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

241–250 of 685 posts

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

#241

Post by DubiousPusher »

endothrowho333 wrote: post #212
bigcohoneypot wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of us familiar with science, and not social science can you explain why we can't conclude anything from data without further experimentation? Or is this a claim about the scientific method as opposed to say how art is criticized.

It's not that you can't conclude anything from data, it's just that the things you can conclude from data are limited to only two "scientifically-sound" conclusions: >1). There is a relationship in your data >2). There isn't a relationship in your data From there, you can then setup further experiments to better understand why there is or isn't a relationship -- and perhaps find the opposite is true! It's the same re…

A very good example of this is how long it took scientists to be comfortable with positively saying that tobacco use caused lung cancer in people. (A fact tobacco companies greatly leveraged in their defense.)

Huge surveys long showed a correlation between smokers and increased incidence of cancer. But it took decades of research to rule out confounding factors. For example, it may have been the case that industrial work was causing the cancer and industrial workers just happened to be more likely to be smokers.

There is one tool that really nails causation fairly quickly which is a double blind controlled experiment. But usually in social science it's very hard to or even immoral to conduct such experiments.

For example, assigning babies at random to be smokers or not for some period would be pretty hard to carry out and certainly be immoral if you thought the smoking may lead to cancer.

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

#242

Post by codegeek »

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.

This is not a left or right issue. When Obama was president and unemployment rate was improving under him after the 2008 crash, Trump openly used to claim the same thing. Go google it. We are fighting between left and right while the politicians are laughing all the way to the bank.

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

#243

Post by kolbe »

endothrowho333 wrote: post #212
bigcohoneypot wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of us familiar with science, and not social science can you explain why we can't conclude anything from data without further experimentation? Or is this a claim about the scientific method as opposed to say how art is criticized.

It's not that you can't conclude anything from data, it's just that the things you can conclude from data are limited to only two "scientifically-sound" conclusions: >1). There is a relationship in your data >2). There isn't a relationship in your data From there, you can then setup further experiments to better understand why there is or isn't a relationship -- and perhaps find the opposite is true! It's the same re…

What would you say is better: him using an imperfect study, or you just expressing your opinion?

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

#244

Post by Merrill »

>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.

>The majority of low-wage workers (77%) have less than a college degree,

So there are 53 (1-0.77) = 12.2 million workers with college degrees who are only able to earn "barely enough to live on".

Poor instruction or irrelevant majors in college? Or drug use, criminal convictions, disabling disease or injury after college? Long term career success has a lot to do with parents, friends, spouses, and children as well as a large helping of luck.

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

#245

Post by tyrust »

Ozzie_osman wrote: post #176
pytester wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Everyone is suddenly twice as rich

Not everyone makes makes minimum wage.

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

#246

Post by DoreenMichele »

jkoudys wrote: post #238
DoreenMichele wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's doubly confusing, as you'll find unhealthy people have a much harder time earning the money in order to get well so they can work.

Yes, I live this first-hand. It's quite crazy making stuff.

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

#247

Post by jkoudys »

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,…

Having a heartbeat is a "pre-existing condition". It's vexing how often Americans will discuss treatments + checkups as though there's some chance that they _won't_ see their health degrade as they age.

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

#248

Post by bobbydroptables »

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.

>America has a weird sense of superiority about its lower unemployment numbers vs Canada.

I've literally never heard anyone in America discuss Canada's unemployment numbers in any context whatsoever. I think your premise may be off.

Canada is also pretty tiny (smaller than California; much smaller GDP than California) so I'm not sure why we would care.

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

#249

Post by UK-Al05 »

jfk13 wrote: post #135
throw0x1away wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm surprised you'd be in favor of welfare for anybody, actually. Why should we protect and support those with a disabled body or feeble mind? Let them freeze, let them starve. Individuals rise and fall. Natural selection is all-powerful. It's dumb to interfere. It's natural, it's evolution. I'm glad not everyone shares your particular morality.

Minimum wages benefit people already in low paid jobs, at the expense of people who are struggling to get one.

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

#250

Post by gist »

bsanr2 wrote: post #234
gist wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (I lasted about two months before I found a better job) because the job was so menial- and the managers so demeaning- that all joy in working was lost fairly regularly. That sounds like a good outcome though. If the job weren't so bad you might have stuck with it. You could say that you (and others 'talented') were lucky it sucked so much.

But the job still needed to get done. Just in terms of basic human decency, maybe we shouldn't encourage abuse and exploitation of workers just because "they can just get a better job."

Who is 'encouraging abuse and exploitation'? I am saying that adversity also creates opportunity. Along those lines we all know of people who grew up poor and that was the thing that made them work hard. Also what makes many immigrants want to come here. This doesn't mean 'make things really bad it's motivating'. My point was more if things are comfortable it can keep people around and prevent them from seeking a better life.
Post reply on HN