Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay • Hacker News Board

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#151

Post by trentnix » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

wufufufu wrote: post #136

I hear agreement that the economy is good, but also that jobs are paying less for more work and that income inequality is larger than ever. At the same time, the housing market where I live is absolutely exploding. I feel like I'm missing something about the real condition of the economy...

Politics infests everything, so inevitably all economic news is propaganda to be twisted however is deemed appropriate.

When unemployment is high, the house organs lament the poor people out of work. When unemployment is low, the house organs lament that it’s the wrong kind of employment. And always, the problems can be solved with putting my candidate in charge with access to a lot of other people’s money.

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#152

Post by thinkingkong » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

RestlessMind wrote: post #140

_0uto wrote: post #31

I see a lot of protestant mentality here in comments valuing any kind of even inhumane labour which does not allow to meet basic needs over not having a job, but also not suffering from hunger thanks to the social support system. In my opinion, we as a society should aim to work less and less, collectively making use of automation and technological progress. But it will be hard when we label this as being lazy and no…

> In my opinion, we as a society should aim to work less and less, collectively making use of automation and technological progress. But it will be hard when we label this as being lazy and not valuable member of society. If the society had taken this view in 1950 and encouraged "laziness", then we wouldn't[1] have had as much technological progress since then. It would probably have created a great lifestyle for 195…

Thats total nonsense. Technological progress and capitalism are intertwined, but we didn’t achieve advancements because of the pure necessity to put food on the table or simply “work hard”. Weve advanced enough so we can provide the same basic needs like food and healthcare to everyone, just like everyone can now entertain themselves or travel anywhere in the world.

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#153

Post by DoreenMichele » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

dfilppi wrote: post #146

DoreenMichele wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, American smugness about this is likely driven by the fact that most Americans lack perspective concerning how other systems work. They just don't get it that a better medical system that doesn't tie medical access to having a job at all brings stress levels down enormously.

You dont need a job to have access to health care in the US. All you need is the ability to pay for the services you use.

For most people, no job means both no medical insurance and also no ability to pay out of pocket. So I'm baffled as to how this is supposed to be a rebuttal.

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#154

Post by twojacobtwo » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

dfilppi wrote: post #62

supernova87a wrote: post #36

I don't think low unemployment is the unequivocal positive sign that politicians/ think it is ("We're putting millions of Americans back to work!"). Maybe it's not something to be so proud of. If people are having to come out of the woodwork to take jobs that aren't moving the average wage up, maybe they're doing it because they have to, in order to get by. Is it a good thing that a 60+ year old goes back to work at…

Yes, it is. As opposed to starving or being a freeloader.

Is it still good if that 60+ year old has never been a 'freeloader' and has made the best choices possible to provide for their self/family with the income that the person was able to make prior to retirement? If the 60+ year old has been a net benefit to society, should they not be provided a means of living after retirement age?

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#155

Post by seanmccann » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

sanj wrote: post #91

seanmccann wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand — without private insurance in Canada, somebody with few resources in Canada is at risk of financial ruin from any of the health conditions you mentioned. For older Canadians, a pre-existing condition may not be covered, which means a serious condition could rack up significant medical bills. Edit: I should have specifically said that I'm talking about expensive prescription drugs and required…

This is flatly incorrect. The Canadian healthcare system doesn’t even have the concept of “pre-existing condition”. That term is deeply flawed and was constructed by the healthcare insurance system in the USA. The term used in Canada is “medical history”. I’m at an age where I’m watching my friends in Canada deal with family suffering from long term illnesses and ultimately, death. They all deal with anguish, grief,…

Perhaps my error was in saying that the specific conditions that the OP listed would result in financial ruin.

My experience is anecdotal from close relatives in Alberta having severe diseases early in life. Their drugs and "required care" was expensive and not entirely covered by their private insurance. Their private insurance had caps (annual and/or lifetime), and after, their medical history made it difficult or impossible to get private insurance with adequate coverage.

The bills were significant, but maybe each province has programs to cover the difference for those that cannot afford the bills?

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#156

Post by syshum » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #143

syshum wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The "goal" of a low wage job is for an employer to make a profit from someone else's labor That is the goal of all jobs, high, low, middle Employers are not charity, they do not employ people so they can have a good income. Employers employ people because they need work done to make money off that work, the second you cost your employer more than they make off your work you are out of a job. Sometimes that cut off…

That's right, but we don't have a society unless people have incomes so maybe this isn't a good model for funding a civil society?

[flagged]

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#157

Post by mxschumacher » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

In reference to those low-paying retail jobs: I have done some research on large US retailers like J.C. Penney, Gamestop, Macy's, Sears and Tailored Brands. It's quite scary to see how dire the situation is for these firms. Shrinking revenues, plenty of debt, hardly any profit in sight.

The most shocking to is the number of people they employ (more than 90k in the case of J.C. Penney), many of whom can be sure to be laid off in the next few years.

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#158

Post by freeone3000 » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

seanmccann wrote: post #63

jkoudys wrote: post #22

America has a weird sense of superiority about its lower unemployment numbers vs Canada. The difference is the US, you basically need a job, or else you're one broken ankle, complex childbirth, or infected hangnail away from complete financial ruin. People being able to take extra time to find the right job is a good thing for the economy. Better than being driven by an abject fear of not having a job.

As far as I understand — without private insurance in Canada, somebody with few resources in Canada is at risk of financial ruin from any of the health conditions you mentioned. For older Canadians, a pre-existing condition may not be covered, which means a serious condition could rack up significant medical bills. Edit: I should have specifically said that I'm talking about expensive prescription drugs and required…

This is not true. This is nearly a lie.

Private insurance in Canada barely exists, and primarily covers prescription coverage and paramedial (acupuncture, chiropracty, TCM, etc.) Inpatient prescriptions are covered by provincial health. Doctor's visits are covered by provincial health. Dental may or may not be covered. Hospital stays, urgent care, ER visits, routine checkups, mental health are covered by provincial health. Health hotlines (call a nurse) are literally free. There's no such thing as "pre-existing". There's no such thing as medical billing.

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#159

Post by sokoloff » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #84

burkaman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it's possible to work hard at something you enjoy?

It is possible, but it is also quite rare, and usually happens for higly paid, white collar jobs. I'm yet to meet, say, trash pickup guy that enjoys his job. EDIT: to clarify - it's not that I look down on any jobs. Trash pickup is very much needed profession. What I'm saying is: Let's say person wins a lottery and suddenly has all the money they need for the rest of their lives. I can imagine that many software deve…

I know plenty of tradespeople who enjoy their work and find value and some fulfillment in what they do.

Do they love it like I love programming? Maybe; maybe not, but it seems possible.

Re: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

#160

Post by shkkmo » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #105

shkkmo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You care completely mis-citing / mis-reading that study. It specifically is an attempt to measure the non-material effects of unemployment on persona well-being and happiness. "Emotionally tolerable" is a very different thing from "financially risky". Indeed, people should be willing to tolerate temporary dissatisfaction to achieve a better long term outcome in ways that they are not willing to tolerate complete fina…

Financial stress explains upwards of 30% of the cross-sectional variance of life satisfaction.[1] If the hypothesis is that the US unemployed are significantly more financially stressed than the Canadian unemployed, then that would almost assuredly be reflected in differing life satisfaction scores. [1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.536...

Again, you are conflating two different things, financial risk and financial stress.

You are also citing a study that looks at the financial stress levels of employed mental health professionals and then trying to use that to reason about the economic choices made by unemployed people.

This is not how you use data responsibly. You can't just use a 30% correlation in an unrelated dataset to justify conflating two different measures without actually doing statistical analysis to show that that there is reason to believe that that correlation not only exists in a different population, but also isn't washed out by an a other factors.