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

271–280 of 349 posts

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#271

Post by mgkimsal »

pnathan wrote: post #265
mgkimsal wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The going rates in NYC/SF also have going rates for living expenses. A single person might not mind having a small apartment or sharing with someone - people with families or other priorities can't live like that. It doesn't have to be telecommute - mid-senior developers can get jobs making $70-$80k in many major areas around the US (Minneapolis, Raleigh, Atlanta, Nashville, are just some I know of off the top of my…

> A single person might not mind having a small apartment or sharing with someone - people with families or other priorities can't live like that. Actually, people can . Immigrants are notorious for doing that in the US. If you're willing to rearrange your perceptions of what can be done... you could definitely have 3-5 people in a 800-900 sq. ft apartment. :-)

I thought that might be brought up when I was writing it, and you're right. Yes people can, but not everyone wants to, of course, and it's a pretty big sell to tell someone "pay $2500/month to live in this small apt to be close to company X" when there's far different options out there: bigger space, less pollution, better schools, cheaper food, perhaps closer to other relatives, etc. So yes, it can be done, but I think many companies are doing themselves a disservice by requiring people to be onsite and live nearby or commute long distances.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#272

Post by vacri »

nostromo wrote: post #186
enraged_camel wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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…

A few things you're not accounting for: * Leverage. (The most you can leverage a stock investment is 2x. For homes people can leverage their money up to an insane 20x, for example: by buying a 500k home with 25k down. The proper comparison is not to compare buying a 500k home vs 500k worth of stocks; it's buying 25k or 50k worth of stocks vs a 500k home.) * Mortgage deduction. (Imagine if you could invest 500k in the…

Also not accounting for a house being a place to live, raise a family, and store your stuff. Talking about it like it's just another investment is strange.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#273

Post by aurelius83 »

"In other words, the first thing employers look at is how long you've been out of work, and that's the only thing they look at if it's been six months or longer."

This seems intuitive to me. With the large number of people applying to jobs, there has to be a way to quickly filter resumes down.

It's unfortunate, but HR probably decided that six months or longer is probably a signal that there is something wrong with the applicant. Because of the vast amount of resumes being sent in, they can afford to miss out on the diamond in the rough that is hidden among the mass of resumes of people out of work for 6 months or longer.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#274

Post by wiredfool »

RestlessMind wrote: post #222
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.

But the interest is tax-deductible. So you should also include tax savings in your cost-benefit analysis.

Only to the extent that its over your standard deduction. In my case,about 1/3 of the interest I pay is deductible.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#275

Post by el_fuser »

danielweber wrote: post #46
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #28

"It's time for the government to start hiring the long-term unemployed." What the fuck? If you measure something you do not like, the immediate response should not be to grab a hammer and try to kill it. It probably exists for a reason. Understand the reason. Then take action. It may be that there is nothing you can do -- directly. Only a small few percentage points of the problems in the world go away through direct…

Honestly, some real skills do disappear with long-term unemployment, like getting up on time every day. Even working a made-up job is probably better. But real job skills do disappear, too. If one person has been working with machine tools 40 hours a week while the other hasn't used machine tools for six months, hiring the first is the rational thing to do. Personally, as a software engineer, I've enjoyed my bouts of…

* I've enjoyed my bouts of unemployment, because I've had the chance to deep dive into new things I never had the chance while working full time, and I've come out of them more employable.*

It follows that staying in one job for a long period would tend to make you less employable... And indeed I've witnessed this very thing.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#276

Post by tptacek »

jarek wrote: post #230
tptacek wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of the words I used were "big"? You're right: I'm definitely pooping on the comment. Can't claim the high ground there at all.

I'll respond as I myself hate when people leave me hanging after I respond to their snark... "factoid" (arguably used incorrectly), "authoritative", "verifiably false premise". It could be written more simply. You're not wrong, of course, but I've seen you take-down posts like that a couple of times now, so a comment seemed fair. (I realize it's not far off from how you normally write, but the effect is different in…

No, thank you. This is where I do all of my writing, and I appreciate the feedback. One of my coworkers once made a word cloud of all my HN comments, and it was embarrassing (a small galaxy of words relating to argumentativeness) and ever since, I've worried that my lazier writing is easy to spot for how puffy and prolix it is.

Though, for what it's worth: I used "factoid" in the sense of "concept related as a fact that probably isn't a fact".

It was really nice of you to take the time to write that. Thanks again.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#277

Post by nilkn »

gvb wrote: post #256
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.

That mathematical error corrects itself over time. I now own my house. Rent is forever.

That's an excellent point, but a mortgage is not the only route to true home ownership. You could work and rent in a city with high salaries and low rent vs. purchase prices, then retire in a very cheap area where you can just buy a house with cash saved up, thereby paying no interest whatsoever on the house and keeping maximum mobility during your career.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#278

Post by nilkn »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #234
mgkimsal wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The going rates in NYC/SF also have going rates for living expenses. A single person might not mind having a small apartment or sharing with someone - people with families or other priorities can't live like that. It doesn't have to be telecommute - mid-senior developers can get jobs making $70-$80k in many major areas around the US (Minneapolis, Raleigh, Atlanta, Nashville, are just some I know of off the top of my…

I second your post here-- I am currently idled through the end of summer by choice (we're moving and then traveling), but it's not a big deal-- I live in the sticks, but I do drive into Austin, TX pretty frequently. There are indeed a lot of opportunities, but you do have to focus on business development as part of what you're doing; while I don't have a lot of specific offers on my plate for the fall, I'm not worrie…

I'm in TX too (not Austin, but another big city). I'm curious how you're liking consulting here and how it's going. Do you find most of your clients in Austin or are they remote? And do you feel like you would be better off just getting a salaried full-time job with benefits given the going rates here for salaries vs. consulting? If you don't mind spilling the beans (I understand if not), how much are you generally able to make (and how much work does making it involve)?

I ask because I'm seriously looking into transitioning into consulting over the next few years. I'm a little dissatisfied with the developer wages in Texas in comparison to the cost of living inside the city (Houston, probably similar to Austin). The wages are great in comparison to the suburbs or further out, but I don't want to commute 1.5-2 hours every day if I can help it.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#279

Post by pekk »

batonka wrote: post #82

It seems that from a hiring manager point of view the logic is this: -Good people are hard to find -If I find a good person, I snap them up right away -Other hiring managers in my industry probably do the same -If someone hasn't been working for 6 months they've probably been on a bunch of interviews -In those interviews, no one thought the candidate was good enough to hire -Odds are the candidate probably isn't wort…

Also it's obviously not his fault that the bank collapsed, whereas we will blame someone if they do not have work in a few months

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#280

Post by pekk »

jmsduran wrote: post #69

The negative stigma that is placed on long-term unemployment is an issue that needs to be addressed; measuring how long someone has been unemployed is not really indicative of anything. The rationalization that "If no one has hired them in X months, there must be a reason not to" is just flat out dumb. And while it may be a red flag when purchasing physical goods or real estate, it's a baseless stat when it comes to…

Hiring is based on flat-out dumb reasoning, as long as it is a stupid reason to exclude someone rather than include them.
Post reply on HN