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

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#71

Post by lotsofpulp »

jjk166 wrote: post #70
nradov wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ai…

Because time will always be scarce, and social status is about deciding with whom to allocate your time.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#72

Post by ianburrell »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #28
jeffbee wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once got downvoted into oblivion on this very website for advocating for a society with 90% unemployment. The stats are just stats but they're not necessarily what we should be chasing.

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.

There would still be jobs. People want to eat more than food pellets. People want massages and the robot ones aren’t as good. People will make music, paint paintings, read books, and watch movies.

There may not be money, but there will be some economy for services and non-physical goods.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#73

Post by CydeWeys »

Spivak wrote: post #48
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.

The word is underemployed and for the author's purposes are still job-seekers who quality for government benefits. The practical difference between them and actual unemployed people isn't much when it comes to policy.

Then why are saying they're measuring "unemployment" when they're actually measuring underemployment? Words mean things and they're choosing the wrong words specifically in order to mislead.

Also, tracking poverty is more meaningful than tracking underemployment. There are millions of stay at home parents in this country who would qualify as underemployed, but who aren't in poverty because their spouse or possibly other family member supports them.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#74

Post by hnfong »

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.

I disagree that it is human nature. At least not generally speaking.

There are people who are innately competitive. And there are people who don't care.

I'd argue that a lot of people are apparently competitive because of social pressures. You'll have to discount the effects of modern society on people's minds before you could make a claim on what human nature actually is like.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#75

Post by nradov »

hnfong wrote: post #74
nradov wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree that it is human nature. At least not generally speaking. There are people who are innately competitive. And there are people who don't care. I'd argue that a lot of people are apparently competitive because of social pressures. You'll have to discount the effects of modern society on people's minds before you could make a claim on what human nature actually is like.

Modern society only exists because pre-modern people were so competitive. While a minority might not care, the majority of people in every society constantly compete for status. Always have, always will.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#76

Post by Izkata »

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…

> Like "the unemployment rate is 6% so the gov should make incentives to hire more people".

So like, to make those people earning under 24k get a second job?

I don't see how you can use unemployment rate to justify making jobs when it already includes people who have jobs. The two need to be split up so the real number can be used for that argument.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#77

Post by mech422 »

ta2234234242 wrote: post #68
milesskorpen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

yeah - the gas crisis sucked... and inflation for every year from like 1968(1969) to 1980s(?) was horrid. Cycles within cycles...

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#78

Post by mech422 »

lmm wrote: post #38
zzleeper wrote: post #9

If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable? Also, why include people with no jobs? That would include stay-at-home parents and even FIRE folks that retired early

> If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable? 1/3 of the population "unemployed by modern standards" in 1995 doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal.

>>Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal.

"a lot more" is doing a bunch of heavy lifting there... I was about 30 back then, and 2 working parents was considered 'normal'. One working parent was considered 'the dream'...

edit: the fact "latch key kids" was basically coined for gen-x kids would seem indicate 2 working parents was common.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#79

Post by euroderf »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #60
zzleeper wrote: post #9

If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable? Also, why include people with no jobs? That would include stay-at-home parents and even FIRE folks that retired early

I think it's very reasonable. I knew a lot of people, of all ages, who lived with or were supported by family members, while working part-time and going to school or just having fun being unemployed. I think that those with jobs had a lot more purchasing power with which they could support others.

There's also other segments of the population that would like part-time work but don't have it, for various reasons. Oldsters, moms, others.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#80

Post by lmm »

mech422 wrote: post #78
lmm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable? 1/3 of the population "unemployed by modern standards" in 1995 doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal.

>>Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal. "a lot more" is doing a bunch of heavy lifting there... I was about 30 back then, and 2 working parents was considered 'normal'. One working parent was considered 'the dream'... edit: the fact "latch key kids" was basically coined for gen-x kids would seem indicate 2 working parents was common.

> edit: the fact "latch key kids" was basically coined for gen-x kids would seem indicate 2 working parents was common.

The fact that it was a specific term indicates it was a known thing, but at the same time not pervasive in the way it is now.

Post reply on HN