True Rate of Unemployment • Hacker News Board

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#281

Post by tsimionescu » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

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…

Inflation kills your wage much more reliably than wealth. If anything, the exact opposite of what you're saying happens: wealth has much lower risk from inflation, because the nominal price of the actual assets that your wealth is composed of often increases with inflation (e.g. land value). In contrast, wages are 100% affected by inflation - unless you put in the extra work to get a raise, the buying power of your salary is guaranteed to decrease year over year.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#282

Post by hirako2000 » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 1:23 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #254

hirako2000 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm asking how come is that not a revelation, your answer is primarily that it's fallacious numbers for the headline. You may be right, but reality is the majority of people take the official unemployment rate without even understanding what qualifies as unemployed. Even commenters on hackernews, that I would say are far from being the least educated in the U.S are asking, despite the article explaining it, what coun…

It’s not revealing at all because unemployment numbers are directional and only useful in terms of comparison to prior years. The actual headline number is arbitrary and pretty much any metric you want to track already exists but is less popular. The only thing that matters is the methodology stays the same over the long term. It might be educational to some, but this has been political rage bait since I became polit…

For comparative tracking we do need to stick to the same criteria, I'm with you.

I also agree some political factions, in particular those not in control, favour higher numbers. Those in place would rather minimise it.

The stance to use criteria that exclude people who would gladly work, if decent opportunities were available to them, to me is dishonest.

I don't know if the numbers this article proposes, based on a very inclusive criteria is more honest, but at least it tells us what the ratio looks like if we included more segments. Nobody would argue against the fact a good part is effectively not working, thus technically "unemployed".

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#283

Post by Grombobulous » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 1:42 PM UTC

rspoerri wrote: post #196

for me the most interesting aspect is that a bachelor degree makes you have a double chance of being employed vs having a high school/college degree and again double the chance vs having no high school degree. also it's interesting that these institutes still dont know how to do well understandable and intuitively readable graphs by not starting at a real reference point all thew time (not starting at 0, but sometime…

Yes, and that’s one of the things on this subject that has made me generally concerned about circulated social media opinions touting how college “isn’t worth it anymore,” not to mention right-wing education demonization.

In reality, university education is still the best thing you can do for your lifetime earnings, even if you accumulate 6 figures of debt. You have to pick a horrendous major to make it a net negative (and even if you do that, you can probably just pivot to a job that is fine with “any bachelors degree.”

It’s interesting how positive these graphs seem to be. The gender and race gaps in unemployment are narrowing. The overall underemployment/functional unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since 1995.

Maybe it’s a reminder not to listen to a small handful of loud voices (or maybe even voices of psyop campaigns) trying to tell you that the economy is terrible and that a massive recession is imminent. Sure, there are some products that are getting more expensive. That’s life. Get your raise. Stop doomscrolling.

On that note, university education hasn’t gotten more expensive in a couple of decades, as universities are desperate to maintain enrollment figures.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#284

Post by 2legit2quit » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 1:49 PM UTC

teiferer wrote: post #230

2legit2quit wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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.

> The ILO-based statistics differ from what you cited

What do the ILO-based statistics have to do with original comment[0] that they are in Switzerland, unemployed, don't collect unemployment, and don't count towards Switzerland's specific-statistics as a result?

0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49532179

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#285

Post by Aurornis » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 1:59 PM UTC

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.

> Food insecure is defined as "lack of access to an affordable, nutritious diet".

No it’s not. You’re not even reading the study you’re quoting. You’re just using your own beliefs off the top of your head.

That almost 50 million number was from an overly broad questionnaire that included answers about being “uncertain” about being able to acquire “nutritious” food, which was self-reported with little guidance. So anyone who, at any point, was uncertain about acquiring vaguely defined nutritious food would be counted, even if they actually acquired nutritious food for everyone the entire year.

Your misquoting of what I said is really annoying. I’m pointing out real problems with the study and you’re trying to act like I’m saying they’re not technically starving.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#286

Post by Aurornis » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

127 wrote: post #127

Aurornis wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Job and slavery are two very different things. I love free markets too but not to the level of autism (for lack of better word) and ignoring how things actually work in the physical world. Shallow economic theory doesn't create happy and functional families. Economic theory that is mostly rigged to serve the rich, entrenched, and powerful anyways.

> Job and slavery are two very different things.

Having to work to survive is not slavery.

Slavery is a really bad thing. Equating it to having to get a job is really gross and downplays the severity of actual slavery.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#287

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 2:19 PM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #153

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm responding to a comment that was quite explicitly about everyone being above average. The commenter listed out a number of average costs to illustrate that they're not affordable to employed households pulling in less than the average. I think it's important to ensure everyone enjoys a decent quality of life, and I'm sure the apathy you're describing exists, but what's much more common in my experience is frustration with the mathematical invariant that 50% of households can't afford a 50th percentile lifestyle.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#288

Post by bpodgursky » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 2:25 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #100

ElProlactin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NO. WRONG. Yelling doesn't prove your point, and you conveniently avoided answering the most important questions, like where and what household size? First, there is no credit that offsets payroll tax. A single person with $50,000/year income is not negative. They'd have about ~$34,000 in taxable income and pay ~$3,800 in federal income tax. A 2 person household filing jointly with no kids would still pay about $1,…

Poor people pay payroll taxes, which usually is flat and doesn’t have a big deduction. At $50k, a single person is paying just as much if not slightly more in payroll as they are in income tax.

THIS 50K IS AFTER TAX AND TRANSFERS. READ THE POST.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#289

Post by 21asdffdsa12 » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

21asdffdsa12 wrote: post #240

aslgbb wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe social forces as well. I don't have the same 'local trust networks' that my parents did for finding someone nearby to do something--probably because I spend most of my time online. And I had more confidence in what I found in the paper Yellow Pages that got delivered to my door than I do in what is presented in an online search, say, for local contractors.

A chain of trust - aka a local village, is not always just the historic medieval village. Often it is just a experience value: I know that guy, i trust his/her judgement when it comes to "topic". So when s/he recommends me a plumber, i know i can trust that guy.. So a chain of trust naturally accumulates over a lifespan- and by the time you will be as old as your dad was at point of reference, you actually would have…

Sorry, local village- what was i thinking. Its a chain of entitys (mostly persons) who using there expertise, chain other entities to the chain and thus extend thrust to that entity. A village can hold many chains, but the trust regarding a topic, may only be given to certain parts of those chain networks.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#290

Post by ryandrake » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 2:41 PM UTC

alyeska2 wrote: post #61

Aurornis wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You seem to be confused about the point people are making. The point is that from about 1945 until around 2000 in the USA there really wasn't such a thing as "a job that doesn't pay enough to live on". People owned houses and cars by working at grocery stores. A single income from any white collar job supported a stay-at-home spouse. Teenagers bought cars by working part time. College kids paid their tuition and livi…

I think this is a rosy view of (at least) the 1980s-1990s. There were definitely jobs that paid way below what it cost to live, and there were plenty of people who needed to take a second or third job to survive. It just wasn't the norm like today.