economics – Edward Trimnell Books

Tariffs, AI, and over-hiring in years past

Private-sector payrolls “unexpectedly” dropped in November, according to payroll processing firm ADP.

The overall US unemployment rate is still 4.4 %, far rosier than the 6.9% of 1991, when I entered the workforce as a new college grad.

That said, new grads of 2025 (and probably 2026) are facing a far more difficult situation than the grads of only a few years ago.

The mainstream media pundits are blaming tariffs and AI. It has now also become fashionable to blame the sharp decline in immigration that has occurred since the new administration took office. (This last notion is counter-economic: a decrease in the labor supply should raise demand for labor, not lower it. But how many mainstream media journalists know anything about economics?)

Here’s a simpler explanation: during the post-pandemic boom of 2022 and 2023, large corporate employers hired more new college grads than they could productively use. At most Fortune 500 companies, there is still an excess of young employees from just a few years ago.

I saw this coming during the hiring frenzy. Companies were hiring new college grads at inflated salaries, often with signing bonuses. Anyone with a modicum of business experience and economic sense could see that this wasn’t sustainable. And now, two years later, lo and behold, these same companies are scrambling to freeze or reduce headcount.

They want you to believe that this is because they are now running their enterprises on whiz-bang “AI” automation, or for fear of the next tariff ruling. AI is barely a factor in most corporate workplaces at present, and tariff uncertainty—while real and undesirable—is not the decisive factor here.

The truth is that hiring managers screwed up in 2022 and 2023, by hoarding young grads like consumers hoarded toilet paper during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. (And yes, in some cases, companies did deliberately hoard young hires, as if the factory that made young college graduates was in danger of closing its doors.)

The people who run our major corporations are not exactly fools; but they are not as smart as they would like you to believe, either. They are, moreover, very susceptible to groupthink—which is how most of them rose through the corporate hierarchy in the first place.

-ET

(Mostly) ditching X in 2026

I was never a big fan of Twitter, and I don’t find the Elon Musk-owned X to be much of an improvement. Twitter was already in decline when Elon Musk (unwisely, in my opinion) purchased the site for $44 billion in October 2022.

Complain about Facebook all you want—but at least Facebook is mostly inhabited by real people. X consists almost entirely of sock puppet accounts, which are increasingly located outside the US.

And while there is too much political nonsense on Facebook, real people do still post real content from their lives there. X is all political screeds and political memes. (Oh—and ads, too.)

Then there is the fact that, as noted above, Twitter was in decline even before Elon Musk and the 2024 election. US usage of Twitter peaked in 2017, almost nine years ago. The platform has been losing US engagement ever since.

What about Bluesky—the so-called anti-X, you ask?

Uh, hell no. Bluesky is nothing more than the leftwing, mirror image of X. Just as I have no interest in reading MAGA slogans and memes posted by bots, I also have no interest in an endless, repetitive stream of anti-Trump/GOP posts written by sock puppet accounts. (From what I’ve seen, there aren’t a lot of real people on Bluesky, either.)

Life is too short. Moreover, only about 6 percent of US adults use Bluesky regularly, and that number is not expected to grow.

I do plan to keep my X account in 2026, and I may make the occasional post there, perhaps once or twice per month. Any more than that is beyond the point of diminishing returns.

-ET

Writing gurus to avoid

I have no fundamental qualms against the writing guru. This is, moreover, a common sideline for the fiction writer, at various levels. Almost everyone who writes fiction eventually reaches the point where they want to publicly talk or write about it.

Sometimes they do this on blogs and social media at no charge to the reader. (That’s kind of what I’m doing here.)

Some feel they have so much to say that it justifies a paid book or course.

Nothing fundamentally wrong with that, either. I’ve spoken highly of the writing books of Jessica Brody and Johnny Truant, among others.

Sometimes, however, the fiction writer decides/discovers that aspiring writers provide a far more lucrative market than potential readers.

These are the gurus I would urge you to beware of.

How do you recognize them? They are almost always the ones pushing conspicuously high-dollar courses, “mentorships”, etc.

Over the years, I have landed on the mailing lists of a number of these folks. Just this morning, I received an email sales pitch for a $2,000 “mentorship” arrangement that, when you broke it down to its substance, was pretty thin gruel.

When assessing these various offers in the marketplace, use your common sense. Don’t spend hundreds of dollars for basic material/knowledge that is freely available on YouTube. Caveat emptor.

-ET

The first date financial question

Who should pay on a first date? This question has been coming up a lot in my social media feeds in recent weeks. I must therefore conclude that many people are in a quandary. And since daters tend to skew young, I’ll also assume that young people are especially in a bind over this.

Many young men seem to fear that the money they spend on a first date is a sunk cost that may lead nowhere. The young lady may decide she’s not interested in you, or the dreaded, “I like you a lot—as a friend.”

This can, indeed, be the outcome. But this is nothing new. Young men faced the same range of possibilities in the 1990s, when I was a twentysomething. Such outcomes were possible in the 1980s, when I was a high school student. They were the same in the 1970s, and so on.

A first date is not, and has never been, a sure thing.

And yet, men do the inviting, and men do the paying. I’m not going to play a dirge on my violin for you because you’re a man and you end up paying for first dates. Just like I’m not going to play a violin dirge for women who complain that they must bear the burden of childbirth. Nature—and that includes human nature—is not egalitarian. There are downsides to being a man, there are downsides to being a woman. Deal with it.

Nevertheless, a little common sense can mitigate some of the economic “risk” involved in a first date.

I’m not a gambler, but an occasional (and financially solvent) gambler once told me: don’t gamble money that you can’t afford to lose.

When applied to the first date, this means: cheerfully pay, if you’re a man, but keep the first date modest in scope. The details of this will obviously depend on your age, working status, region, and socioeconomic level.

This really isn’t that hard.

-ET

The folks at Trojan Brand Condoms want you to get out more

Nowadays it’s often hard to tell the satirical from the straightforward in my Facebook feed. Today I came across this item, sponsored by Time Out USA and Trojan Brand Condoms:

“Meeting people is hard. Meeting people you actually like? Even harder. That’s why we created the Let’s Connect calendar with Trojan Brand Condoms—a curated list of low-key, high-vibe events happening all across the country. From DJ-backed dance nights to board game hangouts, book clubs to beach sports, there’s something happening near you. No awkward icebreakers, no name tags, no soul-sucking small talk. Just real people doing cool things, ready to meet someone new.

Tap the link to check out what’s happening in your area. Your group chat could use some fresh faces.”

This ad campaign actually makes sense, from a business perspective. When adults under 34 are spending all their time on “apps”, or staring into the screens of their phones, guess what they’re not doing. Onanism and asexuality don’t lead to many condom sales!

Needless to say, social intercourse doesn’t always lead to sexual intercourse. But you can’t get the latter without the former.

-ET

Running Spectrum’s cancellation gauntlet

As I posted last week, I decided to change my Internet service from Spectrum to a local Cincinnati-based vendor. My dad is also discontinuing his use of Spectrum, and I’ve been helping him with his changeover details.

Tuesday I called Spectrum to cancel my service. I thought this would be straightforward. I was wrong.

You can’t simply cancel. Spectrum has set up a system whereby you have to answer twenty minutes worth of questions, and endure repetitive sales pitches from a representative who is obviously compelled by management directive.

If you don’t go for the Spectrum sales pitches, Spectrum resorts to scare tactics. Did I know, I was asked, that the company I’d chosen to replace Spectrum would probably damage my utilities when burying the fiberoptics cable? And what about their poor customer service? Wouldn’t I rather cancel my new service and go back to Spectrum?

No, I repeatedly said, and the questions were rephrased to me in a slightly different way.

Needless to say, this all became quite frustrating. But you can’t simply hang up—or your service will never get canceled. It’s the perfect Catch-22.

After going through all that, I thought: what the heck is going on here? I did some research, and it seems that Spectrum has lost around 117,000 residential customers in the second quarter of 2025.

The company’s real problems began last year, when the end of the COVID-era Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) ended government subsidies for low-income households. My guess is that Spectrum then decided to raise rates on its other residential customers. That caused the company to lose even more users.

The CEO of Charter Spectrum, Christopher Winfrey, enjoyed a total compensation package of $89.1 million in 2023.

Last year that was downgraded to a measly $5.75 million because of the Spectrum debacle. So Winfrey is now working for near starvation wages, as he struggles to undo the damage that he and his management team have wrought. (Don’t worry, though—Winfrey’s package still includes personal use of a corporate airplane.)

But Spectrum is not going to have me and my dad as customers. Not even if Christopher Winfrey personally calls me and offers the use of his private jet. (Okay—I might consider if Spectrum throws in the use of Winfrey’s corporate jet. But that’s the only way they’re getting me back.)

-ET

THE EAVESDROPPER

Three of your coworkers are planning a murder. Will you stop them, or become their next victim?

View it on Amazon

1980s tech was expensive, and it didn’t do much

I vaguely remember the TRS-80 Pocket Computer. Introduced in 1980, this little device was manufactured and marketed by the Tandy Corporation/Radio Shack. (Every shopping mall in the 1980s had a Radio Shack.) Science fiction author Isaac Asimov appeared in a series of marketing spots for the gadget.

1980 Radio Shack ad featuring the TRS-80 Pocket Computer and Isaac Asimov

I didn’t own a TRS-80 Pocket Computer, however. The MSRP was $169.95. In present-day money, that’s about $670—the cost of a base-model iPhone.

And of course, the TRS-80 Pocket Computer had a minimal functionality when compared to an iPhone. It couldn’t make phone calls, play music, or take photos. It couldn’t surf the Internet—which didn’t yet exist, anyway.

The TRS-80 Pocket Computer was programmable in BASIC (which couldn’t do much for the average consumer). Other than that, it was basically a glorified pocket calculator.

Herein lies an important realization about 1980s tech: it was very expensive, and it didn’t do much. Even if you could afford it, you usually concluded that you could do without it.

-ET

Reagan, tariffs, and the 1980s

Yesterday President Trump announced an additional 10 percent tariff on Canadian products. The president claims to have done this because the Canadian province of Ontario aired an anti-tariff commercial that featured quotes from US President Ronald Reagan.

The commercial uses quotes from a 1987 Reagan speech. Among the included Reagan quotes are “Over the long run… trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer,” and “When someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes, for a short while, it works — but only for a short time.”

President Trump called Ontario’s use of the Reagan quotes “dirty play”, and accused the Ontario government of “twisting Reagan’s words”.

I remember Ronald Reagan. Reagan was basically the president I grew up with. I was in junior high when Reagan took office in January 1981, and in college when Reagan left the White House in January 1989.

Throughout the 1980s, the Democratic Party was known as the party of tariffs and protectionism. Congressional Democrats like Dick Gephardt, Dan Rostenkowski, and Lloyd Bentsen repeatedly sponsored bills that would impose protective tariffs on our trading partners, especially Japan and South Korea.

Republicans generally opposed these measures. Opposition to managed trade, and the promotion of free trade, was a consistent theme of both the Reagan and the George H.W. Bush administrations.

Republicans of the 1980s were almost universally opposed to protective tariffs. Democrats were in favor of them.

Once again, folks: I remember watching all of this on TV as it happened. At the time, Americans were concerned about the struggling US domestic automobile and electronics industries. Trade-related debates were constantly in the news.

Outside of Congress and the White House, opinions varied. Critics charged Democrats with being too cozy with the unions (who favored protectionism). Republicans were accused of favoring business and economic growth over the concerns of the working class.

Forty years later, we can have a spirited debate about which side was correct, but two basic facts are indisputable: the Republican Party of the Reagan era was pro-free trade, and tariffs/protectionism was the default Democratic Party position.

There is, of course, another side to this. Neither of our two major political parties is what it was in the 1980s, back when the world made a lot more sense.

The Democratic Party used to be the party of farmers and factory workers. The Republican Party, on the other hand, used to function as a pro-free market, pro-business party.

In the 1980s, then, we had one party to make sure the people were taken care of, and one party to make sure there was money to take care of the people.

Today the Democratic Party is the party of Drag Queen Story Hour, open borders, and other fringe positions. The GOP, meanwhile, has become the party of MAGA, at times indistinguishable from a personality cult. At the national level, I’m not sure if there are any Republicans remaining who are willing to oppose President Trump’s positions when he goes off the rails. (Maybe Rand Paul, a little.)

But here’s the point, where Reagan is concerned. You can choose your own interpretation of history, but you can’t choose your own historical facts. If you want to claim that Reagan and the GOP of the 1980s were wrong about free trade, you can do that. But you can’t deny that Reagan and the GOP of the 1980s were opposed to protective tariffs and in favor of free trade. Those of us who were there remember the truth.

-ET

****

TERMINATION MAN

A ruthless business consultant meets an even more ruthless client. But is he willing to commit murder in order to complete the job?

View it on Amazon

My internet service provider boiled my frog

There is an old chestnut about placing a frog in a kettle filled with room-temperature water. Beneath the kettle is a burner.

If you heat the kettle a little at a time, the frog won’t realize that the water is getting hotter. As a result, the frog will unwittingly remain in the kettle until the water reaches the boiling point, thereby killing it.

(Since this is the internet, please note: I do not recommend boiling frogs; nor were any amphibians harmed in the writing of this post. The above is merely a metaphor.)

After dabbling with dial-up Prodigy internet services for a few years, I enrolled with Time Warner Cable for broadband internet access in 2003. Time Warner Cable did an excellent job, providing quality service for a reasonable price.

Then in 2016, Spectrum Internet acquired Time Warner Cable. That was the point at which my frog was placed in the kettle filled with water. Continue reading “My internet service provider boiled my frog”

Rush ticket prices and some economic curmudgeonliness

After a ten-year hiatus and the death of drummer/songwriter Neil Peart, Rush is about to go back on tour again with a replacement drummer, Anika Nilles.

That should be good news. But have you seen the ticket prices?

While the exact numbers vary by city, early reports indicate ticket prices in the mid-three-figure range, with four figures not unheard of, especially when resellers are involved.

This is part of a phenomenon that is much bigger than Rush and rock concerts. Continue reading “Rush ticket prices and some economic curmudgeonliness”

NKU staffing cuts, and my college days

Longtime readers may know that I attended two universities here in the Cincinnati area: Northern Kentucky University (NKU) and the University of Cincinnati (UC).

I have pleasant memories of both of them, but I especially enjoyed my time at NKU. I was a student there during the 1986-1987 academic year. The university had been founded the year I was born (1968). NKU felt like a dynamic academic institution that was rapidly growing.

Oh, what a difference 39 years can make. NKU is now suffering from a budget shortfall and declining enrollment. The university recently announced that it will eliminate 1% of its existing workforce. An unspecified number of vacant positions will also be eliminated.

I saw the news on Facebook, where the rule of thumb is: Don’t read the comments. But of course I did. There were plenty of people blaming both Donald Trump and “woke” professors. Continue reading “NKU staffing cuts, and my college days”

Target’s downfall: the perils of gaming the culture wars

Target’s sales are in freefall. Brian Cornell, the company’s longtime CEO, has fallen on his sword and stepped down.

There is no shortage of glee in the press about all this. Target was one of the companies that abandoned DEI policies in the wake of Trump’s election, and the general shift in the national mood.

But what really happened? We may have a chicken-and-egg conundrum here. Did Target ever really benefit from its carefully cultivated “woke” reputation? Or did its former notoriety lose more sales? Continue reading “Target’s downfall: the perils of gaming the culture wars”

The comparative joys of old (1980s) movies

I have been watching some old movies from the 1980s recently. Some have been movies that I saw, but have long since forgotten. Others are iconic films of that era that I never got around to seeing when they were current.

For example, I recently wrote a post about Mystic Pizza (1988). Last night I watched Risky Business (1983). I will have a post about Risky Business soon.

One thing I’ve noticed is that many films created in 1980-something as disposable teen comedies were actually pretty good. In 1985, did anyone imagine that people in 2025 would still be talking about The Breakfast Club? Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) has been recognized by the American Film Institute for its merits.

Another thing I’ve noticed is the diversity in movies from that bygone era. In 1985, an original movie, properly executed, could make a lot of people rich. But the economics of the 21^st-century box office encourage conservatism and a tiresome emphasis on franchise films. Continue reading “The comparative joys of old (1980s) movies”

Digital nomads, gentrification, and the ‘¡Fuera gringos!’ movement

This is a story of anti-immigrant backlash involving the USA and Mexico. But this is not the story you’re used to hearing.

In Mexico at the moment, there is a ¡Fuera gringos! movement. (But this movement is not limited to Mexico. I have also seen manifestations of it throughout Latin America in recent months.)

The translation is: “Gringos, get out!” A gringo, in Spanish, is a (usually) light-skinned person from the United States.

So a more complete, if awkward, translation would be, “Light-skinned Americans, get out!”

Or maybe: “Yankee, go home!” or (the more racially charged version) “Whitey, go home!”

Whatever the translation (there is no concise, universally agreed English translation of “gringo”), the message here is not subtle.

How did this come about? Continue reading “Digital nomads, gentrification, and the ‘¡Fuera gringos!’ movement”

Sorority TikTok, and my decision to stay as far away from today’s youth culture as possible

I think it’s time that I, a 50-something GenXer, admit that I do not understand TikTok culture, and never will. I am hopelessly out-of-touch with the younger generation. No matter how I contort my brain, I can’t understand how these youngsters think. Young people were a lot simpler in the days of heavy metal and mullets—though perhaps my grandfather would have disagreed. Continue reading “Sorority TikTok, and my decision to stay as far away from today’s youth culture as possible”