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

151–160 of 379 posts

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#151

Post by MoltenMan »

blackqueeriroh wrote: post #58
jandrewrogers wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Compared to 99.9% of people in history, it's a king's life, and even today $50k is a top decile income. Of course, the US is more expensive than most countries, so you can move it down a bit, but it's tough to argue that you're not in at least the top 25% of people living today at least.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#152

Post by johnnyanmac »

alex43578 wrote: post #88
ElProlactin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

Sure sounds like they can’t afford a family of 4 on that income. They have control over both variables in that situation.

>They have control over both variables in that situation.

A modest proposal?

And sadly, some states may not in fact give them control over that situation.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#153

Post by johnnyanmac »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #68
ElProlactin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

It's unavoidably true that 50% of Americans are going to be below the median. I understand why someone might feel frustrated or say they're struggling if they look at their home, car, groceries, etc. and see that 50% of Americans have better ones. But no economic policy can solve this. A meaningful analysis has to be based on some level of functional adequacy, not just comparing median expenses to below-median income…

It's not about everyone being above average. it's about as few people as possible falling through the cracks because they lost their job. Or in recent cases for the youth, are unable to even get a leg in the door of the job market.

Sadly, we have more than a few people ignorant or outright apathetic towards systematic issues and act like not being rich is a personal failing.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#154

Post by rightnutwingjob »

rvba wrote: post #129
jandrewrogers wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Income from capital has a low tax rate in the US (and many other countries) because you can deduct neither losses due to inflation nor losses due to risk, both of which are substantial for capital income but non-existent for wage income. The lower tax rate is simpler than actually accounting for these differences. Treating wage and capital income equivalently would require recognizing losses due to inflation and risk…

Asset holders do not have losses from inflation since the assets go up in price. Stock market in USA is high due to all the pumping. The only ones screwed are middle class who have money on bank accounts. And middle + low class when buying food. Inflation hits low and middle class the most, its a hidden tax on them. Rich are asset heavy so they dont care.

> since the assets go up in price

Do they? Where do I buy these zero risk assets of which you speak?

Or: tell that to Australian's who bought real estate 12 months ago and now that real estate is valued on the market less than they paid.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#155

Post by modo_mario »

boxed wrote: post #73
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.

> You bring down price of home land rent then price of everything else comes down If any price for any reason goes down, that money ends up in housing. The only way to bring down housing pricing is to build more housing. This is extremely well documented.

Or decrease the demand/population. Which seems to be something we're bareling towards regardless.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#156

Post by CaptainNegative »

ElProlactin wrote: post #108
Aurornis wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 47 million Americans lived in a food insecure household This statistic looked suspect so I had to look it up. The study defined multiple levels of food insecurity. The big 47 million number included mostly households where eating patterns were not disrupted and people did not reduce their food intake. So most “food insecure households” actually had enough food and maintained their normal eating patterns. That’s not…

Food insecure is defined as "lack of access to an affordable, nutritious diet". In the wealthiest country in the world. I guess I've been living outside of the US for way too long because the idea that Americans would say "actually, it's not really that bad because they're technically not starving" shows just how far the country has fallen.

> I guess I've been living outside of the US for way too long

If you're the kind of person to invent new definitions to fit statistics and then cry about the fabrication's implications then perhaps it's better for Americans if you keep living abroad.

> Food insecure—At times during the year, these households were uncertain of having or unable to acquire enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#157

Post by rightnutwingjob »

lkirkwood wrote: post #24
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.

Is capital gains / wealth tax a fix here though? Definitely not saying it doesn't work, I have no idea. But I'd be curious to hear both sides of the argument.

How do you tax wealth on unrealised gains?

Australia’s current federal Labor government proposed such a a scheme, but had to back pedal hard when everyone told them it ain’t gonna work.

The same federal Labor government introduced changes to capital gains tax, after promising “50 times” they wouldn’t. All the while a not insignificant fraction of MPs and Senators of said party sold significant realestate holdings before they made public their plans.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#159

Post by tancop »

em500 wrote: post #111
xelxebar wrote: post #93

From a cursory read of their white paper, my impression is that LISEP is trying to quantify the sense that making a livable income is harder and more disparate than it used to be. IMHO, this should be read as a campaign to improve and add precision to a political narrative more than an indictment of existing statistics. In particular, the BLS in the US reports 6 different measures of unemployment, U-1 through U-6, ea…

> From a cursory read of their white paper, my impression is that LISEP is trying to quantify the sense that making a livable income is harder and more disparate than it used to be. But their own defined measure shows the opposite. The first graph on their website shows that their True Rate is currently at its lowest level over the past 30 years.

The point is that it's still high and stagnating. And the living wage calculation is using a CPI adjusted fixed level, so inflation that's heavy on critical sectors for lower income people (housing, fuel, groceries) will show up less than the real damage it's causing.

They set it up this way because TRU is a conservative measure designed to stand up to criticism. The true under-living-wage rate is probably even higher but that would depend on stronger assumptions that are easier to attack.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#160

Post by rightnutwingjob »

sandworm101 wrote: post #23
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.

Or you tax it. Or, more correctly, you remove the current protections that allow land to appreciate tax-free for decades. That would move capital out of land and free it for other uses. The current system was designed to put money/people into houses post WWII but has gone too far in promoting radical multi-generational wealth structures. We already assess property each year for purposes of local property taxes. Treat…

Taxing a rise in property value, an unrealised gain, doesn’t generate tax revenue as much as it results in getting the bastards voted out.
Post reply on HN