Say Hello to Full Employment • Hacker News Board

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#271

Post by saudioger » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 3:38 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #45

saudioger wrote: post #7

We're also 9 years away from the end of the last recession. The longest we've gone without a recession in the past 100 years is 10 years.

Australia has not had a recession since June of 1991. That simultaneously does not mean they can go another two decades without a recession next time, and it does not mean their expansion has to end shortly. There's no rigid guide that the US expansion has to end anytime soon just because ten years was the longest expansion in the prior century. Perhaps this one will last 19 years and set a new benchmark, who knows (…

No one said it's a rigid guide, it's just a bit of a signpost.

Could we double or triple the length between recessions? Sure, but I doubt it.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#272

Post by indecisive_user » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 3:49 AM UTC

oculusthrift wrote: post #267

bjourne wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is essentially the only metric available that is readily comparable between countries. Also, whatever definition you use for "real unemployment rate" that rate will be linearly dependent on the U-3 metric. If the U-3 number goes up, then "real unemployment" goes up and likewise if it goes down. Those who are interested can read the report to the 13th International Conference of Labour Statisticians (yes, there are…

So if i’m despondent and give up searching for a job then doesn’t U-3 unemployment go down and therefore wouldn’t using a definition that included the despondent not be linearly dependent?

Though it seems hypothetically possible for what you're saying to happen, the data shows there's a linear relationship between many different definitions of unemployment throughout the years in the US.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/u-3-unemployment-rate-was-...

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#273

Post by cgb223 » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 3:55 AM UTC

spir wrote: post #47

This article seems to use the terms "unemployed" and "jobless" interchangeably. People who stop searching for jobs (eg. due to despondence or poor health) are excluded from the official unemployment rate, yet they are jobless. On a recent EconTalk, Edward Glaeser, the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard, said, in their recent sample, 11.9% of U.S. men aged 25-55 have been jobless for over 12 mont…

It’s worth noting that the job report from this week has explicit data suggesting that jobless people are now re-entering the workforce in higher numbers

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#274

Post by orangecat » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 4:05 AM UTC

shams93 wrote: post #65

saudioger wrote: post #7

We're also 9 years away from the end of the last recession. The longest we've gone without a recession in the past 100 years is 10 years.

Goes to show that Obama did much better than he was often given credit for. While Obamacare fell fall short of the medicare for all that is needed by business - imagine not having to worry about covering healthcare for employees for your startup - his overall job of captaining the ship through incredibly hard times was very successful.

While Obamacare fell fall short of the medicare for all that is needed by business - imagine not having to worry about covering healthcare for employees for your startup

Businesses don't have to worry about being the primary source of food or housing for their employees either, and somehow this is true without the government taking over agriculture and real estate.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#275

Post by all_blue_chucks » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 4:07 AM UTC

spir wrote: post #47

This article seems to use the terms "unemployed" and "jobless" interchangeably. People who stop searching for jobs (eg. due to despondence or poor health) are excluded from the official unemployment rate, yet they are jobless. On a recent EconTalk, Edward Glaeser, the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard, said, in their recent sample, 11.9% of U.S. men aged 25-55 have been jobless for over 12 mont…

> People who stop searching for jobs are excluded from the official unemployment rate

The official employment stats cover both. U3 is the unemployment rate, which correctly covers only the labor force, while U6 covers the labor participation rate, which covers the population.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#276

Post by orangecat » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 4:10 AM UTC

Veelox wrote: post #237

InclinedPlane wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? The economy is healthier with safety nets that prevent people from "dropping out" of the economy through homeless, excessive debt, being trapped under huge debt burdens that limit their options, etc. But the economy is also healthier when it is fully participatory. When only a small slice of the public has any significant amount of discretionary spending the economy tends to stagnate.

The biggest change to safety nets I want to see is the restructuring of benefit phase out because currently people get in a position that earn more money will decrease their standard of living. That is an awful thing for them and for society.

Yes. That's why the argument against basic income of "it removes people's incentive to work" is so frustrating; to the extent that it's true, it's even more true of the current system.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#277

Post by a3n » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 4:31 AM UTC

oculusthrift wrote: post #267

bjourne wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is essentially the only metric available that is readily comparable between countries. Also, whatever definition you use for "real unemployment rate" that rate will be linearly dependent on the U-3 metric. If the U-3 number goes up, then "real unemployment" goes up and likewise if it goes down. Those who are interested can read the report to the 13th International Conference of Labour Statisticians (yes, there are…

So if i’m despondent and give up searching for a job then doesn’t U-3 unemployment go down and therefore wouldn’t using a definition that included the despondent not be linearly dependent?

Yes, if your job is to track that analyze it and report on it.

But U3 is fine for year-to-year readings of employment temperature for lay people like most of us.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#278

Post by haihaibye » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 5:15 AM UTC

noelsusman wrote: post #239

vivekd wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why was this downvoted? Women tend not to be crazy like men and thus are more likely to choose fulfiling careers that have lower pay, and seek more work life balance. When accounting for these factors, the existence of a gender pay gap becomes more questionable.

First, when you control for everything there is still a gap, it's just smaller. 94 cents on the dollar is nothing to sneeze at. Second, when you do that you're sort of controlling the problem away. Women don't seek more work/life balance because they're not as crazy as men. They do it because they're expected to carry more of the burden of raising a child. The literature is clear that the wage gap is relatively small…

https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf

"Female Uber drivers make 7% less per hour than their male counterparts—even though the algorithms that determine pay for the ride-hailing service are gender blind, according to a multi-year study."

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#279

Post by BadassFractal » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 6:00 AM UTC

haihaibye wrote: post #278

noelsusman wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, when you control for everything there is still a gap, it's just smaller. 94 cents on the dollar is nothing to sneeze at. Second, when you do that you're sort of controlling the problem away. Women don't seek more work/life balance because they're not as crazy as men. They do it because they're expected to carry more of the burden of raising a child. The literature is clear that the wage gap is relatively small…

https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf "Female Uber drivers make 7% less per hour than their male counterparts—even though the algorithms that determine pay for the ride-hailing service are gender blind, according to a multi-year study."

I remember someone argued that the algorithm must be sexist because it rewards aggressive driving behavior (although in reality the difference in speed was 1-2 mph IIRC) and it should thus pay women more to account for their different driving style.

Re: Say Hello to Full Employment

#280

Post by flyingcircus3 » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 6:31 AM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #212

felix_nagaand wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citations needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning Perhaps you can find the citation yourself and use it to counter the point you are replying to.

I don't follow the connection between your link and your comment. The user you replied to was, themselves, replying to another user making appeals to expertise about what "the literature" says, without actually supplying that literature.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. What is freely asserted is freely dismissed. How would the user you replied to even go about searching for the citation, given so little information to go off of?

The link you provided seems to allude to someone announcing their personal preference, which should not have to be defended. Assertions of what scientific literature have established as accepted wisdom are free game for questioning. That's what gives theories their fundamental efficacy, being able to withstand reasonable criticism.