Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

brookings.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 685 posts

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

#161

Post by sokoloff »

_0uto wrote: post #124
Frost1x wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another issue is who owns these automation processes. If I used my vast financial resources to develop (i.e. pay people to develop) a new automation process, what rights do you have to my gains? Why should I share it with you? This mentality and ownership really needs to be rethought.

Imagine if all improvements over the course of history would be kept in secret for gains of owners of capital. Who own rights to the invention of an axe? Probably the first one who put a stone on a piece of wood. Should he has all rights for it forever? I couldn't really agree.

There’s a difference between having the right to the concept of an axe and having the right to my specific axe. I think GP was speaking more towards the latter.

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

#162

Post by ianai »

_0uto wrote: post #124
Frost1x wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another issue is who owns these automation processes. If I used my vast financial resources to develop (i.e. pay people to develop) a new automation process, what rights do you have to my gains? Why should I share it with you? This mentality and ownership really needs to be rethought.

Imagine if all improvements over the course of history would be kept in secret for gains of owners of capital. Who own rights to the invention of an axe? Probably the first one who put a stone on a piece of wood. Should he has all rights for it forever? I couldn't really agree.

Which is why such property rights are supposed to fade with time. Corporate interests have just pushed that time frame to eternity in recent laws.

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

#163

Post by frostburg »

Frost1x wrote: post #98
_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…

Another issue is who owns these automation processes. If I used my vast financial resources to develop (i.e. pay people to develop) a new automation process, what rights do you have to my gains? Why should I share it with you? This mentality and ownership really needs to be rethought.

You having vast financial resources depends on the rest of society agreeing, otherwise what you have are numbers on a server somewhere and an angry mob around your house.

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

#165

Post by williamDafoe »

Unemployment is NOT very low. The government publicizes a fake unemployment number which includes a HUGE imaginary subtraction called "discouraged workers", which was originally imagined during the Clinton administration. To get a real idea about EMPLOYMENT, including those pesky minorities that Clinton excluded, see the employment population ratio, ages 25-54:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060

When Obama left office we were STILL in an economy destroyed by Bush, STILL at employment levels BELOW the bottom of the past 2 recessions!

Now that Trump has been in office employment has grown NO DIFFERENTLY THAN UNDER OBAMA, for the past 3 years the Trump difference is INVISIBLE.

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

#166

Post by 8bitsrule »

_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…

Exactly. The definition of 'employment' is the crux of the matter. Is a 30-hour week at minimum wage with no retirement or health 'employment'? Were serfs of feudal lords 'employed'? Is someone making valuable contributions without wage or recognition 'employed'? Are those serving the poor voluntarily 'employed'?

The term is mechanical, reductionist, and carelessly 'employed'.

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

#167

Post by DoreenMichele »

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…

It's also possible that people with jobs you are judgy about won't tell you they actually like the work that you look down upon. This is one of the ways prejudice is self reinforcing.

People tend to frame things selectively in response to the audience in question. People in vulnerable positions are usually aware of it and acting to protect themselves.

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

#168

Post by jandrewrogers »

behringer wrote: post #116
CivBase wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heath insurance is a benefit offered by some US employers as an alternative form of compensation. Employers get discounted rates because of how many customers they bring to the insurer and they pocket some of those savings while passing the rest on to the employees. You can get health insurance without having a job. It's expensive, but it's not like it's cheap through employers. Just cheap er . Health care - at least…

You can't get treatment for life-threatening "conditions". You can only get treatment for life-threatening "emergencies". You got a tumor? Good fucking luck. You got a seizure because of your tumor? Come on in and we'll make sure to send you an absurd bill later.

I know multiple poor people that had their cancers cured without cost to themselves, no "emergency" required. The reality isn't as bleak as you are making it.

The US has the highest cancer survival rate in the world, which would not be possible if poorer populations were not having their cancers proactively treated.

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

#169

Post by williamDafoe »

koheripbal wrote: post #55
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.

Unemployment is defined as the percentage of people employed of those who WANT to work. It does not count those taking time off. That would be the UNDERemployment rate.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060

Clinton found a way to exclude all those pesky minorities. He renamed them from "minority" to "discouraged" workers and dropped them off the books! Pig ...

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

#170

Post by sokoloff »

twojacobtwo wrote: post #154
dfilppi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you discounting social security and Medicaid here? If you have to live on social security alone, you will have a meager existence, but you need not starve. If you want a better retirement, saving along the way is strongly recommended.
Post reply on HN