Say Hello to Full Employment • Hacker News Board

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#281

Post by lovich » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 6:44 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #269

lovich wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always going to be better for you if you get direct connections and referrals, but that is not happening at a fast enough rate to satsify employer demand for vetted employees. Additionally it's putting the onus on the employees entirely for making sure they are a good fit for the companies. If they truly have a shortage of workers they are going to either reduce the stringency of their requirements, raise wages…

I kept a spreadsheet of when I was looking for a job in 2015 using recruiters. This was after filtering for location and salary. This was all within a two week period. I network like crazy - with people who know where the jobs are. Leads: 16 Position filled: 4 Phone Screens: 9 I didn’t like tech stack: 2 Didn’t have qualifications and didn’t apply: 1 In person interviews: 4 Offers: 4 Rejections: 0 - I took myself out…

I don't doubt there's people like you who can make it happen and have it better off but there's no way your results are typical. I don't know of a single fortune 10 company that even has a hiring pipeline that could be gotten through in 4 days unless you know someone with some pull, and the entire industry can't be friends with that small group of people.

Additionally look at all the work you've put in. "Networking like crazy" as you say. This obviously had benefits for you and is probably worth it for the vast majority of engineers. However, why is this amount of work necessary to find a job in an industry that constantly complains about a shortage of engineers? It seems like they're crying wolf when they say there's a shortage but the hiring process gets more insane every year

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#282

Post by mjevans » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 7:15 AM UTC

themaninthedark wrote: post #211

badbug wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think progress in this domain would be requiring equal benefits for equal work (and pro-rated benefits for pro-rated work).

The easiest way of doing /that/ is to make social benefits (retirement, vacation time, healthcare) public pools and 'single payer' (but with competition for benefits that provide services like healthcare).

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#283

Post by torpidor » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 7:27 AM UTC

haihaibye wrote: post #278

noelsusman wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, when you control for everything there is still a gap, it's just smaller. 94 cents on the dollar is nothing to sneeze at. Second, when you do that you're sort of controlling the problem away. Women don't seek more work/life balance because they're not as crazy as men. They do it because they're expected to carry more of the burden of raising a child. The literature is clear that the wage gap is relatively small…

https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf "Female Uber drivers make 7% less per hour than their male counterparts—even though the algorithms that determine pay for the ride-hailing service are gender blind, according to a multi-year study."

If you read the study, they find the gap is fully explained by two factors: 1) men drive faster 2) men work more hours, and therefore learn the platform faster.

If their conclusion is accurate, I am puzzled as to what solution can be proposed. Should we lower speed limits or cut mens’ hours?

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#284

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 7:50 AM UTC

vivekd wrote: post #248

noelsusman wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, when you control for everything there is still a gap, it's just smaller. 94 cents on the dollar is nothing to sneeze at. Second, when you do that you're sort of controlling the problem away. Women don't seek more work/life balance because they're not as crazy as men. They do it because they're expected to carry more of the burden of raising a child. The literature is clear that the wage gap is relatively small…

Well there are other factors you need to control for too, men are more likely to try and choose higher paying jobs because social status and attractiveness to potential mates is impacted by a man's wealth. This is not the case for women, studies show that men are indifferent to a women's economic status when it comes to mate choice and focus more on physical appearance. There certainly is sexism in the workplace, alt…

What makes “that the wage gap numbers are not as significant as they are often presented” an important conversation for you?

To me it seems like an uninteresting tautology. Like these others:

“False statements about immigration numbers are often presented in discourse about naturalization policies”

“Misleading financial figures are often presented in discourse about what stocks to buy.”

It’s like... yah. So?

All discourse is full of garbage. If you are interested in the truth, you weed through that and evaluate the numbers and, according to best practices, find a good estimate.

When you do that, you find there is a substantial gender-attributable pay gap in many countries in many industries.

Why that is and how we change it seems like a worthy discussion.

I am curious to why you think the existence of people with a poor understanding of the facts is a worthy topic of conversation.

There will always be people in “the discourse” saying wrong things. If that’s all it takes to halt the important conversation about how women get pay equity, then you have yourself a surefire tool to ensure that conversation never happens. Or at least that you never have to participate.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#285

Post by hn0 » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 8:31 AM UTC

When I open this page on my phone I am greeted with a privacy modal that blocks the entire screen, with a consent button below the fold, which I cannot reach because scrolling appears busted. (Mobile Safari)

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#286

Post by tylerhou » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 9:31 AM UTC

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 parent poster said "11.9% of U.S. men aged 25-55 have been jobless for over 12 months." It's very possible that ~4% of those people don't want to work, or don't work for various reasons (stay-at-home-dad?).

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#287

Post by Ensorceled » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 10:03 AM UTC

plasticchris wrote: post #217

Ensorceled wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Older people are less likely to participate than normal, boomers are a population hump and America is a pretty ageist work place.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#288

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 10:37 AM UTC

saas_co_de wrote: post #187

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

Yes, I was thinking about the comment "a trillion dollars printed by the Fed" when I posted my reply.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#289

Post by austincheney » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

flyingcircus3 wrote: post #280

austincheney wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning Perhaps you can find the citation yourself and use it to counter the point you are replying to.

I don't follow the connection between your link and your comment. The user you replied to was, themselves, replying to another user making appeals to expertise about what "the literature" says, without actually supplying that literature. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. What is freely asserted is freely dismissed. How would the user you replied to even go about searching for the citation, given…

> What is freely asserted is freely dismissed.

Then kindly leave it at that. It is, after all, the nature of friendly and disagreeable conversation. Crying to me about it certainly isn't productive.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#290

Post by vivekd » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 11:00 AM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #284

vivekd wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there are other factors you need to control for too, men are more likely to try and choose higher paying jobs because social status and attractiveness to potential mates is impacted by a man's wealth. This is not the case for women, studies show that men are indifferent to a women's economic status when it comes to mate choice and focus more on physical appearance. There certainly is sexism in the workplace, alt…

What makes “that the wage gap numbers are not as significant as they are often presented” an important conversation for you? To me it seems like an uninteresting tautology. Like these others: “False statements about immigration numbers are often presented in discourse about naturalization policies” “Misleading financial figures are often presented in discourse about what stocks to buy.” It’s like... yah. So? All disc…

Well in this case the people who are wrong include most of academia, most of the popular media, and the former president of the United States. They were all touting the 77 cents figure I think that's a pretty big deal.