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

221–230 of 380 posts

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#221

Post by aDyslecticCrow »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #218

Why is the y-axis not starting at 0% for all measures? Seems like they're attempting to exaggerate the race and gender differences, even though they'd be perfectly obvious even with a fair graph. Real credibility own-goal, especially given the topic at discussion. --edit-- Top of the range is also varying between each graph, smaller issue but still ... weird. If you're trying to accurately convey percentages, this is…

Gah! the first two graphs were fair so i dropped me guard. Ye this piss me off.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#222

Post by aDyslecticCrow »

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.

Low cost of wealth accumulating snowballs those that have alot of said wealth accumulated. Look at swedens wealth inequality (gini coefficient) statistics to get a somber example.

Counter intuitive enough; making borrowing harder, and wealth holding more costly may reduce land and housing costs.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#223

Post by sokoloff »

lifestyleguru wrote: post #199
afpx wrote: post #104

Tangential question: how do you actually find and hire people? I have a decent amount of disposable income [1], and I often want to pay people to help with things I’m not particularly skilled at. The problem is that I have no idea how to reliably find the right person or even how to structure the arrangement once I do. I have lots of examples, but here’s a recent one. A device failed, and replacing it would have cost…

In context of your problem there are three groups of people: 1. Those who have so much money they pay whatever is needed, getting screwed by countless middlemen. 2. Those who do everything by themselves full time and overtime. 3. Those who have lots of broken equipment, unfinished projects, and house or apartment waiting to be refurbished.

2 and 3 are the same in my own lived experience.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#224

Post by hirako2000 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #84
hirako2000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is typically who is able to be part of the labour force. remove the elderly, those for who it would be illegal to work or still engaged in formal education, the so significantly handicapped no work is manageable. So it is an age group, with caveats.

You have to be looking for a job or employed to be part of the labor force count. Stay at home moms arent in the labor force, neither are students that dont want to work.

I agree moms who would not be able to work while raising babies/toddlers, or simply prefer not to, shouldn't count as members of the labor force.

However. It is very difficult to determine what makes a mom employed vs not employed. Is that by choice/preference? or lack of opportunity. Or lack of qualification, or a combination. Coming up with statistics that distinguish the two is nearly impossible.

The official rate does not only exclude moms who happen to be jobless. It excludes anyone hasn't been actively looking any more.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#225

Post by VimEscapeArtist »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #218

Why is the y-axis not starting at 0% for all measures? Seems like they're attempting to exaggerate the race and gender differences, even though they'd be perfectly obvious even with a fair graph. Real credibility own-goal, especially given the topic at discussion. --edit-- Top of the range is also varying between each graph, smaller issue but still ... weird. If you're trying to accurately convey percentages, this is…

"There are three degrees or classes of lies: there are lies, damned lies and statistics" :D

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#226

Post by a3w »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #218

Why is the y-axis not starting at 0% for all measures? Seems like they're attempting to exaggerate the race and gender differences, even though they'd be perfectly obvious even with a fair graph. Real credibility own-goal, especially given the topic at discussion. --edit-- Top of the range is also varying between each graph, smaller issue but still ... weird. If you're trying to accurately convey percentages, this is…

> exaggerate the ethnicity and gender differences

They call that race and sex, but probably mean gender, not sex. And there is no such thing as race, see wikipedia.

Are those even social scientists?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#227

Post by Gareth321 »

megagpt4 wrote: post #197
Gareth321 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search optimisation is deterministic. The algorithms are quite sophisticated but even an older LLM can easily work around them right now. There will be some kind of AI arms race but I think the net effect of that will destroy search as a platform. What arises from the ashes? I can only speculate. Possibly distributed search. Possibly something like torrent swarms. uTorrent's distributed search has been available for…

Generative engine optimisation is a separate field. Websites that are SEO aren't necessarily GEO, they're having to be reoptimized for that. One strategy is to post fake conversations onto Reddit, where one bot how to do something, and another bot says the best way is with the product being optimised. LLMs have no connection to ground truth. It won't matter how many or how cleverly you network them to each other, the…

> LLMs have no connection to ground truth. It won't matter how many or how cleverly you network them to each other, they still can't tell the difference between real users saying a product is good and good spammers saying a product is good.

I think this sounds much worse than it is. LLMs reason. They don't have an "opinion" about the truth. Meaning that the harness/prompt/tooling/data, determines the quality of the output. Using an LLM to navigate the truth is surprisingly effective right now with the right inputs and constraints.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#228

Post by a3w »

Gareth321 wrote: post #117
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.

For this reason I use the employment rate instead. The unemployment rate, as you've correctly pointed out, is very narrowly defined. Obviously so as to trick voters into thinking that everything is fine. The employment rate can't really be gamed like that. The second major issue is under-employment. You could have a PhD in AI and as long as you're working 20 years a week at a pizza place, you're "employed." Unfortuna…

Well, about 40 percent of unemployed people (i.e. receiving benefits) are employed in Germany.

And in the other direction, not receiving benefits meaning "not unemployed", and "in re-trainings", or sometimes "too old" means not calculated in, either.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#229

Post by a3w »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #45
skrebbel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soo was it more or less than that? Don’t leave us hanging like that!

Significantly less. Wanted a job? Walk through any neighborhood being built with a tape measure in your pocket. You'd have a job doing something before you made it past the 4th house. Had a car? Delivering food paid enough to afford a modest apartment.

"Able to work and wanting a job you would like" probably meant 30 % unemployment is realistic, though?

Half the population is female and doing much unpaid labor, so I find this kind of numbers convincing.

Oh, I just noticed: And unpaid labour, pun intended.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#230

Post by teiferer »

2legit2quit wrote: post #190
teiferer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then maybe it's time you look up how unemployment statistics are calculated in Switzerland and you will be surprised that you counted into them. It's unclear to me how folks with a university education can make such simplistic statements.

> ...and because I didn't use unemployment benefits I didn't show up in the statistics in switzerland and > It's unclear to me how folks with a university education can make such simplistic statements. Do you even fact-check yourself before making specious claims[0][1]? You HAVE to be registered via RAV to be counted. Full stop. 0 - https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/work-income/... 1 - https://switzerla…

"Full stop"? So you don't want to hear other arguments?

The ILO-based statistics differ from what you cited and explicitly "encompasses all persons not employed and who are actively looking for and available for work, regardless of whether they are registered with a regional placement office. "

That doesn't match your definition and that's ok.

Post reply on HN