Live data from Hacker News

Say Hello to Full Employment

theatlantic.com

321–330 of 348 posts

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#321
post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should read some actual research if you truly think the broad academic consensus is that women make 77 cents on the dollar and that's the end of the story.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#322
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we are disagreeing on terms. People support a living wage normally mean legally mandating that the minimum amount of money that is exchanged for an hour of labor is set to $X where X is higher than today's rate.

I gave two examples where increasing the hourly rate would make it so that the business would not hire the worker because it would provide negative value to the company.

Working half the hours does change the fact that each hour loses money for the company.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to rehash the finer points of a debate that stubbornly refuses to die among armchair economists online. But for the benefit of everyone else reading this thread: 1. The market, and the macroeconomic system in general, is not a purely stochastic process. This is a meme. 2. If by "naive chartism" you mean technical analysis, then sure, I agree. But if you're attempting to reduce the entirety of academic a…

Since you seem like you might know, I am curious... those who believe that inefficiencies in the market are what creates profit, and that markets will naturally act to reduce inefficiencies... how do they explain skyrocketing increases of profit and decades-long persistence and growth of profit which is supposed to be quickly reduced to zero by the optimizing market? It seems like a really obvious disproof of the con…

Food for thought. Thanks.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#324

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…

If you look at Glaeser's publication[0] (page 10) he defines the rate that he is citing as "the share of men who are not currently employed, or one minus the employment to population rate for prime men". That is a much broader measure of unemployment than even the already very broad U6 measure that NYT is reporting as this would include every single person without a job regardless of the reason that they don't have a job. This number would include full-time students, stay-at-home parents, disabled people, retirees and so on. For comparison, using that measure the absolute lowest level of unemployment that the US has ever had for the age 16+ population as a whole is about 35%[1] (this source reports employment to population rate, so it will be 100% minus the rate that Glaeser is using) or 18% for all people age 25-54[2].

Men in that age range are actually employed at a higher rate than most other demographics. He is making a point about men in that age range being employed at a relatively low rate compared to historic rates for that same demographic, not their employment rate compared to other demographics now. Men age 25-54 have at times had rates getting close to 5%[3].

However, this can't entirely be blamed on a poor job market because it has become much more acceptable for men to take the role of a stay-at-home parent or caretaker than it would have when their employment rate peaked in the late 1960s. There are almost far more students in that age range than there would have been in the 60s.

[0] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/jobs_for_the...

[1] http://www.multpl.com/us-employment-population-ratio

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25TTUSM156S?utm_sourc...

[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSA156S

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The biggest component of the price is distance traveled so driving faster means you make the almost fare for a trip and finish the trip in less time so that you can complete more trips in the same amount of time. There is also a time component, but it is pretty small, so it wouldn't be worth the driver's time to take more time without also covering more distance.

Taxis often take this even farther and make the time component only include time where the taxi is going less than fixed, fairly low speed (in NYC it is 12 mph), so slowing down from 25 mph to 20 mph wouldn't gain them any extra money on the fare but would cost them extra time.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not true. Wages have been flat over the entire period from 1964 onwards. Individuals may experience wage growth through job changes and raises, but that doesn’t change the fact that overall real wages are stagnant. You can’t cherry pick the last 3 years of a 50-year trend and say it’s all good.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#327
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is in deed. "Node" or "Java" or "Rails" engineers are a dime a dozen. There are exceptions and it's more complicated than an explanation on Hacker News can do justice to, but generally speaking, the places you'd want to work for, including (but not limited to) the likes of Facebook, Google, and other smaller but worthwhile companies are hiring for general skills, not tech du jour knowledge. No Java shop wor…

Most of the worlds developers aren’t working for FAANG companies. I would even say that many aren’t working for software companies. They are working for corporate America writing bespoked apps that just want to get stuff done and want to hire someone who can hit the ground running. If you are coming in at a senior level to a C# position with prior knowledge of Java. You’re going to waste a lot of time. It’s not about…

> when using Entity Framework or the Mongo linq driver? They would both give you the same result but one is much more efficient.

The competent developer with knowledge of systems know that the first step when using any form of ORM or sql generation tool is to figure out how to look at generated queries.

Also in that particular example, you're dealing with a reasonably common concept across all languages (generators). While LINQ works by letting you introspect the AST and its a reasonably unique concept, when looking at the snippets here it actually doesn't matter if you don't know that: in basically any data structure manipulation code, doing a data structure conversion followed by a predicate operation is almost always a mistake, because the whole point of "toSomething()" functions is to go from the specialized domain into the language's generic's constructs. LINQ is a particularly accessible implementation of concepts that are age old. The Rx family of tools (which do exist in java) follow similar semantics, and then most ecosystems have very similar constructs even outside of RxWhatever.

Those fundamentals won't let you figure out edge cases, but they're pretty easy to pick up once you get it. The system building aspect is what takes a lot of experience to catch. Other examples would involve how to debug a server's memory dump: it's very different between C++ and .NET, but very few people know how to do it in EITHER environments, while anyone who knows how to do it in one can pick it up in another by skimming a blog post in the middle of an outage.

Probably a reason why people should learn Category Theory too. Not quite the same thing, but it would help people make more solid assumptions.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#328
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to rehash the finer points of a debate that stubbornly refuses to die among armchair economists online. But for the benefit of everyone else reading this thread: 1. The market, and the macroeconomic system in general, is not a purely stochastic process. This is a meme. 2. If by "naive chartism" you mean technical analysis, then sure, I agree. But if you're attempting to reduce the entirety of academic a…

You appear to be making an effort to come off as intelligent and I thought you might like to know that your accusations of arrogance when your post drips with it seriously undermines that. You fail to grasp a fundamental reality: data about the past can only tell us about the past. Data about the present can be useful for making predictions. Some of it is so useful that using it is criminally prosecuted by the SEC. B…

Other commenters already pointed out the main thing, but I need to let you know that we ban accounts that include personal attacks in their comments, so could you please make sure not to do that?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote deflation, but I think you meant inflation: with deflation the purchasing power of the $5000 borrowed would go up, not down.

Either word, this commenter, doesn't know too much about what they are commenting on.

Maybe not, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here. And certainly not personal attacks, which this dips a toe into.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#330
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Now that's a good point. The job could be much better if the employers were better organized. Employers want to send someone out on the road for weeks at a time. With better scheduling…

There are many loads where that system would create a lot of inefficiecies. The type of loads where it makes sense are already run that way. It's called LTL (less than truckload) and is one of the most volatile sectors of the industry. Wages tend to be higher in that sector, though, and there's more home time, so they tend to go to more experienced drivers with excellent driving records.

Yes, overworking drivers is more "efficient". Right now, the labor market won't let employers do that. The winners will now be the employers who figure out how to give their truckers a better life without wasting too much time sitting around at crew change points.
Post reply on HN