4 ms·

Employment stats are very misleading. There are lots of people with full time jobs who can't even afford housing. Sure they have jobs, but they are still in a r

Employment stats are very misleading. There are lots of people with full time jobs who can't even afford housing. Sure they have jobs, but they are still in a really bad situation.

asfasgasg 8y ago
I am not commenting on the well-being of people working in fast food. Just on the availability of work. Whether such individuals can afford housing is totally beside the point of my comment.
- ta1234567890 8y ago
  And I'm highlighting how that type of argument contributes to the misunderstanding that job availability and high employment rates are a good thing just by themselves. What good is for people to dedicate their lives to shitty jobs (which are the only ones they can get), just so they can scrape by and live on the streets?
  - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
    The answer to that’s isn’t more shitty jobs though. It’s adjustments to our system of capital distribution and ultimately what the minimum standards of living we are prepared to accept is as a society.
    - ta1234567890 8y ago
      You are right about shitty jobs not being the solution. About the last part of your statement though: society has already implicitly accepted the crappy minimum living standards (at least in the US) that it's willing to accept. That doesn't make it right for the people stuck having to live according to that minimum.
- ende 8y ago
  Unemployment numbers also aren’t low because the economy is producing tons of new jobs; notice the record numbers of homeless on the streets? It’s the labor participation rate. People are only counted towards unemployment stats while they are actively seeking employment; after awhile they give up and drop out of the labor force completely. Of course much of that drop is also demographics; the baby boomers are starting to retire en masse. Still, the illusion of job abundance does not hold.
  - adventured 8y ago
    > Unemployment numbers also aren’t low because the economy is producing tons of new jobs In fact the unemployment rate is low because the economy has produced an extraordinarily vast number of jobs. In May alone the US economy nearly produced a million new full-time jobs (solidly contracting the part-time count). The full-time job count is at an all-time record high. The US economy has produced 14 million full-time jobs in just the last six years. [1] And the median full-time income in the US is about $50,000, among the highest on earth. > notice the record numbers of homeless on the streets? The US homeless rate per capita has plunged dramatically and is at an all-time record low. [2] You're entirely fabricating your claims, both about jobs and homelessness. The total homeless count has declined by roughly 27% in just 13 years. From ~760,000 in 2005, to less than 550,000 for 2018. The US added about 10% to its population over that time simultaneously. How is that possible? Everyone knows the US sucks and has no safety net or support systems. Except, that's a lie. The US welfare state is now more generous than either the Canadian or Australian welfare states. [3] [1] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000 [2] https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-16/the-u-s-social-safety-net-has-improved-a-lot https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-16/the-u-s-s...
    - woolvalley 8y ago
      He may live in the bay area, where homeless has definitely increased, and the dynamic of jobs not paying enough to make rent is a real dynamic.
- firstplacelast 8y ago
  If you're giving the majority of your time (that you are awake) to someone else and can't afford housing you're not "working", you're being enslaved. Like c'mon. Working for less than a livable wage is just called making America worse. It would be much more productive to kill yourself and reduce the leverage employers have over the proletariat.
baddox 8y ago
I doubt a burger robot is replacing very many jobs that pay much above minimum wage.
- ta1234567890 8y ago
  So how many people need to have their shitty jobs taken away by automation for you to be impressed? I hope you start caring about other people way before your job as a developer ever gets automated.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - hueving 8y ago
    Keeping around meaningless jobs isn't a method of "caring about people". With unemployment numbers so slow, finding another menial job shouldn't be that difficult. The "think of the employees" argument only works when there isn't an employee-friendly market.
    - ta1234567890 8y ago
      > Keeping around meaningless jobs isn't a method of "caring about people". Actually it is. People need to be occupied/busy. It's such a big need that keeping meaningless jobs around is also a huge political tool used for thousands of years (there was an article that made the front page of HN a few days ago exactly about this topic, pretty fascinating). I would agree it might not be the best way of caring about people though. In any case, my comment referred to the sentiment of the previous poster's comment, which seems to be similar to yours... > With unemployment numbers so slow, finding another menial job shouldn't be that difficult. These people are just a statistic to you and you think because "the numbers add up", they'll be fine. > The "think of the employees" argument only works when there isn't an employee-friendly market. It's hardly an employee-friendly market when thousands of people with a full time job can't afford housing because their jobs don't pay enough, but they also can't afford to loose their jobs. Seems more like slavery than a job market.
  - 8y ago
neom 8y ago
That's an excellent point and one people should consider deeply, unemployment in the US is generally measured by % of population claiming unemployment benefits. It says nothing about people moving to retirement benefits, disability benefits, becoming opioid dependent and being hospitalized or jailed, or getting a job that is effectively continuing the cycle of holding them in very near destitution. Folks are right when they say automation isn't really the major problem. It is indeed just the icing on the cake.
- ethn 8y ago
  It's never been measured like this anywhere, ever. Don't make things up, especially some intuition that purposely makes another party seem foolish when it is actually quite the opposite. Even people who declare themselves as "job-seeking" are considered in the unemployment rate[1]. ------- 1. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm "Each month, highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees contact the 60,000 eligible sample households and ask about the labor force activities (jobholding and job seeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households during the survey reference week (usually the week that includes the 12th of the month). These are live interviews conducted either in person or over the phone. "
  - isoskeles 8y ago
    Don’t “make things up” (omit important information) the other way either. People give up (lose hope) seeking a job and can end up not “unemployed” but jobless. They’re at least caught in the labor force participation rate, but grouped in with retirees and children and other people who don’t conceivably need jobs.
    - ethn 8y ago
      In the USA, unemployed and abled are forced to be "job seeking" whether they give up hope or not to continue receiving benefits.
      - 8y ago
ericd 8y ago
It's still relevant, though, as a rough measure of employee leverage vs employer leverage. Periods with low unemployment tend to see rising wages and benefits, high unemployment, stagnant or lowering.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Isn't Labour Force Participation Rate a better indicator? Plenty of people opt-out of the job market by going on e.g. disability benefits, getting financial support from family and/or working extra "on the black" (without any trace for tax authorities).
  - ericd 8y ago
    Of employee leverage (and hence wage growth)? I don't think so, because those employees who opt out aren't competing for jobs with those other employees. I'm not an economist, though. It might be a better indicator of "how well is the economy serving the needs of the people", depending on what you value.
  - isoskeles 8y ago
    It provides no more accurate of a view IMO, as it lumps together both groups of (a) people who don’t have jobs and need them and (b) people who don’t have jobs and don’t need them. I prefer looking at that figure more than “unemployment” rate, but it overcorrects on the pessimistic side. Maybe that’s why some of us like it.

Employment stats are very misleading. There are lots of people with full time jobs who can't even afford housing. Sure they have jobs, but they are still in a really bad situation.

asfasgasg 8y ago

I am not commenting on the well-being of people working in fast food. Just on the availability of work. Whether such individuals can afford housing is totally beside the point of my comment.

ta1234567890 8y ago
And I'm highlighting how that type of argument contributes to the misunderstanding that job availability and high employment rates are a good thing just by themselves. What good is for people to dedicate their lives to shitty jobs (which are the only ones they can get), just so they can scrape by and live on the streets?
- albertgoeswoof 8y ago
  The answer to that’s isn’t more shitty jobs though. It’s adjustments to our system of capital distribution and ultimately what the minimum standards of living we are prepared to accept is as a society.
  - ta1234567890 8y ago
    You are right about shitty jobs not being the solution. About the last part of your statement though: society has already implicitly accepted the crappy minimum living standards (at least in the US) that it's willing to accept. That doesn't make it right for the people stuck having to live according to that minimum.
ende 8y ago
Unemployment numbers also aren’t low because the economy is producing tons of new jobs; notice the record numbers of homeless on the streets? It’s the labor participation rate. People are only counted towards unemployment stats while they are actively seeking employment; after awhile they give up and drop out of the labor force completely. Of course much of that drop is also demographics; the baby boomers are starting to retire en masse. Still, the illusion of job abundance does not hold.
- adventured 8y ago
  > Unemployment numbers also aren’t low because the economy is producing tons of new jobs In fact the unemployment rate is low because the economy has produced an extraordinarily vast number of jobs. In May alone the US economy nearly produced a million new full-time jobs (solidly contracting the part-time count). The full-time job count is at an all-time record high. The US economy has produced 14 million full-time jobs in just the last six years. [1] And the median full-time income in the US is about $50,000, among the highest on earth. > notice the record numbers of homeless on the streets? The US homeless rate per capita has plunged dramatically and is at an all-time record low. [2] You're entirely fabricating your claims, both about jobs and homelessness. The total homeless count has declined by roughly 27% in just 13 years. From ~760,000 in 2005, to less than 550,000 for 2018. The US added about 10% to its population over that time simultaneously. How is that possible? Everyone knows the US sucks and has no safety net or support systems. Except, that's a lie. The US welfare state is now more generous than either the Canadian or Australian welfare states. [3] [1] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000 [2] https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-16/the-u-s-social-safety-net-has-improved-a-lot https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-16/the-u-s-s...
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    He may live in the bay area, where homeless has definitely increased, and the dynamic of jobs not paying enough to make rent is a real dynamic.
firstplacelast 8y ago
If you're giving the majority of your time (that you are awake) to someone else and can't afford housing you're not "working", you're being enslaved. Like c'mon. Working for less than a livable wage is just called making America worse. It would be much more productive to kill yourself and reduce the leverage employers have over the proletariat.

baddox 8y ago

I doubt a burger robot is replacing very many jobs that pay much above minimum wage.

ta1234567890 8y ago
So how many people need to have their shitty jobs taken away by automation for you to be impressed? I hope you start caring about other people way before your job as a developer ever gets automated.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hueving 8y ago
  Keeping around meaningless jobs isn't a method of "caring about people". With unemployment numbers so slow, finding another menial job shouldn't be that difficult. The "think of the employees" argument only works when there isn't an employee-friendly market.
  - ta1234567890 8y ago
    > Keeping around meaningless jobs isn't a method of "caring about people". Actually it is. People need to be occupied/busy. It's such a big need that keeping meaningless jobs around is also a huge political tool used for thousands of years (there was an article that made the front page of HN a few days ago exactly about this topic, pretty fascinating). I would agree it might not be the best way of caring about people though. In any case, my comment referred to the sentiment of the previous poster's comment, which seems to be similar to yours... > With unemployment numbers so slow, finding another menial job shouldn't be that difficult. These people are just a statistic to you and you think because "the numbers add up", they'll be fine. > The "think of the employees" argument only works when there isn't an employee-friendly market. It's hardly an employee-friendly market when thousands of people with a full time job can't afford housing because their jobs don't pay enough, but they also can't afford to loose their jobs. Seems more like slavery than a job market.
- 8y ago

neom 8y ago

That's an excellent point and one people should consider deeply, unemployment in the US is generally measured by % of population claiming unemployment benefits. It says nothing about people moving to retirement benefits, disability benefits, becoming opioid dependent and being hospitalized or jailed, or getting a job that is effectively continuing the cycle of holding them in very near destitution. Folks are right when they say automation isn't really the major problem. It is indeed just the icing on the cake.

ethn 8y ago
It's never been measured like this anywhere, ever. Don't make things up, especially some intuition that purposely makes another party seem foolish when it is actually quite the opposite. Even people who declare themselves as "job-seeking" are considered in the unemployment rate[1]. ------- 1. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm "Each month, highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees contact the 60,000 eligible sample households and ask about the labor force activities (jobholding and job seeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households during the survey reference week (usually the week that includes the 12th of the month). These are live interviews conducted either in person or over the phone. "
- isoskeles 8y ago
  Don’t “make things up” (omit important information) the other way either. People give up (lose hope) seeking a job and can end up not “unemployed” but jobless. They’re at least caught in the labor force participation rate, but grouped in with retirees and children and other people who don’t conceivably need jobs.
  - ethn 8y ago
    In the USA, unemployed and abled are forced to be "job seeking" whether they give up hope or not to continue receiving benefits.
    - 8y ago

ericd 8y ago

It's still relevant, though, as a rough measure of employee leverage vs employer leverage. Periods with low unemployment tend to see rising wages and benefits, high unemployment, stagnant or lowering.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Isn't Labour Force Participation Rate a better indicator? Plenty of people opt-out of the job market by going on e.g. disability benefits, getting financial support from family and/or working extra "on the black" (without any trace for tax authorities).
- ericd 8y ago
  Of employee leverage (and hence wage growth)? I don't think so, because those employees who opt out aren't competing for jobs with those other employees. I'm not an economist, though. It might be a better indicator of "how well is the economy serving the needs of the people", depending on what you value.
- isoskeles 8y ago
  It provides no more accurate of a view IMO, as it lumps together both groups of (a) people who don’t have jobs and need them and (b) people who don’t have jobs and don’t need them. I prefer looking at that figure more than “unemployment” rate, but it overcorrects on the pessimistic side. Maybe that’s why some of us like it.