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

261–270 of 383 posts

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#261

Post by pmontra »

achenet wrote: post #169
brailsafe wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see both an automatically adjusting dynamic tax on owning more than one property in the same municipal or arbitrarily useful region, as well as dynamically banning the ownership of more than one. Everytime I mention this, I get "blah blah we have a democracy blah blah freedom" etc.. but it's no such a democracy if one particular age-range dor demographic of people owns all the assets and politically prote…

If I'm not mistaken there is a tax on secondary residences in France. I am not an accountant, but my understanding is there is a "taxe d'habitation" from which primary residences are exempt, but which must be paid on secondary residences. Of course, this can be gamed via starting a real estate company which buys the secondary residence, claiming that it is for "business purposes", but the basic idea of using taxation…

That thing exists in Italy too. Primary residence is exempt, you pay on the other houses or parts of them (heirs, etc)

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#262

Post by Chris2048 »

sethammons wrote: post #189
jaredklewis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I (and most economists) disagree. I think you just have a misunderstanding of how taxes work. The person or company that "pays" the tax does not bear the full burden of the tax. That burden is usually widely distributed throughout the economy. In the example of LVT, a landlord would pass on the LVT in the form of increased rents to their tenants. A power company that pays a carbon tax charge more their electric…

> The person or company that "pays" the tax does not bear the full burden of the tax. As a homeowner, who else bears my tax?

Potentially anyone you pass it on to, such as a tenant.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#263

Post by pm215 »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #257

> 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 $26,000 (in 2025 dollars) annually before taxes. I find it odd to use both an hourly specification (>35+ hours) and a minimum $ amount. What about those who are following Tim Ferris dream and are pulling in $…

This is just unfortunate ambiguous phrasing -- Tim Ferris (and anybody else happy on part time hours rather than taking a part time job because they can't find a full time job) doesn't get counted because they don't match the "and wants one" qualifier.

The white paper states the definition more precisely:

"LISEP’s definition of “True” employment or unemployment accepts the U-3 rate for comparison purposes, but modifies it by adopting two important stipulations. The first stipulation deals with the workweek. To be employed for the purposes of LISEP’s true employment concept, an individual must either have a full-time job (35+ hours per week) or have a part-time job but no desire to be full-time (e.g., students). The second stipulation is that an individual must earn at least $20,000 annually."

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#264

Post by euroderf »

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…

> Why is the y-axis not starting at 0% for all measures?

Honestly, look at the graphs you see today. Nobody starts at zero any more, with the two stacked tildes interrupting the vertical axis to indicate an omitted range.

I imagine this bad habit started in the 90s when no affordable/free graphing software had the feature. Then it fossilised into graphing ineptitude.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#265

Post by andai »

I'm pretty confused here. The graph implies unemployment is among the lowest it's been in decades? Is that right?

Also where does the discrepancy come from? That's a huge difference (5x!) with the official stat!

Is this actually measuring "underemployment", i.e. people who wish they were working full time but are stuck with some bullshit jobs? (And by bullshit I don't mean what Graeber means, but "this pays like crap and melts my brain but I can't find anything better.")

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#266

Post by speak_plainly »

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…

A percentage chart does not always have to start at zero. Scaling the y-axis to the range of the data is commonly used to make within-chart trends easier to see. I don't think this is evidence of a nefarious motive... it looks more like a stylistic choice.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#267

Post by [deleted] »

fakedang wrote: post #161
jaredklewis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think a wealth tax would reduce stock buybacks? I don't see the relation.

Currently equity appreciation is desirable for HNWIs because wealth isn't taxed, only income realized is. The more their wealth appreciates, the more viable it becomes as collateral they can borrow against, raising their borrowing capacity. CEOs, the board and the major shareholders fall under this group too. Stock buybacks artificially inflate equity value - cash rich companies buyback their stock just to deploy tha…

[deleted]

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#268

Post by theandrewbailey »

georgemcbay wrote: post #210
Gareth321 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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." I would hope that someone who can work 20 years a week gets paid a lot, even if they work at a pizza place!

I guess it would take a PhD in AI to run enough agents to cram 20 years of work into one week. The token cost must be brutal though.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#269

Post by pas »

andai wrote: post #265

I'm pretty confused here. The graph implies unemployment is among the lowest it's been in decades? Is that right? Also where does the discrepancy come from? That's a huge difference (5x!) with the official stat! Is this actually measuring "underemployment", i.e. people who wish they were working full time but are stuck with some bullshit jobs? (And by bullshit I don't mean what Graeber means, but "this pays like crap…

> Is this actually measuring "underemployment"

Sort of. It's "all of the above". So basically low demand for labor.

* Looking for a job.

* People who don't work full time but want to.

* Poverty wages. (below $26,000 (in 2025 dollars) annually before taxes)

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#270

Post by sanderjd »

woodpanel wrote: post #237
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…

Agree. Add to that that usually those ideological metrics have some telling blindspots. In the case of their white paper, while being very thorough in defining which workers should be deducted from the workforce bucket, they have no adjustment towards when someone should be eligible for this triage in the first place. Students for example. Who studies out of virtue, and who just because the job market is still closed…

I wanted to see a breakdown by age, or a "prime age" variant of the measure.
Post reply on HN