Live data from Hacker News

True Rate of Unemployment

lisep.org

291–300 of 380 posts

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Additionally, people aren't stupid." Your example being, at least in my book, a counter example of your premise.

Working all summer on a concrete crew for cash seems like a good idea until an on-the job injury without workman's comp changes the way he walks for the rest of his life. Dealing weed doesn't have the profitability these days with legal dispensaries in many states and mandatory sentencing in the others. Running scrap is somewhat 'grand larceny adjacent', and again prone to an uninsured skill-saw event. Remember to wear eye protection when using a power tool.

So, returning to the two adults, two children exemplar household, it seems reasonable to expect that in general these people exhibit a lower incidence of these behaviours. If one or both of those children are still young enough to require round the clock supervision there is a significant limit on the couple's available working hours every week. That would make a similar 'hard to commit' to a higher paying full time job, for at least one parent.

I mean, the two kids really cut into the time flexibility necessary to participate in the grey-to-outright criminal economy, so I posit that people who report as earning the bottom quartile who also undergo the stringent documentation requirements necessary to receive benefits are more likely to be actually living on what they legally declare, than are somehow working, stealing benefits AND making substantially more through grift or crime.

I admit this may be my own biased observation, but the single 'smaht guy' with 22.5k household income and the criminal gig enterprise seems very unlikely to be filing a tax return or receiving any other support. So that case is interesting, but not very applicable in this equation: he's living on whatever he has this week or this month with very little long term benefit from earnings he cannot use to build a credit score, secure stable housing or invest in a future.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#292
post #124

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…

I don't understand the issue with saying that someone who is employed is ... employed. If the claim is that a single number (the unemployment rate) does not capture all the high dimensional features of society & work, then well of course! If the claim is that politicians & media focus too much on a single number to judge whether the labour market is doing ok, then sure? It's not a particularly contentious position th…

The problem is that even as a single number, unemployment just isn't a very useful metric. Unemployed + underemployed is probably closer to what people care about, but it would probably be better as two separate numbers, and even then there is difficulty in defining both unemployed and underemployed, and accurately measuring them.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#293
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"would like" is pretty wild in this context. The number of individuals who have had a job they truly enjoyed is a rounding error in recorded history. I'll save us both the indignity of repeating tired boomer tropes around modern attitudes towards work.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hacker News Wannabe Investors?

Some here are qualified to do angel investing by income (FAANG salary) or wealth so could take Wannabe term out, if they pulled the trigger. It's a way to get into the next innovation economy. Moderate-to-high risk, diversification is critical.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

better off taxing people that own more than 1 property and leave people just trying to live alone.

Pied-à-Terre Taxes are pretty easy taxes to implement, because usually the ones affected may not even live in the town/state to vote against it to begin with. But ultimately this only covers a very small slice of homeowners.

In australia we have housing as an investment that pays off big. The more homes you own the richer youll be. Theres not much else here that pays off that well.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A land value tax would fix rich people parking money in real estate. A wealth tax or capital gains tax would not.

If a land value tax would fix rich people from parking money in real estate, it would price regular people out of real estate. I know LVT is the libertarian dream, but in practice it means only the rich can own real estate long-term, in most cities. It also means the rich can drive out the poor by driving up land values around them, to the point where the taxes are too much to afford. LVT simply wouldn't be a good sy…

Property tax is already ubiquitous. LVT is almost the same, it just doesn't tax the value of structures on the land. Why would LVT be worse for this?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ...the kind of person to invent new definitions to fit statistics...

https://frac.org/news/usdafoodsecurityreportdec2025

"1 in 7 households (13.7 percent) in America experienced food insecurity, or lack of access to an affordable, nutritious diet, in 2024."

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...

"These households had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members."

"Lack of access to an affordable, nutritious diet"..."access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life".

I'll let you digest that.

> ...then perhaps it's better for Americans if you keep living abroad.

That's such an American thing to say. Ha.

But yes, I'm doing fine without the US. And the US is clearly doing great without me. I do miss all the winning though.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#299
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…

That's a very complex result of the collapsing employment and skills market in the US of late, as viewed in miniature. My own situation being not much different, without the 'disposable income' factor. I was starting at a position with the potential to establish an investments portfolio layer for myself right when 2020 hit and hollowed out the global travel component that was the core of the new job. Being in that 'red flag' age has kept my household running on fumes ever since. But that's not an answer to the point.

I think for specific specialty work the focus might need to shift to a 'craftsmanship' approach, finding someone who doesn't actually advertise or propose to perform the work for hire, but who is similarly semi to fully retired and does the tasks you are needing as a hobby or one project at a time casual contractor.

There's not likely to be a shop 'fixing gadgets' in the retail mall anymore that has the actual skills necessary to satisfy your requirements, nor is there likely to be a 'mail us a gadget' and we'll fix it service that you can count on. But for the case of some gadgets, there might be a STEM club or class at one of your local schools with an instructor who is: 1 underpaid and underappreciated, 2 more likely to have some individual competency with a soldering iron AND flashing firmware, 3 in a proven position of trustworthiness having the public facing position of a classroom instructor ~ less likely to just rip you off and disappear.

Once upon a time I was a local PC repair store - there was me, a returns clerk and a series of part-time student interns - for about half of the Big Island, Hawai'i. I fielded gadget repair for a great number of strange things from digital projectors to hydrophones. The most satisfying of which was when a customer who was a retired biochemistry researcher asked me: "You don't happen to know how to repair the control circuitry for an electric kiln?" and my immediate response was, "If it's a Kress then sure." The look on her face, the smile as she practically hopped because it was a Kress was just a real kick. I guess the point im getting at is somehow find a way to make connections with people who are skilled in a variety of related and unrelated fields, and then ask what they can do that no-one might guess that they know. I have traded PC and other gadget repair for training towards a Coast Guard certification, for a sizeable amount of raw honey and later for beehive nucleus, and for a coolers full of fresh caught icy tuna. Sometimes the best work you might ever get could come in a trade for something that's more important and less impersonal than plain old cash.

As for how to find both ethical and effective niche skilled services in the continental US, today? Wow. I don't think that is in plentiful supply anymore.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to this, around 6% of workers had multiple jobs in the 90s, versus 5% or a bit above today: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12026620

Frankly, the biggest reason for these sentiments is straight up false nostalgia. The 90s wasn't some utopia. There were plenty of shit jobs. People struggled. Notice how none of the positive vibes are backed up by numbers. It's just "people owned houses and cars by working at grocery stores." No mention of how many people managed to pull that off or how it compares to today. It's just a vague feel-good statement that The Past Was Better.

Post reply on HN