Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 186 posts

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#141

Post by donw »

_qulr wrote: post #103
donw wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inconsistent definitions or methods render statistical comparisons meaningless. You need that historical baseline to assess the current situation. To provide an extreme example, as extremes are often useful in illustrating failure cases, it would be trivial to say that the murder rate in the US has dropped by nigh-on 100%. Simply redefine "murder" to mean "persons killed by a woman wearing a blue hat on the third Tue…

> You need that historical baseline to assess the current situation. But what if the historical baseline has always been misleading, and undercounting a problem? > Simply redefine "murder" to mean "persons killed by a woman wearing a blue hat on the third Tuesday of February". This isn't a useful example, because the point of redefining unemployment is to get a more accurate view of it, whereas this redefinition of m…

> But what if the historical baseline has always been misleading, and undercounting a problem?

Then you create a new metric, but keep the old one around for historical baselines.

By the way, this is what the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is doing with the various unemployment metrics.

> The point of redefining unemployment is to get a more accurate view of it, whereas this redefinition of murder gives a less accurate and completely pointless view of the problem.

I see you are new to politics.

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#142

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

nradov wrote: post #85
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BLS should be using U-6, but I don't an administration would do that because it will make things look worse. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The BLS does use U-6. They are literally the agency which calculates and publishes U-6. They aren't hiding anything.

Sorry, I meant the federal government should be using U-6.

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#143

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

jjoonathan wrote: post #80
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BLS should be using U-6, but I don't an administration would do that because it will make things look worse. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Why do you think the BLS goes to the trouble of calculating and publishing U6? Because they want it to be ignored? The people in power always use the most optimistic measures and the people who want power always use the most pessimistic measures. I'd personally argue the more pessimistic measures are closer to reality, as would many others. BLS found a way to serve us and the people in power, simultaneously, without…

I meant the federal government should use U-6 because it's closer to what most people thing of as unemployment.

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#144

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

tootie wrote: post #77
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BLS should be using U-6, but I don't an administration would do that because it will make things look worse. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

They do use U6. They use hundreds of data points. U3 is "headline unemployment" because it's a middle ground indicator that has a consistent meaning. It's not possible to summarize the employment landscape in a single number.

I meant the federal government should use U-6 because it's closer to what most people think of as unemployment.

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#145

Post by pandaman »

roganartu wrote: post #133
seibelj wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has the most progressive tax system in the world - far more than Europe. The middle and lower classes pay basically 0 tax, or even get refunds (negative taxes), while the rich pay basically all taxes https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/11/23/american-... The middle and lower classes in Europe pay very high tax rates, but get a lot in return. The left in America is promising European-style safety nets…

> The middle and lower classes pay basically 0 tax, or even get refunds (negative taxes) This is a common misunderstanding of how taxes work, or specifically what refunds mean. Getting a refund does not mean you paid zero or negative tax. Getting a refund simply means that you had more tax withheld than you should have. The tax withheld from your regular paycheck is not authoritative, it's just a prepayment of your e…

Getting a refund does not necessarily mean that you paid zero or negative tax, that's true, but when you pay zero or negative tax you do get a refund too. E.g. you can get negative taxation through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#146

Post by nradov »

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #142
nradov wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BLS does use U-6. They are literally the agency which calculates and publishes U-6. They aren't hiding anything.

Sorry, I meant the federal government should be using U-6.

They do use it. You can find U-6 mentioned in many federal government documents.

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#147

Post by qppo »

kyriee wrote: post #70
qppo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is reality. What it reflects about reality may not be immediately obvious but that's true of most metrics. It's important to understand that the value of the unemployment rate is not the absolute number but its change over time. We also have other metrics published alongside the unemployment rate, like labor participation.

It’s seldom mentioned when talking about unemployment. Particularly when it comes to titles, so it’s fair to say excluding the hopeless from unemployment makes it a misleading metric

I don't think it's seldom mentioned - it's both common knowledge among people who pay attention to financial/economic news and repeated monthly (when the new jobs report comes out). They're usually reported side by side.

It's much more misleading to suggest that the people not included in the unemployment rate are the "hopeless" since it includes children, the retired, and those unable to work.

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#148

Post by SoSoRoCoCo »

batt4good wrote: post #104
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smart people command more value than dumb people Completely disagree. This is one of the biggest lies being forced by the higher castes in the US. "Smart" is subjective, "value" is subjective. Let's be honest: this statement only true because a certain class of people want it to be true. I value k-12 education in my world view more than I value derivitaves traders: in my ideal world teaching would be a high-paying…

"smart" in terms of navigating society and understanding where value is . What things are worth learning vs not learning, what kinds of skills are worth taking risks for etc. "smart" in terms of just having a degree and believing that being credentialed = intelligence is completely orthogonal to the point I intended. A stupid person will fall for get rich quick schemes. A stupid person will believe grinding it out at…

It would have helped if you had actually explained your terms, since you made up your own definitions we don't have a common understanding.

The real question is, of course: are you ever "stupid"?

And what I mean by that is you set out a very black/white view of who is worthy and who isn't, and I bet dollars to donuts you don't live up to your own standards because that's where black/white thinking leads. It helps everyone to not think in such subjective, judgemental, and largely pejorative terms. I think the world would be better served if we started from the position "everyone has value."

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#149

Post by Godel_unicode »

seibelj wrote: post #136
_qulr wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about FICA, which is 7.65% that is only taken out of wages (not investment earnings), and only paid on the first ~$140K of wages. I was astonished to discover earlier in my career, after a pay raise, that I got to stop paying FICA at a certain point. I didn't even realize there was an upper limit. It's a tax that only applies to "lower" income workers. Highly regressive. Also, US income taxes are only no…

That’s because social security isn’t a “tax” - it’s funding pensions, and you pay into it now to get a pension later, which is capped at maximum payout, which is why you don’t have to pay above a salary amount because above which you won’t increase your income in retirement. However to reform social security so it can actually be maintained, I agree we should increase the limits or remove them entirely. But keep in m…

They are absolutely not pensions, and you are not paying into it now to fund payment later. It's a tax. You pay it now to cover those taking it now, and the social contract says future generations will do the same.

This is a very important distinction, so I'll repeat it. Social security in the United States is not a pension, it's just a government program. We're told it will continue, but that's only because the current government says it will. A future government could just decide to stop payments, and there would be no recourse because it's not a pension. If you live in the United States, please plan accordingly.

Re: 1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

#150

Post by WalterBright »

arp242 wrote: post #140
WalterBright wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like the car example, pick an attribute where poor people 100 years ago were better off than today.

I think this is missing the point. You can always point to people who have it worse off throughout all of history.

Any average metric where poor people were better off 100 years ago will do.
Post reply on HN