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

Say Hello to Full Employment

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 348 posts

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#161

Post by BadassFractal »

tmpz22 wrote: post #72
spir wrote: post #47

This article seems to use the terms "unemployed" and "jobless" interchangeably. People who stop searching for jobs (eg. due to despondence or poor health) are excluded from the official unemployment rate, yet they are jobless. On a recent EconTalk, Edward Glaeser, the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard, said, in their recent sample, 11.9% of U.S. men aged 25-55 have been jobless for over 12 mont…

I can't help but feel the unemployment rate is so politicized that its facts and statistics will continue to be cherrypicked outside of reality.

Very similar to the conversation around the gender wage gap as well.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#162

Post by pkaye »

sbjs wrote: post #52
pkaye wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> masters degree in pharma Is that a pharmacist degree? Don't those need a PhD equivalent to be most beneficial?

It may be a PhD for pharmacist, yeah. We lost touch a few years ago when they moved away, but he went to school for something like 10 years. So I think it is a PhD. But there were no jobs. Last I heard, even the job he has now doesn't cover insurance, so he pays for that himself and they're still living like he works at Burger King.

I've always heard it was in high demand because every drug store needs a pharmacist and the education requirements are stringent so the supply is not great.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#164

Post by s73v3r_ »

RIMR wrote: post #159
TimTheTinker wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, without enough legitimate work opportunities, those with criminal records are strongly incentivized to resort to grey and black markets (or theft) to make a living. A vicious cycle. We've got to get rid of the mindset that we need to "protect ourselves", both corporately and individually, from "dangerous people" (i.e. former criminals) by excluding them from our lives and our companies. "Love your neighbor a…

To be fair, "You got caught smoking pot a decade ago, and therefore we cannot trust you to write Python code" isn't the kind of judgment a successful company would pass. That's the kind of thing a doomed company would do. However, if you got caught stealing a bunch of electronics from a past employer, you'll have a seriously hard time find a job anywhere where they have to trust you with money or property. Honestly,…

"To be fair, "You got caught smoking pot a decade ago, and therefore we cannot trust you to write Python code" isn't the kind of judgment a successful company would pass. That's the kind of thing a doomed company would do."

I don't feel that's really relevant, and the person who is trying to get back on their feet likely doesn't care. They just want a damn job.

"Honestly, people who commit crimes against their employers do this to themselves"

Not many do. In fact, I'd say far more employers commit crimes against their employees than the other way around. And yet, they don't have to worry.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#165

Post by ww520 »

canada_dry wrote: post #101
shams93 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goes to show that Obama did much better than he was often given credit for. While Obamacare fell fall short of the medicare for all that is needed by business - imagine not having to worry about covering healthcare for employees for your startup - his overall job of captaining the ship through incredibly hard times was very successful.

This. Sadly, it's highly likely that the current administration will - of course take credit - but more importantly - reap all the rewards (i.e. votes) in the next federal election. I still am amazed at how Obama pulled the US from the brink of utter financial collapse shortly after taking office. Hopefully the next incoming administration will be as lucky.

The financial rescue and QE happened in 2008 while Bush Jr. was in office.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#167

Post by nitwit005 »

sbjs wrote: post #4

"For the first time in recorded history, the number of job openings is higher than the number of people looking for a job." So what? If there's a thousand Node developers like me looking for work, and a thousand job openings for dentists, that's a mismatch. You may say beggars can't be choosers, but do they expect Node developers who went through CS courses to throw that away and take dentist courses?

I'm not sure it's possible to measure the number of job openings anymore. It used to be an expensive thing to do, as a human would read all the responses, but now they sometimes advertise a bunch of fake positions just to measure the current available talent.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#168

Post by adrianpike »

throawawy3242 wrote: post #166

And here I am. Laid off after 2 months, among hundreds of workers, and unable to find employment. Someone tell me more about these "more jobs than people" again. BTW I have a B.S in Computer Science and living in the USA.

Where in the USA? I know a lot of folks hiring, both regionally and locally.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#169

Post by mgkimsal »

wgerard wrote: post #16
mgkimsal wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this comes up a lot, and I can never find the actual questions that get asked on these surveys. do they mean an actual savings account at a bank? the kind that pay 0.02% interest? few people I know, even with high net worth and liquidity, have much of anything in a 'savings account'. But... "Only 41% of adults reported having enough in their savings account". Do they just mean 'savings'? Or liquid cash? I can never f…

> few people I know, even with high net worth and liquidity, have much of anything in a 'savings account' Really? It's fairly common advice to store an emergency fund in something akin to a savings account (or at least something with FDIC backing). Either way, it seems bizarre for a high net worth individual not to have at least $500 in something extremely liquid like a checking/savings account. Either way, it's fair…

> in something extremely liquid like a checking/savings account.

I was asking specifically if the surveys mean actual "savings" account, which often have some restrictions on them ("Make a total of 6 transfers and withdrawals each monthly statement cycle with no Withdrawal Limit Fee"). If you're getting a grand total of 0.01% interest, there's not much reason to also restrict activity as well.

That said, I realize I do have a 'savings' account, via an online-only bank, getting about 50x what my local bank's savings account rate is. I just didn't think of it as a 'savings' account as I'm so accustomed to thinking of 'savings acct'='brick and mortar location'.

Post reply on HN