Live data from Hacker News

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

brookings.edu

551–560 of 685 posts

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

#551

Yeah, so here's the problem. We now, more than ever, have a key metric for measuring the economy that doesn't really measure the right thing. Just like in every other situation, businesses and startups included, this leads to gamification and optimization for that metric. "Oh, you want more jobs, great! here you go! We'll cut the hours by 1/2 and employee twice as many people!" Unemployment goes to 0% but so does qua…

What’s the metric to use instead? # of households in America + average household income?

It sounds silly but happiness should be the metric. If everyone is happy you presume employment is probably good.

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

#552
post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you're changing your claim. You're not talking about real wage increases, you're talking about an increase that's bigger than the productivity increase. Even that doesn't necessarily increase inflation 1:1. Your models are off. You can't talk about a single demographic because multiple demos buy the same products. The demand curves have multiple customers.

Real wage increase is the same as nominal wage, bigger than productivity increase. Real wages already have productivity and inflation factored in, so any extra nominal increase would be beyond productivity. > Even that doesn't necessarily increase inflation 1:1. Your models are off. Assuming you use the example rich demographic I gave, what would be an example scenario that systemically breaks the 1:1 ratio? > You ca…

>Real wages already have productivity and inflation factored in

What source are you using that adjusts for productivity when reporting real wages? Real is defined as inflation adjusted only.

>Assuming you use the example rich demographic I gave, what would be an example scenario that systemically breaks the 1:1 ratio?

>Say if you are really rich, your personal consumer basket that defines your personal purchasing power (and your personal inflation) will be dominated by expensive luxury items and investments while regular food/medical price increases will not impact you at all because they are a small part of the basket. However if your "demographic" (that has similar personal consumer basket) wage increases there is nothing to stop the price increase on such goods.

You're assuming perfectly inelastic supply, among other things. If there's elasticity, then additional money will result in some additional supply of luxury goods and greater quantity demanded.

Also, investments != purchases. Investments are a decision to defer consumption to the future.

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

#553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have prosperous people today and while many of them are engaged in some form of philanthropy, we still have lots of poverty and other social ills. So “compassion” alone seems like a weak guarantee.

We still have poverty, but not your granddad's poverty. It used to be, the poor suffered under-nourishment. Today, poverty can stem from obesity so severe as to be disabling.

Are you arguing that things are better or worse than they used to be? And in either case how does it relate to my comment. Genuinely can’t tell.

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

#554
Fighting against unemployment means you are creating unnecessary jobs. It's creating an army of disposable, obedient, consenting slaves.

Think about fast food and the damage it's doing. All this money, metals and resources and all those people could be paid to deliver better healthcare, educate people, etc while people could just prepare their own food instead.

I can't count the times I was called either a communist, a moocher, a parasite, an euro-something, etc I'm so jaded from this subject. Sometimes I'm scared that the government might try and find new tricks or excuse to not give me welfare, because I'm certain the public opinion would not have any trouble in seeing me homeless.

Misguided economic policies stem from some form of cultural, subjective ideology. I still have to be convinced why it's the government's role to push people to go back to work, instead of just giving them the bare minimum so they can eat and find shelter. The amount of money you need for welfare is ridiculously low compared to the advantage it allows. We're just scared of moochers and people having free time.

And even if I'm wrong, it's not like governments will force people to work or continue to let large-scale homelessness happen. The idea of everyone-for-himself is completely the opposite of our species: we're a social society, and civilization needs to help everyone because it's in the interest of all countries. Until we're able to question the "we need workers for civilization to function" meme, nothing will improve.

I cannot count how many times I rant about this. I can already hear the pedantic, rational people explaining how I'm stealing their taxes.

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

#555
post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological flamewar. It's predictable and tedious. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Edit: I forgot to mention that we detached the parent comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22027960 .

And the parent comment isn't the same thing? If you want to prohibit comments advocating for various lenses through which people ought to see the world, you need to apply this prohibition equality or that prohibition amounts to promotion of one particular worldview. And if you want to do that, you have a responsibly to readers to be straightforward about it.

I can see how the Buckminster Fuller quote might feel ideologically baity to some people (I guess? to me it just reads like Bucky being Bucky), but your comment went straight to boilerplate talking points. You even made it to all the way to atrocity and slavery. That's a huge step down—a whole staircase, actually—so I don't think your argument about equivalents works here.

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

#556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has the highest cancer survival rate in the world No it doesn't. But even if it was true (and it isn't) you should also specify which type of cancer. No country gets every type of cancer better than any other. For example if we consider stomach cancer, South Korea is on top with 57.90% survival rate, USA is 30 points lower at 29.10% > which would not be possible if poorer populations were not having their ca…

You are cherrypicking, and conflating incidence (demographics) with survival rates (medical outcomes). The survival rate across all cancers in the US is around 70%. In the UK (since I work there and have the number handy), it is around 55%, which is a significant improvement for the UK in recent years. Cancer incidence rates are primarily the product of genetics and environment, which is why it varies across countrie…

> Cancer incidence rates are primarily the product of genetics and environment

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works.

For example only 1 in 4 breast cancers are attributed globally to risk factors (i.e genetics or environment)? [1]

Since you're bringing it up, I know a things or two about cancer, my father worked in health care, in pulmonary oncology, my mother worked in health care too, in infective diseases, most of my family is tied to Italian public health care, my aunts and uncles worked for it, our family best friends worked there, one of their children and one of my best friends is now a geneticist and is researching rare disease (some types of cancers among the others).

If it was simply about environment and genetics, looking at the numbers, one would assume that in Africa or India they have a very resilient genetic pool and the best environment in the World and in USA they've got some serious problem [2] [3].

Of course that's not the entire story, in those places people don't develop cancer because they die for many other (curable) diseases before cancer gets them.

So what makes survival rates so high in the US?

Well, this Forbes article [4] explains it quite well: overtreating.

But at what price? (not talking about raw monetary value here)

Cancer insurgence is tightly related to aging [5], I've brought up the example of Italy because it's the second oldest population in the World on average after Japan.

And we know that the best cure for cancer is (still) avoiding it.

We have a system here that tries to prevent cancer: women are called in for regular check ups for a number of diseases (including breast cancer), men are checked regularly for prostatic cancer when they are 40 or older and its for free.

Companies, by law, have to send their employees to regular check ups every five years.

I have high blood pressure, I have to attend mandatory check ups every year, because I am more at risk than the others.

It's all paid by the Company.

Would you prefer to develop breast cancer and have a 90% chance of survival or not develop it at all?

Breast cancer is by far the most common type of cancer for women [6] and it has high levels of survival rates in all the western World [7].

What's particularly controversial about the way US counts average survival rates is that they also count breast cancer in situ, which is not a try cancer, but it's used to inflate breast cancer statistics [8]

One statistics is particularly interesting, despite the fact that since the 90s sales of cigarettes per adult per day dropped dramatically and are among the lowest in the west [9] the share of cancer deaths attributed to tobacco is still pretty (alarmingly) high [10].

What's really important in cancer prevention and cure is that globally the chances of going back to an average life expectancy is rising, not only the survival rate after 5 years. In Italy 25% of cancer patients can expect to go back to a normal life, I haven't found the numbers relative to USA.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-cancer-deaths-at...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-...

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer-death-rates?tab=ma...

[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/06/13/why-the-us-has...

[5] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-...

[6] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-...

[7] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/five-year-survival-rates-...

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancer_mortality_rates...

[9] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/sales-of-cigarettes-per-a...

[10] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-cancer-deaths-at...

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

#557
post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would be expand the Federal's reserves responsibilities into the fiscal space. This is a very complex solution for a problem we already have the tools to solve. Politicians should just execute proper fiscal policy instead of leaning on the fed for every solution. We already have a decent system for this, which has historically worked, but no one is using it. Other countries are able to execute proper fiscal policy…

> Other countries are able to execute proper fiscal policy without complex central banking paradigms or measures. Which countries?

All of Scandinavia, most of Northern Europe, Australia, parts of Asia, Canada.

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

#558
post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the parent comment isn't the same thing? If you want to prohibit comments advocating for various lenses through which people ought to see the world, you need to apply this prohibition equality or that prohibition amounts to promotion of one particular worldview. And if you want to do that, you have a responsibly to readers to be straightforward about it.

I can see how the Buckminster Fuller quote might feel ideologically baity to some people (I guess? to me it just reads like Bucky being Bucky), but your comment went straight to boilerplate talking points. You even made it to all the way to atrocity and slavery. That's a huge step down—a whole staircase, actually—so I don't think your argument about equivalents works here.

[deleted]

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

#559

If we really wanted to put more money in people's pockets and have a more progressive tax code we should, at the very least, start chipping away at taxing incomes. A good start would be to make any cost of necessities (shelter, food, healthcare, transportation) should be tax deductible.

Why not just get rid of the income tax and only have sales tax? We could make exceptions for basic food and shelter.

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

#560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like your job that's a very useful benefit. If you don't like your job and you don't think it's actually worthwhile it serves as a reminder that you're wasting your potential, and that can be incredibly detrimental.

You can hate your job and still see that it serves an important purpose.

You can also hate your job and see that it serves no purpose, or worse that you are doing harm (like working collections for predatory lenders or in a factory that churns out bombs that will be dropped on someone).
Post reply on HN