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

251–260 of 349 posts

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#251

Post by sib »

michaelochurch wrote: post #92
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…

Here's a solution that doesn't require the government to hire long-term unemployed: lying on a resume or in an interview to conceal unemployment is now legal . (Well, technically, it was never illegal; just considered unethical.) You may: * Expand dates of any job by up to two months or 10% on each side, whichever is larger. * Bump an educational degree forward by up to 5 years if under 40, and 10 years if older. * M…

If a candidate would lie about those things, they'd lie about things at work too.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#252

Post by rosser »

jonnathanson wrote: post #218
larrys wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I would absolutely without a second's doubt invent fictitious employment and get a friend to back up any reference check " I've also heard people who will simply pick a company that went out of business where references or verification aren't even possible.

This is a dangerous game. Some HR managers and hiring managers won't have the time or the know-how to fact check that sort of thing. Others will. The expected value of the dice roll isn't worth the risk.

Dangerous how? The only down-side appears to be that you don't get that job. TFA is suggesting that with an employment gap instead of a fake job, you wouldn't have, anyway.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#253

Post by enraged_camel »

sharkweek wrote: post #199
saturdayplace wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the beginning of a mortgage, the overwhelming majority of your payment will be interest; a very small slice is applied to the principal. Over the term of the loan, those small cuts whittle away the principal owed, which in turn lowers the amount of interested charged each payment (a percentage of the principal owed), until at the end of the mortgage your payment is mostly principal. If you do the math, a typical 3…

As someone who just bought a home -- I can also assure others in this thread, there is a lot of emotional value in owning your own place (reality check -- yes I know the bank owns it for a while) -- but for me and my wife, the value comes from being able to do whatever we want with the house. Expand the basement? Sure! Get a bunch of dogs? Why not! Commit to getting to know the neighbors? Sounds great. All while not…

>>Expand the basement? Sure! Get a bunch of dogs? Why not! Commit to getting to know the neighbors? Sounds great. All while not having to worry about a landlord doing whatever they want at the end of a lease.

It's funny that two out of the three things you said are additional expenses that the house enables.

Of course, we aren't disputing the emotional value of owning a home. We're just saying that it's a poor financial decision most of the time.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#254

Post by enraged_camel »

analyst74 wrote: post #179
pchivers wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

True. However, in the majority of cases the math is overwhelmingly on the side of renters. Whereas conventional wisdom goes the other way. This is one of the reasons we had the housing crash. The house of cards can only stand for so long.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#255

Post by jquery »

quesera wrote: post #176
pchivers wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I just bought a home and 40% of my payments are principal from day 1. That's at 3.5% interest. If you get a conventional loan instead of a jumbo, you can do even better than that. Mortgage interest deductions make the calculus even better. Plus tax-free capital gains.

It was quite the slam-dunk easy decision to make where I live (San Francisco), considering how hot the rental market is. My house rents for $1k more than the monthly mortgage!

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#256

Post by gvb »

jdietrich wrote: post #157
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…

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.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#257

Post by enraged_camel »

anigbrowl wrote: post #193
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…

Speaking as a homeowner, we didn't buy the house as an investment asset (though naturally we hope it doesn't depreciate too much). We bought it to live in, and are not paying huge amounts or over very long periods. Of course there are risks. That's why we carry insurance.

>>Of course there are risks. That's why we carry insurance.

Which also has a cost... You are not negating risk by buying insurance. You are simply offloading it to another party and paying them money on a regular basis. At the end of the day, it's still an expense.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#258

Post by enraged_camel »

jngreenlee wrote: post #224
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…

Addition to the other factors to consider put forth by nostromo: -Mobility. When you need to exit a house and relocate, you can do so without waiting for a lease to expire. If you are in the right market, you can rent the first home out while you migrate, then sell it once the dust has settled.

>>Mobility. When you need to exit a house and relocate, you can do so without waiting for a lease to expire.

Yeah, instead you need to find a buyer, which in most places is not an easy task, especially in a housing market flooded with cheap foreclosed homes. In addition, you have to hope that the house has not depreciated in value during your ownership - which can happen due to factors totally outside your control (such as foreclosures in your neighborhood).

In other words: if you need to move, don't count on having the ability to sell your house quickly and without loss.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#259

Post by enraged_camel »

macspoofing wrote: post #106
icelancer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that you are competing against people who have been increasing their skill at relevant tasks and you have not. It's no more complicated than that. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

That makes no sense, for so many reasons. Here's one: 10 years of experience with a 6 month break is worse than 5 years of experience and a 2 month break? Here's another: skill increase is not linear. Here's another: People are different.

Unfortunately, HR departments do not have the time or resources to take into account differences in individuals. When looking at two resumes, they have to evaluate them based on certain criteria, and they have to assume that all other things are equal. (They rarely are, but life is unfair like that.)

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#260

Post by _delirium »

xamuel wrote: post #250
walshemj wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the landlord then retains your deposit for "spurious" cleaning or do US landlords not do this nasty little scam.

Just write the deposit off and if you get any back, consider it a blessing. It's odd that you give it so much weight when it's usually less than a single month's rent.

It varies a lot; in California the legal maximum is two months' rent, and it's fairly common for landlords to demand the maximum. That can be a significant hit unless you stay in the same place for years.
Post reply on HN