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

341–349 of 349 posts

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#341

Post by fragsworth »

nilkn wrote: post #277
gvb wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> a city with high salaries and low rent vs. purchase prices

This is not easy to find and the market typically corrects itself over the course of a few months to a year, unless there is rent control.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#342

Post by droithomme »

ameister14 wrote: post #300
droithomme wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps part of the problem is poor math, logic and research skills. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm > Nonfarm payroll employment edged up in March, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. > In March, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 4.6 million. These individuals accoun…

Yeah, you're focused on unemployment numbers after the redefinition of unemployment. That's not as accurate. Technically there were a lot of unemployed left out of the earlier evaluations as well, but this problem is worse now. It's to the point where the data isn't nearly as useful, or perhaps is useful in different ways. Either way it's a very poor tool for measuring long-term unemployed. Your illiteracy studies? N…

The National Institute for Literacy is a federal agency that was established by the National Literacy Act in 1991 and reauthorized in 1998 by the Workforce Investment Act. There's nothing wrong with their methodology. Their measurements are consistent with other studies, but theirs are the most recent and are done nationally so are likely the most reliable. Feel free to cite other studies if you prefer, I notice that your post contained no references, just smug dismissals of data with citations.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#343

Post by ameister14 »

droithomme wrote: post #342
ameister14 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, you're focused on unemployment numbers after the redefinition of unemployment. That's not as accurate. Technically there were a lot of unemployed left out of the earlier evaluations as well, but this problem is worse now. It's to the point where the data isn't nearly as useful, or perhaps is useful in different ways. Either way it's a very poor tool for measuring long-term unemployed. Your illiteracy studies? N…

The National Institute for Literacy is a federal agency that was established by the National Literacy Act in 1991 and reauthorized in 1998 by the Workforce Investment Act. There's nothing wrong with their methodology. Their measurements are consistent with other studies, but theirs are the most recent and are done nationally so are likely the most reliable. Feel free to cite other studies if you prefer, I notice that…

Now you've moved from saying I'm bad at math to calling me smug, and saying that I'm dismissing your data. I'm not dismissing your data; you have cited NO DATA.

Your first link referenced what amounts to a policy paper by the Detroit Regional Literacy Fund. Which is actually interesting because it implies the link goes to a study by the National Institute for Literacy.

As an aside, I'm not doubting the reputation of the National Institute for Literacy. I just don't trust any study I can't see the data from. This is a personal thing, but it comes from working and being friends with people that routinely manipulate data for Federal Policy Think-Tanks.

So first you have the Huffington Post with two sources, one that doesn't have any references in it and makes statements without visible justification and another that is The Wall Street Journal. Second, you've got a Yahoo Voices article: Your second link listed these sources: www.proliteracy.org, The Washington Post, Wikipedia, BBC News and the Associated Press. So you've got publications sourcing other publications.

The reason I don't immediately trust everything on the Huffinton Post and periodicals that don't actually source any studies AT ALL, is because they often draw inaccurate conclusions from bad data, or use sources that have no scientific grounding.

This happens a lot with medical studies.

The other problem is you seem to be assuming that the unemployed population is the same as the illiterate population. I don't know why you assume this, as your sources don't have any causative inferences.

Detroit has high illiteracy. Detroit also has high unemployment. Without a study, though, there is no implied causation.

If all you want is a citation from a periodical, I can do that: how about this that says 53% of recent college graduates are un- or underemployed?

http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/one-in-two-new... , or

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/04/overqualified-college-g...

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#344

Post by dredmorbius »

sneak wrote: post #304
dredmorbius wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What leverages up can (and will) leverage down. The problem with the housing collapse was that people with low or zero down-payment mortgages found that the property value fell, wiping out their entire stake (if they had any at all). More skin in the game should (though there's some research suggesting otherwise) make the market more stable by reducing the ability to speculate. This is a lesson that goes back to the…

> More skin in the game should (though there's some research suggesting otherwise) make the market more stable by reducing the ability to speculate. This is a lesson that goes back to the crash of 1929 and the Dutch tulip bubble. True, but that's not what we have in the market today. You are confusing "should" with "is".

Sorry? Your comment's not clear.

Are you saying that today we have more skin in the game and it's not helping, or that today we don't have more skin in the game (with market stability left AFAICT uncommented on)?

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#345

Post by dredmorbius »

rdtsc wrote: post #286
dredmorbius wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What leverages up can (and will) leverage down. The problem with the housing collapse was that people with low or zero down-payment mortgages found that the property value fell, wiping out their entire stake (if they had any at all). More skin in the game should (though there's some research suggesting otherwise) make the market more stable by reducing the ability to speculate. This is a lesson that goes back to the…

Each of those is an contribution to risk and and potential reward, I guess it still comes down to whether people think their house will appreciate or not faster than inflation. There is also: * Closing costs. 5k to 10k can easily go to that only. So just buying and selling constantly could end wasted eaten "transaction costs" * Chance of moving. Are you likely to move? If so think twice about a house. This is offset…

Add to the "chance of moving" cost: your opportunity cost in lost income (or additional expenses) by being unable to sell your house in the course of a move. Either you lose out on the income opportunity (which is what this subthread started with), or you're left with the higher costs of renting out your home (likely not covering mortgage) while renting at the new location.

We saw this last situation for a new hire who last year was unable to sell his underwater midwest home while finding rents in a markedly hotter housing market much higher, especially when proximity to good schools and low crime rates were factored in.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#346

Post by yardie »

youngtaff wrote: post #317
yardie wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how does the US factor into this correlation with an even higher rate of home ownership and lower rate of unemployment? No, unemployment and home ownership may be tangentially linked but one does not relate directly to the other. This is how the unemployment rate matches up for both countries. https://www.google.fr/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&... Notice a difference? Spain, and a lot of European countr…

Why do you consider them "archaic debt laws" Someone takes on a debt using property as security, if they forfeit the security why should they be excused from the difference between the value of the security and the value of the debt?

Because you are penalized for not being a fortune teller. They are archaic because it doesn't work well in a modern market. Oh, it worked, alright. Right up until the housing market stopped going up. Then when it went down all that capital was tied up in personal debt. The bank got the house and their pound of flesh, for perpetuity. And I mean that in some people will never be able to pay off that loan and see suicide as a viable option.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#347

Post by csomar »

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…

* 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.)*

I guess you are confusing investment and mortgage?

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#348

Post by mcherm »

lutorm wrote: post #168
mcherm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it sounds like a terrible idea. As an applicant, I would never take advantage of it. As an employer I would never WANT to hire anyone who took advantage of it. A side effect would be that I would begin to distrust resumes and would therefore hire more by word-of-mouth instead, which would reduce opportunities for minorities and those less well-connected.

I would begin to distrust resumes You mean you now trust resumes?

Um.... good point.

I would trust resumes even LESS than I do now.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#349

Post by flyinRyan »

jarek wrote: post #335
flyinRyan wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they? Do companies have some kind of feel for how many people are long-term unemployed and how many of those apply for jobs with their companies?

Leaving aside data like macroeconomic statistics which do indeed tell companies how many people are long-term unemployed, companies have a pretty good "feel" about people that send them resumes if they read any of them. If three months ago 10% of resumes you were getting indicated long-term unemployment, and next month 2% of received resumes indicate long-term unemployment and 8% list freelancing for the first time i…

But how would you separate people who are doing this from those who aren't?
Post reply on HN