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

What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

stlouisfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#81

Post by inigyou »

FromHoiPolloi wrote: post #77
inigyou wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments have tools they can use to make this spiral go up or down. The current direction and velocity of the spiral are policy choices. The most basic one would be the interest rate (not available to Italy because of the Eurozone)

What other tools are there available? I believe increasing minimum wage, punishing (through tax) rent seeking would also be viable.

Increasing minimum wage only works if employer surplus is already high. But you can put various controls on rent and building, and you can encourage local production.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#82

Post by TuringNYC »

BeetleB wrote: post #46
TuringNYC wrote: post #18

I talk to a lot of people in the Metro NY area. One problem here is -- if you need to commute into Manhattan (job center) -- it demands a certain salary, below which commuting in is a net-loss. Rent is $2000/mo. If you have a family and cannot have multiple roommates, you might be looking at $4000/mo. "if you cannot afford it, stop complainingb and live elsehwere" they say...sure...but a commuter train into Manhattan…

> "if you cannot afford it, stop complainingb and live elsehwere" they say...sure...but a commuter train into Manhattan can run you $30-50/day. Add in parking at the commuter train station and you're down about $60 or more a day. When people say that, I think they mean "get another job in another city that doesn't require a commute to Manhattan."

Yes, there are lots of cities in the US. Most cities dont have job centers. They might have jobs at Walmart, McDonalds, etc but not jobs that pay living wages. People are rational -- they either do the math, or have witnessed the math playing out in real life. You can live in a super-low-cost city but earning minimum wage don't make ends meet. Worse, it may even put you into a threshold where you get no medical care. If you have children, it doesnt pay for rent + healthcare + child care.

There is another reason people stick to major job centers -- because it is extremely risky moving to a 2nd or 3rd tier job center. You have to sign a 1yr lease on an apartment and are locked in. But your job isnt guaranteed for a year. There may be few or no other jobs in 2nd or 3rd tier job centers. Say you default on your lease -- now you have a way bigger problem because you cannot rent again (you have bad credit) and you also need to pass credit checks to get a job. https://www.nerdwallet.com/finance/learn/credit-score-employ...

Ultimately we all need to realize people are rational (NOT lazy) -- people are doing the math and the math aint mathing. Hence the "Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation"

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#83

Post by redwood »

inigyou wrote: post #71
redwood wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that there are those for whom conservatively means living with other family members or grandparents etc etc in other words there's immigrants and there's people who grew up in America with certain Suburban expectations. There are always levels. I say this to someone who myself would struggle not living that version of America we imagined when we were growing up. Um but there is a world in which you essen…

There are people for whom conservative living is 12 people in a 1-bedroom flat. Should we aim for that? Is the economy good if most people don't have to live that way yet?

I suspect that Americans have the highest amount of square footage per resident of any major developed country. What we should strive for is debatable but it's important to keep things in perspective rather than imagine that our mcmansion standard is the middle of room

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#84

Post by redwood »

devindotcom wrote: post #40
redwood wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But New York City as a metro area is the largest conglomeration connected by low-cost mass transit in the country meaning there's a massive liquid housing market and job market ready to fingertips. So if you live in the suburbs and the commuting cost is a dilemma you can always consider moving to the city itself

your suggestion to cash strapped people who can barely afford rent is "just buy a house in new york"?

Rent in nyc not buy... if as you describe commuting is eroding affordability of the suburbs

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#85

Post by BeetleB »

TuringNYC wrote: post #82
BeetleB wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "if you cannot afford it, stop complainingb and live elsehwere" they say...sure...but a commuter train into Manhattan can run you $30-50/day. Add in parking at the commuter train station and you're down about $60 or more a day. When people say that, I think they mean "get another job in another city that doesn't require a commute to Manhattan."

Yes, there are lots of cities in the US. Most cities dont have job centers. They might have jobs at Walmart, McDonalds, etc but not jobs that pay living wages. People are rational -- they either do the math, or have witnessed the math playing out in real life. You can live in a super-low-cost city but earning minimum wage don't make ends meet. Worse, it may even put you into a threshold where you get no medical care.…

I'm guessing many (most?) people commuting to Manhattan aren't in the category of minimum wage workers.

Picking one of the most expensive places in the planet (Manhattan) as your example isn't helping you much. Lots of well known cities are much cheaper. When people I know move to, say, Tennessee, they're not working minimum wage. Ditto Kansas City, almost any Texan city except Austin. St Louis, Louisville, etc.

Until recently, even the Chicago Metro was still among the more affordable places for white collar workers - where you could buy a 2000 sq ft house and not go broke over doing so. I don't know if it's still the case, but it was still cheaper pre-pandemic than any of the cities in the Western states.

Edit: Just confirmed - Chicago is still cheaper. Affordable houses, in good neighborhoods.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#86

Post by TuringNYC »

BeetleB wrote: post #85
TuringNYC wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are lots of cities in the US. Most cities dont have job centers. They might have jobs at Walmart, McDonalds, etc but not jobs that pay living wages. People are rational -- they either do the math, or have witnessed the math playing out in real life. You can live in a super-low-cost city but earning minimum wage don't make ends meet. Worse, it may even put you into a threshold where you get no medical care.…

I'm guessing many (most?) people commuting to Manhattan aren't in the category of minimum wage workers. Picking one of the most expensive places in the planet (Manhattan) as your example isn't helping you much. Lots of well known cities are much cheaper. When people I know move to, say, Tennessee, they're not working minimum wage. Ditto Kansas City, almost any Texan city except Austin. St Louis, Louisville, etc. Unti…

Except it doesnt only impact minimum wage workers...or does it only impact NYC -- its the same problem in Washington DC, Virginia suburbs, Boston, SF, Seattle. I suppose they could move to some rural area for cheap rent, but what jobs exist there?

I have multiple relatives making $60k or $100k and can barely survive once you introduce healthcare co-pays, deductibles, rent, pharma copays, etc.

Please, for a moment, consider that you are a techie possibly making $250k $500k, or more and there are people suffering who making a third or a fifth of you. Consider that you might be single but there are others with kids. Also consider that you might have a Platinum healthcare plan but others have "healthcare" with 10k deductibles per familymember.

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#87

Post by vile_wretch »

BeetleB wrote: post #85
TuringNYC wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are lots of cities in the US. Most cities dont have job centers. They might have jobs at Walmart, McDonalds, etc but not jobs that pay living wages. People are rational -- they either do the math, or have witnessed the math playing out in real life. You can live in a super-low-cost city but earning minimum wage don't make ends meet. Worse, it may even put you into a threshold where you get no medical care.…

I'm guessing many (most?) people commuting to Manhattan aren't in the category of minimum wage workers. Picking one of the most expensive places in the planet (Manhattan) as your example isn't helping you much. Lots of well known cities are much cheaper. When people I know move to, say, Tennessee, they're not working minimum wage. Ditto Kansas City, almost any Texan city except Austin. St Louis, Louisville, etc. Unti…

> I'm guessing many (most?) people commuting to Manhattan aren't in the category of minimum wage workers.

Do you think there are no minimum wage workers in Manhattan? Or do you think someone making minimum wage could afford to live in Manhattan?

Re: What's Behind the Sharp Drop in Labor Force Participation?

#88

Post by sleepybrett »

FromHoiPolloi wrote: post #76
sleepybrett wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I always laugh when some corporate stooge is on cnn talking about how such and such new technology is going to allow us to produce so much more and maybe that means we don't need to work as much... it's been the same thing since the industrial revolution. Increases in individual productivity only flow to the employer. The employee sees 0 upside. They still work the same hours, their salary remains the same but t…

That's not 100% true. At the beginning of industrial revolution workers have been working insane hours - often 12-16 hour shifts 6 days a week. See the 1833 [1] bill that limits work-shift for children aged 9-13 to 8 hours a day. The fact that (most) developed countries settled for 40 hour work week was a huge progress. The fact that we did not shortened the workweek in the last 100 years is sad to say the least. The…

https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-cto-andrew-bosworth-ai-...
Post reply on HN