Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

#11

Post by intopieces »

001sky wrote: post #7
aschearer wrote: post #2

TLDR: They're students, retired boomers, or sick middle agers.

This comment is overly reductionist -- 'disabled' is a code word for long-term un-employable. Just eyball the proportion of working adults in the 50 to 60 year range. It is only ~5x the number of disabled. In other words, that is a huge %--maybe 20%--of potential workers in that age bracket. Any employment process that disables 20% of its workforce would be normally considered a problem. But instead we call the un-em…

>'disabled' is a code word for long-term un-employable.

Correct. This is the legacy of the Clinton era 'welfare to work' program: we moved people from welfare to disability.

This will grow as automation takes hold of ever more industries. "Disability" is the U.S.'s first step toward guaranteed minimum income or a negative income tax. We will never have enough jobs for everyone in America, so we need to figure out what we're going to do to keep the economy going.

Re: What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

#12

Post by [deleted] »

fiveoak wrote: post #4
aschearer wrote: post #2

TLDR: They're students, retired boomers, or sick middle agers.

Yep, although it is slightly worrying that there are 2.6 million people who want a job but aren’t looking. If I had to guess, probably a lot of that is due to a lack of marketable skills.

[deleted]

Re: What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

#15

Post by _delirium »

sjg007 wrote: post #14

18-22 year olds looking for a job would be more interesting. This measures post high school and the "in college" fraction.

Yeah, I think these brackets could use reworking for present-day interpretability. Working-age population traditionally starts at 16 in U.S. government statistics, since that's the traditional age where both mandatory schooling, and most child-labor-law restrictions ended. However the first part of that is becoming less true: currently only 30% of states still allow you to legally leave school at age 16. Another 20% have extended mandatory schooling to age 17, and 50% to age 18.

Re: What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

#17

Post by palehose »

nostromo wrote: post #16
palehose wrote: post #13

What about entrepreneurs starting a business that is not yet profitable? Is that something the government doesn't care about or are the numbers just too small?

They're counted as employed.

Not if there is no investment and no one is getting paid anything yet.

Re: What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

#18

Post by aschearer »

fiveoak wrote: post #10
aschearer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 million out of 318 doesn't seem especially newsworthy.

To put it in perspective: there are more people who want a job but aren't looking for a job than there are people in the entire US prison system (2.6 million vs 2.4 million).

It would not surprise me if the two are related. Google says there are approximately 20 million felons in the US. It's not difficult to imagine many of them are unable secure employment.

Re: What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

#19

Post by nostromo »

palehose wrote: post #17
nostromo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're counted as employed.

Not if there is no investment and no one is getting paid anything yet.

Not true. If you work for yourself and you're losing money and you get polled by the CPS, you would rightly report that you are self-employed, and you would be counted as working.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

It doesn't matter if there are investors or a profit.

Re: What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

#20

Post by mynameishere »

intopieces wrote: post #11
001sky wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is overly reductionist -- 'disabled' is a code word for long-term un-employable. Just eyball the proportion of working adults in the 50 to 60 year range. It is only ~5x the number of disabled. In other words, that is a huge %--maybe 20%--of potential workers in that age bracket. Any employment process that disables 20% of its workforce would be normally considered a problem. But instead we call the un-em…

>'disabled' is a code word for long-term un-employable. Correct. This is the legacy of the Clinton era 'welfare to work' program: we moved people from welfare to disability. This will grow as automation takes hold of ever more industries. "Disability" is the U.S.'s first step toward guaranteed minimum income or a negative income tax. We will never have enough jobs for everyone in America, so we need to figure out wha…

It really has nothing to do with "keeping the economy going". The purpose of "disability" insurance is just like that of Social Security originally--keeping people from destitution and poorhouses. It's not a good thing, but an unavoidable thing.
Post reply on HN