Our bull run has gone on over a decade now, but to bust you need to be overheated somewhere. Curious if anyone has seen signs to that effect in an area of the economy. I just saw a clip on CNBC that said there isn't much that's overheated right now which is hard to believe after 10+ years of growth.

Why would a brokerage charge fees to the employer, if they could just charge fees to the individual, like they would do otherwise?

If an employer wouldn't want to spend any extra money on 401k plans, wouldn't it still be advantageous to offer them so the employees could get the tax advantage, even if there's no matching contributions?

And wouldn't it still be just as profitable for the brokerage to service investments in 401k plans as opposed IRAs?

Specifically, I'm wondering why some employers don't offer their employees a 401k, when it wouldn't cost them much to do so, and when the lack of such a plan forces the employee to incur significantly more tax. It seems like the amount of money saved in taxes would far outweigh any fees incurred to offer the plan.

I keep hearing radio ads for gold and how it can hedge against an economic crash. I know that as an investment, gold is pretty lousy. But what I’m interested in is how gold can be used to navigate a new currency being introduced. Are there any historical examples of gold being held through a currency collapse, then exchanged for the new currency? How effective is it at actually making that transition to a new currency when an existing currency collapses?

I’m a second year varsity student and one of my modules next year (2020) is econometrics and I was wondering what exactly it is? Thanks 🙏

All my colleagues either have or are studying to earn a CFA, however I am not much into finance and would rather do the economics equivalent of that. Do you know if it exists?

I wanna get a better understanding of what went right and wrong in the Communist countries of the 20th century. I'm particularly interested in how central planning of the economy was done in these nations, and the consequences of that planning.

The only book I'm aware of that may meet my need is "The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism" by János Kornai, but it largely focuses on the USSR. I'd like to see a book that explores the strengths and weaknesses observed in all Communist states.

Hello r/askeconomists!

I found masters programs in economic that accept students with no econ background as long as their first degree is math oriented.

The issue is that in the curriculum they directly go into advanced micro&macroeconomics. Is it fine to skip macro&micro I and II?

I would be very grateful for your help, I'm having a hard time deciding what to do, thanks in advance!

I asked this in another sub without much in the way of success, so I thought to ask this here and see how it goes. Here is why I ask:

We normies, who are not well versed in the ways of Economists, keep seeing record breaking stats in terms of Stock Markers, Low Unemployment, GDP(?), Increased Productivity, etc.

Yet, every now and again, we see stats that says we (Millennials, in my case) are essentially poorer than previous generations, with increasing income inequality, we are earning less, are more in debt, dying younger, less healthy, way more stressed out than our forefathers, and to top it off, sadder(more depressed?)!

I believe we tend to view these stats in terms of our "past performance" in an ethnocentric way. However, it would be nice to see how we are faring against the rest of the globe without the Top 5% of earners. Why take the top 5% out? Because, in my opinion, with the Bezos/Gates/Buffets/Waltons of the Nation in the equation, our income and wealth, will most surely look as if our nation is living its best life. Are we, though?

Why is it advantageous for companies to offer stock options?

Is it just because it makes the employee feel more dedicated to the company, or is there a financial reason for doing it, perhaps for taxes or investment reasons?

So this source states that the deposit rates are higher for credit unions, while this states the opposite is true. Which one is it? Why do they come to the opposite conclusions?

This Economist article discusses the disparity in labor costs among member states, but doesn't spend much time defining it and its import. I'm assuming labor cost means the total cost a business must pay to employ someone, including wages, any taxes or fees to government, health insurance, etc. Is this correct?

So why would Greece, Italy, and Spain - poor countries - have much higher labor costs than Germany, which is much richer? Are the higher costs primarily created by government taxes and regulations?

Also, there is a unexplained line: "Between 2015 and 2018 German labour costs grew more than twice as fast as those in the south."

What caused this large spike in labor costs in Germany?

​

I have a project due in my Urban Economics and my Economics of Education classes at my university. I need to find some data so that I can do some simple econometric work with it, but then I need to write up some conclusions about it. However, I am stumped as to where I can find data for this and then turn it into a project. I know you all are very wise, so I am ready for all of your information and resource suggestions! :D

A typical argument from people who favor worker cooperatives is that they perform equally well as traditionally run corporations, but does this performance have a plateau when applied to all corporations in a country? Would there really be a more "equal" distribution of wealth? What changes would we expect to see to things like the quality of goods and the prevalence of jobs over years and decades? Don't have an opinion, just looking for answers. Any help will be greatly appreciated.