One other issue that isn't mentioned, but has been voiced to me by my friends in the space is the rise of Data Science as an undergraduate discipline.
Econometrics has always had better hiring stats than other econ subdisciplines, and historically, most Econ adjacent jobs were largely data cleansing, analysis, and benchmarking.
On the other hand, math, statistics, and coding is hard, and a large portion of Econ undergrads (primarily at non-target programs) lacked the wherewithal or ability to tackle Baby Rudin or a data structures class. In a lot of cases, their professors themselves lacked significant mathematical or econometrics sophistication.
What ended up happening was a glut of Econ majors who lacked the skills that were in demand in the Econ space (anything econometrics adjacent).
Now that Data Science as an undergrad disciple has arisen, a number of jobs that historically would have hired an Econ major even if they lacked some technical sophistication have switched to hiring Data Science majors. Additionally, Econ majors who had significant maths/stats/cs backgrounds usually ended up double majoring or minoring in those disciplines already.
And finally, at the top Econ undergrad programs, departments had already been extremely adamant about requiring their students to build maths/stats/cs sophistication beyond being a Stata monkey.
The fact that even undergrad Government majors at Harvard are expected to do statistical modelling at the statistics major level, and often take CS109 as well highlights how deeply computational the social science has become, and a large portion of undergrads just aren't cut out for that.
To paraphrase my friend: If you as an Econ undergrad cannot tackle Baby Rudin by your senior year, you have no employable future aside maybe law school, which itself is an increasingly losing proposition. You most likely won't do real analysis at the Baby Rudin level on a daily basis (if ever), but it's a positive signal about your mathematical and computational ability.
That said, CS/CE/EECS grads shouldn't be high and mighty either. I've seen programs in the US increasingly make core classes like circuits, computer architecture, data structures, OS, systems programming, and even algorithms beyond discrete structures optional.
The ideal of democratizing education is great, but should not come at the expense of foundational knowledge.
Its simpler then that - everyone is facing a hiring crunch because everyone is preparing to weather massive economic downturn as foreign investment pulls out of United States.
The UK hasn't been a significant option becuase LSE dealflow is dead, and China difficult because of capital controls, and much of the capital flow within China is dry powder from those investors who couldn't exit.
As such, we have nowhere else to park other than the US, though there is an opportunity for opportunistic hedging.
Those same asset managers are my LPs and peers. It's hard enough making a broad ExChina strategy. Making an ExAmerica strategy is even harder given how lopsided the global equities market is.
Furthermore, the articles you yourself provided are either marketing collateral for emerging markets stock (JPM) or opinion pieces by asset managers trying to vouch for their case.
I'd say this article [0] is probably a good enough overview of my thinking - there essentially is a rebalancing, but largely within American markets, with funds flowing into either Money Markets or sector speicifc funds.
Euronext, Deutsche Borse, and NASDAQ Nordic have a combined market cap a little under $10T and a little under $400B in monthly trade volume - it's too small to support an ExChina let alone an ExAmerica strategy. Heck, Euronext and DB's monthly trade volume makes the LSE look attractive.
There are opportunities that are relatively undervalued (eg. European defense majors), but there just aren't enough to make up for the entire US's public equity market. And don't get me started on exit opportunities for privately held assets (eg. PE/VC).
All the data you need is in the bullshit that comes out of the White House, daily. Companies are not pulling out yet because nobody is certain, but the writing has been on the wall. Tech sector froze hiring and did layoffs specifically after the insane tariff policy when everyone realized that its no longer just memes anymore.
For example, today, Jerome Powell just got indited. Its pretty clear that end of central bank independence is coming. Remember, higher up execs dgaf if US economy fails, they have their money bags. Once 2026 elections get cancelled and US goes full fascist, you are gonna see the shitstorm happen real time. On top of that, if US is in Tumroil, China will most likely invade Taiwan, since NATO wouldn't be able to respond, and bye bye all the stock market gains.
Save this comment if you think im being extremely hyperbolic, and make sure to read it again in 2 years.
Perhaps you're intending to say that "a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" but that's a personal dismissal. The way this is phrased comes off a bit self-important; they don't really "need" that data because they don't "need" you to not dismiss their claim. I rather get the impression they don't care what you think and were just answering your question.
I mean its akin to me saying "hey there is a flood coming, people are preparing for it", and you saying you need to see stats on how many sandbags are being piled up.
If you chose to remain optimistic, thats your decision.
Sure, but the fact that he's willing to do create false/inappropriate charges against the FED chairman is itself a signal to foreign investors how far the US is willing to go to increase the money supply (whereby decreasing the worth of any debts/holdings in USD). It signals an asset previously viewed as safe is now less safe.
Not exactly, and I say this as someone on the boards of multiple companies and have previously been a hiring manager.
It's a employer's market now and new grads in a number of disciples are increasingly underprepared aside from a handful of target programs.
Furthermore, most companies can limit hiring to at most 15 target programs nationally and maybe 3-4 local programs and get by.
For example, a program like UIUC graduates around 1200 CS and CE majors a year from a program with a 4-6% acceptance rate. Just limiting hiring only to UIUC undergrads who pass hiring standards would be enough to fill an entire new grad class. Same with UMich (~1.5k CS/CE undergrads a year), Cal (~1k CS/EECS undergrads a year), and a handful of other target programs.
And if we feel those candidates are overpriced, we can arbitrage talent globally if needed.
I've mentioned this multiple times on HN as well.
Furthermore, the Econ hiring crisis has been going on for a decade.
The stock market (which determines overall hiring) is propped up by large cap Tech, which is currently riding on AI, which is currently riding on TSMC.
US politically is going down the drain. Its a fuse that can only be extinguished by Trumps health issues. China knows this, and is already doing preparations to invade Taiwan should US significantly weaken.
Every other metric that you are see is secondary to this. Big tech hired like crazy during pandemic to grow for cheap cost, and then fired a whole bunch of people later. Companies dgaf about standards, they can essentially brute force stuff with enough headcount and higher salaries.
And now, everyone is watching and waiting to see what will happen.
As I mentioned, I am one of those people who makes asset management decisions.
Political instability is annoying, but most funds are well diversified beyond mega-cap tech and our LPs don't have anywhere else to park capital. There is some opportunistic geopolitical hedging, but it isn't enough to tip the scales.
For example, in my specific segment of the industry (cybersecurity/DefenseTech), we continued to operate as normal in Israel despite having missiles rain down from across the Middle East, a couple attempted suicide bombings near our TLV office, and employees of our portfolio companies and in some cases our founders being deployed.
> Companies dgaf about standards, they can essentially brute force stuff with enough headcount and higher salaries
We did back when I was in BigTech before I entered PE/VC a couple years ago, and it still matters at the companies that I'm a board member or advisor for.
> And now, everyone is watching and waiting to see what will happen
Partially. A lot of diversification was already done.
> US politically is going down the drain. Its a fuse that can only be extinguished by Trumps health issues. China knows this, and is already doing preparations to invade Taiwan should US significantly weaken
In that hypothetical, where else do we go? In such a world, the EU+UK is likely to see a military confrontation with Russia in the 2028-30 timeframe, China is out of the picture, Japan/SK/Aus would be dragged into conflict, India is likely to see a military confrontation with Pakistan or China by 2035, and the Gulf would re-ignite.
I hope you realize that your entire premise is essentially assuming the fact that people are just going to continue showing up to work no matter what happens. This isn't the case. Economy is effectively the desire of people to show up to work and make money so then can spend it on things made by other people through work.
There are events that can happen that are Black Swan events - i.e the unknown, unknowns from an economic perspective, that essentially can fuck up the economy big time. Say Trump institutes martial law after declaring himself forever president. You are going to see significant economic downturn. What happens in a sinking market? Companies move money. Companies will surive. People won't. Its a tale as old as time.
> we continued to operate as normal in Israel despite having missiles rain down from across the Middle East
Thats because an attack by a militant group is much, much different than a economic grind into decline. Its akin to a natural disaster - it doesn't erase economic demand.
>In that hypothetical, where else do we go?
Pretty much WW3. All the ingredients are there, straight down to the ideology being more important than truth. Like you said, when dominoes fall, countries that want to make moves will make moves.
One other issue that isn't mentioned, but has been voiced to me by my friends in the space is the rise of Data Science as an undergraduate discipline.
Econometrics has always had better hiring stats than other econ subdisciplines, and historically, most Econ adjacent jobs were largely data cleansing, analysis, and benchmarking.
On the other hand, math, statistics, and coding is hard, and a large portion of Econ undergrads (primarily at non-target programs) lacked the wherewithal or ability to tackle Baby Rudin or a data structures class. In a lot of cases, their professors themselves lacked significant mathematical or econometrics sophistication.
What ended up happening was a glut of Econ majors who lacked the skills that were in demand in the Econ space (anything econometrics adjacent).
Now that Data Science as an undergrad disciple has arisen, a number of jobs that historically would have hired an Econ major even if they lacked some technical sophistication have switched to hiring Data Science majors. Additionally, Econ majors who had significant maths/stats/cs backgrounds usually ended up double majoring or minoring in those disciplines already.
And finally, at the top Econ undergrad programs, departments had already been extremely adamant about requiring their students to build maths/stats/cs sophistication beyond being a Stata monkey.
The fact that even undergrad Government majors at Harvard are expected to do statistical modelling at the statistics major level, and often take CS109 as well highlights how deeply computational the social science has become, and a large portion of undergrads just aren't cut out for that.
To paraphrase my friend: If you as an Econ undergrad cannot tackle Baby Rudin by your senior year, you have no employable future aside maybe law school, which itself is an increasingly losing proposition. You most likely won't do real analysis at the Baby Rudin level on a daily basis (if ever), but it's a positive signal about your mathematical and computational ability.
That said, CS/CE/EECS grads shouldn't be high and mighty either. I've seen programs in the US increasingly make core classes like circuits, computer architecture, data structures, OS, systems programming, and even algorithms beyond discrete structures optional.
The ideal of democratizing education is great, but should not come at the expense of foundational knowledge.
Its simpler then that - everyone is facing a hiring crunch because everyone is preparing to weather massive economic downturn as foreign investment pulls out of United States.
Where do you see 'foreign investment pulling out of the US'? Do you have a link to some data?
International equities: Global structural changes driving narrowing U.S. earnings growth exceptionalism - https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/adv/insights/... - November 19th, 2025
Where to Go as the US Exceptionalism Trade Ends - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-06-06/where-... | https://archive.today/PSw9B - June 6th, 2025
Remaking the World Through Exiting US Stocks - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-03-19/remaki... | https://archive.today/YqD5M - March 19th, 2025
Did capital outflows from the U.S. already start? - https://globalecon.substack.com/p/did-capital-outflows-from-... - March 17th, 2025
The UK hasn't been a significant option becuase LSE dealflow is dead, and China difficult because of capital controls, and much of the capital flow within China is dry powder from those investors who couldn't exit.
As such, we have nowhere else to park other than the US, though there is an opportunity for opportunistic hedging.
That might be your opinion, but the evidence is clear asset managers are rotating away from US centric investing via capital reallocation.
Those same asset managers are my LPs and peers. It's hard enough making a broad ExChina strategy. Making an ExAmerica strategy is even harder given how lopsided the global equities market is.
Furthermore, the articles you yourself provided are either marketing collateral for emerging markets stock (JPM) or opinion pieces by asset managers trying to vouch for their case.
I welcome any citations you're able to provide, I also have a Bloomberg terminal if you have a reference not public.
I'd say this article [0] is probably a good enough overview of my thinking - there essentially is a rebalancing, but largely within American markets, with funds flowing into either Money Markets or sector speicifc funds.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/us-equity-funds-see-weekly-...
If the terminals are saying "everyone is pulling out of US equities", that means those pulling the strings want people to start doing exactly that.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Makes perfect sense, and fits right into my prediction of a large market crash within the next 2-3 years.
Short BLK.
Europe says hi.
After the attempt to seize the Russian assets, parked capital is fleeing the eurozone.
Euronext, Deutsche Borse, and NASDAQ Nordic have a combined market cap a little under $10T and a little under $400B in monthly trade volume - it's too small to support an ExChina let alone an ExAmerica strategy. Heck, Euronext and DB's monthly trade volume makes the LSE look attractive.
There are opportunities that are relatively undervalued (eg. European defense majors), but there just aren't enough to make up for the entire US's public equity market. And don't get me started on exit opportunities for privately held assets (eg. PE/VC).
[dead]
All the data you need is in the bullshit that comes out of the White House, daily. Companies are not pulling out yet because nobody is certain, but the writing has been on the wall. Tech sector froze hiring and did layoffs specifically after the insane tariff policy when everyone realized that its no longer just memes anymore.
For example, today, Jerome Powell just got indited. Its pretty clear that end of central bank independence is coming. Remember, higher up execs dgaf if US economy fails, they have their money bags. Once 2026 elections get cancelled and US goes full fascist, you are gonna see the shitstorm happen real time. On top of that, if US is in Tumroil, China will most likely invade Taiwan, since NATO wouldn't be able to respond, and bye bye all the stock market gains.
Save this comment if you think im being extremely hyperbolic, and make sure to read it again in 2 years.
I am afraid your claims about foreign investment pulling out of the US will need more substantiated data.
Your personal disagreement is valid, but has no bearing on the objective reality the rest of us live in.
Perhaps you're intending to say that "a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" but that's a personal dismissal. The way this is phrased comes off a bit self-important; they don't really "need" that data because they don't "need" you to not dismiss their claim. I rather get the impression they don't care what you think and were just answering your question.
I mean its akin to me saying "hey there is a flood coming, people are preparing for it", and you saying you need to see stats on how many sandbags are being piled up.
If you chose to remain optimistic, thats your decision.
The Trump administration has threatened Jerome Powell (which is a stupid move) but so far he hasn't actually been indicted.
Sure, but the fact that he's willing to do create false/inappropriate charges against the FED chairman is itself a signal to foreign investors how far the US is willing to go to increase the money supply (whereby decreasing the worth of any debts/holdings in USD). It signals an asset previously viewed as safe is now less safe.
https://www.tiktok.com/@andy_riddle/video/691954418645482215...
Not exactly, and I say this as someone on the boards of multiple companies and have previously been a hiring manager.
It's a employer's market now and new grads in a number of disciples are increasingly underprepared aside from a handful of target programs.
Furthermore, most companies can limit hiring to at most 15 target programs nationally and maybe 3-4 local programs and get by.
For example, a program like UIUC graduates around 1200 CS and CE majors a year from a program with a 4-6% acceptance rate. Just limiting hiring only to UIUC undergrads who pass hiring standards would be enough to fill an entire new grad class. Same with UMich (~1.5k CS/CE undergrads a year), Cal (~1k CS/EECS undergrads a year), and a handful of other target programs.
And if we feel those candidates are overpriced, we can arbitrage talent globally if needed.
I've mentioned this multiple times on HN as well.
Furthermore, the Econ hiring crisis has been going on for a decade.
You are missing the bigger picture.
The stock market (which determines overall hiring) is propped up by large cap Tech, which is currently riding on AI, which is currently riding on TSMC.
US politically is going down the drain. Its a fuse that can only be extinguished by Trumps health issues. China knows this, and is already doing preparations to invade Taiwan should US significantly weaken.
Every other metric that you are see is secondary to this. Big tech hired like crazy during pandemic to grow for cheap cost, and then fired a whole bunch of people later. Companies dgaf about standards, they can essentially brute force stuff with enough headcount and higher salaries.
And now, everyone is watching and waiting to see what will happen.
[flagged]
As I mentioned, I am one of those people who makes asset management decisions.
Political instability is annoying, but most funds are well diversified beyond mega-cap tech and our LPs don't have anywhere else to park capital. There is some opportunistic geopolitical hedging, but it isn't enough to tip the scales.
For example, in my specific segment of the industry (cybersecurity/DefenseTech), we continued to operate as normal in Israel despite having missiles rain down from across the Middle East, a couple attempted suicide bombings near our TLV office, and employees of our portfolio companies and in some cases our founders being deployed.
> Companies dgaf about standards, they can essentially brute force stuff with enough headcount and higher salaries
We did back when I was in BigTech before I entered PE/VC a couple years ago, and it still matters at the companies that I'm a board member or advisor for.
> And now, everyone is watching and waiting to see what will happen
Partially. A lot of diversification was already done.
> US politically is going down the drain. Its a fuse that can only be extinguished by Trumps health issues. China knows this, and is already doing preparations to invade Taiwan should US significantly weaken
In that hypothetical, where else do we go? In such a world, the EU+UK is likely to see a military confrontation with Russia in the 2028-30 timeframe, China is out of the picture, Japan/SK/Aus would be dragged into conflict, India is likely to see a military confrontation with Pakistan or China by 2035, and the Gulf would re-ignite.
I hope you realize that your entire premise is essentially assuming the fact that people are just going to continue showing up to work no matter what happens. This isn't the case. Economy is effectively the desire of people to show up to work and make money so then can spend it on things made by other people through work.
There are events that can happen that are Black Swan events - i.e the unknown, unknowns from an economic perspective, that essentially can fuck up the economy big time. Say Trump institutes martial law after declaring himself forever president. You are going to see significant economic downturn. What happens in a sinking market? Companies move money. Companies will surive. People won't. Its a tale as old as time.
> we continued to operate as normal in Israel despite having missiles rain down from across the Middle East
Thats because an attack by a militant group is much, much different than a economic grind into decline. Its akin to a natural disaster - it doesn't erase economic demand.
>In that hypothetical, where else do we go?
Pretty much WW3. All the ingredients are there, straight down to the ideology being more important than truth. Like you said, when dominoes fall, countries that want to make moves will make moves.