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

201–210 of 348 posts

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#201

Post by InclinedPlane »

Veelox wrote: post #61
bayfullofrays wrote: post #22

I hate these kinds of numbers because they hide the fact that most of these jobs do not provide a living wage.

Hey, how about instead of requiring employers to pay more we reduce the cost housing, medicine, and schooling which are the biggest drains on people expenses.

Why not both?

The economy is healthier with safety nets that prevent people from "dropping out" of the economy through homeless, excessive debt, being trapped under huge debt burdens that limit their options, etc.

But the economy is also healthier when it is fully participatory. When only a small slice of the public has any significant amount of discretionary spending the economy tends to stagnate.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#203

Post by deebeeoh »

The tantalizing question is: why would employers choose to hold out for employees who will accept lower wages, rather than offer higher wages and employ more people immediately?

Higher wages are a commitment to long term obligation. It's a drag to lay people off and employers seldom decrease wages as a tactic to control costs. Corporate profits are high -- often the result of vigorous expense cuts in the past.

Maybe doubts about the future? Maybe local prioritizations around profit margin vs revenue growth?

For sure, treating all jobs and job seekers as equivalent seems likely to produce confusing analysis as well.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#204

Post by s73v3r_ »

Veelox wrote: post #149
49531 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the market explains most of those things. College tuition isn't because there is a short supply of educators and high supply of people wanting to be educated. There's not much scarce about it. I would argue that tuition increases because we've streamlined student loans and marketed college as a tool of mobility. Doctor pay is also highly abstracted from something like "market forces". Rent prices are pr…

I feel like we are strong agreeing. If we change the how student loans worked we could reduce the rate of increase. If we changed out medicine worked we could bring down prices (currently there are way to many links in the chain all making a buck). Also, if we allowed more housing to be built, prices would go down. >Also, forcing employers to pay more is actually a supply/demand conundrum. If you want to buy unskille…

I cannot disagree more. It's a "minimum wage". What good is it if it's not a living wage? What's the point of having a minimum wage that one cannot survive on?

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#205

Post by bilbo0s »

tylerhou wrote: post #174
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…

In June: "And a broader definition of unemployment, which includes people who have given up looking for a job out of frustration, fell to 7.6 percent." - NYTimes https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/upshot/we-ran-out-of-word...

I have no reason to believe either of you are being dishonest. So taking what you've both posted at face value, i have to conclude that nearly every other adult demographic in the US, does much better employment wise than men. Which is odd?

I wonder if you actually only counted white and asian men, would the statistics look any better?

EDIT: I just realized how terrible that may have sounded. I'm genuinely only curious about what's causing this apparent disparity. (A disparity that must be a bit severe mathematically speaking.) So my "off the cuff" guess would be that large sections of black, hispanic, and native american men are not really able to participate in the employment markets. And that's maybe how the numbers get so high for men in general?

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#207

Post by IronWolve »

Talking to an in-law on the city council back home, the local places that do jobs like tire changes, oil changes, pizza delivery, are having issues finding people. Even with 15 dollars an hour wage, and this is in a small 2 store town. I didn't even ask if those are 40 hour jobs or part time, makes me wonder.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#208

Post by mc32 »

badbug wrote: post #185
mc32 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe that’s a proxy for people being hired away into higher paying jobs?

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#209

Post by mc32 »

CocaKoala wrote: post #192
mc32 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, there are plenty of people who could be sucked up back into employment. I’m excited to see if after decades of atrophy, the blue collar worker of yesteryear can have another go at it. With enough demand, we may begin to see employers willing to retrain these workers and bring them back into the fold.

Are the employees willing to be retrained? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retrain...

There’s definitely an issue with retraining people who’ve had a job over twenty years and only know one thing and now we’re trying to train them to something diff and doesn’t pay as well... but I think there are folks who are more flexible, people in their prime working years who can be enticed if given the proper incentives.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#210

Post by vonmoltke »

Veelox wrote: post #146
s73v3r_ wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Its the market rate for those things. " I don't think you can say that when they're the ones who set those rates. Especially when they constantly complain about not being able to find qualified workers. "I would say there are much better second order effects from focusing on bringing prices down than the second order effects of focusing on forcing employers to pay more." Maybe, maybe not. But that's not an argument…

When you hear someone say "I cannot find qualified workers" always add "at the price I am offering" because if they doubled or tripled the wage they offered, they could find a qualified person so it is a matter of price, not a matter of availability. >Maybe, maybe not. But that's not an argument for not increasing wages. The initial comment was about paying a living wage. There are two ways to make a non-living wage…

> When you hear someone say "I cannot find qualified workers" always add "at the price I am offering" because if they doubled or tripled the wage they offered, they could find a qualified person so it is a matter of price, not a matter of availability.

Somewhat related, but sometimes the issue is an unreasonable definition of "qualified". I feel like there are a lot of choosing beggars, particularly in the tech industry.

Post reply on HN