It still doesn't help explain why a CEO would literally put their company in a worse financial place and endanger it long term just to finance a stock party.

It’s always a delight to see how many different forms of expansionary monetary policy they can invent. They’re really quite creative.

what the **** is wrong with your libfreetype

Because since the 1970s, executive compensation has switched from fundamentals performance to stock performance. It's literally the CEO's job to juice stock prices. It's what the board and shareholders pay them to do.

Because since the 1970s, executive compensation has switched from fundamentals performance to stock performance. It's literally the CEO's job to juice stock prices. It's what the board and shareholders pay them to do.

Yeah but a CEO told me this isn't actually true so you must be wrong.

it was a she you sexist prick

Also, JFC the Russians absolutely hated the Nazis.

There was a criticism certain black people were making of him during his reign that he didn't have any slave blood so he didn't really count as the first African American president so if you had missed that you wouldn't have gotten the joke which I figured would be the case with probably everyone here. I figure his dad was African and his mom was American so he totally counts, more than most probably, as an African American.

It's not that I am but everybody seems to be consumed by what race, gender, ethnicity, etc. everything is. There was some controversy that some bi chick wasn't bi enough or gay enough for some character she was playing in a DC comics show. I don't do that. Now, I don't mind pointing out that Obama doesn't really represent average black Americans but I really don't care because I don't obsess about this sort of thing. For all I know, we're somewhat similar with regards to our indifference on the matter.

What's the real cause?

Anything specifically Apple or just general market trends?

Five or six years ago, everyone from the US Chamber of Commerce to the Obama White House was talking about a “skills gap.”

The theory here was that high unemployment reflected a structural shift in the labor market such that jobs were available, but workers simply didn’t have the right education or training for them. Harvard Business Review ran articles about this — including articles rebutting people who said the “skills gap” didn't exist — and big companies like Siemens ran paid sponsor content in the Atlantic explaining how to fix the skills gap.

But nothing was really done to transform the American education system, and no enormous investment was made in retraining unemployed workers. And yet the unemployment rate kept steadily falling in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 as continued low interest rates from the Federal Reserve let a demand-side recovery continue. Donald Trump became president, injected a bunch of new fiscal stimulus on both the spending and tax sides, and in 2017 and 2018 the unemployment rate kept falling and the labor force participation rate kept rising.

Now along comes a new paper from Alicia Sasser Modestino, Daniel Shoag, and Joshua Ballance presented this week at the American Economics Association’s annual conference that shows the skeptics were right all along — employers responded to high unemployment by making their job descriptions more stringent. When unemployment went down thanks to the demand-side recovery, suddenly employers got more relaxed again.