Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a private investigator whose primary clients are hedge funds. Business is very good for now. My wife works in PR; her clients are primarily corporations.

+1. My DH is a law firm partner whose clients are the above. Even if some clients leave/shrink/disappear, that's highly unlikely to happen to all of them.

If courts are successfully destroyed as per step 3 of Curtis Yarvin's plan, lawyers become unnecessary.

You do know that 99% of lawyers have nothing to do with courts right? They work with private clients.

I wouldn't count on it. If you cut the regulators, then presumably you don't need the consultants and law firms defending private companies on the other side. There's no IRS or EPA or SEC or DOJ to pursue enforcement actions and no need for law firms and consultants to represent companies doing that work. I actually think it could be terrible for law firms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a private investigator whose primary clients are hedge funds. Business is very good for now. My wife works in PR; her clients are primarily corporations.

+1. My DH is a law firm partner whose clients are the above. Even if some clients leave/shrink/disappear, that's highly unlikely to happen to all of them.

If courts are successfully destroyed as per step 3 of Curtis Yarvin's plan, lawyers become unnecessary.

You do know that 99% of lawyers have nothing to do with courts right? They work with private clients.

Anonymous wrote:Look I am as anti Trump as they get and some of you have just gone over the edge with the paranoia.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't big tech not affected? Cyber security? I feel like many industries outside of DC area won't be affected. At least in my circle of friends, no one seems to care except the feds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not terribly helpful for DC-based folks, but parts of the private sector are rejoicing about the deregulation happening in the fed. Banking is booming, as is anything related to mergers and acquisitions (legal, accounting, firms that are ripe for expanding, etc.). (The Biden administration scrutinized M&A quite a lot so as soon as Trump was elected, all of the firms in that ecosystem soared in stock value.). Energy is expanding-- partly because it will be easier to expand coal production, etc. and partly because AI requires a ton of energy. So utilities firms are doing well (not sure if this amounts to hiring, though).

For other industries, it seems like there is a wait-and-see related to tariffs. Many of these firms say that federal deregulation will help them expand but they're also wary about potential tariffs. So these might have positions available--neither contracting nor expanding right now. If his first term is any indication, whenever firms are hurt too much (e.g., when the stock market goes down), Trump adjusts. So most managers are tracking this stuff carefully, but not really predicting a ton of hardship. And those companies that are visibly sucking up (e.g. CEOs attended the inauguration) are probably going to be in good shape.

NGOs that rely on federal funding are obviously in bad shape. But advocacy NGOs are likely to expand somewhat.

M&A is actually down right now einstein.

https://www.ib.barclays/our-insights/3-point-perspective/mergers-and-aquisitions-outlook-h1-2025.html?cid=paidsearch-texads_google_google_themes_m&a-outlook-2025_us_m&a-outlook-2025_2369412717580&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA2oW-BhC2ARIsADSIAWqGl7VAZIKvlAm73p1TSKjvjb3mrs6gV_ODl1CsBhFGpbNczwGyp3caApoyEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds


"After years of subdued M&A activity, the stage is set for robust dealmaking in 2025. Following the uptick in transactions in H2 2024, there is continued optimism about a shift to a pro-growth environment with less regulation. According to our Global M&A team, deal volumes could increase up to 15% year on year, driven by corporate ambition, increased sponsor activity and cross border activity."

Anonymous wrote:Construction

Anonymous wrote:Local law enforcement. As society slowly unravels more will be needed.

Anonymous wrote:Local governments just raise taxes to pay for what they want, so many jobs there are probably safe enough.

Anonymous wrote:I don't mean this to be flip. I'm aiming this at young people in their first few years in the workforce.

Most cities/states outside of the DC area will be fine. They are losing some federal jobs, but those jobs are a much, much smaller proportion of their workforce so the employees will experience disruption but be absorbed into the local workforce relatively quickly.

In contrast, the DC area will likely be in a local recession--there will be a spike in unemployment directly related to the federal jobs, and there will be spillover effects to entertainment, restaurants, etc. And that will lower local tax revenue putting a strain on local governments and related services.

If you're young and don't have strong ties to the area, looking anyplace outside of the DMV will provide more opportunity and less competition for jobs and wages than the DMV will for the next four years.

And there's a very good chance that the federal govt will be hiring in earnest four years from now if you're really keen to return.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dental hygienist.

If there is no insurance, there’s no dentists visits

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a private investigator whose primary clients are hedge funds. Business is very good for now. My wife works in PR; her clients are primarily corporations.

+1. My DH is a law firm partner whose clients are the above. Even if some clients leave/shrink/disappear, that's highly unlikely to happen to all of them.

If courts are successfully destroyed as per step 3 of Curtis Yarvin's plan, lawyers become unnecessary.