8 ms·

Is Any Job Better Than No Job?

50 points by cwan 16y ago

gjm11 16y ago
Most interesting sentence, to me: The median income in 2008 was below what it was in 1998. GDP in 2008 surely isn't below what it was in 1998. What we're seeing here is yet another indication of the big increase in inequality in the US over recent years.
- chc 16y ago
  Or more of our GDP is going overseas rather than into American pockets. Or more money is being taken up by various sources of financial friction (taxes, fees businesses need to pay, etc.). Or all three.
  - cynicalkane 16y ago
    I'd like to see a new feature on Hacker News that attaches a [citation needed] to all economic posts. We are actually getting more income from foreign countries than they are getting from us: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=43&FirstYear=2002&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa... .
    - chc 16y ago
      I hope you aren't suggesting my comment needs a citation, since it was merely making a claim of possibility. The parent of my comment looked at some data and drew a conclusion, and I was replying that the data could lend itself just as well to other interpretations and thus we can't draw such a strong conclusion. Hence the repeated use of the word "or" rather than "THESE ARE THE FACTS AND I AM A LEADING ECONOMIST SO YOU BELIEVE THIS IS ALL TRUE."
      - gdfaklgklfa 16y ago
        Yes, yes we know. You are an amateur who knows absolutely nothing about the topic, has no education, done no study, and knows none of the facts. Despite this, you're arrogant enough to believe that the senseless bullshit that spews out of your ignorant mind is so important that hundreds of people should spend time reading it. Fuck off to your mom's basement. Arrogant twits like you have ruined HN. If you don't know anything, you don't know anything. There's no shame in not being an expert on everything.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Or debt-fueled spending has been adding to GDP between 1998 and 2008. Did we by any chance have a massive debt fueled speculative bubble from 1998 to 2007? (If you borrow $10 and spend it, GDP has increased by $10. If you spend it on something other than services, income won't go up commensurately.)
  - cynicalkane 16y ago
    ? Every payment is a transfer from one person to another. If you spend $10 on, say, golden rocks (gold), it doesn't get eaten and wiped from existence by the God of Golden Rocks, but rather goes into the pocket of the gold miners and owners of the gold mining capital. It doesn't make a difference that gold is a commodity, not a service. Net product is equal to income. You learn this in Macroeconomics 101. Example financial statement: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=43&FirstYear=2002&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa...
    - eru 16y ago
      A side note: While Gold is chemically fairly stable, money can be created and destroyed.
      - cynicalkane 16y ago
        I'm confused what this has to do with the national income and product accounts. The point of my post is that any product produced and traded falls on both sides of the product/income balance. If a gold miner decides to eat that dollar later (or sell it to the Federal Reserve) that's a monetary phenomenon. My guess is that you wanted to throw out some vaguely gold-bug sort of thing out there, and protect yourself from downvoting by marking it "side note".
        eru 16y ago
        Please let me explain. I do not really disagree with your main points. yummyfajitas comment about only expenses on services showing up in income was probably not very well worded. I guess he's not using the economist's definition of income. If you substitute wages for `income' in his statement, it makes some sense. Also I do see that income and production have to be equal (modulo effects of moving wealth in and out of the system, perhaps). Different consumption patterns may lead to different distributions of income and wages, even if the sum stays the same. (I don't know whether `the debt fuelled boom' that was mentioned, depresses the median income while boosting the rich.) My side note was really just a side note. The central bank does create and destroy money. I am not a gold bug. If you want commodity based money, tie your currency to a basket of commodities. Even the BigMac index is better than useless gold.
- francoisdevlin 16y ago
  Or bad math. The guy confuses mean & median in the article.
- motters 16y ago
  GDP per capita has increased linearly in the US over the last few decades. http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs217.snc4/39207_444504373981_502968981_6034355_1544895_n.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs217.snc4/39207... The distribution of salaries for the UK looks like this: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs224.snc4/38561_444867603981_502968981_6044365_160055_n.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs224.snc4/38561... and I expect that the US is even more extreme, although I don't have any data for US salaries.
AgentConundrum 16y ago
I'm in this position right now, actually. After being unemployed for a while, my resources are finally almost depleted. About a week ago, I found a job for a software tester that asked for experience with a number of programming languages, so I assumed it would at least be a technical position and it might be a nice change of pace. They called me for an HR interview n Thursday, and that's when I discovered that they apparently no longer needed anyone in my area. They said they could need me in another city relatively nearby (4-5hr. drive from here, so I'd need to relocate), but the position was just black-box, no-code testing. They also asked me for my salary requirements, and when I hesitated (as I knew it would likely be below my expectations), she spoke up and told me the typical range for the position - about $10k less than I was making before. I decided I needed the money, so I did their technical interview the next day. I think it went really well (there were at least two instances where I answered a question she was about to ask as part of the question preceding it) so I'm expecting an offer, but it still feels like a major blow to my ego to even be considering taking the job. I figure I'll set a one-year limit on the job, training however I need to in order to get out of there by then, and I'll use my salary to help fund a project I want to build. Lemonade from lemons. The point is, sometimes you just need to do what you need to in order to keep going. If an employer is offering insulting wages or seems abusing/untrustworthy, or if the job would be too big a burden (uprooting your family for relatively low financial gain), that's one thing, and I fully understand declining those jobs. If the job is reasonable, and you can't afford to be out of work any longer, then your ego needs to take a back seat to survival.
- bretthoerner 16y ago
  > so I'm expecting an offer, but it still feels like a major blow to my ego to even be considering taking the job. If they sensed that, it might hurt your chances of getting an offer. (I don't mean to be a downer, and I really hope you get it and it's better than you expect.) Oddly enough sometimes an employee kicking ass during a technical interview and coming off as a "great deal" is a bad thing. They may realize you'll likely leave in 6 months and they'd rather invest in someone who will need to stick around longer.
  - 16y ago
akshayubhat 16y ago
if a job is in Dubai then it is surely not worth it. I have heard horror stories of people who went to work there. Indians, Europeans (My guess mostly from western poor countries) go to Dubai because 30K $ a year is a huge salary jump, but for US citizens its not much different from they would get here.
- eru 16y ago
  And indeed, economically it makes much more sense to have that salary go to somebody who needs it, say somebody from India, than to somebody who has better options.
- ig1 16y ago
  The airline industry typically pays poorly in the US, it wouldn't surprise me if the figures were in-line with domestic airline pay.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Right, but the job is not in-line with a similar job in the US. Working for Emirates involves immigrating to another country.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- akshayubhat 16y ago
  Plus that any part of that money does not goes towards contributing social security fund in USA.
- MLnick 16y ago
  The fact that Dubai salaries are tax-free has a big impact too (although cost of living is quite high too (not relative to big US or UK cities but pretty high)). Also depending on the gig often relocation expenses and other expat benefits are a factor (probably more so in the financial firms and big cos though).
  - 16y ago
mgrouchy 16y ago
I think one has the right to be picky. You do your job for a large part of your waking hours during the week. You want to be appropriately compensated for this time. However, this all depends on your current financial situation, if you need the money and you have more then yourself to support, its time to start looking at any job is better then no Job. Its better to have some money come in rather then no money even if it is only while you are looking for something better or even in your feild.
marze 16y ago
A nice improvement to the current system would be to continue unemployment benefits for three months after someone starts a new job. As it is, the termination of benefits [edit: upon taking a new job] is a disincentive to take new job, unless it is an awesome job. While serving to reduce the likelihood of a sharp crash, the extending of unemployment benefits is also slowing a recovery by reducing the incentive for people to do work or start a business, even if it doesn't pay well. Edit: for clarity
- d2viant 16y ago
  The termination of benefits is a disincentive to take a new job? I would think the continuation of benefits would be a bigger disincentive to going out and finding a job. Why not just eliminate unemployment benefits altogether? As a working American, why is it my responsibility to foot somebody else's bill while they search for a job they "like"?
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    It is not your responsibility. The unemployed person receiving unemployment paid into the system with deductions from his/her payroll. Had that person not been employed last year (2009), and began working in 2010, and was subsequently laid off, that person would not be eligible for unemployment.
    - d2viant 16y ago
      At the state level, but not the federal. There are federal unemployment benefits being granted. We didn't pay into that through past payroll deductions, so where is the money coming from if not current workers servicing the federal debt?
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        China?
- HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
mmphosis 16y ago
No. I think that "any job" is not better than no job. I've done both, and the "any jobs" were not worth it other than learning that the "any job" was not what I wanted to do. "No job" offers a lot of non-monetary benefits like free time, flexibility, friends and community. I stopped feeling desperate that I needed to have a job, and I let go of major things in my life that cost money: rented sleep space, and most store-bought food. "No job" is probably not for everyone, or maybe "no job" looks totally different for you. In maintaining my "no job" lifestyle, I found that well-being, maintaining health, became important. I am employed at a job now, but not just "any job" because I actually love what I am doing.
donaldc 16y ago
part owner Mark Sperry says he has been looking for $13-an-hour machinists since early last year Apparently, either they aren't needed all that badly, or else they're finding some. Otherwise, he surely would have raised the wage offered.
- billswift 16y ago
  I don't know where he's hiring, but $13 is an incredibly low wage for a competent machinist; it sounds more like he might just looking for a machine operator.
  - donaldc 16y ago
    My point is that, whatever it is he's looking for, he's been looking for a year and a half, and hasn't yet found it. By the laws of supply-and-demand (the basis of the free-market economy) he's not offering a high enough wage. Of course, it could be that his business is marginal enough that it wouldn't be profitable at a higher wage, in which case it's likely that the days of his business are numbered.

50 points by cwan 16y ago

gjm11 16y ago

Most interesting sentence, to me: The median income in 2008 was below what it was in 1998. GDP in 2008 surely isn't below what it was in 1998. What we're seeing here is yet another indication of the big increase in inequality in the US over recent years.

chc 16y ago
Or more of our GDP is going overseas rather than into American pockets. Or more money is being taken up by various sources of financial friction (taxes, fees businesses need to pay, etc.). Or all three.
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  I'd like to see a new feature on Hacker News that attaches a [citation needed] to all economic posts. We are actually getting more income from foreign countries than they are getting from us: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=43&FirstYear=2002&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa... .
  - chc 16y ago
    I hope you aren't suggesting my comment needs a citation, since it was merely making a claim of possibility. The parent of my comment looked at some data and drew a conclusion, and I was replying that the data could lend itself just as well to other interpretations and thus we can't draw such a strong conclusion. Hence the repeated use of the word "or" rather than "THESE ARE THE FACTS AND I AM A LEADING ECONOMIST SO YOU BELIEVE THIS IS ALL TRUE."
    - gdfaklgklfa 16y ago
      Yes, yes we know. You are an amateur who knows absolutely nothing about the topic, has no education, done no study, and knows none of the facts. Despite this, you're arrogant enough to believe that the senseless bullshit that spews out of your ignorant mind is so important that hundreds of people should spend time reading it. Fuck off to your mom's basement. Arrogant twits like you have ruined HN. If you don't know anything, you don't know anything. There's no shame in not being an expert on everything.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Or debt-fueled spending has been adding to GDP between 1998 and 2008. Did we by any chance have a massive debt fueled speculative bubble from 1998 to 2007? (If you borrow $10 and spend it, GDP has increased by $10. If you spend it on something other than services, income won't go up commensurately.)
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  ? Every payment is a transfer from one person to another. If you spend $10 on, say, golden rocks (gold), it doesn't get eaten and wiped from existence by the God of Golden Rocks, but rather goes into the pocket of the gold miners and owners of the gold mining capital. It doesn't make a difference that gold is a commodity, not a service. Net product is equal to income. You learn this in Macroeconomics 101. Example financial statement: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=43&FirstYear=2002&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa...
  - eru 16y ago
    A side note: While Gold is chemically fairly stable, money can be created and destroyed.
    - cynicalkane 16y ago
      I'm confused what this has to do with the national income and product accounts. The point of my post is that any product produced and traded falls on both sides of the product/income balance. If a gold miner decides to eat that dollar later (or sell it to the Federal Reserve) that's a monetary phenomenon. My guess is that you wanted to throw out some vaguely gold-bug sort of thing out there, and protect yourself from downvoting by marking it "side note".
      - eru 16y ago
        Please let me explain. I do not really disagree with your main points. yummyfajitas comment about only expenses on services showing up in income was probably not very well worded. I guess he's not using the economist's definition of income. If you substitute wages for `income' in his statement, it makes some sense. Also I do see that income and production have to be equal (modulo effects of moving wealth in and out of the system, perhaps). Different consumption patterns may lead to different distributions of income and wages, even if the sum stays the same. (I don't know whether `the debt fuelled boom' that was mentioned, depresses the median income while boosting the rich.) My side note was really just a side note. The central bank does create and destroy money. I am not a gold bug. If you want commodity based money, tie your currency to a basket of commodities. Even the BigMac index is better than useless gold.
francoisdevlin 16y ago
Or bad math. The guy confuses mean & median in the article.
motters 16y ago
GDP per capita has increased linearly in the US over the last few decades. http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs217.snc4/39207_444504373981_502968981_6034355_1544895_n.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs217.snc4/39207... The distribution of salaries for the UK looks like this: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs224.snc4/38561_444867603981_502968981_6044365_160055_n.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs224.snc4/38561... and I expect that the US is even more extreme, although I don't have any data for US salaries.

AgentConundrum 16y ago

I'm in this position right now, actually. After being unemployed for a while, my resources are finally almost depleted. About a week ago, I found a job for a software tester that asked for experience with a number of programming languages, so I assumed it would at least be a technical position and it might be a nice change of pace. They called me for an HR interview n Thursday, and that's when I discovered that they apparently no longer needed anyone in my area. They said they could need me in another city relatively nearby (4-5hr. drive from here, so I'd need to relocate), but the position was just black-box, no-code testing. They also asked me for my salary requirements, and when I hesitated (as I knew it would likely be below my expectations), she spoke up and told me the typical range for the position - about $10k less than I was making before. I decided I needed the money, so I did their technical interview the next day. I think it went really well (there were at least two instances where I answered a question she was about to ask as part of the question preceding it) so I'm expecting an offer, but it still feels like a major blow to my ego to even be considering taking the job. I figure I'll set a one-year limit on the job, training however I need to in order to get out of there by then, and I'll use my salary to help fund a project I want to build. Lemonade from lemons. The point is, sometimes you just need to do what you need to in order to keep going. If an employer is offering insulting wages or seems abusing/untrustworthy, or if the job would be too big a burden (uprooting your family for relatively low financial gain), that's one thing, and I fully understand declining those jobs. If the job is reasonable, and you can't afford to be out of work any longer, then your ego needs to take a back seat to survival.

bretthoerner 16y ago
> so I'm expecting an offer, but it still feels like a major blow to my ego to even be considering taking the job. If they sensed that, it might hurt your chances of getting an offer. (I don't mean to be a downer, and I really hope you get it and it's better than you expect.) Oddly enough sometimes an employee kicking ass during a technical interview and coming off as a "great deal" is a bad thing. They may realize you'll likely leave in 6 months and they'd rather invest in someone who will need to stick around longer.
- 16y ago

akshayubhat 16y ago

if a job is in Dubai then it is surely not worth it. I have heard horror stories of people who went to work there. Indians, Europeans (My guess mostly from western poor countries) go to Dubai because 30K $ a year is a huge salary jump, but for US citizens its not much different from they would get here.

eru 16y ago
And indeed, economically it makes much more sense to have that salary go to somebody who needs it, say somebody from India, than to somebody who has better options.
ig1 16y ago
The airline industry typically pays poorly in the US, it wouldn't surprise me if the figures were in-line with domestic airline pay.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Right, but the job is not in-line with a similar job in the US. Working for Emirates involves immigrating to another country.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
akshayubhat 16y ago
Plus that any part of that money does not goes towards contributing social security fund in USA.
MLnick 16y ago
The fact that Dubai salaries are tax-free has a big impact too (although cost of living is quite high too (not relative to big US or UK cities but pretty high)). Also depending on the gig often relocation expenses and other expat benefits are a factor (probably more so in the financial firms and big cos though).
- 16y ago

mgrouchy 16y ago

I think one has the right to be picky. You do your job for a large part of your waking hours during the week. You want to be appropriately compensated for this time. However, this all depends on your current financial situation, if you need the money and you have more then yourself to support, its time to start looking at any job is better then no Job. Its better to have some money come in rather then no money even if it is only while you are looking for something better or even in your feild.

marze 16y ago

A nice improvement to the current system would be to continue unemployment benefits for three months after someone starts a new job. As it is, the termination of benefits [edit: upon taking a new job] is a disincentive to take new job, unless it is an awesome job. While serving to reduce the likelihood of a sharp crash, the extending of unemployment benefits is also slowing a recovery by reducing the incentive for people to do work or start a business, even if it doesn't pay well. Edit: for clarity

d2viant 16y ago
The termination of benefits is a disincentive to take a new job? I would think the continuation of benefits would be a bigger disincentive to going out and finding a job. Why not just eliminate unemployment benefits altogether? As a working American, why is it my responsibility to foot somebody else's bill while they search for a job they "like"?
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  It is not your responsibility. The unemployed person receiving unemployment paid into the system with deductions from his/her payroll. Had that person not been employed last year (2009), and began working in 2010, and was subsequently laid off, that person would not be eligible for unemployment.
  - d2viant 16y ago
    At the state level, but not the federal. There are federal unemployment benefits being granted. We didn't pay into that through past payroll deductions, so where is the money coming from if not current workers servicing the federal debt?
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      China?
HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago

mmphosis 16y ago

No. I think that "any job" is not better than no job. I've done both, and the "any jobs" were not worth it other than learning that the "any job" was not what I wanted to do. "No job" offers a lot of non-monetary benefits like free time, flexibility, friends and community. I stopped feeling desperate that I needed to have a job, and I let go of major things in my life that cost money: rented sleep space, and most store-bought food. "No job" is probably not for everyone, or maybe "no job" looks totally different for you. In maintaining my "no job" lifestyle, I found that well-being, maintaining health, became important. I am employed at a job now, but not just "any job" because I actually love what I am doing.

donaldc 16y ago

part owner Mark Sperry says he has been looking for $13-an-hour machinists since early last year Apparently, either they aren't needed all that badly, or else they're finding some. Otherwise, he surely would have raised the wage offered.

billswift 16y ago
I don't know where he's hiring, but $13 is an incredibly low wage for a competent machinist; it sounds more like he might just looking for a machine operator.
- donaldc 16y ago
  My point is that, whatever it is he's looking for, he's been looking for a year and a half, and hasn't yet found it. By the laws of supply-and-demand (the basis of the free-market economy) he's not offering a high enough wage. Of course, it could be that his business is marginal enough that it wouldn't be profitable at a higher wage, in which case it's likely that the days of his business are numbered.