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

301–310 of 348 posts

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#301

Post by badbug »

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…

Did you read the article? This isn't progress

"Yet the experience of towns like Ames and Des Moines show that such “labor shortages” might be due to insufficient wages and crummy working conditions — not an unwillingness of workers to switch industries or improve their skills for a job. The trucking industry is instructive here: Trade groups have argued that it is facing a shortfall of 51,000 workers, yet businesses have not yet shown much willingness to cut hours, boost pay, and improve conditions to lure workers in. Indeed, across the economy, companies have shown a remarkable unwillingness to boost wages, with growth barely keeping pace with inflation even as the unemployment rate has dropped to 4 percent"

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#302

Post by scarface74 »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #299
scarface74 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of underemployment is caused by people not willing to move? For instance, I can almost guarantee you that if you’re a good Node developer you could find a job in less than a month in my market.

Why should economic growth be constrained to a handful of coastal urban centers when NAFTA and other effects of globalization have hit the Midwest and rural areas of the country the most?

Someone can complain about what should happen and stay unemployed or you can deal with the reality that tech jobs are in large urban areas. I’ve never lived on the coast, but I do live in a large metropolitan city.

I can either complain about the direction that front end development is going and Node or I can look at the current technology landscape and where the market is going and learn what’s hot and keep my family fed.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#303

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

scarface74 wrote: post #302
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should economic growth be constrained to a handful of coastal urban centers when NAFTA and other effects of globalization have hit the Midwest and rural areas of the country the most?

Someone can complain about what should happen and stay unemployed or you can deal with the reality that tech jobs are in large urban areas. I’ve never lived on the coast, but I do live in a large metropolitan city. I can either complain about the direction that front end development is going and Node or I can look at the current technology landscape and where the market is going and learn what’s hot and keep my famil…

Couldn't this argument be flipped to say that perhaps underemployment is caused by the lack of willingness of employers to go where the employees are? Judging from the increasing housing expenses, employer and industry concentration has serious effects on local inflation, thus seriously driving up the risks associated with migration.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#304

Post by scarface74 »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #303
scarface74 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone can complain about what should happen and stay unemployed or you can deal with the reality that tech jobs are in large urban areas. I’ve never lived on the coast, but I do live in a large metropolitan city. I can either complain about the direction that front end development is going and Node or I can look at the current technology landscape and where the market is going and learn what’s hot and keep my famil…

Couldn't this argument be flipped to say that perhaps underemployment is caused by the lack of willingness of employers to go where the employees are? Judging from the increasing housing expenses, employer and industry concentration has serious effects on local inflation, thus seriously driving up the risks associated with migration.

There is an old saying - “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”

But there is s move toward “rural sourcing” where outsourcing companies would use foreign outsourced labor are now setting up shop in rural areas where they can both pay people less than in the major cities and still get the benefits of being in similar time zones and people can travel more easily to be on site occasionally.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#305

Post by ChrisLomont »

pmiller2 wrote: post #58
ChrisLomont wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Wage growth has been non-existant for a long time Wages grew at the fast rate on record in 2015. [1] Nearby years are similar. Here's FRED real median household income [2]. Real wages have been growing for several years. [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/13/the-m...

Look at the MAX chart on your link [2]. We’re barely above where we were in 1998. Hell, look here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... Real wages have been stagnant since the mid 60s. The short term picture is most likely a blip.

>Real wages have been stagnant since the mid 60s.

Most people working today were not working in the 1960s. They have seen their wages grow. Also as working demographics skew younger as boomers retire, the median worker is earlier in their career, so they earn less, making it look like wages are lower, yet for each person wages have increased. The higher paid cohort is retiring.

All this is covered in Census reports.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#306

Post by matt-attack »

torpidor wrote: post #283
haihaibye wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Wouldn’t driving fast earn you less? Cab drivers for years have been accused of taking intentionally longer routes to inflate their pay. Isn’t taking a long route effectively the same as driving slow?

Apologies if I don’t understand the uber cost structure. Is there not a time component in the service charge similar to cabs?

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#307

Post by user5994461 »

Veelox wrote: post #297
user5994461 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frank should get a part time job. One issue with the current model is that Frank has to retire in due time. He cannot be allowed to work for cheaper while receiving benefits, otherwise he's taking the spot of younger folks who are supposed to be working there at a normal wage and finance his benefits.

I guess you misread my example. Frank is not worth $15+ a hour. Thus a business will never hire him for a part time job because it is a net negative for the business at that price point but both Frank and the business would be willing to agree to a wage that is less than a living wage.

Forget about working in a park. It's a job that is too demanding physically.

You misread the conclusion. There is no need to bring down the minimum wage for everyone, just because he doesn't need a full wage. He can simply work part time and get half the money.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#308

Post by calimac »

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…

"despondence or poor health". You're making me laugh. Yeah, that's how they re taken out of the labor force for the unemployment rate calculation ...not.

here's a good bit of reading to understand the calculation instead of the crap spin of Harvard "cuck" Econ Talk. . https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#310

Post by joshuamorton »

vivekd wrote: post #291
joshuamorton wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just going to point out that status-chasing is controlled for in what he described. The .95 cents on the dollar figure appears when you compare populations of men and women in similar roles with similar performance. You're confusing wage gap 1 (pay for performance) with gap 2 (seniority/glass ceiling). Saying you need to control for things that have already been controlled for doesn't leave a particularly good im…

I assume you're refering to the CONSAD reserach study which found a gap of between 95 to 93 cents on the dollar. That study did not in fact control for status chasing - nor did it compare men and women in similar roles with similar performance, they also found that the wage gap was not statistically significant enough to warrant corrective action

Yes it did. It controlled for hours worked and industry. That is, it controlled for men working harder and choosing higher paying jobs.
Post reply on HN