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

What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

stlouisfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#71

Post by inigyou »

redwood wrote: post #43
antonymoose wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope! We live very conservatively. Turns out life is expensive.

Keep in mind that there are those for whom conservatively means living with other family members or grandparents etc etc in other words there's immigrants and there's people who grew up in America with certain Suburban expectations. There are always levels. I say this to someone who myself would struggle not living that version of America we imagined when we were growing up. Um but there is a world in which you essen…

There are people for whom conservative living is 12 people in a 1-bedroom flat. Should we aim for that? Is the economy good if most people don't have to live that way yet?

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#72

Post by fuzzfactor »

>the rate now stands at its lowest level since 1976. What makes the move even more striking is the abruptness of the change

Nothing to see here, just another one of those things that hasn't happened since the Nixon Recession.

Coincidentally at a time when government economists made adjustments to statistical reporting to also include stepwise offsets and discontinuities, specifically to "compensate" for a new paradigm that could not be ignored because of how much worse things would look if calculated the "old" way.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#73

Post by prewett »

ChiperSoft wrote: post #66
programmertote wrote: post #6

> Still, this rate merits carefully watching in coming months; a continued decline may signal a deeper change in the behavior of workers in this critical age group. I know I'm speaking from a rather (somewhat) privileged position. I myself don't consider working beyond 50 years of age. I have lived frugally/minimally and am confident that (unless WW3 happens or some sort of unexpected global catastrophe arrives) I ca…

I'm 45. I caught asymptomatic coronavirus in 2024 and developed Long COVID, burned out hard from my role as a Principal Engineer. We got lucky and just happened to inherit my in-laws estate the very week that I was let go in my company's third round of layoffs. Spouse and I decided it was best to take some time away from tech and see what happens from the AI bubble. Two years later, I'm ready to work again, but the j…

You could try contracting. Perhaps you would like places that are not pure software (some kind of hardware, either electrical or mechanical, that needs software for UI). I'm at one currently, and one of the hardware guys is using AI to generate test US, which seems like a reasonable use, but there isn't a lot of interest elsewhere.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#74

Post by scarecrowbob »

darth_avocado wrote: post #11

Im in the prime working age and if I didn’t have responsibilities (mortgage, health insurance, dependents etc.), I’d quit today and not participate for at least a couple of years. Corporate treatment of workers has deteriorated at an unprecedented rate since Covid and based on my anecdotal evidence we probably have a national level burnout and depression epidemic that no one is talking about or looking into. Most peo…

Yeah, as soon as my kiddo finished college I literally moved into my pickup truck and started playing music and doing stage hand stuff.

I'd literally rather live in the back of a pickup than have to keep getting woken up at 1am to reboot a server in Iowa because that's cheaper for my boss than getting a second instance.

At some point I inherited some money and bought a shack in the desert, and now I am studying to be an EMT and I volunteer at a free clinic... today got to help a doc sew up a hobo who got into a fight, which was beyond interesting for sure. I get enough money from some investments, an audio production business, and doing festival stuff (either first aid or audio).

Fuck the US, and fuck its working culture. It's sick. When I had to play along with it cause I had kids to raise and needed some stability, I put on a happy face and did the thing.

But there is no reason to do that if you don't have too.

For context, I am 48.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#75

Post by roarcher »

reinitctxoffset wrote: post #45
roarcher wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna venture a guess that it's getting downvoted because it makes no sense unless the reader happens to be familiar with your obscure references, and the linked image makes even less sense. That, and whatever you're trying to say sounds like it contains far more ideology than thought.

I don't care what happens to parent. If they fuck with GP it's discovery.

Lol okay buddy, good luck with that.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#76

Post by FromHoiPolloi »

sleepybrett wrote: post #57
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my colleagues said that working in software is like being a pro athlete nowadays and that struck me as true. The expectations just keep going higher and higher and higher across the board. But we sure aren't given the training, coaching, recovery, salary or recognition of pro athletes. COVID and AI are great examples of what's wrong today. We created an incredible global communication network that lets us all…

Yeah I always laugh when some corporate stooge is on cnn talking about how such and such new technology is going to allow us to produce so much more and maybe that means we don't need to work as much... it's been the same thing since the industrial revolution. Increases in individual productivity only flow to the employer. The employee sees 0 upside. They still work the same hours, their salary remains the same but t…

That's not 100% true. At the beginning of industrial revolution workers have been working insane hours - often 12-16 hour shifts 6 days a week.

See the 1833 [1] bill that limits work-shift for children aged 9-13 to 8 hours a day. The fact that (most) developed countries settled for 40 hour work week was a huge progress. The fact that we did not shortened the workweek in the last 100 years is sad to say the least. The gains in productivity were shared with the employees right up until 1971 [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts#Ashley's_Bill_(18... [2] https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#77

Post by FromHoiPolloi »

inigyou wrote: post #69
whatever1 wrote: post #12

In south Europe it has been the case for like 20 years. The answer is simple. Businesses don’t pay enough. People prefer cutting expenses and expectations (nobody in their 30-40s buys a house for example). Businesses cannot find labor or customers. So it is a downward spiral. Everyone loses.

Governments have tools they can use to make this spiral go up or down. The current direction and velocity of the spiral are policy choices. The most basic one would be the interest rate (not available to Italy because of the Eurozone)

What other tools are there available? I believe increasing minimum wage, punishing (through tax) rent seeking would also be viable.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#78

Post by FromHoiPolloi »

redwood wrote: post #39
antonymoose wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I previously worked at government job, a regional water company. Was on the fast track to become the AD and then CTO in the 5-10 year range as the entire upper echelon was on the verge of retirement. Except my salary would be capped at $150k as the CTO. The CTO himself owned a home a couple blocks off of the beach in one of the most desirable ZIP codes in my state. I, myself, best I could hope for on that salary is a…

Could also view it through the lens of simply not building enough housing stock.. imagine if that was a high-rise so that instead of one person living right off the beach it was 100

This, plus decent public transport.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#79

Post by FromHoiPolloi »

antonymoose wrote: post #25
xeromal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 150k to 300k isn't enough for someone, they need financial therapy

Try raising a classic family of three with a stay at home spouse in that salary in any metro. You will quickly learn how fast those dollars disappear. Somehow my grandfather did this as a painter. Inflation is a killer.

Inflation is a killer unless the paycheck is adjusted accordingly.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#80

Post by TuringNYC »

thegrim33 wrote: post #33
TuringNYC wrote: post #18

I talk to a lot of people in the Metro NY area. One problem here is -- if you need to commute into Manhattan (job center) -- it demands a certain salary, below which commuting in is a net-loss. Rent is $2000/mo. If you have a family and cannot have multiple roommates, you might be looking at $4000/mo. "if you cannot afford it, stop complainingb and live elsehwere" they say...sure...but a commuter train into Manhattan…

Your theory is that some people don't find it financially worthwhile to work in NYC, so therefore they decide to just give up and not work and not move anywhere else and just do absolutely nothing instead?

Not only is that my theory but that is literally the article we’re all commenting on “labor participation down” and this is one explanation based on discussions with hundreds of friends and classmates struggling with this issue.
Post reply on HN