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

181–190 of 348 posts

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#181

Post by azernik »

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.

The selection of this metric is not some recent political decision - the headline number has been U3 for a loooong time, and its definition was decided by the UN-affiliated International Labor Organization.

It's not a good measure, but it's not a case of politicians picking a convenient metric, it's just a case of a bad metric being optimized for.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#182

Post by johannes1234321 »

asah wrote: post #80
tmpz22 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sigh, and yet it's a key statistic needed to make decisions... improvements welcome!

it's extremely political. By the way you define it you can explain the need for some reforms or display how good you were.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#183

Post by shados »

scarface74 wrote: post #111
avarun wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... basically the opposite of true.

Outside of Silicon Valley in the rest of the country -- look at the job reqs.

Job reqs are a lie, and a lot of jobs (I almost want to say most, but I don't have data to back it up) never even make it as far as the job boards. The ones that do are often not even drafted by the hiring manager, and just written by someone who asked "So, what kind of skills would be nice?". Most companies will absolutely hire outside of what's written. They don't have much choice unless they're looking for entry level folks. Competent senior folks get snatched up very, very quickly, so if you're looking for something too specific, the req will stay open forever.

At least, that's been my experience working in both Canada and in the US, and I've never been close to Silicon Valley (or the west coast for that matter, so if its true there, I stand corrected).

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#184

Post by vivafrance »

rsync wrote: post #141
joefranklinsrs wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, you also want to look at macroeconomic conditions around the world, tech trends, demographics, etc. For example, 10 years ago we had quantitative easing done by US/Europe, which led to subprime loans. Now, all of the major economies around the world is tapped out with QE, so deflation is the theme going forward Also, 10 years ago the dollar prime rate was 0%. Now it's close to 2%. That drives the emerging market…

"For example, 10 years ago we had quantitative easing done by US/Europe, which led to subprime loans." QE did not cause subprime loans - QE was the response to the effects of the subprime loan era. There was no QE before the liquidity crisis and subsequent economic recession, although it had been discussed academically.

Of course it did. The Fed bought up all the debt it could. This had two effects:

1) It caused investors to search for yield anywhere they could (subprime is a good place to start!)

2) For many types of debt investors knew they could always pass it on up to the Fed!

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#185

Post by badbug »

mc32 wrote: post #137
brlewis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first sentence in the article implies the second sentence in your comment. This morning, the Labor Department announced that the national unemployment rate ticked up to 4 percent in June for good reasons, as hundreds of thousands more Americans sought work.

If they this is true, this will be amazing. For too long we have sold out the American worker to unfair trade and offshoring. It’s great to see our workers in neglected sectors of the economy have a chance to get back in.

I'm seeing lots of "help wanted" signs. In fast food places. This isn't progress.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#186

Post by BadassFractal »

vivekd wrote: post #176
BadassFractal wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why was this downvoted? Women tend not to be crazy like men and thus are more likely to choose fulfiling careers that have lower pay, and seek more work life balance. When accounting for these factors, the existence of a gender pay gap becomes more questionable.

It gets downvoted because that topic has long transcended being a discussion about interpretation of available data, and has instead turned into a cultural and moral battle over "liberators of the oppressed" vs "evil misogynists" or "whiny snowflakes" vs "those who pull themselves by their bootstraps".

Almost impossible to make any progress in it without appeal to emotion and in-group/out-group dynamics.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#187

Post by saas_co_de »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #92
adventured wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business just got a massive tax cut. They can dig themselves out by spending on increasing productivity and paying higher wages. The economy needs to be run very hot for an extended period of time, instead of getting crashed by an obnoxiously over-eager Fed that likes to kick the economy into a recession to dampen wage growth for the benefit of businesses in the guise of controlling inflation. Businesses need to be m…

Not much point increasing wages if you are just going to erode them with inflation.

The myth of the link between rising wages and inflation is very common in the media, but there is hardly any connection in reality.

Wages will naturally adjust to the equilibrium supply and demand. If the needed increase in wages to increase production pushes prices up such that supply falls then production will be cut to adjust. That is what actual economic theory says.

In the real world their is a lot of lag, so some market participants will be increasing wages and producing too much, and then they lose money, and have to overcut on the other side, but in a massive diverse economy this random noise balances out.

The market will never over price labor, therefore inflation cannot come from increasing wages.

Inflation comes from printing money (or creating it digitally since we don't actually print any more). When the inflation from printing money results in rising wages, then that is a sign to the bankers that they should cut back so that they can keep the poor in line, and keep them from paying off their loans so that they can't get out of debt.

Real world economics.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#188

Post by badbug »

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.

"more jobs than people" can still be true, even if you don't find your preferred job.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#189

Post by mmt »

vivekd wrote: post #176
BadassFractal wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why was this downvoted? Women tend not to be crazy like men and thus are more likely to choose fulfiling careers that have lower pay, and seek more work life balance. When accounting for these factors, the existence of a gender pay gap becomes more questionable.

Despite the guideline-flouting/flame-attracting wording, I think there's a kernel of a point here: it's important to consider two seperate pay-gap issues (be it for gender, race, or any other class):

1) equal pay for equal work

2) equal represenatation among (higher paying) jobs

I routinely see these two issues conflated, and occasionally the purported resolution of #1 for gender being trotted as evidence of no more "gap".

Although I can see how that could be characterized as "cherry-picking" a statistic, it doesn't make the statistic any less valid, and it detracts from the real problem of conflation. If it's true, then additional effort at #1 would, indeed, be wasted. It would be better to criticize the notion of just one "gap" rather than any cherry-picking.

How does this relate to the topic at hand? The original commentor suggested a problem of conflation, between "unemployed" and "jobless".

Elsewhere in the thread, it's been discussed whether workforce participation is a more meaningful metric.

Even that risks conflating "employed" with "fully employed" (as opposed to "underemployed", such as part time or working for a lower wage). Real wage growth comes up repeatedly, presumably because of that confounding factor.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#190

Post by tspike »

pkaye wrote: post #43
sbjs wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know much about the job market, but it seems weird that they push people throw college for degrees they can't use. My friend got a masters degree in pharma and he didn't get a job for about 2 years, his wife had to work as a retail manager to support their whole family, and he had a mental breakdown because of it. That's the point I was getting at.

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

Yes, the requisite degree these days is a "PharmD"
Post reply on HN