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

True Rate of Unemployment

lisep.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 381 posts

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#51

Post by Aurornis »

runako wrote: post #11

Anybody who believes ~30% of the workforce was functionally unemployed in 1999 does not know what those words mean, or was not an adult in 1999. I get what they are trying to convey, but the stronger message is the more straightforward: there are too many jobs that do not pay enough to live on.

> there are too many jobs that do not pay enough to live on.

I know this is argued as a reason for high unemployment on the internet, but it does not match my experience in the real world at all. Having a job that pays a little is more income than no job at all. People stuck with low paying jobs often have multiple jobs as a result.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#52

Post by 01100011 »

xbmcuser wrote: post #17
runako wrote: post #11

Anybody who believes ~30% of the workforce was functionally unemployed in 1999 does not know what those words mean, or was not an adult in 1999. I get what they are trying to convey, but the stronger message is the more straightforward: there are too many jobs that do not pay enough to live on.

For me the true problem which most countries dont even acknowledge is low wealth and capital gains tax. Salaries are not enough because of land prices and the prices inflation it causes through out the economy. You bring down price of home land rent then price of everything else comes down. And their is a lot more economic activity as trillions of dollars are not parked in real estate for wealth generation.

I have had this sneaking suspicion for years now that most of the money needs to be locked up because if we actually gave it to the masses to spend we'd see massive inflation and/or environmental catastrophe (worse than the current one). I don't mean to defend the wealth gap, and I'm not trying to make a statement on how things should be. I just think there may be an unfortunate reality that we need most of the world to have less because we can't currently support a middle class globe.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#53

Post by globalnode »

jaredklewis wrote: post #26
xbmcuser wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the true problem which most countries dont even acknowledge is low wealth and capital gains tax. Salaries are not enough because of land prices and the prices inflation it causes through out the economy. You bring down price of home land rent then price of everything else comes down. And their is a lot more economic activity as trillions of dollars are not parked in real estate for wealth generation.

A land value tax would fix rich people parking money in real estate. A wealth tax or capital gains tax would not.

better off taxing people that own more than 1 property and leave people just trying to live alone.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#55

Post by redwood »

runako wrote: post #11

Anybody who believes ~30% of the workforce was functionally unemployed in 1999 does not know what those words mean, or was not an adult in 1999. I get what they are trying to convey, but the stronger message is the more straightforward: there are too many jobs that do not pay enough to live on.

Can you explain what you're saying? Do you mean that in 1999 fewer people worked low paying jobs?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#56

Post by Joel_Mckay »

floro wrote: post #44

Everyone knows the stats are false but I don't know an alternative. I've been unemployed after graduating for a year and because I didn't use unemployment benefits I didn't show up in the statistics in switzerland. I know many cases like mine.

It has been a rough year for those entering the job markets. However, I would suggest trying this service if you are willing to relocate for awhile.

https://www.aerotek.com/en

It is a firm that helped place a few friends over the years. Good luck =3

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#57

Post by ElProlactin »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #43
ElProlactin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a step back. A family of 4 with $22,500 in income is well below the poverty line in the US, which is ~$33,000/year. But do you think a family of 2 adults and 2 children with a "feels like" income of $50,000 is still not scraping by in the US? That's basic survival at best.

As someone who lived much of their life in real poverty, you can live a pretty decent life on $50k in most of the US. Yeah, you won’t be posting your vacations on Instagram but who cares. Many people live a decent life within these income constraints. There is an enormous amount of government subsidies if you are this poor. Don’t exaggerate what is required for a decent quality of life in America. It doesn’t benefit…

> ...you can live a pretty decent life on $50k in most of the US.

Where? And what's the size of the household?

It's one thing to make $50,000/year as a single young person sharing an apartment with 2 other people. It's another to be a family of 4.

> Don’t exaggerate what is required for a decent quality of life in America. It doesn’t benefit anyone.

"Decent" is subjective, but we can look at hard numbers.

After taxes, $50,000 will be somewhere between $39,000 and $42,000 in much of the US. That's $3,250 to $3,500/month. The median rental price of a 1 bedroom apartment in the US is about $1,500. A 2 bedroom is somewhere around or north of $1,800. That means the median 1 bedroom apartment already eats up almost 50% of your after-tax income at the lower end.

According to BLS, the average spend on groceries in the US is now over $500/month. The average cost of a used car in the US is now over $25,000. A set of new tires will run you $400 to over $1,000. The average cell phone bill is $140/month.

Do I need to keep going?

Numerous studies show that over half of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck and almost three-quarters of middle income earners say their wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living.

What doesn't benefit anyone is to pretend that tons of people aren't struggling.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#58

Post by blackqueeriroh »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #43
ElProlactin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a step back. A family of 4 with $22,500 in income is well below the poverty line in the US, which is ~$33,000/year. But do you think a family of 2 adults and 2 children with a "feels like" income of $50,000 is still not scraping by in the US? That's basic survival at best.

As someone who lived much of their life in real poverty, you can live a pretty decent life on $50k in most of the US. Yeah, you won’t be posting your vacations on Instagram but who cares. Many people live a decent life within these income constraints. There is an enormous amount of government subsidies if you are this poor. Don’t exaggerate what is required for a decent quality of life in America. It doesn’t benefit…

That’s not a decent quality of life. I know you may feel differently and find it hard to think about it objectively because you lived it, but you had a poor quality of life. It’s great that you’re doing well and you made it through, but don’t romanticize it.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#59

Post by ElProlactin »

nostrebored wrote: post #36
ElProlactin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a step back. A family of 4 with $22,500 in income is well below the poverty line in the US, which is ~$33,000/year. But do you think a family of 2 adults and 2 children with a "feels like" income of $50,000 is still not scraping by in the US? That's basic survival at best.

As someone who grew up below the poverty line for much of my life — 2x the poverty line seemed like wealth to me. There are absolutely people getting by on “feels like” 50k a year. There are not really frills, but in terms of “have shelter and food” it can work. Not everywhere is SF.

"Have shelter and food" is surviving. That's the point.

And speaking of food, the USDA says that over 47 million Americans lived in a food insecure household in 2024. That's 1 in 7 people. In the world's richest country that prides itself on being the land of opportunity.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#60

Post by nnevod »

ryan_lane wrote: post #29
jaredklewis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A land value tax would fix rich people parking money in real estate. A wealth tax or capital gains tax would not.

If a land value tax would fix rich people from parking money in real estate, it would price regular people out of real estate. I know LVT is the libertarian dream, but in practice it means only the rich can own real estate long-term, in most cities. It also means the rich can drive out the poor by driving up land values around them, to the point where the taxes are too much to afford. LVT simply wouldn't be a good sy…

What if a first owned property is not taxed, but additional properties are?
Post reply on HN