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

361–370 of 380 posts

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#361

Post by marcus_holmes »

ksclk wrote: post #359
marcus_holmes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, this is interesting. Folks I've been talking to see a huge hit coming for us. Mining is getting automated (and coal/gas have huge problems). Education is getting hit by AI. Agriculture is good but employs relatively few people. Property is and always has been a zero-sum game that soaks up capital but doesn't return anything. Construction is getting pulled into building data centres for US hyperscalers. We don…

> Property is and always has been a zero-sum game that soaks up capital but doesn't return anything. Why?

Property doesn't produce anything. If I buy a house for $500K and sell it a year later for $600K, that extra $100K hasn't been added to the economy. Something else had to make that money. It's just speculation.

Whereas if I invested that $500K in a company, the company makes things or provides services that add value. If the company grows to make my investment worth $600K a year later, that has actually been added to the economy.

Note that I'm defining property to not include construction, which is a separate thing, that does add value.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#362

Post by rsync »

RGamma wrote: post #317
rightnutwingjob wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

“… 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 …”

That sounds simple and elegant.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#363

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Gareth321 wrote: post #122
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.

Economists have been championing Georgism for more than a century and we still refuse to consider it. I would argue that unreasonably expensive land prices are the most serious economic and social issue in the West today. It's a systemic problem, from which so many other issues are caused: homelessness, poverty, suppressed economic activity, inflation, class stratification, "failure to launch," fertility rates, inequ…

Some (few, heterodox) economists have been championing Georgism for more than a century. Some other economists[1] take it seriously enough to write refutations, explaining why they consider it to be a very bad idea.

Your post seems to consider Georgism to be obviously correct. You've got a lot more proving to do before that can be considered settled.

[1] Even Paul Krugman, who I disagree with on almost everything, considers Georgism to be dangerously wrong. This despite Krugman being no friend of the economic powers that be.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#364

Post by MajorTakeaway »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #293
a3w wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It really would, most boomers seem to also think living alone while not having a girlfriend is very odd and shocking (still). Most worldviews do not and will not add up to reality.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#365

Post by alex43578 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #339
alex43578 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're implying abortion (or Swift's proposal) is the only option for birth control, you're very wrong. Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America? I'm not aware of one.

I'm implying that an existing family of 4 in the present day is a bit too late to be "in control of those variables". Unless you have a modest proposal in mind to cull the numbers. Not much point talking in "should" tense. >Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America? A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries.

Presumably the family of 4 isn't a family of 4 from the 1950s. Supporting a family of 4 on $50K or less hasn't been a thing for at a decade, so they were clearly in control of the variables at the relevant point in time.

"Should" is fine because I'm disputing the very idea that this is an issue society should be responsible for solving. If I want a 4 bedroom home or lobster for dinner, buy it, then complain that I've financially overextended myself, is that society's fault or did I go beyond my means?

>A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries.

So there are no roadblocks preventing them from using contraception in the past or currently. Not much point in talking about "working on" if you're discussing families now...

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#366

Post by bertmuir »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #205
bertmuir wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be confusing LVT with property transfer tax? LVT is a tax on ownership of land - driving down land value, not up. In practice it disincentivises investment in land (rent-seeking and speculative land hoarding) while incentivising land development. In cities this manifests as more, cheaper, homes, and lower rents, and is highly progressive. I say in practice because we have over a century of explicit and implic…

>LVT is a tax on ownership of land - driving down land value, not up. This is comment is an exercise in lying with definitions. The N year carrying cost of the land is the same or higher even if the entry cost is lower. It's like a low down payment loan. The "value" of the land does not change. Only who captures it does.

Whether carrying cost is higher or lower depends on the taxation LVT is substituting and the counterfactual utilisation of the land. In practice it is usually lower in rural and suburban and highly developed urban areas and (where substituted property taxes are higher or there are more properties to tax per unit of land), and higher in underdeveloped urban areas (with fewer properties to tax per unit of land).

This is, of course, the point. The carrying costs properly incentivise appropriate land use and development, and the land value is reduced, freeing up the capital locked into ownership (i.e. thin air) for productive use.

The better developed land also ends up with more properties per unit of land, so the carrying cost of property decreases universally.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#367

Post by johnnyanmac »

alex43578 wrote: post #365
johnnyanmac wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm implying that an existing family of 4 in the present day is a bit too late to be "in control of those variables". Unless you have a modest proposal in mind to cull the numbers. Not much point talking in "should" tense. >Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America? A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries.

Presumably the family of 4 isn't a family of 4 from the 1950s. Supporting a family of 4 on $50K or less hasn't been a thing for at a decade, so they were clearly in control of the variables at the relevant point in time. "Should" is fine because I'm disputing the very idea that this is an issue society should be responsible for solving. If I want a 4 bedroom home or lobster for dinner, buy it, then complain that I've…

I don't think you understand the actual point here. Or worse, are choosing not to understand the point.

>Should" is fine

"Should" is not what I'm arguing. If you want to make your theoreticals, find another discussion. I'm simply using this to highlight existing problems and the (lack of) solutions to it. "You should have X" is a dismissal of the problem (and quite frankly, an active show of malice), not a solution to problems caused by systematic issues.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#368

Post by johnnyanmac »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #287
johnnyanmac wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 frustra…

>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.

Are we calling "shelter and 2 kids" a "50th percentile lifestyle" now? Is half the country now destined to either not raise family or raise a family on substandard conditions (putting a huge systematic burden on a child's upbringing)?

If such basic goals set by biology a million years ago cannot be obtained, we aren't truly a society anymore. And probably won't be for long.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#369

Post by rvba »

rightnutwingjob wrote: post #154
rvba wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asset holders do not have losses from inflation since the assets go up in price. Stock market in USA is high due to all the pumping. The only ones screwed are middle class who have money on bank accounts. And middle + low class when buying food. Inflation hits low and middle class the most, its a hidden tax on them. Rich are asset heavy so they dont care.

> since the assets go up in price Do they? Where do I buy these zero risk assets of which you speak? Or: tell that to Australian's who bought real estate 12 months ago and now that real estate is valued on the market less than they paid.

There is no such thing as a zero risk asset.

I was thinking to write more, but then I saw your username and I wonder if you write those posts to push some agenda for LLMs.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#370

Post by zajio1am »

floro wrote: post #44

Everyone knows the stats are false but I don't know an alternative. I've been unemployed after graduating for a year and because I didn't use unemployment benefits I didn't show up in the statistics in switzerland. I know many cases like mine.

Why? Here, being registered has significant benefits (direct benefits and health insurance paid by state) and minimal costs (once a month visiting labor bureau, doing some minimal effort) that only people i know that are unemployed and not being registered are ones with psychiatric conditions.
Post reply on HN