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

Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 167 posts

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#31

Post by mothballed »

evdubs wrote: post #14
woah wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man rebels against capitalist system by living off of proceeds of ownership shares of capitalist system

Laborer rebels against capitalist system by directly enjoying the fruits of his own labor.

The amount you can capture by directly enjoying it is crazy. You get double taxed on your labor. Once when you earn it, another when you spend it, and then the people you pay get taxed yet again on that! Plus their regulatory costs of licensing, insurance, property taxes, compliance, the cut of the shareholders/owners.

If you just do it yourself... there is no one to tax or take anything off the top. It often ends up you double your "income" from your work or better.

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#32

Post by ghaff »

TrackerFF wrote: post #16

Today I read about Accenture Norway taking in 56 summer internship students from over...1600 applicants. Record year, they reported. Previously I imagined only the top-top tier firms could enjoy low single-digit acceptance rate, but here we have Accenture crushing it. Competition must be tough. (But for what I know, could be that AI has made it easier for people to spam everyone with applications)

My guess is that it's simultaneously easy for a lot of companies to do automated filtering and for candidates to do a lot of automated applications in a way that's easier than sending out a bunch of envelopes. Which makes it harder for candidates who don't have either networks or impressive credentials.

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#33

Post by trescenzi »

12hasgt wrote: post #12
an0malous wrote: post #7

The money printing during COVID screwed everything up. Most of the capital was directly given to banks and businesses, fraudulently in many cases and unnecessarily in most, and everything pooled up into real estate and stocks so anyone who had already owned a large proportion of those became absurdly wealthy in the span of a couple years and everyone else effectively lost 20-30% of their income through inflation. The…

You get the money back the same way Roosevelt did, 94% tax rate on the rich.

Yea the covid money printing is regularly pointed to as a reason why MMT is clearly bad but that ignores that there’s literally a solution to this problem in MMT. Raise taxes to reclaim the money. It’s a trivial solution which is sadly politically incredibly challenging.

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#34

Post by javascriptfan69 »

gruez wrote: post #28
12hasgt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get the money back the same way Roosevelt did, 94% tax rate on the rich.

And yet, the amount of redistribution that's happening has never been higher, far exceeding the era of "94% tax rate on the rich", never mind that nobody actually paid that rate because the tax code was full of exemptions at the time. https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260221_IRC... https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260221_IRC...

Those graphs are about income, not wealth.

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#35

Post by cute_boi »

TrackerFF wrote: post #16

Today I read about Accenture Norway taking in 56 summer internship students from over...1600 applicants. Record year, they reported. Previously I imagined only the top-top tier firms could enjoy low single-digit acceptance rate, but here we have Accenture crushing it. Competition must be tough. (But for what I know, could be that AI has made it easier for people to spam everyone with applications)

Companies like Accenture/Infosys/TCS is the reason people are losing job. They outsource so much and tries to bribe managers to hire in India.

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#36

Post by cute_boi »

arealaccount wrote: post #5
crossbody wrote: post #4

Sounds more like people retire somewhat early - for 25-54yo labor force participation near all time high: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 And here is one for 55+yo: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11324230 All is fine

> However, in June the biggest plunge came from what is defined as “prime age” workers, or those between the ages of 25 and 54. That rate fell 0.6 percentage point to 83.3%, its lowest since December 2023. It's great how two sources can tell a completely different story about the same numbers.

Additionally these number aren't trust worthy. Many time these number don't include full data like NEET and are manipulated so much etc..

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#37

Post by mothballed »

12hasgt wrote: post #12
an0malous wrote: post #7

The money printing during COVID screwed everything up. Most of the capital was directly given to banks and businesses, fraudulently in many cases and unnecessarily in most, and everything pooled up into real estate and stocks so anyone who had already owned a large proportion of those became absurdly wealthy in the span of a couple years and everyone else effectively lost 20-30% of their income through inflation. The…

You get the money back the same way Roosevelt did, 94% tax rate on the rich.

The effective tax rates have went down modestly, but approximately no one was paying anywhere near that. They were playing the same financial engineered fuck fuck games that are played today to get around it. It's the poor and middle class that can't get around those tax rates.

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#38

Post by ghaff »

tootie wrote: post #19
crossbody wrote: post #4

Sounds more like people retire somewhat early - for 25-54yo labor force participation near all time high: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 And here is one for 55+yo: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11324230 All is fine

Prime age is meant to filter college kids and retirees which makes sense but it is likely hiding the minor crisis in hiring for college grads. But I agree it's not disastrous just a yellow flag. The 20 year bull market has minted a lot of millionaires amongst the upper middle class and a lot of them are retiring early.

There's nothing wrong with retiring a few years early if you're comfortable doing so. I sorta did. On the other hand, I didn't really want to hang around too long after either.

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#39

Post by Mountain_Skies »

cyberax wrote: post #29
gruez wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ensuring that the money went out willy-nilly and that $700+ billion in "loans" were turned into a straight up gift from the taxpayers. Wasn't that widely understood during the pandemic? All the coverage I've seen mentioned that the loans for forgivable if certain criteria were met, and nobody was like "yeah it's fine because it's a loan!".

The problem is that these loans went to _businesses_, not workers. There was an orgy of corruption, with newly formed LLCs claiming to have dozens of workers. And then these loans were just forgiven. And since they went to businesses, Republicans are completely silent about that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Protection_Program

Your partisan obsessed brain is why the political class gets away with this.

Re: Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation falls to lowest in 50 years

#40

Post by lovich »

gruez wrote: post #28
12hasgt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get the money back the same way Roosevelt did, 94% tax rate on the rich.

And yet, the amount of redistribution that's happening has never been higher, far exceeding the era of "94% tax rate on the rich", never mind that nobody actually paid that rate because the tax code was full of exemptions at the time. https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260221_IRC... https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260221_IRC...

I don’t see how this graph shows that claim. It says it’s graphing the effect of welfare on income ratios between top 10% vs the bottom 50% then just has an arrow pointing down saying “Stronger redistribution”

Where is the connection between the percentage being graphed and whatever their definition of “stronger redistribution” is?

And I just realized the second graph includes capital gains for the fiscal income but not for the after tax income? This just seems blatantly misleading with that detail being hidden in an asterisk.

Post reply on HN