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

#171

Post by ikeboy » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

vladimirralev wrote: post #148

ikeboy wrote: post #23

>In a recent analysis, we found that 53 million workers ages 18 to 64—or 44% of all workers—earn barely enough to live on. Their median earnings are $10.22 per hour, and about $18,000 per year. Right away, they're presenting some large number that's actually double the real number of people below that threshold. If the median is $10.22, that means only half of them make less than that. They then make a bunch of broad…

The other day I got one of those insightful hedge fund newsletters with a deep dive in inflation and unemployment. The dynamics are really complicated but one thing is unequivocal, the moment real wages go up the inflation catches up and those at the bottom suffer the most (due to Cantillon effect, negotiating power and other queuing phenomena). Higher wages as a platform is meaningless. Perhaps the best measure that…

>one thing is unequivocal, the moment real wages go up the inflation catches up

Hard disagree. Inflation is affected by wages, but it's not a 1:1 relation and I'm not aware of anyone seriously making that claim. Of course there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages, but not seriously advocated today as far as I know.

>Inflation is further segmented by demographics

This is actually a really interesting point. Elizabeth Warren made exactly this point in her 2004 book The Two Income Trap, with regard to middle class families with kids having higher housing costs due to competition over school districts.

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

#172

Post by ghastmaster » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:09 PM UTC

"...we need to rethink the fundamentals of our economic and social policies"

They suggest fixes in the next paragraph that are not fundamental, have already been implemented, and have directly contributed to the problem:

"Federal, state, and local governments can take a number of steps to improve workers’ economic security. Boosting wages through tax credits, a higher minimum wage, or supporting sectoral bargaining; supporting families with high-quality child care; and giving workers more control over their time via stable scheduling are just a few options."

A fundamental shift occurred in 1776 and has been slowly bastardized since. Read Thomas Sowell, Peter Schiff, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mesis, Ron Paul, etc.

The central planners are the problem.

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

#173

Post by TheBobinator » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

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.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/employment-population-rati...

Pre-2000, 65% of adults 18+ were in the workforce; Today that sits at shy of 60%. You'd expect the cycle of liquidity crisis driven by reserveless lending would result in a stable graph over long periods of time, instead over an elongated period of time, it's pointing downard.

The problem with this is you leave a lot of people on the sidelines\wayside, and it takes years of working, of gaining experience, even doing something like janitorial work, to be considered competent.

Walmart has a drug rehab program today they run at many of their stores; they drug test 100 applicants, 99 fail the drug test. They have no other way of finding people to staff basic positions.

The entire concept and point of minimum wage was to ensure people wouldn't fall into this kind of disarray and businesses that complain about minimum wage hikes are parasites that have to literally eat people alive to survive, except today they hire PR Firms to cover it up. This is not the way to run a society. A lot of the reason our government allows this to go on has to do with controversial tech firms like Uber being funded by foreign entiteis with questionable morals such as the Saudi Oil fund, the US Government allowing china to buy 100bn+ in bonds every year, and other such "arrangements". We had 2 presidential candidates last election the Russians government admitted to compromising.

Congress has sold certain segments of people up the river and genuinely doesn't know how to get them out.

If you look at the growth rate in US Census data and private studies of men over 45 never married, no chilren, and look at the trend and how that has been correlated with a declining fertility rate that's starting to rival the USSR's collapse.

We haven't even begun to recover from 2000, and there's one heck of a powder keg forming.

And none of those people who make up that powder keg care about whether or not our health system is superior or inferior to canada's.

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

#174

Post by sudosysgen » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:10 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.

This is extremely pedantic and misses the point entirely, and I'm sure you know it.

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

#175

Post by jellicle » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

avsteele wrote: post #68

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.

If your AGI is below ~$27K you have medicaid. As i understand it, CHIP covers kids higher the he income scale this too.

For a single individual, if you make $18K gross you make too much for Medicaid. In 14 US states, if you make $0 you make too much for Medicaid.

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

#176

Post by Ozzie_osman » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

pytester wrote: post #88

Ozzie_osman wrote: post #37

Great article, but I find it only takes the "wage" side of the equation and not the "cost" side. I'm not an economic expert but the biggest line items for most people seem to be housing (high and regular), healthcare (high and irregular), education, and childcare. If we fix these I'm sure the equation changes a lot for many, many, people. If the market is broken for pricing these main things, then even if everyone su…

It would still make these things more affordable. And, save perhaps childcare, increasing the cost of low waged labor would not have an outsized inflationary effect on them. Certainly not on housing. The cost of housing/rent is predicated on a shortage of hoarded, largely untaxed land.

Wouldn't be the opposite? Supply-constrained, limited housing. Everyone is suddenly twice as rich competing for the same fixed number of units. Price has to go up.

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

#177

Post by retrac » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

freeone3000 wrote: post #158

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 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 h…

I don't think you should downplay the scope of "not publicly insured" services in Canada, especially after the last couple decades of aggressive privatization of once-insured services.

It varies from province to province in its specifics, but the majority of working-age Canadians have private insurance through their employer. This is expected to cover everything from physiotherapy to psychotherapy to prescription medications.

People without such insurance have a limited patchwork of public programs and usually either have to pay themselves or go without.

Case in point: A friend injured his back, and while the surgery and doctor's consultations were covered, everything else including medication and physiotherapy was not. He ended up spending tens of thousands out of pocket to be able to stand again.

The private health insurance market in Canada is closer to a truly free market and isn't regulated like in the USA, and that means the insurers happily and routinely deny coverage for pre-existing or self-inflicted conditions (as the insurance contract may define them).

Another case in point: A friend of mine is HIV+, and was denied group coverage through his employer. He pays thousands of dollars out of pocket for antivirals every year.

When the public insurer doesn't cover you, it's an absolute wild west of unregulated private insurance coverage and usually boils down to pay or suffer and die.

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

#178

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

jandrewrogers wrote: post #168

behringer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the one hand, good for them and it would be nice if you elucidated whatever you know about how they pulled this off.

On the other hand, it's basically dismissive of a very real problem here. I read a lot about homelessness. I've seen far too many people indicate they are homeless in part because they have cancer and it's ruining them financially.

America is hardly some utopia where we take wonderful care of all our people, regardless of ability to pay.

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

#179

Post by sudosysgen » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

seanmccann wrote: post #155

sanj wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Quebec at least everything is free before 18, after 65, and for those whose financial situation is dire, including vision, drugs etc...

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

#180

Post by 8bitsrule » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

htk wrote: post #164

I see this as a new tactic from the left. Since they can’t complain about unemployment in the record lows since forever, they complain about the jobs themselves.

Straw man. What is 'employment'?