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

311–320 of 380 posts

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#311

Post by runako »

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…

> 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".

Also, this is flatly wrong in that the wage laws were crafted specifically to enforce certain jobs not paying enough to live on. In particular, US labor & minimum-wage laws have exemptions for the types of labor which was commonly associated with disfavored groups. As a result, those jobs have been poorly paid ~forever. Example jobs: agriculture, food service, hospitality, personal care.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#312

Post by jaredklewis »

ryan_lane wrote: post #29
jaredklewis wrote: post #26

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…

I disagree with your analysis, but putting that aside, you are ignoring the fact that LVT has been applied in the real world. Denmark, Estonia, Singapore, Taiwan...

Obviously disentangling effects is hard, but there is no evidence that suggests it has the deleterious effects you mention.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#313

Post by IAmBroom »

dbspin wrote: post #207
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.

"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." Not to criticise, but just to point out that this sentence doesn't quite make sense in English, and it's not immediately apparent what you mean. The sentence has to precisely opposed interpretations.

> this sentence doesn't quite make sense in English

> The sentence has to precisely opposed interpretations.

Muphry's Law still holds true.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#314

Post by runako »

tsss wrote: post #255
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.

If you include all the stay-at-home wives that do nothing but watch TV all day, you reach those 30% easily. Add to that the college students who only work part time. If you also include pensioners, kids and disabled you find out that only around 15-30% of the population actually work and support everyone else. And again, of those that do work, a significant portion is bureaucrats that have to be paid from taxes of pe…

> stay-at-home wives that do nothing but watch TV all day

> include pensioners, kids

The word "unemployment" has academic and colloquial meanings that overlap in places and diverge in other places. Neither of those include a person who is happily living their life, not looking for a job.

Nobody considers a 2-year-old "unemployed" but the Heritage foundation, certain eugenics groups, and people on HN. It's a fringe view.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#315

Post by runako »

nnevod wrote: post #60
ryan_lane wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What if a first owned property is not taxed, but additional properties are?

Taxes are not just money taken from people in the abstract. They are, quite concretely, used for specific purposes. In the US (because the OP is about the US), property taxes in particular are used to fund local services like schools.

So if you eliminate taxes on primary homes, you will cripple the public schools.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#316

Post by bpodgursky »

ElProlactin wrote: post #302
bpodgursky wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

THERE IS NO POST You just pulled numbers out of... A single person making $50,000/year is not tax negative in the US. You need a 4 person household with $50,000/year in gross income to get clearly tax negative to the point where their take-home income is $50,000 or slightly above. Even a 3 person household isn't tax negative.

Dude

I said in the original post a person with $22,500 BEFORE TAX ends up with $49,000 AFTER TAX AND TRANSFERS. There is no additional income tax after receiving the negative income tax! That's the final number!

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#317

Post by RGamma »

rightnutwingjob wrote: post #157
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.

How do you tax wealth on unrealised gains? Australia’s current federal Labor government proposed such a a scheme, but had to back pedal hard when everyone told them it ain’t gonna work. The same federal Labor government introduced changes to capital gains tax, after promising “50 times” they wouldn’t. All the while a not insignificant fraction of MPs and Senators of said party sold significant realestate holdings bef…

In Germany there is a "Vorabpauschale" where you pay a certain part of the capital gains tax on ETFs, certain funds even with unrealised gains. These are later accounted for when you sell. Though AFAIK if you sell at a loss you can't get the Vorabpauschale back directly, but it would increase the losses you can potentially apply against other gains. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorabpauschale

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#318

Post by jaredklewis »

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…

I think what you've outline here is entirely theoretical, unless you have some empirical evidence you have thus far not linked, and (IMHO) likely not correct.

I also don't think there would be any particularly progressive or otherwise good effects from reducing stock buybacks, but assuming we did think that, we can skip all of the wealth tax second/third order effect theorizing and just use a direct corporate buyback tax, which we did do in the IRA. Stock buybacks have already fallen, but if its effects are not big enough for you, then raise it or reduce exemptions. Not that I think that anything particularly good would come of that.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#319

Post by lesuorac »

xbmcuser wrote: post #188
jaredklewis wrote: post #26

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.

No then the money would go into inflating the stock market or gold etc. And won't get back into the economy.

How does that not go back into the economy?

The big difference between holding land vs gold/stock is that land is finite. If the price of gold spikes then people will build more gold mines. That's economic activity. If the price of land goes up then people can't make more so there's no economic activity.

If the price of stocks go up then more companies will IPO which directly funds economic activity (those companies's operations).

Granted, it doesn't as well into the economy as directly as if it were tax'd and then spent improving bridges and whatnot.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#320

Post by sethammons »

Chris2048 wrote: post #303
sethammons wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"get a roommate or move"?

The topic of this sub-thread is whether a "land value tax would fix rich people from parking money in real estate". You have the option to pass on such a tax burden, as do any other home/land-owner(s), which is relevant to the conversation. What point are you making relevant to that?

I am wondering what protects normal people. I hear a proposal what prevents the ultra wealthy from hoarding, but I am not seeing how this doesn't negatively impact normal, single family residences.

It seems the goal is maximizing tax revenue, punishing hoarders of land, and pushing for communal living. The exact case I think it is imperative to avoid is removing the elderly (cough, less useful) from their forever home in the guise of progress.

Post reply on HN