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

661–670 of 685 posts

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

#661

Post by matchbok »

JamalW wrote: post #610
matchbok wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. Trump and co claimed the cut would pay for itself, yet the deficit and debt continue to grow. Job growth is consistent since 2011 and year-over-year had no difference after the cuts. Same with middle class wage growth - all on the rise since that year.

The tax cuts brought in more revenue than what the US would have brought in otherwise. The deficit is growing because of Trump’s liberal leaning on social programs including the military. There is zero evidence the economy would have continued to grow under Democrat leadership.

Uh, revenue declined. Not sure where you got that stat, but it's wrong, 100%.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/us-tax-revenue-dropped-sharp...

There is zero evidence? That wasn't my argument. It also is not how logic works.

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

#662

Post by jlawson »

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #642
ernst_klim wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an illiterate man can pull potatoes You need to put it there first, and do so avoiding the eruption of soil. Agriculture is very hard and requires much knowledge. Without knowledge you'll destroy both the crop and the land.

The potato puller is not fulfilling the role of agricultural designer. He or she is literally visually identifying a potato and using physics to pull it out of the ground. It's like the difference between programming (fulfilling tasks), and system architecture, which is something I can't do because I don't have experienxe with huge enterprise stacks.

Yes.

For a visual example, look at John Malkovich's character in the film version of Of Mice and Men. He's mentally retarded. But people tell him - "carry these bags over there". And he does it, and he's useful. There is no job like this now. He's too dumb to be a barista or a gas station attendant or a line cook.

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

#663

Post by quaquaqua1 »

jlawson wrote: post #662
quaquaqua1 wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The potato puller is not fulfilling the role of agricultural designer. He or she is literally visually identifying a potato and using physics to pull it out of the ground. It's like the difference between programming (fulfilling tasks), and system architecture, which is something I can't do because I don't have experienxe with huge enterprise stacks.

Yes. For a visual example, look at John Malkovich's character in the film version of Of Mice and Men. He's mentally retarded. But people tell him - "carry these bags over there". And he does it, and he's useful. There is no job like this now. He's too dumb to be a barista or a gas station attendant or a line cook.

Agree wholeheartedly. As corporations grow into the trillions of dollars range of valuations and work becomes even more complex due to automation, we soon will live in a world where it will be difficult to find a way to purchase the things needed to live.

But x% of us will live really well.

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

#664

Post by kiliantics »

conanbatt wrote: post #544
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,…

I've come to find comments like these ones very frustrating as an amateur economist. In the end, this idealization of how productivity should be used ends up being a proposal of political power: productivity should be what I think it should be, so we must collectively act as if it is.

Shouldn't you find the current state of things to be equally frustrating then? It's just another example of the same thing.

We never got to choose how our economic/productive output is valued or disposed of, we just were born into this highly unequal and unfair system and had to play along or die. I'd find that a lot more frustrating than the proposal that, if the technological and resource capacity exists to provide enough for all, it should be shared relatively evenly.

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

#665

Post by kiliantics »

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,…

The one in ten thousand does not make that breakthrough alone either. They are "standing on the shoulders of giants" of the past and also relying on infrastructure, education, healthcare, social support, etc. that is provided by the broader community. Of course everyone should share directly (not in some "trickle down" way) in the fruits of such success -- they were all a part of nurturing it!

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

#666

Post by JamalW »

matchbok wrote: post #661
JamalW wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tax cuts brought in more revenue than what the US would have brought in otherwise. The deficit is growing because of Trump’s liberal leaning on social programs including the military. There is zero evidence the economy would have continued to grow under Democrat leadership.

Uh, revenue declined. Not sure where you got that stat, but it's wrong, 100%. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/us-tax-revenue-dropped-sharp... There is zero evidence? That wasn't my argument. It also is not how logic works.

Tax Revenue-to-GDP Ratio declined, Tax Revenue on the other hand has increased YOY. Perhaps read your source first before spreading false statistics.

What was your argument?

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

#667

Post by petermcneeley »

ghastmaster wrote: post #612
petermcneeley wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would part of that bastardization since 1776 be the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863?

No. What happened in 1776 was a Constitutional Republic whose amendment process led to the 13th amendment. Liberty is a good thing.

I think most would be disturbed by your support of violent revolutionaries that took it upon themselves to seize the rightful property of the sovereign based on their perceived injustices.

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

#668

Post by fartcannon »

grawprog wrote: post #323
fartcannon wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now what would you do if you had a sudden medical emergency during your time on EI? In Canada, you'd go to the doctor and then continue you on your way. In the USA, with the situation you described above, you would now be homeless. And in debt. So yes, they're both stressful. But one is worse.

>Now what would you do if you had a sudden medical emergency during your time on EI? I'd be fucked. I have no msp coverage currently and haven't for a couple years. I can't actually go to a doctor right now unless I get hurt at work and wcb covers it. You guys believe a lot of bullshit fairy tales about things up here honestly.

MSP payments is eliminated. Fairy tales come true. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-covera...

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

#669

Post by ghastmaster »

jogjayr wrote: post #618
ghastmaster wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because a law makes it illegal to discriminate does not eliminate discrimination. In the United States small businesses account for the most employees. Small business owners do not hire minorities because they risk being sued when they fire them. There is less risk to not hire than there is to hire due to the Civil Rights Act. This results in less minority hires. If a minority runs a business and only wants to h…

> Just because a law makes it illegal to discriminate does not eliminate discrimination. It increases the cost of doing so, which is really the point. People and businesses respond to incentives. > small businesses account for the most employees. That's not been remotely true for the past 26 years (you're welcome to find data before that). Businesses with up to 19 employees (i.e. the ones exempt from the Equal Opport…

> It increases the cost of doing so, which is really the point. People and businesses respond to incentives.

The CRA increased the incentives to discriminate for small businesses as I am trying to illustrate above and below.

> That's not been remotely true for the past 26 years (you're welcome to find data before that). Businesses with up to 19 employees (i.e. the ones exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972) employed only 20% of employees in 1993. And that share has fallen over time - it was about 17% in 2019.[1]

It is not about the mandates in law. It is about reality and risk. If I want to sue my employer for firing me due to racial reasons, I have to prove in court(or EEOC has to prove) using company statistics(unless explicit evidence exists) that they have a practice of discrimination. This is easier to do against larger employers with more employees. For me to sue a small employer, whether they employ 100(52% of jobs are attributed to 100 employee or less businesses according to Texas Law Now;2012) or 19 employees the statistics are harder to prove because of the small sample size. Employers know this. That establishes a difficulty for minorities to sue small businesses, which allows small businesses to discriminate.

Combine that with the fact that if an applicant does not get hired, it is incredibly difficult to even begin a suit without internal knowledge of the company, ergo it is less risky for employers to not hire minorities to begin with.

> And even if it were true, all the other benefits of the CRA would still outweigh this one flaw. I think you underestimate the effects of generations of violent voter suppression, and segregation in education, businesses, housing, and other opportunities.

I find little comfort in being able to vote, go to school, etc if it results in poor opportunities to be gainfully employed. As I stated before, prior to the CRA wealth(power to influence vote/education/business/etc) of the largest minority group in the US was rising; according to Thomas Sowell.

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

#670

Post by [deleted] »

petermcneeley wrote: post #667
ghastmaster wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. What happened in 1776 was a Constitutional Republic whose amendment process led to the 13th amendment. Liberty is a good thing.

I think most would be disturbed by your support of violent revolutionaries that took it upon themselves to seize the rightful property of the sovereign based on their perceived injustices.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN