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

#461

Post by sintaxi » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

knubie wrote: post #413

jpalawaga wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controversial opinion: I think everyone should have access to good education, and I don't see why a public system is incapable of providing it. Private systems aren't outcome orientated, they're profit orientated. If a public school and a private school are both given $n to educate a kid, the private option will maximize the proportion they get to keep. Elite schools are a different story because they have significan…

A profit oriented system doesn’t make outcomes irrelevant. A grocery store could maximize their profit margins by selling rotten fruit at the same price as fresh fruit, but of course no one would buy it. Maximizing your profit margin is one strategy for increasing profits, but growing market share by producing higher quality outcomes is another (arguably more common) strategy. This is the case because markets have co…

This exactly. private education has a greater incentive for raising quality than government education does - which is why private schools produces better outcomes.

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

#462

Post by SolaceQuantum » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #278

twojacobtwo wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If that 60 year old is expecting to live until he is 90 then it is rather funny he or she thinks retirement at 60 is the thing unless that person has enough money to saved to cover half of his or hers lifetime.

Wouldn't it be a third?

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

#463

Post by vertex-four » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

docbrown wrote: post #131

vertex-four wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try getting healthcare in the US without health insurance, and try affording health insurance when you don't have good enough work. Yeah... thought so. You edited your post to add a line about emergency healthcare being a legal obligation of hospitals - we both know that emergency healthcare (i.e. "I am literally dying right this second") is not the total of necessary healthcare for many people. I invite you to try s…

I understand your point but you’re also attempting to portray that low income folks have no chance at obtaining health insurance. Thankfully Medicare and Medicaid coverage gives health insurance to millions of people. 63 million to be exact were enrolled through some form of Medicaid in October 2019 (Center for Medicare, 2019)[1]. Another 10 million or so people are eligible for Medicare (prior to age 65) due to a di…

The problem is there's a gap between having low enough income (and being able to jump through enough hoops) to qualify for Medicaid and having a good enough job to be able to afford adequate health insurance to receive healthcare in anything but an emergency.

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

#464

Post by craftinator » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 8:57 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #437

ngold wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one war america fought but never bothered winning. The war on Poverty.

I so hate the phrase "war on poverty." It tends to de facto turn poor people into The Enemy in the mind's of far too many people.

That would be another way of lowering the percentage of people living in poverty.

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

#465

Post by hacknat » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 8:57 PM UTC

contingencies wrote: post #274

We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because,…

Also it is a total lie and a very narrow definition of utility. Arguably, we’ve actually under priced some of the most important labor in our society (caregivers, teachers, social workers, etc), and over priced some of the dumbest (sorry, but if Uber disappeared tomorrow, society would be moderately inconvenienced, but little else).

Finally, nothing in evolutionary biology teaches us that human beings ought to work. Studied hunter-gatherer societies are as multi-faceted as agrarian and technologically driven ones, but they all seem to share a 20 hour work week and a strong affinity for story telling and art.

Honestly, if you followed evolutionary biology we all should be working quite a bit less and producing way more art. The idea that people will fall into dissipation without work is supported by very little science, and certainly no biological science.

Human beings need missions, not labor, to be fulfilled. The market economy seems capable of only supporting a very narrow slice of mission oriented work, the rest does seem like drudgery to me.

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

#466

Post by vertex-four » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 8:58 PM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #142

vertex-four wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try getting healthcare in the US without health insurance, and try affording health insurance when you don't have good enough work. Yeah... thought so. You edited your post to add a line about emergency healthcare being a legal obligation of hospitals - we both know that emergency healthcare (i.e. "I am literally dying right this second") is not the total of necessary healthcare for many people. I invite you to try s…

> Try getting healthcare in the US without health insurance, and try affording health insurance when you don't have good enough work. I'm not offering an opinion here. I just think the distinction between health care and insurance is important. The original post I was responding to implies to some that you need a job to receive treatment. It also conversely implies that having a job means you can get treatment. I've…

In the US, the distinction between having health insurance and being able to receive necessary healthcare is not a huge distinction. Fairly sure you know this.

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

#467

Post by tomp » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

contingencies wrote: post #388

rayiner wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean yes, we could all live like people do in Bangladesh and reduce the work force dramatically. I fail to see how this would be desirable.

You present a false (and somewhat offensive) dichotomy. Here are some more optimistic ideas. If we reconsidered vehicles, everyone could have access to them when desired. If we reconsidered city layouts, everyone could have a home with desired proximity to others without needing to sacrifice either nature or privacy. If we reconsidered education, medical care and communications infrastructure, they would be universal…

These ideas are beyond delusional (in today's world).

> everyone could have access to [vehicles] when desired

Uber is trying to do this, but has a lot of problems, from unpredictable pricing, surge pricing, long wait times, shitty drivers, chatty drivers (?), seats with puke all over them, ... self-driving cars could solve some, but not all of these problems.

> everyone could have a home with desired proximity to others

No, the reason real estate in e.g. NYC is so expensive is that everybody wants to live there! The only way to fix this is to fundamentally decentralize our economy and education systems, but that's a whole lot more complicated than "city layouts".

> [education, medical care and communications infrastructure] would be universally available and effectively free

Maybe education and communications, but with medical care almost certainly not... The main issue is that medicine doesn't save people's lives, it just prolongs them, and that can always be done better... So fundamentally, the demand for medicine is unlimited, whereas the supply (doctors) is limited, so whatever system of "free and universally available" system you design, there's going to be tradeoffs. Tradeoffs like, "do I fix my teeth or my eyes" and someone is going to have to make that choice. Personally, I'd prefer that to be me (with my money) rather than my government.

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

#468

Post by hacknat » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #279

The low unemployment rate is proof that this techno optimism isn’t true.

Not at all, a lot of the work being done is probably having a minimal or, even negative, impact upon the overall economy. Labor productivity is low, because the Pareto distribution of productivity across individuals is at historically staggering proportions right now.

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

#469

Post by tu7001 » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

People who lived in socialism know that, there was even 0% unemployment :-)

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

#470

Post by threatofrain » Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

contingencies wrote: post #282

rayiner wrote: post #279

The low unemployment rate is proof that this techno optimism isn’t true.

Or, perhaps, has society failed to adapt to present technological reality due to entrenched interest in the social status quo? When so many people in the world live happily on so little, it is undeniable that we could provide for all of our basic needs if there were political will. Without education, that would likely result in a population boom, however.

But the thing is if the markets really couldn't find any value in the output of nearly everyone, we shouldn't see this high percentage of employment -- not unless one also believes that employers in a decentralised way are implementing their own informal UBI, perhaps out of consensus on political theory or moral values.

One might say a simpler explanation is that employee output is still interesting, and that what's interesting isn't just technological output, and that the bulk of interesting technological work isn't about advancement but delivery to the world.