Preventing employer retaliation for discussing the conditions of employment are a pretty significant part of the protections around unions. An open letter discussing the conduct of the CEO falls under discussion of the conditions of employment.
There are limits to what companies can do to try and prevent unions from forming. SpaceX is claiming that those restrictions and the way in which they're enforced by the NLRB are unconstitutional. Seems pretty fair to characterize that as something which would bust up some federal union protections.
You're right about the outcome SpaceX is seeking. But the critical thing you're missing is the argument they are making against NLRB. The legal arguments aren't really about the specific facts of the case but, rather, about constitutional issues that go to the heart of how NLRB adjudicates labor disputes. From the article:
> It claims the NLRB’s proceedings, which involve a hearing in front of an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ), violate SpaceX’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The company also accuses NLRB of violating the Constitution’s rules on the separation of powers, stating the agency’s structure “is miles away from the traditional understanding” of the concept.
> Why should companies be forced to employ people who actively work to harm the reputation of said company?
The irony being that the content of the letter is in regards to Elon Musk's work to actively harm the reputation of said company. By this token, why should employees be forced to work under petulant, capricious, myopic executives who undermine the efforts of the people with boots on the ground who do all the actual work?
No lol we won't have fully self driving cars in our lifetime. We would need cars to fully understand human speech and understanding and be able to react with 100% accuracy 100x faster than humans.
Yield curve inversions are not excitable attention-seeking pundits, but an emergent measure of the market as a whole. They are also not 100% accurate... but they're fairly accurate. There are also sensible reasons to believe they are indeed causally connected to some reasonable degree, so it's not throwing chicken livers and reading the future either.
It's best not to conflate actual measures being tentatively interpreted on the basis of a century of history with some guy with a camera and a YouTube channel. They're not even the same category of thing, as pondering that for a moment will show.
> It's best not to conflate actual measures being tentatively interpreted on the basis of a century of history with some guy with a camera and a YouTube channel
The commenter upthread "penciled in" a recession for Q3 of next year and cited your favorite metric. I think that's closer to a TikTok hit than a "tentatively interpreted" bit of pop economics.
But to treat with your actual point: it still sounds like bunk to me. I had to dig, but FRED does indeed have a chart for this (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y) and sure, if you squint, it looks like it predicts. Except that the time between an inversion and the predicted recession is all over the map. It looks like the 1988 recession took two years (!) to actually arrive, while the 1980 recession jumped the gun. And 2008 seems to refute the theory, because the inversion had corrected itself almost a year before the financial crisis (which pretty clearly had nothing to do with bond rates anyway). Also the magnitude of the inversion doesn't seem to have any correlation with the recession, the inversion swung way lower in the late 70's than it did any other time, but that recession was actually pretty mild. And the inversion of 2006 was barely an inversion at all.
Yeah, this is wrong. No serious economics seem to be pushing this.
We have an inversion right now because the Fed has been swinging its hammer like crazy and the market is responding to the fact that they think rates are going to drop rapidly RSN (which is a higher risk for longer term bonds, obviously). That explanation makes a ton more sense than some handwaving about a "predictive metric".
If so, then they better record everything their employees say!