Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 349 posts

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#171

Post by srdev »

icelancer wrote: post #94
rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, there is something to what he's saying. The idea that the labor market behaves rationally is a childish fantasy. Employers are not rational. They do all sorts of irrational things, and discriminating against the long-term unemployed (and also women returning to the work force from motherhood) is one of those irrational things. It's almost a dating mentality. They jump to the conclusion: "well if nobody else wants…

>They jump to the conclusion: "well if nobody else wants him, why should I?" Having been in charge of hiring, this is way, way more true than it is false. It is not irrational at all.

Do you have statistics on how often you've hired long-term out-of-work people and the frequency of said people to be sub-par employees?

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#172

Post by xentronium »

droithomme wrote: post #55

It's not a terrible metric. There is an actual correlation between long term unemployment and being unemployable because of lack of skills and incompetence, or serious personality defects, such as drug addiction, mental disorders, criminality, violent behavior and laziness. Few long term unemployed are long term unemployed for no reason at all. It's hard to take the claims seriously of those such as the article autho…

> There is an actual correlation between long term unemployment and being unemployable because of lack of skills and incompetence, or serious personality defects, such as drug addiction, mental disorders, criminality, violent behavior and laziness.

There is an actual correlation between being black and drug addiction, criminality &c.

Discriminating on skin color is illegal, though.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#173

Post by macspoofing »

randomdata wrote: post #120
macspoofing wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you do not record that fact for potential employers, questions are going to be raised. Clearly, CLEARLY, employers in the US are finicky and capricious, I'm not disputing that. The study in the article proves this. I'm arguing they are irrationally so. Let's take the worst case scenario. What's really wrong with me leaving work, living off my savings while watching TV, and then rejoining the workforce 7 months la…

If you want to spend seven months watching TV, then document it. Explain your motivation, what you gained from the experience, etc. My earlier point was that the "we shall not speak of this time" gap in the resume is the problem, not that you were not making money during a period of time. Everything in life is a job, including watching TV. You just need to account for that time if you want people to not think you are…

>You just need to account for that time if you want people to not think you are sketchy and trying to hide something.

In context of this article, most people aren't even given a chance to account for that time. Their application gets filtered out and they are never called in for an interview. That's one problem. Another problem is that it may not be relevant at all. Worse, it can be something that is highly personal. What if you had health problems and you had to take time off, should you really need to disclose something like this?

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#174

Post by jiggy2011 »

jonathanwallace wrote: post #89
michaelochurch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if they act irrationally they will be sufficiently punished by the market (no childish fantasy required). The market does punish shitty corporations, but it happens over years to decades, and most people can't wait that long. How much comfort is it to someone who's unemployed if Microsoft breaks off and falls into the ocean in 2025? These people want jobs now and, as far as I can tell, don't really care what the…

Sounds like there is a market opportunity for job coaches. Reasonable-reason-for-extended-absence-from-the-job-market as a service, anyone?

Problem is, who's going to pay? Unemployed, especially long term unemployed don't have any money since they can't blow their monthly food budget on a 15 minute consultation.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#175

Post by cpressey »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #102
zorpner wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where on the resume would you recommend putting that information?

Just list it alongside other jobs. It probably helps to have a real company name with a website etc.

I upvoted this because it was hilarious. I can only hope it was intentionally so.

"Hodgson Gestation Services, LLC"

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#176

Post by quesera »

pchivers wrote: post #170
jdietrich wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very simple mathematical error - people compare the cost of a mortgage payment with the cost of a month's rent, failing to take into account that only a tiny fraction of the mortgage payment actually becomes equity. If they actually sit down and work it out, most people are astonished at how much flexibility they sacrifice for that small slice of equity.

>failing to take into account that only a tiny fraction of the mortgage payment actually becomes equity. What percentage of a mortgage payment actually gets converted into equity? (coming from a genuinely curious person who has never owned a house)

It depends. The interest portion is very high in the beginning of the mortgage and very low at the end.

In a typical 30yr mortgage, you will make 360 monthly (roughly equal) payments. If your mortgage payment is $1000/mo, payment #1 will be approximately $950 interest and $50 principal. Payment #360 will be ~ $50 interest and $950 principal.

Most people move every five or six years (historical, might not be true with current RE market), so they complete about 20% of their total mortgage schedule. However, because of this ramped apportionment, most people still owe the lender much more than 80% of their initial purchase price.

The first time I did the math on this, I thought I had discovered a huge consumer-hostile scam. But actually it's quite reasonable -- mortgages are designed to keep payments equal over the term of the loan, so there's really no other way to do it.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#177

Post by aggronn »

riggins wrote: post #165
[deleted] wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

"at worst, it depreciates by 50%, you still get $1k back from every month you paid off the mortgage" Not sure what you mean by 'get $1k back from every month you paid off mortgage' Here's rough justice. $300K, 6%, 30 yr fixed mortgage. Annual payment is $22K(about your 2K/month) for the life of the mortgage. Avg int over the first 5 years is $17.5K. So after the first five years you've accumulated $22K in equity. If…

You're right, I ignored the depreciation on the remainder of the mortgage and assumed that when you sold the house, there would be no loss on that.

Incredibly stupid example. Embarrassing really. Objection withdrawn

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#178

Post by macspoofing »

blindhippo wrote: post #152
macspoofing wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As I said, I didn't really mind what the answer was, just that you had an answer. Let's take that. A person with a good employment history, leaves (or loses) their job and takes a few months off to do nothing. What exactly makes them unhireable when they rejoin the workforce? Furthermore, how do you know the person you're interviewing will tell you that they were looking after kids, or working at McDonald's. Maybe t…

" takes a few months off to do nothing" Isn't that an answer? If I was the interviewer in this situation, that would be a completely acceptable response to me. I'm sure to other people perhaps taking time off is seen as some sort of weakness, but you don't want to work for those people anyways.

>I'm sure to other people perhaps taking time off is seen as some sort of weakness, but you don't want to work for those people anyways.

Ideally. But for anyone outside of tech and possibly financial, it's a buyers market. If you have bills to pay, and a family to support, you may not afford to be so picky.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#179

Post by analyst74 »

pchivers wrote: post #170
jdietrich wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very simple mathematical error - people compare the cost of a mortgage payment with the cost of a month's rent, failing to take into account that only a tiny fraction of the mortgage payment actually becomes equity. If they actually sit down and work it out, most people are astonished at how much flexibility they sacrifice for that small slice of equity.

>failing to take into account that only a tiny fraction of the mortgage payment actually becomes equity. What percentage of a mortgage payment actually gets converted into equity? (coming from a genuinely curious person who has never owned a house)

25%

However, blindly following advice on renter-ship is as bad as blindly following advices on homeownership. Every situation is different, and you should do your math per your specific situation.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#180

Post by rcirka »

enraged_camel wrote: post #127
cletus wrote: post #84

This doesn't surprise me at all. One thing I've come to learn in life is the importance of social proof. Social proof takes many form. It's why MIT and Stanford CS grads have tech companies come to their campuses and throw money at them (these institutions don't have a monopoly on good engineers). It's why if you have Google/Facebook/Twitter on your CV you are pretty much guaranteed a job. It's why academic staff who…

>>There is another side of this that the article doesn't touch on: home ownership. Oh boy. There's so much I can say about this topic, and none of it is positive. Basically, the way our culture mindlessly promotes home ownership is insane. Absolutely insane! Every time I hear people complaining about "throwing away money" by renting, and how they would rather put that money into a house, I want to hold them by the sh…

I agree that home ownership is not a good investment. Between mortgage interest, property taxes, home owners insurance, and maintenance, the ROI will be negative. Not to mention most homes barely appreciate beyond inflation. People say that with rent, all your money is going out the window. The same can be said for owning a home.
Post reply on HN