9 ms·

> Why didn’t we see it coming? How did sharing economy companies manage to evade scrutiny for so long? Plenty of people saw it coming. As much as fellow member

> Why didn’t we see it coming? How did sharing economy companies manage to evade scrutiny for so long? Plenty of people saw it coming. As much as fellow members of my generation enthusiastically embraced the sharing/gig economy for survival, most of them acknowledged that the companies were in the end going to be worse. They were just less worse than having no income. Those that thought this were the future were just deluding themselves because of how fucking terrible the job market is.

chrisco255 8y ago
The job market might have been terrible 5 years ago, but this is not the case today. 3.7% unemployment in the U.S. Lowest since 1969.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  It's kind of funny that most of the people that recognized that the headline unemployment number wasn't a complete picture of the job market when Obama was President have somehow forgotten that since late January of 2017.
  - api 8y ago
    Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. Same thing happens for Democrats and their opinions of foreign military adventures. It's an unnecessary war when a Republican is in office, but it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office.
    - themacguffinman 8y ago
      Opinion polling doesn't support your neat "both sides do it" narrative: > In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. > A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed. > The Post-ABC poll indicates somewhat greater consistency on the part of Democrats. Some 37 percent of them back Trump’s strike, compared to a statistically indistinguishable 38 percent who backed a strike in 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3da21cd50a74 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
    - digitaltrees 8y ago
      No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and before you say anti-vaxxers, that is not a mainstream democrat policy like Global Warming denial is...again, no false equivalence please)... - Name a democrat zombie policy like "trickle down economics" that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work... Should I go on?
      - ctdonath 8y ago
        No, you've made it sufficiently clear you subscribe to a straw man narrative, and are uninterested in discussion.
      - onething 8y ago
        I don't know if it is helpful to jump into political discussions, but I'll give it a try... >...- Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... I think the OP might have been referring to the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? We ended up leaving Iraq at the same timetable that Bush had proposed. >... Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... Well the unemployment numbers don't include the long term unemployed who would still like a job, etc so I would assume everyone should look beyond the simple number reported in the press. >... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming GMOs? Nuclear power? >...- Name a democrat zombie policy like "trickle down economics" that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work... No economist has ever proposed a policy called "trickle down economics". The pejorative is simply used by people to attack someone else's economic polices. Using a perjorative is simply an attempt to poison the well and prevent discussion. In terms of policies that don't work. but still get support... A couple that come to mind: - wasting money to require registration for the draft - war on drugs - DARE program - three strikes (voted in CA, a heavy democratic state) Conservatives also support many/all(?) programs, but that just means both sides are wrong.
    - moosey 8y ago
      Nothing that Obama or Clinton did even came close to comparing to the wars started by Bush II. In order to find a comparable mishap on the part of Democratic governance and war you have to go back to Truman, and you won't find me defending the Vietnam War, nor Obama's use of drones. > Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. There is plenty of information that shows this to be untrue, especially in this case of warfare that you talk about, example: > 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error. > In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. > A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-...
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Have to go back to Truman? You seem to have forgotten Vietnam...
        moosey 8y ago
        For most intents and purposes, that's who started it. anti-communistic fervor was, and is, a massive boondoggle.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? That's... a pretty strange interpretation of history.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
    - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
      >it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office. Bull-fucking-shit. The Boston Commons tankies were out every Saturday protesting "illegal war" this and "unconstitutional" that through all of Obama's term.
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    Even if you look at those number they seem to be improving or relatively stable. Like it or not, the job market is getting better. EDIT: I don't mean to say that's due or not due to anyone being in or out of office, you can observe those market trends dating back several years at least. Interest rate increases may put a setback on this growth going forward though, definitely something to watch.
- momentmaker 8y ago
  Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    I'm well aware of the ability to twist statistics, but the unemployment rate is a decent yard stick for measuring changes in the labor force. And barring some underlying change in methodology for finding the statistic, it shows a trend over time in a positive direction: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 Wage growth is also ticking up: https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx?panel=1 https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx?pan... Which aligns well with the low unemployment rate.
- PeanutNore 8y ago
  The US is a big place, and there's plenty of localities within it where that 3.7% figure might as well be in a foreign country.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  Even on HN, you're going to use the intentionally politicized value (people still tracked on unemployment, contractors sometimes, etc): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 instead of something close to the actual? https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53452 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53452 I don't understand how people are still this lazy.
  - noja 8y ago
    > I don't understand how people are still this lazy. You didn't give the value.
    - CuriouslyC 8y ago
      Factoring in overall labor force participation, it goes from 3.7 to ~3.8. Saying 3.7 is politicized is pretty hyperbolic.
- divyahansg 8y ago
  Yes, but US labor force participation rate is 63%. Down 3% from 2007 and the lowest since 1977.
- sroussey 8y ago
  Labor participation rate is a better number to follow. The headline you are quoting assumes you have a job once your unemployment runs out. Look around any city and see the homeless. It’s been increasing, and not just in SF.
  - tryptophan 8y ago
    No its not, unless of course you are implying the growing elderly population should be working and the fact that they are not is somehow a problem. The metric(U3/U6) has also been measured the same way forever. Is trumpler now measuring people as employed once their unemployment runs out at a greater/lesser rate than before? I would guess no. This means comparisons across time are valid, despite the metric having flaws.

chrisco255 8y ago

The job market might have been terrible 5 years ago, but this is not the case today. 3.7% unemployment in the U.S. Lowest since 1969.

dragonwriter 8y ago
It's kind of funny that most of the people that recognized that the headline unemployment number wasn't a complete picture of the job market when Obama was President have somehow forgotten that since late January of 2017.
- api 8y ago
  Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. Same thing happens for Democrats and their opinions of foreign military adventures. It's an unnecessary war when a Republican is in office, but it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office.
  - themacguffinman 8y ago
    Opinion polling doesn't support your neat "both sides do it" narrative: > In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. > A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed. > The Post-ABC poll indicates somewhat greater consistency on the part of Democrats. Some 37 percent of them back Trump’s strike, compared to a statistically indistinguishable 38 percent who backed a strike in 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3da21cd50a74 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
  - digitaltrees 8y ago
    No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and before you say anti-vaxxers, that is not a mainstream democrat policy like Global Warming denial is...again, no false equivalence please)... - Name a democrat zombie policy like "trickle down economics" that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work... Should I go on?
    - ctdonath 8y ago
      No, you've made it sufficiently clear you subscribe to a straw man narrative, and are uninterested in discussion.
    - onething 8y ago
      I don't know if it is helpful to jump into political discussions, but I'll give it a try... >...- Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... I think the OP might have been referring to the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? We ended up leaving Iraq at the same timetable that Bush had proposed. >... Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... Well the unemployment numbers don't include the long term unemployed who would still like a job, etc so I would assume everyone should look beyond the simple number reported in the press. >... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming GMOs? Nuclear power? >...- Name a democrat zombie policy like "trickle down economics" that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work... No economist has ever proposed a policy called "trickle down economics". The pejorative is simply used by people to attack someone else's economic polices. Using a perjorative is simply an attempt to poison the well and prevent discussion. In terms of policies that don't work. but still get support... A couple that come to mind: - wasting money to require registration for the draft - war on drugs - DARE program - three strikes (voted in CA, a heavy democratic state) Conservatives also support many/all(?) programs, but that just means both sides are wrong.
  - moosey 8y ago
    Nothing that Obama or Clinton did even came close to comparing to the wars started by Bush II. In order to find a comparable mishap on the part of Democratic governance and war you have to go back to Truman, and you won't find me defending the Vietnam War, nor Obama's use of drones. > Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. There is plenty of information that shows this to be untrue, especially in this case of warfare that you talk about, example: > 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error. > In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. > A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-...
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Have to go back to Truman? You seem to have forgotten Vietnam...
      - moosey 8y ago
        For most intents and purposes, that's who started it. anti-communistic fervor was, and is, a massive boondoggle.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? That's... a pretty strange interpretation of history.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    >it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office. Bull-fucking-shit. The Boston Commons tankies were out every Saturday protesting "illegal war" this and "unconstitutional" that through all of Obama's term.
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  Even if you look at those number they seem to be improving or relatively stable. Like it or not, the job market is getting better. EDIT: I don't mean to say that's due or not due to anyone being in or out of office, you can observe those market trends dating back several years at least. Interest rate increases may put a setback on this growth going forward though, definitely something to watch.
momentmaker 8y ago
Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
- chrisco255 8y ago
  I'm well aware of the ability to twist statistics, but the unemployment rate is a decent yard stick for measuring changes in the labor force. And barring some underlying change in methodology for finding the statistic, it shows a trend over time in a positive direction: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 Wage growth is also ticking up: https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx?panel=1 https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx?pan... Which aligns well with the low unemployment rate.
PeanutNore 8y ago
The US is a big place, and there's plenty of localities within it where that 3.7% figure might as well be in a foreign country.
ArchTypical 8y ago
Even on HN, you're going to use the intentionally politicized value (people still tracked on unemployment, contractors sometimes, etc): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 instead of something close to the actual? https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53452 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53452 I don't understand how people are still this lazy.
- noja 8y ago
  > I don't understand how people are still this lazy. You didn't give the value.
  - CuriouslyC 8y ago
    Factoring in overall labor force participation, it goes from 3.7 to ~3.8. Saying 3.7 is politicized is pretty hyperbolic.
divyahansg 8y ago
Yes, but US labor force participation rate is 63%. Down 3% from 2007 and the lowest since 1977.
sroussey 8y ago
Labor participation rate is a better number to follow. The headline you are quoting assumes you have a job once your unemployment runs out. Look around any city and see the homeless. It’s been increasing, and not just in SF.
- tryptophan 8y ago
  No its not, unless of course you are implying the growing elderly population should be working and the fact that they are not is somehow a problem. The metric(U3/U6) has also been measured the same way forever. Is trumpler now measuring people as employed once their unemployment runs out at a greater/lesser rate than before? I would guess no. This means comparisons across time are valid, despite the metric having flaws.