PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Invierno 2024

[Derby]

Es más simple y eficaz prohibir la venta de la propiedad del suelo. Es una propiedad imaginaria. Si sacas el suelo de los bienes del comercio, lo que debes calcular entonces es el cánon del coste de construir la superficie. Funciona como un alquiler, con la diferencia de que el solar no tiene precio ni genera por tanto "renta de propiedad".

¿Cuál sería el fundamento para declarar el suelo "res extracommercium"? Una cosa son los precios públicos, con la intervención de la Administración para la provisión de un elemento necesario para cubrir las necesidades básicas de la ciudadanía; y otra muy diferente la que defiendes: que es considerar un elemento (el suelo) fuera del comercio. "Res extracommercium" lo son por su propia naturaleza y no veo el fundamento para que el suelo entre en esa categoría.
Gracias de antemano por tu explicación. Saludos Saturno!

[Vipamo]

Por cierto, Ilia Tupiria es el nuevo campeón de la UFC del peso pluma.
Ganó por KO en el segundo asalto a Alex Volkanovski.
Ilia mostró una técnica de boxeo en larga, media y corta distancia de élite mundial. En el primer asalto el campeón Volkanovski pudo conectar con unas patadas muy duras. Pero en el segundo asalto Ilia subió la presión y empezó a lanzar combinaciones de boxeo que acabaron por sucumbir al veterano campeón.

Esperemos que Ilia pueda hacer una defensa en España y que los medios den la cobertura merecida al deporte de contacto.

Que parece que solo existe el fútbol.

¿Y por qué no recuperamos las luchas de gladiadores?, y en horario infantil a poder ser. 

Ya las tenemos. A diario en tu telediario de cabecera y en directo desde  Ucrania e Israel. Donde solo mueren rusos y terroristas.

[el malo]

Efectivamente no hay planificación. Como mucho se sale del paso.

¿Creen que la empresa privada planificó cómo responder al invierno demográfico? O al coste del ladrillo y su impacto en los salarios. Tuvo que venir la pandemia para demostrar que el teletrabajo era posible, no para todo pero sí mucho más de lo que se había tolerado hasta entonces. La reacción en los años siguientes ya han visto cuál ha sido: tratar de revertirlo por el colapso inmobiliario que ha provocado en las oficinas.

Si esto le ha pasado a las empresas, imaginen el Estado con lo lento y burocrático que es para muchas decisiones. En este asunto de la vivienda se actuará como suele pasar: tarde y a rebufo de los acontecimientos.

Que van a intentar un último latrocinio con la Sareb antes del petardazo final, ni lo dudo. Lo único: quizá ya no hay apenas tiempo. Los grandes a nivel mundial ya están vendiendo (vean las noticias que trae Derby). En España nos enteraremos un par de años después y con consecuencias más duras. Como en todas las crisis mundiales desde hace un siglo o más.

Dos comentarios a esto.

Para el primero, me pongo el gorro de papel albal en la cabeza y les cuento algo que he pensado muchas veces y hace mucho que no comento con nadie.

Hacia 2018, la empresa en la que trabajo empezó una digitalización express a nivel mundial basada, como no, en el universo Office365. Somos miles de empleados repartidos por muchos países y teníamos centenas de millones de dólares en servidores y centros de datos.

No fuimos los únicos. Hablando con gente bien posicionada en otras grandes empresas me decían lo mismo, la carrera express por la digitalización, incluso parando otros proyectos críticos a nivel comercial.

Todos lo entendíamos. Mejora de eficiencias, ahorro de costes brutal, todo en la nube (aunque sea la de Microsoft) y miedo a que tu competidor directo lo hiciera antes que tú y te quedaras atascado. Lo que resultaba extraño era la prisa con la que había que hacerlo todo. El miedo a la competencia, para mí, no justificaba que no pudiera haber 2 ó 3 meses de retraso en un proyecto de esta magnitud.

Al final hacemos un esfuerzo titánico y para septiembre de 2019 la cosa se pone en marcha. Para diciembre ya teníamos el 80% de la plantilla trabajando en Teams (una auténtica barbaridad teniendo en cuenta el tamaño de la empresa) y para marzo ya estábamos todos listos y los errores más importantes estaban corregidos. El resto de grandes empresas que conozco tuvieron timings parecidos, mes arriba, mes abajo. Nos gastamos muchos millones de dólares en hacer que todo funcionara en tiempo record (no sólo son sistemas, también es formación, migraciones, nuevos procesos, etc. etc.)

Unos meses después estamos todos encerrados , trabajando en remoto sin interrupciones, felicitándonos por haber completado la digitalización a tiempo y sudando tinta pensando qué hubiera pasado si el encierro nos pilla con los sistemas antiguos.

Tremendo el timing ¿eh? Y si a eso le añadimos que una de las voces más fuertes a favor de la cuarentena fue Bill Gates, pues ya podemos dejar volar la imaginación y acabar con la camisa de fuerza en una sala acolchada.

Me quito el gorro de albal.

Mi segundo comentario es sobre la falta de trabajadores. Estoy de acuerdo en que van a hacer falta currantes a paladas, con una salvedad. Hacen falta currantes para mantener los obscenos niveles de productividad y de beneficios de hoy.

Piensen el mundo hace 40 años. Mi empresa trabajaba con una oficina llena de gente en la que había máquinas de escribir, teléfonos, faxes, correo ordinario y todas esas antiguallas. La gente incluso fumaba en la oficina 

Hoy en día se hace lo mismo con la inmediatez de Teams, el correo electrónico, los archivos compartidos (nada de esperar al mensaka en la moto que te trae el tubo con los A3 del proyecto). Y la empresa ya daba muchos millones de beneficio y pagaba sueldos cojonudos para la epoca.

Con la tecnología actual se podrían conseguir productividades superiores a las de hace 40 años con la mitad de gente, y el mundo seguiría girando. Obviamente esto tiene que ser generalizado y darse en todas las empresas a la vez. Al final es capitalismo es competencia y si todo el mundo tiene las mismas limitaciones, nos mantenemos igual. Claro, no ganas miles de millones, sólo ganas cientos de millones. ¿De verdad importa? Al 99% de la pirámide le da igual. Nunca va a ver esas cifras en ninguna parte.

A lo que sí va a afectar es a los pisitos y a las rentas aproductivas en general, pero yo soy optimista respecto al factor trabajo y empresa.

A eso súmenle empresas billonarias que si desaparecieran de la noche a la mañana al mundo le daría igual (Meta, Netflix, Disney, etc. etc.). Sería una guarrada quedarnos sin contenido, pero nadie se muere por no ver la última serie o el último post del gato del vecino. Ahí hay mucha fuerza laboral que puede liberarse para menesteres más útiles.

[pollo]

Por cierto, Ilia Tupiria es el nuevo campeón de la UFC del peso pluma.
Ganó por KO en el segundo asalto a Alex Volkanovski.
Ilia mostró una técnica de boxeo en larga, media y corta distancia de élite mundial. En el primer asalto el campeón Volkanovski pudo conectar con unas patadas muy duras. Pero en el segundo asalto Ilia subió la presión y empezó a lanzar combinaciones de boxeo que acabaron por sucumbir al veterano campeón.

Esperemos que Ilia pueda hacer una defensa en España y que los medios den la cobertura merecida al deporte de contacto.

Que parece que solo existe el fútbol.

¿Y por qué no recuperamos las luchas de gladiadores?, y en horario infantil a poder ser. 

No entiendo a qué cuento viene el comentario del horario infantil cuando no se ha dicho eso. Puestos a decir chorradas también podemos poner en todos los canales La abeja Maya 24/365 y par de pinzas en la boca de todos para obligarnos a sonreir. Pero es que la realidad es distinta y hay gente e inclinaciones de todo tipo.

Y a mí en particular no me interesan estos deportes, pero este pensamiento cándido en el que en el mundo solo deberían pasar cosas chachis y positivas y todo lo demás no es humano me resulta absurdo por el poco contacto con la realidad que tiene.

[tomasjos]

Cada vez parece más claro que estamos entre 2007 y 2008. A ver cuál es el punto de inflexión, el acontecimiento que genere la reacción en cadena

[sudden and sharp]

Ya está puesto el "escudo".. (Je, je.)

[Benzino Napaloni]

Hombre, malo... no sé  . Yo allá por 2014 trabajaba en un grupo distribuido entre España, Brasil, y Suecia. Al mismo tiempo. Ni que decir tiene que teníamos que tirar de herramientas telemáticas aunque fuese con el ya absurdo de cada uno desde una oficina.

E incluso antes, en 2008, ya me las vi con un equipo de QA deslocalizado en la India. Para mí la pregunta, más que por qué a la carrera, es por qué no antes. Dado que las herramientas para digitalizar procesos y ahorrar métodos del siglo pasado ya estaban ahí.

Activar el teletrabajo iba a tener una consecuencia obvia que ya estamos viendo: la muerte de la burbuja inmobiliaria de oficinas (aunque el residencial aún se resiste el jodío). Algo se tenían que haber olido los grandes inversores de oficinas, y más de uno ahora tiene bocata de ladrillo hasta empacharse.

Me cuadra más que la carrera por digitalizarse fuese un simple "mariquita el último", el mismo que sucede con el inmobiliario cuando el que maneja la información privilegiada "misteriosamente" se marca un Rockefeller y vende justo antes del tastarrazo.


Lo que está claro es lo que dice tomasjos. Flota en el ambiente lo mismo que justo antes del crack. Los rentistas subidos al monte porque "ej lo cay", y las ratas más gordas calladas como un muerto o replegándose en silencio. ¿Puede ser éste el año?

[Derby]

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-tests-four-day-workweek-amid-labor-shortage/a-68125506

Germany explores 4-day workweek amid labor shortage

Less work, same money, more happiness and productivity. As of February 1, 45 companies in Germany are testing a 4-day workweek.

It sounds counterintuitive: While Germany, like many countries, struggles to find enough workers, dozens of companies are starting an experiment that will see employees work a day less. In February, 45 companies and organizations in Europe's largest economy will introduce a 4-day workweek for half a year. Employees will continue to receive their full salary. The initiative is led by the consulting firm Intraprenör in collaboration with the non-profit organization 4 Day Week Global (4DWG).

Advocates argue that a 4-day workweek would increase worker productivity and, by consequence, help alleviate the country's skilled labor shortage. Germany has a long-held reputation for industriousness and efficiency. Yet, in recent years, productivity in Germany has fallen.(...)

[Derby]

https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/02/37117670/former-home-depot-ceo-bob-nardelli-warns-of-tremendous-shift-in-labor-market-predicts-no-soft-landin

Former Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli Warns Of 'Tremendous Shift' In Labor Market, Predicts No Soft Landing For US Economy

Former Home Depot Inc. CEO Bob Nardelli has raised concerns about the ongoing economic pressures and the potential for a significant shift in the labor market.

What Happened: Nardelli, pointed out that the U.S. economy is not showing signs of a swift recovery. He highlighted the impact of rising inflation and the possibility of widespread layoffs, in an interview with Fox Business’ “Cavuto: Coast to Coast” on Monday.

He emphasized that the causes of inflation are rooted in raw materials, transportation, and energy, as well as wage increases. Nardelli also noted a significant shift in employment, with a growing number of layoffs across various sectors.

“We’re now seeing people being laid off,” Nardelli said, “If you look at chips, they’ve laid off almost 40,000 people. We’re seeing a tremendous shift in employment out there where people are being laid off.”

Several major companies, including Cisco, Snap, Estée Lauder, Amazon, Citigroup, and UPS, have recently announced layoffs amid market volatility.

Despite a 136% increase in layoffs in January, the pace of job cuts by U.S. employers is still about 20% lower than the previous year. However, Nardelli predicts that the U.S. is still in an inflationary period and may not experience a soft landing.

“Ford laid people off because of EV. GM laid people off because of the cruise program. We’re just seeing Stellantis lay people off because of the UAW wage increase,” Nardelli said. “So no, I think we’re still in an inflationary period. I think we’re not going to see a soft landing would be my prediction, but I hope I’m wrong.”

Why It Matters: Nardelli’s warning comes at a time when the U.S. economy is grappling with a series of challenges. The labor market has been undergoing a significant transformation, with companies restructuring their workforces to invest in new technologies like AI.

Despite a slight dip in January, the U.S. inflation rate remains high, challenging the Federal Reserve’s plans for rate cuts. Economists have expressed concerns about the persistent inflationary pressures, which could necessitate further rate hikes.

In April, Nardelli had also warned about the complexity of the U.S. economy and the potential for a wave of bankruptcies. His recent comments underscore the ongoing challenges facing the U.S. economy and the need for a comprehensive strategy to address these issues.

[Derby]

https://www.businessinsider.com/economy-layoffs-why-keep-hearing-about-tech-media-job-cuts-2024-1

The economy is roaring. So why do we keep hearing about layoffs?

Employees at the Los Angeles Times, eBay, Microsoft, and UPS are just some of the workers impacted by recent layoff announcements in January.

However, despite recent layoff news about media, tech, and other prominent industries, the layoffs and discharges rate for the country has persistently stayed low, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Nick Bunker, the economic research director for North America at the Indeed Hiring Lab, noted in recent commentary that recent layoff news doesn't indicate what the rest of the workforce is experiencing, similar to the spate of tech layoffs in early 2023.

"Both waves of tech layoffs appear to be mostly about rebalancing workforces to adjust to the current economic outlook after a burst of hiring in 2021," Bunker said. "That phenomenon is not happening in the broader labor market."

That is, while it may seem like we keep hearing about new job cuts, this news is not representative of what layoffs among companies have actually looked like.

A Tuesday news release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the US layoffs and discharges rate was 1.0% in December and has hovered near that rate throughout 2023.

Still, the news from companies in tech can be important to note.

"What happens in tech may have an outsized salience to everybody, because it's sort of the pinnacle of the US economy," Julia Pollak, ZipRecruiter's chief economist, told Business Insider in early 2023.

But even the latest data for the information sector — which includes some of the tech industry as well as broadcasting, newspapers, and others in the publishing world — shows no recent surge in layoffs. That sector had a layoffs and discharges rate of 0.8% in December, which is actually a small dip from the 0.9% in November. The new data point also suggests a big drop from how the sector kicked off 2023. It had a rate of 1.5%, same as the monthly rates in the last quarter of 2022.

Daniel Zhao, lead economist for Glassdoor, wrote in commentary about the new data that "layoffs remain low by historical standards." The number of layoffs and discharges in December was 1.6 million. Zhao noted that "the scale here" means that this number probably isn't really going to change because of the recent layoff announcements.

There are also industries that had a higher layoffs and discharges rate than the information sector in December, such as construction as well as leisure and hospitality. While the rate for the construction sector was 2.1% in December, that's not too high when looking at historical data.

Other parts of the latest data release also show a still-strong labor market. Amid the December layoffs and discharges, there were 9.0 million job openings, which isn't too far off from November's level. The monthly number of quits dropped slightly — from 3.5 million in November to 3.4 million in December.

The number of hires did tick up in December but is still cooler than in the past. For instance, December's level was 5.6 million compared to over 6 million a year ago in December 2022.

"Lower hiring can lead to a higher unemployment rate as workers out of a job have a harder time finding work," Bunker wrote in commentary about the new data release. "The good news is that the ranks of the newly jobless are unlikely to increase: the layoff rate is still very low and has only been above its pre-pandemic low for one month of the last three years."

Labor market experts already expect it to be tougher to get work this year. Kory Kantenga, senior economist at LinkedIn, said in a written statement to Business Insider in late 2023 that "we expect to see continued caution in hiring on the part of employers moving into 2024."

This also comes at a time when the US economy ended last year holding strong. The advance estimate for GDP in the fourth quarter came in above the forecast. While real GDP was expected to grow at an annualized rate of 2.0%, the estimate was 3.3%.

"It's unusual to be in this middle ground where lower hiring isn't married with higher layoffs, but it offers some optimism that a re-acceleration in the economy could thaw the freeze, boosting hires & quits," Zhao recently wrote.

[Derby]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/18/anger-grows-at-china-struggling-shadow-banks

‘It’s legalised robbery’: anger grows at China’s struggling shadow banks

Investors in one of the country’s ailing financial trusts have realised that the state may no longer always protect them

Wang Jin felt sure that he could invest in Sichuan Trust, an institution that was part of one of what he describes as the “four pillars” of China’s financial system: banks, securities, insurance and trusts. Promised a return on his investment of 8.3%, he handed over 1.6m yuan (£178,000) in 2019. “The trust had a state licence, so we believed in its integrity,” Wang (not his real name) recalls.

Unluckily for him, in May 2020, the company said that it would be unable to repay 20bn yuan of investments. Protests ensued, with hundreds of middle-aged investors gathering outside the headquarters in Chengdu to demand their money back. By the end of the year, the local government had taken over the firm, which was reported to have a shortfall of more than 30bn yuan on its books, although the company said the sum was closer to 25bn.

Now, Wang is one of more than 8,000 investors who have been given until 5 March to accept a sliding scale repayment plan that would return 80% of capital to the smallest investors, while those who had invested more than 10m yuan would get back 40%. Investors are furious. The offer is “legalised robbery”, one of them says, in chat messages seen by the Observer.

The troubles at Sichuan Trust are a microcosm of the strain spreading through China’s £2.3tn trust industry as an economic downturn, combined with tighter government regulation, risks torpedoing a major part of the “shadow” banking industry that has filled the gaps left by traditional financial institutions.

“Sichuan Trust was one of the earliest to fail,” says Diana Choyleva, chief economist at the consultancy Enodo Economics. “But its issues are broadly representative of issues that face the whole industry because of the rolling crisis in real estate.”

The trusts are a uniquely Chinese phenomenon. They are financial institutions that blend banking, wealth management and hedge fund activities, offering investment products to institutions and wealthy individuals. They exist to provide credit to parts of the economy that have traditionally struggled to access financing from traditional banks, such as property and mining.

As private sector companies, particularly property developers, boomed in the 00s, trusts became an important part of the economy, providing cash to hungry businesses. They have become a pillar of the non-bank financial system – otherwise known as shadow banking – that has come to account for between 40% and 60% of China’s GDP, although estimates vary wildly.

Sichuan Trust has blamed the regulatory squeeze on the sector for its troubles. But analysts had been raising the alarm about practices at the firm for years. Sichuan Trust has “consistently stood out for the past 10 years as being one of the more trouble-prone players in the industry,” says Jason Bedford, an analyst in Singapore who is an expert on China’s trust sector. In 2021, the company was fined 34.9m yuan for making illicit loans and illegally transferring money to shareholders.

Considering the firm’s troubles, Bedford says that the level of the proposed restitution is “quite high”, which “suggests either government or other money might be funding those payouts”.

Several investors wrote to China’s National Administration of Financial Regulation, demanding to know what assets were ­underlying the trusts’ investments. But in January the authorities refused, ­saying that the information was a “state secret”.

Wang says: “It’s normal to take our money and invest it, and if it does lose money, or the investment fails, that’s normal, and we’ll accept that.”

But he and other investors suspect foul play, especially since the former controlling shareholder of the company, Liu Canglong, was detained by police in 2021. Sichuan Trust declined to comment for this article.

While Sichuan has not disclosed its holdings, they are likely to include property assets. Trusts have disproportionately helped to finance China’s real estate boom, which since 2008 has been one of the main drivers of its economic growth. That makes them particularly vulnerable to contagion from the current downward spiral in the property market. According to the publicly available financial statements, between 6% and 7% of their lending is to real estate. But Bedford estimates the exposure is more like 30-35%, with lending often disguised under other structures or industries.

Since Beijing unleashed a regulatory whirlwind on the property sector in 2020, which was aimed at deleveraging the sector, real estate has been in the doldrums. Although the government has since backpedalled on some of these measures in an effort to boost the market, lending to property developers remains low – not least because developers no longer want cash to build flats that people are not buying.

“In the long term, trusts will have to fundamentally change their business model,” says Choyleva. They may shift their financing towards the government’s preferred industries, such as hi-tech manufacturing. But banks are much more willing and able to lend to these companies than they were 20 years ago, reducing the demand for trust products.

“As the potential investment returns in this area are much more uncertain than during the peak years of property growth, the attractiveness of their products to retail investors will also decrease,” says Choyleva.

All this is little solace to middle-class investors such as Wang, who increasingly feel that the government has broken the social contract that allowed people to get rich so long as they didn’t get involved in politics. “It’s robbing people’s blood and sweat … it’s the government doing this: it’s shameless,” he says.

There is a sense that China’s leaders, who are becoming less keen on bailouts, in case they sustain economic bubbles, are not sympathetic to well-to-do people such as Wang.

Trust investors normally need a minimum of about 1m yuan in cash to get started. The firms promise higher interest rates than traditional banks in exchange for higher levels of risk. But their practices are opaque and there is widespread concern that investors are not made fully aware of the risks of their investments.

Bedford recalls the boss of a major trust company saying: “Banks do whatever they are explicitly permitted to do. Trust companies do anything, so long as they are not explicitly not permitted to do so.”

In 2018, China’s regulators introduced a host of reforms to try to get a grip on the shadow banking sector, including banning financial institutions from offering guaranteed returns on investments. In recent years it has also allowed an increasing number of trust firms to default; in January, Zhongzhi Enterprise Group, a shadow banking institution with up to £50bn in debts, filed for bankruptcy.

“What is happening is kind of in line with what the government has been striving for, for a very long period of time,” says Dinny McMahon, the head of China markets research at Trivium, a consulting firm – to establish the principle that an investor “should go in with their eyes open”.

But even as trusts run into crises, wealthy Chinese people who cannot move their money out of the country have few places to invest their cash. During China’s boom years, the rich put money into property, the stock market or wealth management products. All three of those industries are crashing.

This reflects a wider shift in China’s economic policymaking, with Beijing increasingly reluctant either to save failing companies or to inject the massive stimulus that economists say is needed to reboot the flagging economy. Some analysts even believe that Xi Jinping, China’s leader, no longer sees the economy as the ultimate indicator of his success.

In 2018, Daniel Rosen and Logan Wright, researchers at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that “periods of financial stress with the potential for crisis have been relatively short-lived” because of the belief that the government would “step in to resolve any financial instability”. But that belief is starting to fade.

[sudden and sharp]

https://www.businessinsider.com/economy-layoffs-why-keep-hearing-about-tech-media-job-cuts-2024-1

The economy is roaring. So why do we keep hearing about layoffs?

Employees at the Los Angeles Times, eBay, Microsoft, and UPS are just some of the workers impacted by recent layoff announcements in January.

However, despite recent layoff news about media, tech, and other prominent industries, the layoffs and discharges rate for the country has persistently stayed low, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Nick Bunker, the economic research director for North America at the Indeed Hiring Lab, noted in recent commentary that recent layoff news doesn't indicate what the rest of the workforce is experiencing, similar to the spate of tech layoffs in early 2023.

"Both waves of tech layoffs appear to be mostly about rebalancing workforces to adjust to the current economic outlook after a burst of hiring in 2021," Bunker said. "That phenomenon is not happening in the broader labor market."

That is, while it may seem like we keep hearing about new job cuts, this news is not representative of what layoffs among companies have actually looked like.

A Tuesday news release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the US layoffs and discharges rate was 1.0% in December and has hovered near that rate throughout 2023.

Still, the news from companies in tech can be important to note.

"What happens in tech may have an outsized salience to everybody, because it's sort of the pinnacle of the US economy," Julia Pollak, ZipRecruiter's chief economist, told Business Insider in early 2023.

But even the latest data for the information sector — which includes some of the tech industry as well as broadcasting, newspapers, and others in the publishing world — shows no recent surge in layoffs. That sector had a layoffs and discharges rate of 0.8% in December, which is actually a small dip from the 0.9% in November. The new data point also suggests a big drop from how the sector kicked off 2023. It had a rate of 1.5%, same as the monthly rates in the last quarter of 2022.

Daniel Zhao, lead economist for Glassdoor, wrote in commentary about the new data that "layoffs remain low by historical standards." The number of layoffs and discharges in December was 1.6 million. Zhao noted that "the scale here" means that this number probably isn't really going to change because of the recent layoff announcements.

There are also industries that had a higher layoffs and discharges rate than the information sector in December, such as construction as well as leisure and hospitality. While the rate for the construction sector was 2.1% in December, that's not too high when looking at historical data.

Other parts of the latest data release also show a still-strong labor market. Amid the December layoffs and discharges, there were 9.0 million job openings, which isn't too far off from November's level. The monthly number of quits dropped slightly — from 3.5 million in November to 3.4 million in December.

The number of hires did tick up in December but is still cooler than in the past. For instance, December's level was 5.6 million compared to over 6 million a year ago in December 2022.

"Lower hiring can lead to a higher unemployment rate as workers out of a job have a harder time finding work," Bunker wrote in commentary about the new data release. "The good news is that the ranks of the newly jobless are unlikely to increase: the layoff rate is still very low and has only been above its pre-pandemic low for one month of the last three years."

Labor market experts already expect it to be tougher to get work this year. Kory Kantenga, senior economist at LinkedIn, said in a written statement to Business Insider in late 2023 that "we expect to see continued caution in hiring on the part of employers moving into 2024."

This also comes at a time when the US economy ended last year holding strong. The advance estimate for GDP in the fourth quarter came in above the forecast. While real GDP was expected to grow at an annualized rate of 2.0%, the estimate was 3.3%.

"It's unusual to be in this middle ground where lower hiring isn't married with higher layoffs, but it offers some optimism that a re-acceleration in the economy could thaw the freeze, boosting hires & quits," Zhao recently wrote.

Ha hecho un sol radiante todo el finde en Madrid... ¿Por qué la AEMET pronosticaba toda la semana que habría lluvia e incluso nieve?




Misterios de los media.

[Derby]

Soho House y las guerras intra-élite. En todo periodo de decadencia hay guerras intra-élite que precipitan el declive.

https://www.ft.com/content/348b9e16-344f-4699-8419-f7e82a5ef17b

The parable of Soho House

The most important social tensions are within the elite, not between the elite and the people

(...)If Soho House achieved nothing else, it should have revealed to the Marx-minded that power isn’t all economic. Imagine that you are a successful IT consultant who sends in a membership application. You have taken risks, hired people, made a mint and paid more in tax than you could ever get back in public services or fiscal transfers. If you don’t get in, you have, in a sense, less social clout than a freelance UX designer in a shared flat who does. If you do, your presence appals cultural commentators into pronouncing Soho House the “McDonald’s of member’s clubs”. There is zero case for sympathy here. (Unless you end up at 5 Hertford Street.) But I do wonder where all that pique and resentment goes.  

Class war is real, then. But it is intra-class, not just inter-class. The point seems to hold among nations as among individuals. The angriest revisionist power in the world, Russia, is not a poor or weak state, just a demoted one; not a complete stranger to the west, just on its neglected edge. Whatever the setting, social or geopolitical, watch out for the relative loser in life, not just the absolute one. (Who, after all, lacks the resources to act.) Watch out for the small fracture and schism in a nation, not just the clash of total opposites.


‘The Death of Marat’ (1793) by Jacques-Louis David © Alamy

There isn’t a greater political painting than Jacques-Louis David’s The Death of Marat, in which one leader of the French Revolution lies slain at the hands of another. Even aside from the concentration and finality of the image — so much like a sculpture — it is an insight into the narcissism of small differences. It is wiser about human conflict than a soppy Goya or Delacroix piece about the oppressed versus the oppressors.  

Long ago, as a gauche youth, I was taken to the Shoreditch branch of Soho House on a date, where I decided, with a coldness that unnerves me in retrospect, that I would be there by right and not by invitation one day. Well, apologies for the effect I’ve had. Accept this advice as compensation. Wherever the action is now (House of Koko?) someone like that is knocking on the door and being refused. Tell him all you want that he is still in or near the elite. Just don’t assume he will go quietly.

[saturno]

Es más simple y eficaz prohibir la venta de la propiedad del suelo. Es una propiedad imaginaria. Si sacas el suelo de los bienes del comercio, lo que debes calcular entonces es el cánon del coste de construir la superficie. Funciona como un alquiler, con la diferencia de que el solar no tiene precio ni genera por tanto "renta de propiedad".

¿Cuál sería el fundamento para declarar el suelo "res extracommercium"? Una cosa son los precios públicos, con la intervención de la Administración para la provisión de un elemento necesario para cubrir las necesidades básicas de la ciudadanía; y otra muy diferente la que defiendes: que es considerar un elemento (el suelo) fuera del comercio. "Res extracommercium" lo son por su propia naturaleza y no veo el fundamento para que el suelo entre en esa categoría.
Gracias de antemano por tu explicación. Saludos Saturno!

Estaba esperando la pregunta Pero no tenía la terminologia juridica- Gracias

V/EN (la más completa)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_extra_commercium
v/FR
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_extra_commercium
v/ES
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_extra_commercium

Lo que preguntas  se explica ahi bastante bien, Pero no da la perspectiva generadora- Por eso te agradezco la pregunta-

----

Mi post es largo,
Lo meto en spoiler, pero he dado lo mejor de mi mismo,

(click to show/hide)

----

La pagina Wiki que parece un catálogo (una foto sincrónica) ilustra por qué me empeño en una exposición generativa (una perspectiva diacrónica)-

1-
El comercio grecolatino no es capitalista porque no existe tal cosa como la propiedad privada- No existe ni la noción de privacidad, hasta el sXVI sucediendo a la literatura cortesana, Existe el derecho de posesión (de rapiña, de nacimiento)- La posesión de alguna  riqueza depende intramuros del nacimiento y extramuros del ejército- Los bárbaros que hundian un barco se encontraban un mes después con una flota quemando la ciudad- No había alternativa - pagar la renta (tributo) o ser vendido como esclavo, 

2-
El comercio medieval casi desparece porque el derecho de los Godos (Francos) no conoce el concepto de propiedad privada, sólo el de posesión individual- Hubo así una permeación sencilla de barbaros y civilizados- Más tarde el régimen feudal "globalizado" por el cristianismo de las Cruzadas y  la caida de Bizancio permitió el desarrollo de contratos de logísitca (suministros militares) ;pagos diferidos (templarios) y de un Capitalismo (ḿercantilismo estatal)- La simbiosis con el derecho romano se hizo por la introducción del derecho hereditario, que permitiría más tarde  que se asimilara  la mera posesión (que debes defender)  con el derecho de propiedad privada (que los tribunales del Estado defienden en tu nombre),  En general, el suelo, no lo posees, bien porque eres siervo de un señor, bien porque  el  señor de tu señor  pone o  quita, el suelo y el ocupante (a cambio del tributo o impuesto religioso, etc)- Eres un mero ocupante por la gracia de tu señor feudal o eclesiástico (ambos se rigen igual por el mismo derecho estamentario) 

3-
A partir de la Reforma y el sXVII, es el aporte burgués el que da entrada al derecho de propiedad como lo entendemos hoy,
Pienso que el derecho de propiedad privada es un aporte británico porque fue el lugar donde se produjo la ruptura con el derecho romano-feudal del Continente, con la ruptura con la Iglesia romana- Luego se produjo una propagación al continente con la disgregación del Sacro Imperio germano y el factor de cohesión politica de la Iglesia,
Me parece que fue en  inglaterra donde apareció la idea que el suelo podía  ser una propiedad privada, es decir donde el Estado terminó con el régimen de concesiones nobiliarias y edictó la primeras leyes  catastrales en "lotes" y permitió su venta a cualquier ciudadano inglés

Fue la combinación de parcelamiento catastral (Estatal) y de cesión (a plazo definido o indefinido) a ciudadanos que no eran necesariamente nobles, con la maduración del  derecho hereditario  lo que acabó llamándose propiedad privada- Pero el móvil y factor determinante  aún era el afán de emiular un linaje nobiliario a través de la posesión indefinida del suelo, (operaba igual en Francia y germanias), Es decir, podIas subarrendarla (contratos agrarios en toda Europa) pero no tenía sentido vender o comerciar con algo que determinaba tu apellido y tu linaje-

El subarrendamiento de tierras agrícolas en régimen de concesión de tenencia ("tenures") se desarrollo a espaldas del mismo proceso, No habia propiedad del suelo porque era un bien fuera del comercio, es decir no se podía vender, El suelo aún no era un "res comercium" porque el que pagaba por la tenencia de la parcela recibÍa en realidad una concesión-

En la práctica, dominó en toda Europa medieval hasta hoy el derecho de la "arenda" (que debIa ser el de los Francos que ocupaban desde las hoy Polonia-Lituania hasta Francia, y al sur desde el mar Negro hasta los balcanes  )
Wiki v/FR -- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arenda (no hay traducción)

5-
Entiendo que  fue la expansión Colonial  la que dió el paso definitivo a la asimilación del suelo al "res comercium", Porque permitía a los colonos COMPRAR tierras cuya propiedad  más tarde dejó de vincularse al Estado Inglés, para pasar a vincularse al colono, Es decir, al ocupante únicamente, Y del mismo modo que ya era transmisible la cesión hereditariamente, cuando se rompió el vínculo con la metrópoli se se hizó  posible la VENTA por lucro de algo que podías  vincular a un propietario individual y no ya a una cesión indefinida de la Administración, Paralelamente, se evolucionó cuando quebraba la CompanÍa concesionaria de los territorios ultramarinos que  habia "vendído" parcelas o derechos comerciales a colonos y tras la  quiebra de ésta, el título ya tenia valor de res comercium aceptado como tal, Se había  roto el vinculo con la administración metropolitana- De ahI las animaladas que se produjeron en las Ccolonias belgas, holandesas  francesas o  españolas-
 

-----


Lo importante es entender que lo que llamamos propiedad privada (del suelo casi siempre) resulta de vincular una concesión de res extra commercium al un Ego subjetivo que es el de su detentor, La hubris siempre ha existido, Pero se define porque pretende que la res extra commercium derive de su persona- Piensen en los Reyes por derecho divino- El Maestro la describe muy bien cuando habla de las ideitas y del precio imaginario que sólo reproduce  la hubris del titular;

El proceso generativo de la propiedad privada indivual como res commercium, lo vemos en el desfase entre la Colonización hispana e inglesa o francesa,
Los Españoles, los primeros, tomaban posesion en nombre del Rey, Normal-

Los Franceses también (Canada, Luisiana), pero con Compañias que quebraban y dejaban las concesiones al arbitrio de los colonos ( vendieron las concesiones de las Compañías quebradas a los ingleses y luego le daban una comisión al Rey que, qué remedio, ratificaba el desfalco en algún Tratado posterior entre MetrópolIs) 

El rasgo diferenciador de  los Ingleses fue que además de tomar posesion en nombre de la Reina, se trajeron el sistema catastral  ya bien rodado maduro en la metrópoli- El catastro en el s17 era casi inexistente en España o Francia, los títulos eran documentos de cesión de "lugares" sin delimitación clara firmados   100 A 300 años atrá por un Rey o por el Papa- Se  conservaban como reliquias pero eran suficientes- En el caso anglosajon, no debe sorprender  ver  mapas y documentos administrativos de todas las colonias británicas cuando casi no existe nada para  Canada o México, o  los Estados del Sur, Los lindes territoriales con España o Francia se fijaban entre Metrópolis pero las colonias británicas importaron toda el aparato administrativo- Resulta consecuente,  que después de la Independencia, EEUU resolviera los lindes territoriales "comprando"(!) Tejas California Luisiana, a España o Francia,  o Alaska a Rusia, Que evidentemente, obtuvieron a buen precio  visto que los interlocutores actuaban  literalemente al margen de la Ley de la metrópoli,  Pero un contrato es un contrato, y el monarca necesitaba la pasta- Ratificaba a posteriori-


No es este post para discutir si esta evolución es buena o mala,
Recuerden solamente que el concepto de propiedad del suelo como res comercium es muy reciente y muy  parcelario- No se dejen impresionar por la aparente coherencia anglosajona, porque es muy poca la que hay,
La propiedad anglosajona se construyó al margen del derecho romano o continental rompiendo los fundamentos que le daban legitimidad-- Si nos fijamos, el  concepto que generaron está localizado dentro de  los lindes del Imperio británico y fue en parte intergrado por los Imperios coloniales españoles y francés,

En una frase, la propiedad privada del suelo se inventó en el sXVIII y se expandió gracias a la colonizacion con las revoluciones burguesas,

Diría que su apogeo se produjo en  los años 80 con el populacapitalismo anglosajon, dado que somos un protectorado de EEUU desde el plan Marshall


Bueno ya he dado la perspectiva,

---

Ahora, quiero identificar  los traspiés que creo se intuyen en la formulación de la pregunta de Derby
(no es una crítica, son los traspIes que fui dando yo durante--- mierda, 30 años!   

1-
Primero das por hecho la identidad entre la ocupación del suelo  y su propiedad-
Pero no puede haber "identidad" si śolo tienes uno de los términos
El derecho /costumbre en torno a la mera posesión de  bienes o la ocupación del suelo se basta  por si sólo, No eran propietarios, sino tenedores-  Se sostiene por la voluntad del detentor, de la milicia Comunitaria o de los hombres de armas del  Señor feudal hasta después de la Reforma Protestante y subsiste de hecho casi intacto en Eurasia, Africa, India y Asia, En latinoAM te lo encuentras en el derecho de suelo de Brasil y otros paises, o se percibe en la transparencia con la que se aplcan los derechos indigenistas- Es decir,  porque el derecho consuetudinario es  anterior al "invento" de la "propiedad privada"  de suelo, que requiere, para existir que exista un Registo de la propiedad

Es casi imposible colocar en su sitio esos comceptos sin  mantener la diferencia entre  la ocupación del suelo (o la tenencia de bienes) y la titularidad registral (la cual ni siquiere implica la propiedad en origen pues se trata de una concesion de la  res extra commercium)- Por ejemplo,  en el Continente resulta que los recursos subterráneos (agua, minerales, restos arqueológicos) no  te pertenecen o sólo por un % que te retrocede el Estado,
La wIki EN o FR los cataloga (la ES enumera algunos), pero no explica por qué


2-
Luego está que el derecho de propiedad del ocupante para tener justificacion requiere el marco de algún  régimen hereditario consolidado, Primero, que exista alguno (los godos no lo tenían), luego que  vaya evolucionando, Por ejemplo  la filiación patrilineal  se volvió dominante a medida que se consolidaron los sistemas de derecho, y deduzco por tanto que también el Estado -- Emmanuel TODD lo estudió mucho y habla bien de ello),

3-
Luego, para  considerar el suelo como una propiedad privada (y por tanto un bien del comercio), hace falta que el Ego-Yo-soy-por-que-me-place adquiera una existencia en derecho- Entiendo que eso sólo se produce realmente a principio del sXVIII
No basta con  el parcelamiento castastral, que inventaron los ingleses, hace falta inventar ademas otra cosa que son los derechos ciudadanos  (Revol- francesa)   Sin la nocIon de autonomÍa del ciudadano, no es  posible  adquirir la  parcela, carece de capacidad jurídica;-  Esa noción de autonomía realmente no se expandio hasta el sXIX,
Para que el derecho de propiedad adquiera una eficiencia juridica y que sea comprensible que te puedan vender el suelo además del bien de superficie (en realidad observa que te venden el suelo necesariamente "junto con" con el bien de superficie, aunque sea un terreno de cultivo --- aqui cuaja el sofisma, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, la, la la),
Eso fue posible por larevolución burquesa, cuando el   Ego-Yo-jurídico así capacitado se convirtIó en en (unica) fuente del derecho tras finiquitar los estamentos feudales (Francia)- Luego en Inglaterra los propietarios siguieron siendo los lores, pero la idea de capacidad jurídica los ingleses la dejaron expandirse a través de la colonización (y la parcelación y venta de los lotes de los comunes)-
 
Bueno hay que admitir que aunque sea un sofisma, la mercantilización de la res extra commercium  permitió echar las bases de la Revolución industrial-

Permitió poner en marcha la sintesis del  Capitalismo, en el sXIX pero llevando incorporado un vicio de fabricación- Ese vicio que ahora es percibido por el munco entero cuando mira hacia EEUU es que ahora va a ser corregido,
Como lo ve el mundo entero, salvo los interesados (la angloesfera, con la Ue incluida), se hará pausadamente esperando a que nos despetermos del sueño de nuestra trinidad ridícula Ego-Yo-soy-Yo-Woke

4-
Para terminar, está que un res-commercium no implica la propiedad del bien ni del suelo, La prueba, desde el sXIX Europa vivió de alquiler, Basta garantizar el derecho de tenencia o posesión- Por ejemplo, el propietario no puede entrar en la vivienda sin  autorizacIon del arrendatario (el tenant), Qué función tiene entonces el Registro de propiedad ?
Otro ejemplo, un vendedor de plátanos no es propietario de los plátanos sino del beneficio de su venta,  Ese matiz es importante, porque trasladado  al suelo, te dice que no hay ningun problema en rectificar  el régimen del suelo y decir;
-- Que el suelo es res extra commercium
-- Quel el Registro de propiedad registra (denomina "propietario") al  tenedor del derecho de ocupar o subarrendar la superficie,
-- Que la autonomía de la voluntad de dos  contratantes les permite realizar operaciones de compra-venta de los bienes construidos (o los plátanos)
-- Pero EN NINGÚN SITIO ESTÁ DICHO QUE PUEDA VENDER EL SUELO MISMO

Es que ni siquiera tiene sentido en la 3/4 partes del mundo, No puedes vender el agua, pagas un cánon,  No puedes prohibir que las lanchas acosten en la ribera  (ley de costa), pero es natural que paques un cánon, Lo natural con la tenencia del suelo, es que pagues un canón

Observen que el seudoderecho anglosajón dice lo que le da la gana, un dia una cosa y al otro la contraria, Así que rectificarán cuando les de la gana- A eso vamos


Claro que ahora parece un sueño, pero para nuestra vieja Europa, observa que basta emitir  una circular de instrucciones para  los funcionarios de la Administración explicándoles que  lean los textos legales sin meter interpretaciones anglosajonas que no tienen cabida en el ordenamiento español aunque llevemos 40 años reinventándonoslas

Observa que no habrás cambiado una coma al código civil,
No creo ni que haga falta aprobar una ley para terminar con el Pisito,

----

Uf- Vaya repaso, Encima me puse en el miniPC- Pero querIa la ocasion que me diste,
Espero haber mantenido la perspectiva de tu pregunta
Gracias Derby por lo de "res extra commercium "

(Gracias a todos)

[Derby]

https://fortune.com/2024/02/18/did-wall-street-make-housing-market-prices-higher/

Did Wall Street kill the American Dream of homeownership? It depends on where you live

On the internet these days, Wall Street is often blamed for killing the American Dream of homeownership.

From TikTok videos claiming that institutional investors are bulk-buying homes at inflated prices and forcing people to rent until they die, to a Medium article claiming 44% of all single-family home purchases last year were by private equity firms, Wall Street has emerged as a villain in public discourse. The narrative has persisted, despite economists and analysts pointing out the widespread claims are wildly incorrect.

Who is right? It’s difficult to blame institutional investors like Blackstone, BlackRock, and Invitation homes for the nationwide housing crisis; most estimates put their ownership at less than 5% of single-family rentals and less than 1% of all single-family homes. But desirable markets like Atlanta, Dallas, and Charlotte tell a different story—Wall Street owns more than 4% of single-family homes in Atlanta, for one, and could be a factor in rising housing costs.

Still, hedge funds, corporations, asset management firms are often blamed for unaffordable housing by everyday Americans; home prices and rents rose substantially during the pandemic-fueled housing boom, mortgage rates more than doubled shortly after, and so many people are house poor. Politicians jumped on the bandwagon blaming Wall Street; Democrats in Congress introduced a bill toward the end of last year, banning hedge funds from owning single-family homes in the country. 

“You have created a situation where ordinary Americans aren’t bidding against other families, they’re bidding against the billionaires of America for these houses,” Senator Jeff Merkley, who introduced the bill alongside Representative Adam Smith, said, according to the New York Times. “And it’s driving up rents and it’s driving up the home prices.”

Wall Street’s share of the multifamily rental market is much higher and traces back much further. But in the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis, institutional investors entered the single-family rental space, and because so many homes were foreclosed on, they scaled quickly, buying houses in bulk for cheap. While they benefited immensely, institutional operators also kept the housing market from hitting rock bottom. Interestingly enough, their existing home portfolios still reflect that entrance into the market more than a decade ago.

“They map almost one to one to metros that suffered the highest rates of foreclosures and deepest housing price cuts,” Moody’s Analytics Senior Economist Ermengarde Jabir told Fortune, citing Phoenix as an example.

The truth about why housing has gotten so unaffordable is much more nuanced and goes back more than a century.

Wall Street doubles down, location matters

In January, Blackstone announced the $3.8 billion acquisition of Tricon Residential, a deal that will give it the third-largest single-family portfolio across the country, following Progress Residential and Invitation Homes, according to Parcl Labs, a real estate analytics company. Collectively, these three institutional buyers would hold more than 200,000 single-family homes across the country. But institutional investment isn’t distributed evenly, Parcl Labs’ cofounder, Jason Lewris, explained to Fortune.

“They went into the exact same markets and almost half of that national portfolio is in six U.S. housing markets,” he said: Tampa, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix. “When you look at the share of ownership within those markets, it’s 20x or above,” with respect to their national holdings.

To make matters worse, they’re not evenly distributed within those markets. “In almost all cases in those top six markets, they’re concentrated in just a handful of zip codes … now you’re looking at a situation where they own more than one in 10 homes,” Lewris said.

Think about Atlanta, the housing market with the largest institutional presence, where firms own 4.4% of single-family homes. Investors have a substantial impact within the market, and their presence in Atlanta and other heavily concentrated metropolitans can be a burden to the average buyer. “They have special financing vehicles, and when they buy in a market, they really buy in a market, so they account for a big share of all trades,” Lewris said.

The average home value in Atlanta is $387,216, nearly 13% more than the average home value nationally. Meanwhile, the median rent for all bedrooms and all property types in the city is 5% higher than the national median. From an analysis on institutional investors, Jabir and her colleagues found rents for single-family rental properties are higher in metropolitan areas where institutional owners operate.

Institutional investors are also buying homes where people want to live, Taylor Shelton, a geographer and assistant professor at Georgia State University, said. Buying a home in rural Mississippi is a different ballgame than the metropolitan Atlanta area, where as previously mentioned, institutional buyers largely are. Shelton and his colleagues’ research also suggests there are a few places where institutional investment is concentrated, with Atlanta being the most prominent. Institutional operators look to invest in places with some distinguishing characteristics, such as a lack of strong tenant protections and a growing demand for housing.

Metropolitan Atlanta’s population increased by nearly 67,000 people between April 2022 and the same month last year to more than five million people; the city of Atlanta’s population grew by more than 14,000 people, which is nearly three times as much the prior year, to over 500,000 people. With a growing population comes an increased demand for homes.

“These firms are all trying to capture some corner of the market and really exercise significant market power,” Shelton said. “It’s rarely in a pure monopolistic sense, but in a kind of oligopolistic sense.”

Institutional firms have algorithmic buying strategies; they can buy homes as soon as they go on the market and place an all-cash offer over asking, Shelton explained. “Institutional investors are not to blame for all aspects of the housing crisis everywhere equally,” but they play a role in Atlanta, and in the Sunbelt, for starters, he said.

How did housing get so expensive?

To start, the country just doesn’t have enough homes to house its growing population. There are several varying estimates on the housing shortage, although it’s generally understood as a deficit between one million to more than six million homes. As Tobias Peter, a senior fellow and co-director of the American Enterprise Institute’s housing center, sees it, the government promoted demand for housing via lax underwriting and down payment assistance programs against a limited supply.

All the while, building homes is harder. In the 1920s, Herbert Hoover, as the secretary of commerce before his presidency, created a model law for zoning that was implemented across individual states and localities. Our housing shortage developed from there, and worsened in the years following, Peter explained, because they’ve “hindered the market from building more housing.”

Zoning laws, coupled with a shift in the American mindset and the environmental movement of the 1970s, complicated development to the extent that what little housing gets built is mostly expensive housing that can offset steep costs and regulations. There’s a missing middle, and it’s a consequence of “a self-inflicted wound,” Peter said. In his view, for politicians in particular, “Wall Street is always a convenient scapegoat.” The real issue, he said, is government regulatory failure that has resulted in a market that’s not building enough housing. For Wall Street firms, housing is a good investment, particularly when there’s a widespread shortage of it, Peter said.

“Housing has been unaffordable long before these Wall Street firms came into the marketplace,” he said. So if we were to build more housing, homes would be more affordable and institutional operators wouldn’t have the market power they currently have.

Institutional investors are not the only problem, and we can’t simply say institutional investors are the reason why Americans can’t afford single-family homes, Moody’s Jabir said; she pointed to the disparity between home price appreciation and wage growth over the last 30 years. “The ratio of a median house price to median household income in the 80s was half of what it is now,” Jabir said, and “since the Great Financial Crisis, building has plummeted.”

“It’s a confluence of factors where the institutional ownership component is a part of the problem, but it’s certainly not the only problem,” Jabir continued. “It goes back to, where have we gone wrong on the path to the American dream?”