 was right before the Great Recession, so it was common for people to exit the markets frantically. One commenter offered an interesting perspective on Netflix stock that highlights how some investors were thinking at the time. "There were a lot of experts over the years, especially in the beginning, saying how other media companies were going to make [Netflix] irrelevant or basically put them out of business." Those concerns were unfounded, and it goes to show that some people forecast the absolute worst-case scenario. These overblown narratives may have caused some investors to abandon ship, especially during the Great Recession. Some people posted impressive gains in the comments section that don't feel so good knowing how the assets performed in the long run. One investor bought a bunch of Bitcoin at $0.50 apiece and sold them for $250 to buy a house. It's the type of gain you rarely get, but it still feels like the Redditor missed out on a great opportunity with Bitcoin now above $100,000 a coin. Another Redditor thought they did well when they bought Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ:AMD) shares for $2-$3 dollars and sold at $9.50. It's a 3x profit, but AMD stock now goes for more than $100 per share. It's easy to beat yourself up about missing out on 10x returns, but most investors should love a 3x return. While it makes for entertaining content, dwelling on missed opportunities isn't the right approach for building long-term wealth. You can learn from your mistakes and commit to long-term investments instead of selling amid volatility. See Next: $100k in assets? Maximize your retirement and cut down on taxes: Schedule your free call with a financial advisor to start your financial journey – no cost, no obligation. Warren Buffett once said, "If you don't find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die." Here's how you can earn passive income with just $100. Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article 10x Returns Lost: Redditors Reveal Which Stocks They Sold Way Too Early originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Axios
2 days ago
- Business
- Axios
Virginia unemployment rate sees longest rise since '08 crisis
Virginia's unemployment rate is on a steady five-month increase — the longest streak since the 2008 Great Recession. Why it matters: The Trump administration's federal job slashing and freezing of grants, contracts and medical research may be to blame. State of play: Virginia's unemployment rate climbed to 3.4% in May, per new U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data. While still below the national average (4.2%), the uptick marks the state's highest unemployment level since August 2021. By the numbers: The state's total labor force decreased by more than 11,500 compared with last May, according to new Virginia Works household survey data. Yes, but: Virginia's economy added nearly 50,000 nonfarm jobs over the past year, according to the state employment data, including 41,700 private sector jobs. Also on the rise: Local government jobs (9,900) and state jobs (2,700). The intrigue: The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it is moving the first major federal agency — the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) — out of D.C. to Alexandria, Virginia.
