Business
What You Can Learn About Job-Hunting From Dating Apps. Really.
love-bombingsituationshipghosting
Anyone who has ever interviewed for a job has received this wisdom from a gainfully employed friend: “Remember, you’re interviewing them too!” Those who have spent time swiping on dating apps may have heard the same advice. There’s a reason for that.
The dating and job markets aren’t that different. “Recruiters just glance at your profile,” said Kyle Lagunas, head of strategy and principal analyst at Aptitude Research, a research-based advisory firm. “You’re going to have 15 seconds before they swipe.”
In both cases, we need to know what we want. A superficial attraction? Something deeper? And in both cases, we want to know what makes us desirable. Because we are convenient at the moment? Because it seems like we both want similar things?
So, using lingo from the dating world, here’s an advice manual for navigating the “dates” we go on when we are hunting for a job, with actionable takeaways. Remember, every time we accept a “date” with anyone in our desired industry, we are being evaluated — even if we believe it’s just a coffee with a childhood friend’s older sibling, or a 10-minute call with a longtime mentor.
These tips may or may not lead you to your dream job. But they will give you more information about the workplace cultures you are considering so that you can make informed decisions.
situationship
/sich-oo-AY-shuhn-ship/
Dating:
A relationship (usually lasting three months or more) that isn’t exclusive, even though one partner wants it to be. Usually, this is a way for one party to enjoy the perks of a relationship without accountability.
Job-hunting:
A job without health insurance and/or with less than a yearlong contract (or no contract at all).
Situationship employers (otherwise known as gig employers) frequently like to call you “a prospective member of their family” or highlight “contributing to a purpose” during the recruiting process.
For experts, this kind of language is a red flag. “They say they are a family, but they don’t say what kind of family,” said Martin McGovern, a career consultant and executive coach. “The boss might see you as a family member, but then as soon as the budget changes, they will hire an external cousin and fire you.”
The “making a difference” lingo is more often used today in spaces with precarity and low pay, especially in the nonprofit world, said Erin McGoff, a career coach.
Situationship employers rely on family and purpose language because, whether or not they have revealed it yet, they know they cannot offer you a long-term commitment or health insurance.
Do not fall into this trap! They are not your family — you barely know them, and they want to hire you without giving you benefits or a true commitment.
If you are offered this job and decide to take it, continue your job hunt. Your employer is not committed to you, so you don’t owe them anything.
imaginationship
/uh-maj-uh-NAY-shuhn-ship/
Dating:
An elaborate relationship with your crush in your head (for example, if you fantasize about becoming someone’s spouse, but they see you as a no-frills hookup).
Job-hunting:
The search for a paid job when a company is really looking for an unpaid intern.
Imaginationships can be a pink flag. Define the relationship: Only work free hours if you believe they will benefit your career in the long run.
Free hours can be a way to form a relationship with a mentor, but tread carefully; given the power imbalance, it can also be a way to be taken advantage of.
breadcrumbing
/BRED-kruhm-ing/
Dating:
After hooking up, one partner texting intermittently but resisting any kind of concrete plan to meet up again.
Job-hunting:
An employer asking for increasing amounts of work during a multistage interview process, without financial compensation.
Breadcrumbing (in the case of job interviews, uncompensated work) can be a red or pink flag, said McGoff, the career coach. “I hear from people being asked to do assignments that not only take up a lot of their time, but where they create valuable assets the company uses,” she said. There are exceptions: “You need to use common sense. If it’s a role you really want, you can go the extra mile.”
But it might be worth asking some questions in response to their request: How many candidates are they requesting this material from? How long should the assignment take you? What skills is the assignment meant to showcase? Will the company be using the deliverables for anything other than job consideration? What is the offer timeline?
Thank them for the information. Depending on their answers, McGoff suggested politely offering a truncated version of the assignment. If a company requests 30 posts and 20 reels of social-media content, for example, ask if it would be acceptable to send five posts and two short-form videos.
“Some companies budget for this, so you can always ask if this is a case where they can offer compensation for your time,” McGoff said. But, she added, “don’t ask in an entitled way. Say, ‘Since this will take me X amount of hours, I’m inquiring to see if you offer that.’”
You also can always direct them to previous examples of your work that showcase the skills they are testing for in the assignment.
Based on their answers to your questions, consider, carefully, whether continuing to pursue this job is worth your time.
love-bombing
/LUV-bahm-ing/
Dating:
Receiving compliments, gifts and other gestures of affection without a promise of exclusivity.
Job-hunting:
In the recruitment and offer stages, receiving flattery and promises of promotion rather than a reasonable starting salary.
Love-bombing can feel good, but it doesn’t pay the bills.
Use that flattery to push for a better salary — and point to inflation and other economic challenges to justify annual increases.
Ask for written promises of salary bumps and title changes (ideally, as part of your contract). It may not happen, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.
Dating:
Entering into an exclusive, romantic relationship.
Job-hunting:
Landing a job with at least a yearlong contract, health insurance and retirement benefits.
Cuffing in the job-search world isn’t necessarily a bad thing: If this is the gig you want, great. If not, use this position to look more appealing to other jobs. Only leave your current position once you have a better offer (however you choose to define “better”).
Dating:
Boasting about attention from other matches in order to seem more appealing.
Job-hunting:
An employer talking about how many applications it has received.
Whelming in the job-search world is best ignored.
Or, if you are being hired in a cohort, talk to other candidates who received offers. Try to deduce the percentage of candidates who, when offered a job at the company, take it. (As with college admissions, this is called the yield rate.)
Yes, they might have a lot of interested applicants. But are you one of them? You need to figure that out for yourself.
Bonus points if they drop the line “It is harder to get a job here than get into Harvard.” (Matthew Bahl, workplace market lead and vice president at the Financial Health Network, a nonprofit financial services consultancy, said that this line is particularly popular in the management and consulting worlds.)
Dating:
When, after a date or hookup, one person doesn’t respond to a follow-up message or call. (Generally, it is ghosting only after two nonresponses.)
Job-hunting:
When you don’t hear back from an employer after interviewing for a job.
Ghosting after interviews, sadly, is all too common. Follow up once, maybe twice.
Do not wait around after that.
Bahl also noted that ghosting can be a red flag. “Is this really a place you want to spend your time, before they’re even paying you? They’re already not showing you the level of respect you would want to have or you would expect to show them.”
Dating:
Ghosting someone, but then, after at least a few months, reaching out as though the ghosting never happened. (Sometimes it is fun to respond to these texts with a simple ghost emoji.)
Job-hunting:
Failing to respond to a professional contact who asked a question or favor, but later reaching out with a different question or favor.
Zombieing, unlike ghosting, might be a positive thing — or not: If a professional contact reaches out to you out of the blue, they probably are looking for something. Figure out what that is.
If this is a person with power over you (someone who makes more money than you, for example, or has the power to help you get a job), proceed, but carefully: They’ve ghosted you once, and they will likely do it again.
Dating:
Keeping someone on a “roster” in case your first choice doesn’t work out. Often, this comes in the form of a late-night text from a hookup (“You up?”). But sometimes serial monogamists also keep a hookup on the bench — just in case they break up with their current significant other.
Job-hunting:
Rejecting a candidate but trying to keep the person interested in case the first choice declines the offer.
Benching is normal in hiring. “Expect them to have a roster,” said McGovern, the career counselor. “Treat companies how they treat you — always have a backup plan, always be dating on the side of your job.”
McGoff agreed: “I’m a huge advocate for staying on the roster. I’m a huge advocate for seeing job interviews as a networking opportunity. And if you don’t get the job, it’s not that their door is closed forever. It’s still an open door. It’s just that right then it didn’t work out, but down the road it might.”
But this kind of practice can be a warning signal. Check Glassdoor, a site where companies are rated by current and former employees, to see if there are reviews that mention turnover rates. If employees stay at this company for less than a year, that flag turns from pink to red.
Watch how employees talk about current and past employees — assume this is how you will be talked about when you are not in the room.
If you can speak to the last person who held the position you are being considered for, try to figure out what their experience was. Assume that yours will be similar if you are offered and take this job.
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
Business
How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.
Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.
What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.
But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.
The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.
How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments
To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.
The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.
In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.
In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.
Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.
Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.
Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.
How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies
With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.
The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.
The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.
The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.
One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.
Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.
And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.
Methodology
Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Louisiana4 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology6 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology6 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making