5 ms·

A dead-end job is still a job. Unemployment rates are historically low. In the future, most people will become “gig” workers of some sort due to ubiquitous aut

A dead-end job is still a job. Unemployment rates are historically low. In the future, most people will become “gig” workers of some sort due to ubiquitous automation.

losteric 8y ago
The job market is so bad people are willing to scrounge for scrapes - their reserves have been depleted and credit maxed out. Unemployment is low because people can no longer say no. One of many reasons people draw parallels between today and the Gilded Era or Roaring twenties.
- ShabbosGoy 8y ago
  Except it’s not at all like the 20s. Human mortality is at record lows, and you won’t die from contracting the flu. Credit is a function of interest rates and has nothing to do with employment. I’m really disappointed that people on HN don’t have an understanding of basic macroeconomics.
- mgkimsal 8y ago
  > Unemployment is low because people can no longer say no. Succinctly put. I'd say this was also a reason why, 9 years ago during the big crash, we saw "productivity" measures go up, and continue to rise even after the 'recovery', even with companies working with fewer people. They managed to get the same results out of fewer people (or... close enough results), and those people really couldn't say 'no' because... they'd rather have some job than none at all (or, again, they needed something vs nothing).
  - jsoc815 8y ago
    This is correct. And to add more clarity about the oft-cited labor shortage, I was at an event where the President of the Minneapolis Fed talked about how when he asked employers when the best of times was w/respect to hiring, their response was 2008 - 2010. He went on to say that the issue isn't really about a labor shortage but an unwillingness to raise wages because the employers were spoiled by applicants' desperation during the cited period.
    - mgkimsal 8y ago
      I remember multiple news reports and hour-long news stories on the inability of people to get jobs because of their unemployed status. There were so many people to choose from, companies would generally ignore someone who was unemployed, regardless of the reason, preferring only to hire people who were already employed. I have no doubt that delayed the start of a recovery for months.
Magmatic 8y ago
Giving everyone a job is not, and should never be, the goal of a society. In the early twentieth century American workers were killed fighting for the right to support themselves working 40 hours a week but for much the population that option has evaporated. I know people in the bay area working 70 hours a week at dead end jobs barely making ends meet; a fact I consider unacceptable given the wealth they are surrounded by.
- jimmywanger 8y ago
  > I know people in the bay area working 70 hours a week at dead end jobs barely making ends meet; a fact I consider unacceptable given the wealth they are surrounded by. By what means is this unacceptable? "I find myself working 40 hours a week to afford cable and a new iphone. I consider that unacceptable given the wealth I am surrounded by." Those two statements are qualitively equivalent. Because you move to a nicer neighborhood, you shouldn't have to put up with things other people put up with? Huh?
  - CamelCaseName 8y ago
    Working 70 hours is much more than 40. In the first case you're working to survive and don't have any time outside of work to improve your situation.
    - jimmywanger 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure you own a cell phone and a laptop. And most of your things are made by people working comparable hours for much less money and a lower of standard of living. Yet you somehow find that "acceptable" even though you're still complicit in their exploitation. I fail to see why geographic proximity makes things less acceptable. If we could ship the fruits of their labor from overseas, that would be ok?
- neilwilson 8y ago
  It has to be the goal of society - assuming you expect other people in society to continue working to provide a surplus to support you rather than, say, taking Friday off. We trade lifetime with each other. It may take less and less lifetime to produce a loaf of bread, but it still requires some people somewhere to be there babysitting a machine. There has to be a mechanism by which you can give up your time for the benefit of others, so that others will continue to give up their time for the benefit of you. Even if that is done via the mechanism of public goods (clean street, flowers on lampposts, better libraries, community centres, active church, etc.)

A dead-end job is still a job. Unemployment rates are historically low. In the future, most people will become “gig” workers of some sort due to ubiquitous automation.

losteric 8y ago

The job market is so bad people are willing to scrounge for scrapes - their reserves have been depleted and credit maxed out. Unemployment is low because people can no longer say no. One of many reasons people draw parallels between today and the Gilded Era or Roaring twenties.

ShabbosGoy 8y ago
Except it’s not at all like the 20s. Human mortality is at record lows, and you won’t die from contracting the flu. Credit is a function of interest rates and has nothing to do with employment. I’m really disappointed that people on HN don’t have an understanding of basic macroeconomics.
mgkimsal 8y ago
> Unemployment is low because people can no longer say no. Succinctly put. I'd say this was also a reason why, 9 years ago during the big crash, we saw "productivity" measures go up, and continue to rise even after the 'recovery', even with companies working with fewer people. They managed to get the same results out of fewer people (or... close enough results), and those people really couldn't say 'no' because... they'd rather have some job than none at all (or, again, they needed something vs nothing).
- jsoc815 8y ago
  This is correct. And to add more clarity about the oft-cited labor shortage, I was at an event where the President of the Minneapolis Fed talked about how when he asked employers when the best of times was w/respect to hiring, their response was 2008 - 2010. He went on to say that the issue isn't really about a labor shortage but an unwillingness to raise wages because the employers were spoiled by applicants' desperation during the cited period.
  - mgkimsal 8y ago
    I remember multiple news reports and hour-long news stories on the inability of people to get jobs because of their unemployed status. There were so many people to choose from, companies would generally ignore someone who was unemployed, regardless of the reason, preferring only to hire people who were already employed. I have no doubt that delayed the start of a recovery for months.

Magmatic 8y ago

Giving everyone a job is not, and should never be, the goal of a society. In the early twentieth century American workers were killed fighting for the right to support themselves working 40 hours a week but for much the population that option has evaporated. I know people in the bay area working 70 hours a week at dead end jobs barely making ends meet; a fact I consider unacceptable given the wealth they are surrounded by.

jimmywanger 8y ago
> I know people in the bay area working 70 hours a week at dead end jobs barely making ends meet; a fact I consider unacceptable given the wealth they are surrounded by. By what means is this unacceptable? "I find myself working 40 hours a week to afford cable and a new iphone. I consider that unacceptable given the wealth I am surrounded by." Those two statements are qualitively equivalent. Because you move to a nicer neighborhood, you shouldn't have to put up with things other people put up with? Huh?
- CamelCaseName 8y ago
  Working 70 hours is much more than 40. In the first case you're working to survive and don't have any time outside of work to improve your situation.
  - jimmywanger 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure you own a cell phone and a laptop. And most of your things are made by people working comparable hours for much less money and a lower of standard of living. Yet you somehow find that "acceptable" even though you're still complicit in their exploitation. I fail to see why geographic proximity makes things less acceptable. If we could ship the fruits of their labor from overseas, that would be ok?
neilwilson 8y ago
It has to be the goal of society - assuming you expect other people in society to continue working to provide a surplus to support you rather than, say, taking Friday off. We trade lifetime with each other. It may take less and less lifetime to produce a loaf of bread, but it still requires some people somewhere to be there babysitting a machine. There has to be a mechanism by which you can give up your time for the benefit of others, so that others will continue to give up their time for the benefit of you. Even if that is done via the mechanism of public goods (clean street, flowers on lampposts, better libraries, community centres, active church, etc.)