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

The True Rate of Unemployment

lisep.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#61

Post by ta2234234242 »

CardenB wrote: post #55
ta2234234242 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing there's not increasing mobility, with this new fangled internet and the series of tubes and what have you? Upward mobility has never been more available across all income brackets. Again... you want to look at the number of people in poverty. That's the true metric of an economy, not the unemployment number.

True metric of an economy is not just poverty rate. I can have 3x the income of monthly food budget (poverty threshold). What happens when housing per month is also 3x the cost of food per month? Poverty threshold is a poor indicator of the economic health. Poverty can lower while the ability for the average citizen to support a family continues to drop. > Are you arguing there's not increasing mobility, with this ne…

Hard disagree here.

One way to think of an economy is GDP/stock market/etc. Another way to think of it is: "What is the maximum level of poverty before there's a revolution?" Moving people from the poverty class to the middle class should be a basic goal for any economy -- because it's likely to affect the most citizens.

> That's not an argument.

So if you're in small town Nebraska in 1910/20/30/40/50/60/70/80/90's, it was super hard to learn calculus (one example) unless you enrolled in college and traveled to the university/college, etc. Why? No one else knew it, nor could they teach it.

Back before 2000's era, people were held back, mostly based upon where they were born. In the internet era, you can be a millionaire/billionaire without having to travel to the shit hole that is silicon valley. Amazing!

Edit:

I saw your edit, and yes, you would expect poverty to go up in a down turn economy. But you would also expect it to go down if economic gains are truly affecting everyone, and not just the rich or upper middle class.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#62

Post by 4death4 »

comte7092 wrote: post #2

>Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes. So many discussions online about unemployment take a framing like this, implying not so subtly tha…

Another way of phrasing this is 23% want a job earning more than 25K per year and are incapable of finding one. I can’t imagine living on 25K per year. While I would technically be “employed” I wouldn’t be happy about it. What is the purpose of measuring employment? I think satisfaction with one’s living circumstances is certainly part of the reason. From that perspective, the measure proposed in TFA makes some sense.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#63

Post by comte7092 »

4death4 wrote: post #62
comte7092 wrote: post #2

>Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes. So many discussions online about unemployment take a framing like this, implying not so subtly tha…

Another way of phrasing this is 23% want a job earning more than 25K per year and are incapable of finding one. I can’t imagine living on 25K per year. While I would technically be “employed” I wouldn’t be happy about it. What is the purpose of measuring employment? I think satisfaction with one’s living circumstances is certainly part of the reason. From that perspective, the measure proposed in TFA makes some sense…

I have no problem with the measure, I have a problem with the claim that it’s the “true” number.

I’d even be fine with “better”.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#64

Post by comte7092 »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #53
CydeWeys wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's just downright misleading to qualify someone working a full time job making $24k/yr as unemployed. The US national minimum wage, believe it or not, only amounts to $15k/yr for full time employment (40 hrs/wk!). I think you could certainly call these people "poor", but not unemployed. That word means something different.

That's why they use the qualifier "functionally". Sure the term might not be ideal but it serves a purpose. Living in the current US with 24k a year is miserable (more or less depending on location). When people bring up unemployment in terms of public policy, they generally are discussing actionable problems. Like "the unemployment rate is 6% so the gov should make incentives to hire more people". These discussions…

> Someone making 15k a year working 40 hours is functionlly unemployed, in every sense of the phrase imo

We have a much better metric for that though, which is the poverty rate.

You can be employed and in poverty and you can be unemployed and not be in poverty. You can even be earning less than a living wage and be out of poverty if you have savings or other financial assistance from family, etc.

Tracking unemployment for what it is makes sense. Muddling the term doesn’t.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#65

Post by milesskorpen »

ta2234234242 wrote: post #31
milesskorpen wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, inflation rates have come down from their highs, but we don't have deflation so $1 today is still worth less than $1 from 2020 — which means $15/hr minimum wage is worth less today than in 2020.

But that's always true, and forever will be as long as the fed believes that gentle inflation is the way to spin the economy. And most serious economists, even the freshwater kind, don't want that to change. If you think deflation is better, ie money in the bank should be worth more over time, just look at what happened to Japan with their deflationary economy. Some call it the "Lost Decade".

No one argued that deflation is better. But it is obviously true that inflation-adjusted minimum wages are much (20%+!) lower than they were a couple years ago.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#66

Post by 4death4 »

comte7092 wrote: post #63
4death4 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way of phrasing this is 23% want a job earning more than 25K per year and are incapable of finding one. I can’t imagine living on 25K per year. While I would technically be “employed” I wouldn’t be happy about it. What is the purpose of measuring employment? I think satisfaction with one’s living circumstances is certainly part of the reason. From that perspective, the measure proposed in TFA makes some sense…

I have no problem with the measure, I have a problem with the claim that it’s the “true” number. I’d even be fine with “better”.

There’s no “true” Scotsman after all.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#67

Post by fnordpiglet »

nradov wrote: post #52
fnordpiglet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the goal of humanity should be that pushing a button for food pellets all day long is not a moral imperative or a necessity for survival. 100% unemployment should be the goal, and the end of scarcity that would require its feasibility.

Social status will always be scarce because it's a zero-sum game; in order for one person to rise another must fall. Even if basic necessities were free the majority of people would choose to work in order to have more than their peers. This is just human nature.

There are other forms of social status. Under communism people could be nominally wealthy, but party status carried a lot more weight.

However I would note many, many people are not motivated by status. I for one would rather be unknown and my relative status compared to anyone else is about the last thing I will ever concern myself with. I’m not alone, even if the status seekers stand out for all their attention seeking.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#68

Post by ta2234234242 »

milesskorpen wrote: post #65
ta2234234242 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's always true, and forever will be as long as the fed believes that gentle inflation is the way to spin the economy. And most serious economists, even the freshwater kind, don't want that to change. If you think deflation is better, ie money in the bank should be worth more over time, just look at what happened to Japan with their deflationary economy. Some call it the "Lost Decade".

No one argued that deflation is better. But it is obviously true that inflation-adjusted minimum wages are much (20%+!) lower than they were a couple years ago.

But that's not even the highest level of inflation in my lifetime. 1980 had 14% (!) inflation. There are probably people in your life that remember the gas lines from the 1970's.

The point I have is when looked from 20 years from now, it will be a blip. It's not the great depression, it's not the gas crisis of the 1970's. It's not even as bad as 2008.

Yes it sucks in the moment, but it won't in a few years when wages catch up finally.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#69

Post by jjk166 »

baron816 wrote: post #57
CydeWeys wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's just downright misleading to qualify someone working a full time job making $24k/yr as unemployed. The US national minimum wage, believe it or not, only amounts to $15k/yr for full time employment (40 hrs/wk!). I think you could certainly call these people "poor", but not unemployed. That word means something different.

Keep in mind that only 1.3% of workers earn the minimum wage https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2022/home.htm#... . I’m sure a sizable portion of them are students.

That's earning federal minimum wage. 29 States, including many of the most populous states, have higher minimum wages.

> The CPS does not determine whether workers are covered by the minimum wage provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or by individual state or local minimum wage laws. The estimates of workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage are based solely on the hourly wage that respondents report (which does not include overtime pay, tips, or commissions). It should be noted that some respondents might round their hourly earnings when answering survey questions. As a result, some workers might be reported as having hourly earnings above or below the federal minimum wage when, in fact, they earn the minimum wage.

> Some workers reported as earning at or below the prevailing federal minimum wage may not in fact be covered by federal or state minimum wage laws because of exclusions and exemptions in the statutes. Thus, the presence of workers with hourly earnings below the federal minimum wage does not necessarily indicate violations of the FLSA or state statutes in cases where such standards apply.

> Estimates of the number of minimum wage workers in this report pertain only to workers who are paid hourly rates. Salaried workers and other workers who are not paid by the hour are excluded, even though some have earnings that, if converted to hourly rates, would be at or below the federal minimum wage. Consequently, the estimates presented in this report likely underestimate the actual number of workers with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage. BLS does not routinely estimate the hourly earnings of workers not paid by the hour because of data quality concerns associated with constructing such an estimate.

> Several states have established minimum wage rates that exceed the federal level. (Information on state minimum wage laws is available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/state.) Users should be cautious about comparing state estimates with CPS estimates in this report because of differing statutory minimum wages. It also should be noted that the CPS sample is based on residence; workers report their earnings on their job, which may not be located in the same state in which they live. In addition, the degree of sampling error may be quite large for some state estimates.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#70

Post by jjk166 »

nradov wrote: post #52
fnordpiglet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the goal of humanity should be that pushing a button for food pellets all day long is not a moral imperative or a necessity for survival. 100% unemployment should be the goal, and the end of scarcity that would require its feasibility.

Social status will always be scarce because it's a zero-sum game; in order for one person to rise another must fall. Even if basic necessities were free the majority of people would choose to work in order to have more than their peers. This is just human nature.

How is social status a zero-sum game? If someone dives into a lake to save a drowning child and people label them a hero, elevating their social standing, whose social standing has declined as a direct result? Likewise for a scientist making a discovery, or an artist creating a masterpiece, or a youtuber becoming a niche internet celebrity, or a neighbor getting a new pool. Social status can be created out of thin air and allotted arbitrarily.

And in a post scarcity world, why would having more than your peers confer social status to any degree, nonetheless enough to justify the various drawbacks of laboring for such possessions?

Post reply on HN