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

Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 149 posts

Re: Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

#31

Post by jazzyk »

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #22
ab5tract wrote: post #5

The rules regarding unemployment statistics are entirely designed to be favorable. Citizens who are unemployed for greater than X months (where X is a figure I don't currently recall) stop being considered unemployed for the sake of this stat. Likewise, homeless populations are not counted. Not everyone who is homeless is necessarily unemployed, I guess, but it's patently ridiculous not to include any homeless in une…

Sorry but that's not true at all. You are counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are actively looking for work. There is no "cut-off." Look up the definition at the BLS, there is no excuse for spreading this crap through laziness. If you stop looking for jobs you are not considered unemployed as someone not actively seeking work is not considered to be in the labor force. That is a different issue entirel…

I do not disagree with you, but at least for me, the most telling is the labor force participation. The fact that we have a close-to-a-record number of people not being productive is alarming.

Oh, and I am not buying the "demographics" narrative (baby boomers retiring, not interested in working), because a lot of 60+ folks need to work, because they don't have enough savings.

Re: Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

#32

Post by jazzyk »

psyc wrote: post #27
s_kilk wrote: post #11

Uh, because we are all collectively being fleeced by a ruling class extracting obscene amounts of wealth from our work without doing anything useful themselves. Never fool yourself into thinking you'll get anything back from these vampires.

I completely agree that there is a ruling class, and that they extract an obscene amount of rent just because they can. I also happen to think they create a ton of value. I just don't believe that justifies them making us 'human capital'.

Explain to me the "value" of Goldman Sachs telling their customers to buy derivatives, while shorting them at the same time.

Pretty please.

Re: Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

#33

Post by Karunamon »

jazzyk wrote: post #32
psyc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that there is a ruling class, and that they extract an obscene amount of rent just because they can. I also happen to think they create a ton of value. I just don't believe that justifies them making us 'human capital'.

Explain to me the "value" of Goldman Sachs telling their customers to buy derivatives, while shorting them at the same time. Pretty please.

One, or even many examples of bad behavior does not invalidate the general argument of the wealthy creating value.

Don't forget you're on a site owned by wealthy people whose day job is giving money to other people to bootstrap their companies. You don't get much more creating value than that.

Re: Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

#34

Post by bradleyjg »

refurb wrote: post #20
bigredhdl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I hate how the unemployment number is always so lazily used by media outlets. In contrast the employment rate (60.2%) is currently lower than it was from 1986 until 2008.

But you need to control for factors such as the age distribution of the population. Now that baby boomer's (a much higher percent of total population than one would expect) are retired, you wouldn't expect them to have a job, so why count them as unemployed?

If you look at Employment Population Ratio: 25 - 54 years (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060#0) we are below where we were for most of the 90s on that as well.

However the larger question is why we would necessarily want this ratio to be as high as possible. If we, for example, have a higher percentage of stay at home parents today then we had in the 90s is that a bad thing?

Re: Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

#35

Post by hyperpape »

s_kilk wrote: post #11

Uh, because we are all collectively being fleeced by a ruling class extracting obscene amounts of wealth from our work without doing anything useful themselves. Never fool yourself into thinking you'll get anything back from these vampires.

We had a ruling class in the 90s as well, but wages increased. So the question is what is different about today?

Re: Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

#37

Post by vostok »

jazzyk wrote: post #32
psyc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that there is a ruling class, and that they extract an obscene amount of rent just because they can. I also happen to think they create a ton of value. I just don't believe that justifies them making us 'human capital'.

Explain to me the "value" of Goldman Sachs telling their customers to buy derivatives, while shorting them at the same time. Pretty please.

When Goldman trades an OTC derivative with you, they're necessarily taking the other side. The value is that you transfer risk to Goldman at a price that you think is too low and that Goldman thinks is too high.

Don't get me wrong, I'm probably more anti bank than the average HNer, but this particular criticism is nonsense.

Re: Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

#38

Post by alistairSH »

jazzyk wrote: post #21

The widely published unemployment number only measures the dynamics of layoffs (how many people became unemployed in the window of the past 6 months). The actual labor force participation is what counts. And therein lies the answer to the "why isn't pay rising" question: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-pa... (switch to the 10-year time view)

How does a declining labor force participation explain stagnant wages?

As participation (supply) goes down, wages should start to go up (to entice people back into the labor force).

What we have is declining participation AND stagnant wages.

Re: Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

#39

Post by trueSlav »

s_kilk wrote: post #11

Uh, because we are all collectively being fleeced by a ruling class extracting obscene amounts of wealth from our work without doing anything useful themselves. Never fool yourself into thinking you'll get anything back from these vampires.

The only question that remains is if you're just a scummy marxist or a full blown communist. #itwasjustbadlyimplemented #castrowasachampionofsocialjustice

Re: Unemployment in the U.S. Is Falling, So Why Isn’t Pay Rising?

#40

Post by maxerickson »

IanDrake wrote: post #23
s_kilk wrote: post #11

Uh, because we are all collectively being fleeced by a ruling class extracting obscene amounts of wealth from our work without doing anything useful themselves. Never fool yourself into thinking you'll get anything back from these vampires.

So if you were given 25 million dollars you would automagically make obscene amounts of money with no effort? History shows otherwise with a very high rate of bankruptcies from lottery winners.

You could make $300,000-$400,000 per year putting that in CDs.

In the top 1 or 2% of households by income for pretty much doing nothing. Maybe not a literally obscene income though.

Post reply on HN