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

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#81

Post by phonon »

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 know people who earn that much...

1. Rent is a few hundred dollars a month

2. No car, use mass transit

3. Single

4. Work less than 40 hours a week in a job they enjoy....

At that income level, taxes are pretty close to zero (including FICA) because of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#82

Post by mech422 »

lmm wrote: post #80
mech422 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

sorry - I should have clarified that gen-x kids were a 70s/80s thing, so by the 90s it was even more common.

Its late and I'm going to bed, but a quick search did turn up a bit more concrete data [0], it appears by 1988, 40+% of families were 'dual worker families'. It appears to be about 65% currently[1]. I'm guessing that would put it around 50% of families in the mid/late 1990s, so about a 15% change in ~30 years. I'd say 50+ percent counts as 'pervasive' in both cases.

edit: I guess the point I was trying to make is that both parents having to work is a pretty old trend, with the majority of families needing dual incomes going back decades - and really doesn't seem to be getting any better.

0: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1990/03/art2full.pdf chart 1 page 16

1: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf page 2, "families with children"

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#83

Post by klassik »

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".

The problem isn't about inflation/deflation: the problem is real wages have been dropping for (say) the lowest 25%.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#84

Post by Izkata »

jrflowers wrote: post #23
okaram wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, we are NOT having high inflation any more, regardless of what you feel or think.

Whenever I hear people complain about rent or groceries I always politely inform them that the Δ Δ of their rent is quite low this month and that means the economy is in fact good

Aren't most rent contracts yearly? So that measure would be 0 most of the time, even when it's bad?

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#85

Post by williamcotton »

strix_varius wrote: post #51
williamcotton wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My stance is that whoever the governor of KY is is not “the government” and will cherry pick stats for his own personal gain. The actual government is reporting the real rates of unemployment. Partisans are the issue.

That's an astounding amount of hair splitting to claim that the people in charge of governing - literally with the title "govern-or" - are not "the government." No true Scotsman indeed!

I am describing how a democratic republic works. It is government by the people, for the people. There are government representatives, who if elected are partisan, and who are otherwise appointed or employed. The government of a republic is separate from these individuals and has an agenda of its own.

One of those agendas is publishing numerous economic data.

The individuals in service of the government and the media outlets that they talk to are where the proverbial cherry-picking takes place.

Partisan politicians and partisan media, not some incoherent notion of “the government.”

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#86

Post by bryanlarsen »

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.

Social status is multi-dimensional, especially in this day and age. I am near the top of the hierarchy for in . I am closer to the bottom for many others.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#87

Post by jjk166 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #71
jjk166 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Social status is not about deciding with whom to allocate your time, and people don't generally choose how they allocate time based on how many hours of labor someone else does nor do most people labor to get other people to allocate more time with them. Indeed, people generally spend time apart from the people they want to allocate their time to in order to labor.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#88

Post by deprecative »

CydeWeys wrote: post #73
Spivak wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ot…

It's sort of like how if you do not have a job and stop looking suddenly according to the data you're employed again.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#89

Post by lotsofpulp »

jjk166 wrote: post #87
lotsofpulp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Social status is not about deciding with whom to allocate your time, and people don't generally choose how they allocate time based on how many hours of labor someone else does nor do most people labor to get other people to allocate more time with them. Indeed, people generally spend time apart from the people they want to allocate their time to in order to labor.

>Indeed, people generally spend time apart from the people they want to allocate their time to in order to labor.

Only because they cannot get everything they need from the people they want to spend time with, so they have to trade outside that group.

This game begins all the way when kids are deciding who to sit next to at lunch in elementary school. It’s a simple fact that time and attention are limited, so there have to be cuts made once demand exceeds supply.

Actually, it might even begin earlier, as I currently have a breastfeeding toddler who is always keeping an eye on who his mom is allocating her time to, and ensures that he is number one…much to the chagrin of his sister and me.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#90

Post by coldtea »

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…

>But the feds are publishing all of this data and being transparent about it.

So?

If you're happy that the feds are "publishing all of this data and being transparent about it", then you should be happy for what the TFA does too (even if you disagree with their conclusion): they use this published data in a way that they think is more insightful.

Should the feds conclusions and choice of criteria be unchallenged just because they publish their data?

>Nothing about having some arbitrary cap at salaries below 25,000 make this a “truer” metric.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also has all manner of "arbitrary cutoff points".

The number they use is not meant to be magical constant of the universe, it's just supposed to be a more insightful cutoff to understand the real impact of unemployment.

Besides, the main job of government agencies is to make the government and their managers look good.

Post reply on HN