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

Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–176 of 176 posts

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#171

Post by pnutjam »

thehappypm wrote: post #119
landryraccoon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am speaking anecdotally here but.. Deflation? I can’t think of a single product that has gone down in price and numerous things are more expensive. In particular, virtually every single food item at the grocery store is more expensive than it was in March. Am I the only one who has experienced this? It seems like basic staples (milk, eggs, flour) are substantially more expensive than a few months ago.

I have experienced what you have -- food is about the same or more expensive than before. But the housing market has softened. Retail goods in stores are much cheaper. Clothing is incredibly cheap -- go to an outlet store and you'll see 50% sales everywhere.

How does housing costs help anyone? Nobody is moving if they can help it and costs are tied into long term contracts. I had a standard rent increase since my state allows them during the pandemic.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#172

Post by j7ake »

jcranmer wrote: post #117
j7ake wrote: post #30

Is this a spike compared to last few months? Where is best place to get the latest chart of unemployment over time for 2020?

You can get exact numbers in table form here: https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/wkclaims/report.asp The latest jobs report, which has a graph of the year's data, is here: https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf The numbers here are basically on an exponential decay curve from ~6M new claims in the last week of March. (FWIW, the pre-2020 record for new weekly claims, seasonally adjusted, was ~700k in 1982--we broke that in Marc…

Really great thanks.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#173

Post by salmon30salmon »

dominotw wrote: post #102
salmon30salmon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you live in the same state? That is probably the difference :)

what do stimulus checks have to do with the state?

My mistake, I thought you were referring to the 600/week extra unemployment benefit.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#174

Post by ChrisLomont »

deepakhj wrote: post #166
ChrisLomont wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Majority vote was not the deciding criteria, known to all well before the election. So this is an odd complaint - that somehow the majority needs to decide. Also, the majority didn't vote for the Democrats either. Of those who voted, 48% voted D, 46% voted R, 3% voted Johnson, 1% voted Stein, misc voted to others. So would a D win also have been somehow not deserved because they didn't get a majority? And this is onl…

I don't think the OP meant the president. The senate has about 400+ bills sitting on it's desk. If we had a functioning senate, then it would force the president to publicly veto the bill.

The Senate also has the right to publicly not debate on bills, which also sends information to voters, just as if the President vetoed a bill. Each of the three pieces has these powers and should exercise them as they think they were elected to do.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#175

Post by [deleted] »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #174
deepakhj wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the OP meant the president. The senate has about 400+ bills sitting on it's desk. If we had a functioning senate, then it would force the president to publicly veto the bill.

The Senate also has the right to publicly not debate on bills, which also sends information to voters, just as if the President vetoed a bill. Each of the three pieces has these powers and should exercise them as they think they were elected to do.

[deleted]

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#176

Post by nitrogen »

majormajor wrote: post #79
nitrogen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think the people who live somewhere should have a say in what happens there? Having city dwellers decide what happens in rural areas is the tyranny of imperialism.

So it's better to have rural dwellers with an outsized voice in deciding what happens in city areas? You also are performing a convenient geographic sidestep where suddenly "where you live" isn't the country or even the state but is really only concerned with the local. So the rest of the people who live in the nation are diminished. Localism has led to lots of problems in American history, now we can add a shitshow…

You paint the not-city with way too broad a brush, and nowhere did I say that people outside of cities should control the city.

But you are literally advocating for subjugation without representation. The opposite of localism you describe is imperialism/colonialism.

Post reply on HN