4 ms·
> If you measure the unemployed as anybody over 16 years old who isn't earning a living wage That seems like it will give you a really bad number because they
by ecmascript 6y ago
> If you measure the unemployed as anybody over 16 years old who isn't earning a living wage
That seems like it will give you a really bad number because they are for sure unemployed but a lot of people in the age 16-20something will go to school.
I didn't earn a living wage until I was 22, but I also earn pretty well nowadays and pay a more taxes than most of my friends.
Seems like the author has come to a conclusion before writing the article. A pretty dishonest piece imo. Because if you include students, why not include children and retired people as well?
- mcv 6y agoExactly. There's a bit difference between the number of people who want to work but can't find a job, and the number of people who are doing something productive that just happens to be unpaid, because it's going to school or something else. These numbers mean different things and have different uses.
- ecmascript 6y agoThe thing is, it's obvious that it is a political piece intended to stir up confusion and anger towards the current administration. When you point out the very obvious flaws, it gets you downvoted as well because orange man bad. HN has become a sad place just like everywhere else.
- smolder 6y agoIt's a sad place if you assume all the flaws in the article are obvious to everyone, then reduce everyones behavior to "orange man bad", and then complain about how it's a sad place.
- slingnow 6y agoGiven that this is generally place of intelligent people, it should be concerning that they didn't pick up on the fact that the article is quite obviously using a massive portion of the population to inflate their argument (16-20 year olds). This is likely the effect of the argument fitting in with everyone's preferred narrative.