Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working • Hacker News Board

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#111

Post by Retric » Sat, Feb 24, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #76

Retric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not work. If you can substitute foreign labor then there is no shortage. If you can't substitute foreign labor then it's irrelevant. You can't have a shortage of workers and falling wages. You can have uncompetitive US companies, but they are very profitable so the only thing left is irrational behavior.

>You can't have a shortage of workers and falling wages. You can have uncompetitive US companies, but they are very profitable so the only thing left is irrational behavior. Or insufficient capital investment and bad management holding down productivity. You can't pay a worker more than their productivity, but if the best you can get out of them is too little, it may not be worth their while. You could then plausibly…

You are describing insufficient demand, not insufficient workers. The reasons for low demand are more or less irrelevant to worker pay, just that demand is low.

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#112

Post by throwaway65536 » Sat, Feb 24, 2018, 11:41 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #104

throwaway65536 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this age of ghosting people, it seems like everybody is just eyeing everyone else for a reason to stop talking to them or pull the trigger on the block button. We used to be socially-integrated enough to put up with people's foibles and correct them until we are all within a liveable range. Now you cannot confront or give feedback without it blowing up into hyperbole. I have been openly asked about my politics at…

That would be an actionable question, no?

I would rather spend time succeeding on my own merits.

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#113

Post by cmurf » Sat, Feb 24, 2018, 11:44 PM UTC

galieos_ghost wrote: post #6

Not sure why people are shocked by this, it's just the basic principle of diffusion. As long as america continue to allow free trade our wealth and jobs will flow out of the country as countries seek cheaper labor and sell it right back to America with no restrictions. The standard of living is raising in other countries while lowering in the US. Labor is already getting too expensive in China for cheap goods so comp…

By all objective measures, free trade has helped more than it has hurt. And yes, that's poor consolation for the disproportionate injury for the minority: not least of which are those in the U.S. who were unable or unwilling to adapt to the ensuing market forces, but perhaps the proliferation of worker exploitation and slavery [1]

Those disproportionately benefiting, are those invested in the stock market, and work as top tier management of those companies. As defacto owners and operators, their company gets cheaper labor without honoring the labor rights of the home country, and have become wealthier because of this. Ironically, perhaps, the home country benefits from this as well via tax collection.

The idea that that reverting to prior trade paradigms will be more fair is just stupid. Regression will be worse because it will deprive so many more people of what wealth they do have. It would destabilizing economically, and politically. Bilateral trade is as dead long term as petroleum. A silly president, who transparently favors bilateral trade either because he lacks the mental acuity to understand multilateral trade, or he's malevolent and wants to take advantage of others without being held accountable (his long standing business m.o. is split between the two), should have no say. And in practice the senate, American business, foreign leaders and businesses, nod and smile just so he doesn't poop his diaper again. Not because bilateral trade has a realistic chance.

Instead of taking an unserious person's advice, we need to double down on mutilateral trade combined with strong competition, anti-fraud, and ethics. And a lot of rational constructive arguing. The more who benefit, the wealthier and safer we all are. I win you lose is Trump's idea of winning strategy, and everyone knows it. His followers love the bully mentality, they think it works, and his detractors see it for what it is: shitty behavior you expect from shitty people best avoided as much as possible.

[1] A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery Ben Skinner

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#114

Post by themarkn » Sat, Feb 24, 2018, 11:44 PM UTC

bittercynic wrote: post #109

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we have a word for those people: milquetoast . I'm not sure people would hire me after asking about my politics for 20 minutes. What, you're gonna employ someone after getting an earful about Marx and Bookchin?

Is it possible the political questions are really a test to see if you have the good sense to avoid bringing controversial politics to work? Maybe they were looking for something along the lines of "Political opinions will differ. I'm more interested in being part of a productive team than having my politics validated."

People are so complicated that most "tests" like this, to see how somebody responds, strike me as useless. You are not in a controlled environment, and pretending you are is foolish. You might get a reaction and presume to know the cause, but it's hard to be sure. Maybe somebody reacts badly to a strong signal that the interviewer doesn't know how to be appropriate and professoonal in an interview.

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#115

Post by psyc » Sat, Feb 24, 2018, 11:57 PM UTC

bittercynic wrote: post #109

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we have a word for those people: milquetoast . I'm not sure people would hire me after asking about my politics for 20 minutes. What, you're gonna employ someone after getting an earful about Marx and Bookchin?

Is it possible the political questions are really a test to see if you have the good sense to avoid bringing controversial politics to work? Maybe they were looking for something along the lines of "Political opinions will differ. I'm more interested in being part of a productive team than having my politics validated."

It doesn't really matter. It's very inappropriate. What you're describing is sometimes called a "shit test". A disingenuous request intended to draw out a response to be judged. This has no place in an interview.

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#116

Post by dozzie » Sat, Feb 24, 2018, 11:59 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #76

Retric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not work. If you can substitute foreign labor then there is no shortage. If you can't substitute foreign labor then it's irrelevant. You can't have a shortage of workers and falling wages. You can have uncompetitive US companies, but they are very profitable so the only thing left is irrational behavior.

>You can't have a shortage of workers and falling wages. You can have uncompetitive US companies, but they are very profitable so the only thing left is irrational behavior. Or insufficient capital investment and bad management holding down productivity. You can't pay a worker more than their productivity, but if the best you can get out of them is too little, it may not be worth their while. You could then plausibly…

Yes, there are many curious effects and phenomena once we dispense with this silly expectation of business being sustainable.

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#117

Post by zaroth » Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 12:06 AM UTC

I didn’t read the study, but an even bigger factor than SSDI is Medicaid expansion. Free insurance with no co-pays and deductibles is worth a lot of money if you consume any healthcare services, and you can only get it if you don’t earn more than 140% FPL.

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#118

Post by bittercynic » Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 12:07 AM UTC

themarkn wrote: post #114

bittercynic wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible the political questions are really a test to see if you have the good sense to avoid bringing controversial politics to work? Maybe they were looking for something along the lines of "Political opinions will differ. I'm more interested in being part of a productive team than having my politics validated."

People are so complicated that most "tests" like this, to see how somebody responds, strike me as useless. You are not in a controlled environment, and pretending you are is foolish. You might get a reaction and presume to know the cause, but it's hard to be sure. Maybe somebody reacts badly to a strong signal that the interviewer doesn't know how to be appropriate and professoonal in an interview.

Strongly agree with your statement, but I still think it is understandable for interviewers to want to know how their interviewee will react in situations that can easily lead to big conflicts. If you reflexively act in a way that escalates in stressful situations, that's useful information in a hiring decision.

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#119

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 12:14 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #117

I didn’t read the study, but an even bigger factor than SSDI is Medicaid expansion. Free insurance with no co-pays and deductibles is worth a lot of money if you consume any healthcare services, and you can only get it if you don’t earn more than 140% FPL.

> Free insurance with no co-pays and deductibles is worth a lot of money if you consume any healthcare services, and you can only get it if you don’t work.

The Medicaid expansion population is up to 138% of Federal Poverty Level, so it's not “available only if you don't work”, and the vast majority of states participating in the expansion impose cost sharing requirements (which work like deductibles, though at least the ones I know well are monthly rather than annual), so it's mostly not “with no copay or deductible”.

Re: Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren’t working

#120

Post by lkrubner » Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 12:18 AM UTC

jordanb wrote: post #14

ekidd wrote: post #8

I'm deeply skeptical of any explanation that claims that we have both a "shortage of labor" and "downward pressure on wages": > If men and women from the ages 25 to 54 took part in the labor market... [t]hat would be more fuel for the U.S. economy and a bigger source of workers for businesses crying out about a shortage of labor... > Trade with China flooded the U.S. with cheap imports, forced domestic firms to shift…

One way to look at it is there is a ceiling on American wages imposed by globalization. Above that ceiling you're better off going overseas. But that ceiling is below the market-clearing price of labor in the us.

No, a "ceiling on American wages" theory would only make sense if globalization was removing jobs from the USA, in which case you would not have a labor shortage. It would be reasonable to say "Foreign competition has stolen jobs from Americans, therefore the unemployment rate is high, therefore there is a ceiling on American wages via globalization."

But that can not be reconciled to "labor shortage".

A more fruitful line of research focuses on the growing power of monopoly, and the collapse of new business formation in the USA. Why don't companies with huge profits reinvest their profits? Why are most of the tech giants sitting on piles of cash? Monopoly could explain that, and would also explain a limit on wages that otherwise seems to defy market sense.