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

271–280 of 374 posts

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#271

Post by wat10000 »

This stuff drives me nuts. Everybody’s like “omg did you know that the unemployment rate doesn’t count people who stopped looking for work?!” Yes, I did know that, from the ten thousand times people said the same thing before you did. I also know it because I can read and BLS is completely up front about how their numbers are calculated. There isn’t even a single official rate. They put out six different numbers that mean different things.

I totally get it if people decide that one of those six numbers are the measure they want, and come up with something they think is better. But why does it always have to be framed as, they’re lying to you? Can you not advocate for your technique without turning it into another stupid conspiracy theory?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#272

Post by cucumber3732842 »

naishoya wrote: post #46
ElProlactin wrote: post #8

> ...or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $26,000 (in 2025 dollars) annually before taxes. I couldn't easily tell how they decided on a $26,000 "living wage" figure but in most of the US, even double that is not Easy Street. The "True Rate of Barely Getting By" is ridiculously high in the US from what I can gather.

there is a cliff, such that a the 2 adults, 2 children on 22,500 gross income may have access to $48,700 after refundable tax credits, SNAP, housing, etc [linked in other comment]. However if that same household earns just $5,600 more annually nearly all of those transfers cease to be available and the total income accessible becomes $36,400. It really is a case where making more is too expensive. That's less than 11…

Additionally, people aren't stupid. That guy with a 22.5 HHI is actually working for cash on a concrete crew all summer, dealing weed, running scrap or some other source of under the table income that makes people above a certain tax bracket clutch their pearls. You often lose the ability to be competitive at such gigs when you take the time commitment of a "real job" even if only part time so there's that cliff too.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#273

Post by cucumber3732842 »

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.

The people in that statistic mostly don't want to shop for fresh vegetables at Whole Foods while you (as a demographic, not you personally) side eye them. They want to put some frozen nuggets in the oven because that's what's easy even if it's not optimally healthy.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#274

Post by quickthrowman »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #38
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.

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…

> 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.

You are incorrect on both of those, the risks are obvious.

If you wage/salary does not keep up with inflation, you lost buying power due to inflation.

If your employer goes out of business or your industry suffers a downturn, you may be laid off and lose your income. This risk is highly concentrated due to most people only having the one job.

Wage earners are exposed to all kinds of risk.

Also, equities go up when there’s inflation and if you hold bonds to maturity, all you miss out on is potential interest income in an inflation event. Rents go up with inflation. Cash and cash wages have the highest inflation risk.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#275

Post by Chris2048 »

imtringued wrote: post #212
lkirkwood wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You tax the non reproducible assets like money [0] and land. The reason is quite obvious. You can't make more land so you have to force owners to use it efficiently. Money is transactional real estate, it grants the ability to perform transactions. What people call "saving" is actually just holding onto money and blocking the capacity, it's no different than blocking a lane on the high way and building a toll booth o…

Isn't this already handled by inflation?

You call it non-reproduceable, but money is literally created.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#276

Post by cucumber3732842 »

ElProlactin wrote: post #141
foxglacier wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the term "land of opportunity" imply to you that it's also the "land of risk"? That's certainly how I've always seen lands of opportunity - places where you can fight it out on you own and have a chance to succeed - or fail. Not a comfortable safe zone to relax in.

That's not what "land of opportunity" means in the US. It means upward social mobility, plentiful job opportunities across a wide range of inudstries, decent work for decent pay, ample rewards for hard work. Socioeconomically, the post-WW2 era is widely considered America's peak. The strong economic growth was broadly shared and created the largest and most prosperous middle class in modern history. During this time,…

>The vast majority of Americans aren't calling for a new Gilded Age, although that's sort of what they're getting now, which is a big reason so many Americans are dejected and angry.

I'd be interested to see the economic mobility stats for the gilded age. Because the vibe I get is that it was better than today for the people who wanted to work hard and were flexible but there were also a ton less opportunities to just go through the motions and be materially well off.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#278

Post by Chris2048 »

bel8 wrote: post #260
teiferer wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

The fact that they would rather try to win an internet argument by showing indifference to what others have to say than learn something might hint at traits that keep them unemployed. Harsh but maybe this helps changing their mindset.

Who is "they" in this argument?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#279

Post by sethammons »

Chris2048 wrote: post #262
sethammons wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"get a roommate or move"?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#280

Post by marginalia_nu »

speak_plainly wrote: post #266
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.

It doesn't have to, but shifting the y-axis to exaggerate differences is like the most textbook example of deception in statistics. In that sense, if you want your work to be taken seriously, especially when it purports to be more accurate than other statistics, it's certainly a choice.
Post reply on HN