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

211–220 of 348 posts

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#211

Post by themaninthedark »

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.

...What do you think progress looks like?

Who works in fast food and why? Mostly people who are either don't have any skills to work anywhere else or people who can't work anywhere else.

When there is high unemployment, high skill workers will be more willing to take a less desirable job in order to survive. As unemployment drops, the high skill workers leave the undesirable job and find better work(more pay, better hours, etc.). Fast food places then have to either raise wages or higher less skilled workers to replace those who have left.

This is progress.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#212

Post by austincheney »

felix_nagaand wrote: post #179
vivekd wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citations needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Perhaps you can find the citation yourself and use it to counter the point you are replying to.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#213

Post by plasticchris »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #204
Veelox wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because not everyone needs to survive on it. As pointed out above students and the elderly can easily be priced out of the labor market if the minimum wage is pegged to this standard.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#214

Post by themaninthedark »

mc32 wrote: post #209
CocaKoala wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If any industry is going to be killed, like coal, I think there should be retraining of course but you also need to create jobs in the area that the other jobs are going away in.

When NAFTA was being negotiated, there was similar talk of retraining all the blue collars. There were blue jean factories in Western NC, once they left there were no jobs to move into. Training or not.

Now it is easy to say, "Move to where the jobs are" but for someone who owns a house in an area but has little to no other assets, this is not a solution.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#215

Post by luminaobscura »

adventured wrote: post #60
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…

Arguably most importantly, the labor force participation rate for prime age workers continues to move up. It persistently fell from 83.3% in January 2008, to September 2015, where it bottomed out around 80.6%. It has been climbing since then, and is now up to 81.8%. Getting that back up near 83% would be a big win for the economy. The highest that has ever hit, is 84.5% in 1999/2000. Healthy has historically (in the…

i think this needs to be analyzed per gender. Because 2 curves are very different.

Female participation rates have been rising historically and it's completely recovered to pre-2008 levels https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25FEUSM156N

Whereas, male participation rates are declining and did not recovered completely yet. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSM156N

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#216

Post by plasticchris »

downrightmike wrote: post #202
1337biz wrote: post #63

Wasn't 'jobs,jobs, jobs' Trump's core economic message?

Jobs are the wrong thing to focus on period. Focus needs to be on ownership.

Federating ownership is the opposite of convenient for the politican. Having a smaller number of people you need to please to get money is much better.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#217

Post by plasticchris »

Ensorceled wrote: post #20
aero142 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop getting your economics reports from political news sources. "They don't count people who've stopped looking" is not a meaningful statement. There are many statistics that report this. Labor force participation rate is the one I always look at next to unemployment rate and gives a better overall picture. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 In this case, I think you make a valid point. Why is the labor for…

> Why is the labor force participation rate not climbing back to 2008 levels? Probably because the boomers are 10 years older than in 2008?

Were the boomers more likely to participate per capita? Or did I misunderstand the statistic?

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#219

Post by jessaustin »

bilbo0s wrote: post #205
tylerhou wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 curio…

The difference may more likely be due to different ways of classifying a particular person as unemployed?

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-...

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#220

Post by falcor84 »

solaxun wrote: post #163

This article's title is pretty terrible... "say hello to full employment" - then proceeds to discuss the employment situation in Iowa for the length of the article.

In what way is it terrible? It used Iowa as an example of what other regions may experience in the future if unemployment rates go down. I got exactly what I expected out of this article.
Post reply on HN