7 ms·

For a simpler source of better food for thought just check the official participation rate. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-forc

For a simpler source of better food for thought just check the official participation rate. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab... The article crafts a nice shocking headline, but the substance is disappointing. The BLS measures unemployment many different ways (U1-U6)[1] plus the civilian labor force participation rate, so the official data also shows these higher unemployment rates as U6, and has tracked them over time. Of course politicians and the media like to pick apart that data and focus on whichever part of it best supports the narrative they intend to tell. But the data is all there for all of us to see and interpret for ourselves. 1: https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

lettergram 6y ago
I don’t know if participation rate is fair either. Largely because (a) the population is aging and is likely to retire (with wealth amassed and (b) this is really only possible because the government has started subsidizing pretty much everything (food, healthcare, housing, etc) either generally or for those “too poor”. I personally know a significant number (at least 10-15) that exclusively live from government handouts (this is beyond simple social security). They have little incentive to try and find a job, frankly and many actively live with food stamps, housing subsidies, free healthcare, and just kinda bum around.
- piva00 6y ago
  > I personally know a significant number (at least 10-15) that exclusively live from government handouts (this is beyond simple social security). They have little incentive to try and find a job, frankly and many actively live with food stamps, housing subsidies, free healthcare, and just kinda bum around. I will be very honest: this is a very unsubstantiated claim, even if you know personally 10-15 people who are just bumming around and living on benefits that is a very small portion of benefits claim in society and this kind of behaviour will always exist. Benefits fraud is a thing, the good that benefits and welfare does to a society are much larger than the impact of fraud. Do you really believe that someone who lives with handouts from the government have very little incentive to get better? Do you believe that this almost less-than-baseline level of living is enough to make a significant portion of the populace unwilling to work? To the level where participation rate would become unfair? Have you ever lived on that lifestyle to check your assumption that they have "very little incentive to try and find a job"?
  - lettergram 6y ago
    As someone who grew up relatively disadvantaged, I think I probably know a larger percentage of those “taking advantage” over the the “average” American. Further. I also used to volunteer regularly helping donate food, helping families, etc. I don’t think people realize how good “baseline” really is, compared to even 2-3 decades ago. Just as an example, most people can get free housing from the state provided some paperwork (again I helped quite a few people, including family members, with this.). I actually stopped volunteering in this space, BECAUSE I saw it being taken advantage of. Probably 75% of the people I assisted were capable of working physically. Now, mental faculties are a bit of a different issue, only probably 50% had the mental disposition to work a regular job. That being said most people can contribute something in exchange for wages. Unfortunately, many don’t because it’ll either cut their incentives there’s a valley between maintaining life quality off the state and the minimum wage. You have to make significantly more than minimum wage to have the same quality of life in some cases. You can even see stories of this with the pandemic (people making more on unemployment, so they don’t work). I’m also not arguing if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. Just that, at least from my experience, it appears to be a thing. I also don’t think we are collecting good data on this, particularly for political reasons (or incompetence). If we had the real stats I’m sure people who need these programs would also be left without them (because programs would be cut). I really don’t know a good solution. Just that it really should be explored, because many people have an inaccurate understanding (again from my experience).
    - Leherenn 6y ago
      I think it is really difficult to fix the issue where having a job is worse than not having one. If you make sure the benefits are below what the market more or less defines as minimum wage, then people on benefits are going to have a dreadful time. If you try to smooth the benefits loss, then you mostly end up subsidising employers. (I can reduce wages because the state will pick up the difference.) If you increase the minimum wage, then you increase the numbers of people who "can contribute something" but not enough to make sense economically speaking.
      - 6y ago
- zebrafish 6y ago
  I don’t see how your anecdotal data can be counted as more valuable than BLS data backed by payroll, benefits, and subsidy data from employers and providers.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  > They have little incentive to try and find a job, frankly and many actively live with food stamps, housing subsidies, free healthcare, and just kinda bum around. Like the sibling commenter, I find your post very suspect, mainly because (in the US at least) if you are a non-disabled person without children between the ages of 20 and 55 it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get enough gov't benefits to survive (at least outside of covid-times)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - lettergram 6y ago
    Feel free to read my other response. Generally, I agree you should be suspect of my statements. We should also be suspect if the statements you’re making. The reality is that neither of us have solid stats because, in my opinion, politically no one wants to investigate how often the system is taken advantage of. Frankly, it’s hard to determine “can someone work” is a nearly impossible question to answer. Instead it’s, “how much money do you make a year” for many of these programs
    - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
      Thanks, I thought this and your other response were very insightful.
Minor49er 6y ago
The book "Men Without Work: America's Invisible Crisis" by Nicholas Eberstadt also points to this too. Even though it's four years old, it uses BLS data to show the labor force participation rate and how it has been gradually declining for decades. There also isn't a clear solution since there are so many different causes that contribute to the high number. The Axios article is highlighting the problem, but is going about it in the wrong way by conflating terms and not offering any further insight into the issue. If they mentioned the participation rate or the types of measurement that you noted, it would be a much stronger piece. But I want to underline your point that the data is available and anyone curious should look at it to see the trends for themselves.
mattmcknight 6y ago
I agree, the structure of the argument in the Axios piece is misguided: BLS produces U6, and the journalists don't talk about it, so the BLS is doing something wrong (says journalist). The idea of a national living wage is ridiculous, given the vast disparities in the cost of living.
- jjk166 6y ago
  Why should it matter that cost of living varies? If you move to San Francisco, you should know that your money isn't going to go as far; conversely if you move to Tulsa you should reasonably be able to take advantage of the low cost of living to build up your savings. If you're residing in Tulsa and still only just surviving, you're not earning a living wage. Then there's the fact that besides food and rent pretty much everything we buy nowadays is nationally priced - amazon doesn't give you a discount for moving to a low cost of living area; and you don't get to pay lower taxes because cost of living is higher. But beyond all this, the disparities arise almost exclusively because of a few outliers - maybe 5% of people in the country can live comfortably on less than $20k/yr and less than 10% require substantially more; the vast majority of Americans are close to the average.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    It's tougher to say that people in high COL areas need to uproot themselves when they fall on hard times. Depending on the means testing scheme, this can actually come out more expensive for the welfare system. Sure it can spend less on rent, but now that you're 3000 miles away from Grandma it also has to buy childcare. Now that you're in a new place with no friends, maybe you get depressed and need mental health services. Etc, etc.
  - mattmcknight 6y ago
    Rent is absolutely not nationally priced. It can vary 10x. Because we don't want to set a baseline unemployment statistic which counts people as unemployed when they are earning enough to live in a decent apartment, while the same wage would leave them homeless in a city. By setting higher minimum wages, we effectively raise the cost of living everywhere, as the price for the slow changing supply of housing rises. As the cost of living rises, the comparative advantage of goods produced in the USA is further reduced in comparison to countries with lower costs of living. This results in less manufacturing occurring in the country, and eventually more real unemployment. What we should be doing is allow for the creation of more low cost of living areas, where what is globally a decent salary is sufficient.

lettergram 6y ago

I don’t know if participation rate is fair either. Largely because (a) the population is aging and is likely to retire (with wealth amassed and (b) this is really only possible because the government has started subsidizing pretty much everything (food, healthcare, housing, etc) either generally or for those “too poor”. I personally know a significant number (at least 10-15) that exclusively live from government handouts (this is beyond simple social security). They have little incentive to try and find a job, frankly and many actively live with food stamps, housing subsidies, free healthcare, and just kinda bum around.

piva00 6y ago
> I personally know a significant number (at least 10-15) that exclusively live from government handouts (this is beyond simple social security). They have little incentive to try and find a job, frankly and many actively live with food stamps, housing subsidies, free healthcare, and just kinda bum around. I will be very honest: this is a very unsubstantiated claim, even if you know personally 10-15 people who are just bumming around and living on benefits that is a very small portion of benefits claim in society and this kind of behaviour will always exist. Benefits fraud is a thing, the good that benefits and welfare does to a society are much larger than the impact of fraud. Do you really believe that someone who lives with handouts from the government have very little incentive to get better? Do you believe that this almost less-than-baseline level of living is enough to make a significant portion of the populace unwilling to work? To the level where participation rate would become unfair? Have you ever lived on that lifestyle to check your assumption that they have "very little incentive to try and find a job"?
- lettergram 6y ago
  As someone who grew up relatively disadvantaged, I think I probably know a larger percentage of those “taking advantage” over the the “average” American. Further. I also used to volunteer regularly helping donate food, helping families, etc. I don’t think people realize how good “baseline” really is, compared to even 2-3 decades ago. Just as an example, most people can get free housing from the state provided some paperwork (again I helped quite a few people, including family members, with this.). I actually stopped volunteering in this space, BECAUSE I saw it being taken advantage of. Probably 75% of the people I assisted were capable of working physically. Now, mental faculties are a bit of a different issue, only probably 50% had the mental disposition to work a regular job. That being said most people can contribute something in exchange for wages. Unfortunately, many don’t because it’ll either cut their incentives there’s a valley between maintaining life quality off the state and the minimum wage. You have to make significantly more than minimum wage to have the same quality of life in some cases. You can even see stories of this with the pandemic (people making more on unemployment, so they don’t work). I’m also not arguing if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. Just that, at least from my experience, it appears to be a thing. I also don’t think we are collecting good data on this, particularly for political reasons (or incompetence). If we had the real stats I’m sure people who need these programs would also be left without them (because programs would be cut). I really don’t know a good solution. Just that it really should be explored, because many people have an inaccurate understanding (again from my experience).
  - Leherenn 6y ago
    I think it is really difficult to fix the issue where having a job is worse than not having one. If you make sure the benefits are below what the market more or less defines as minimum wage, then people on benefits are going to have a dreadful time. If you try to smooth the benefits loss, then you mostly end up subsidising employers. (I can reduce wages because the state will pick up the difference.) If you increase the minimum wage, then you increase the numbers of people who "can contribute something" but not enough to make sense economically speaking.
    - 6y ago
zebrafish 6y ago
I don’t see how your anecdotal data can be counted as more valuable than BLS data backed by payroll, benefits, and subsidy data from employers and providers.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
> They have little incentive to try and find a job, frankly and many actively live with food stamps, housing subsidies, free healthcare, and just kinda bum around. Like the sibling commenter, I find your post very suspect, mainly because (in the US at least) if you are a non-disabled person without children between the ages of 20 and 55 it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get enough gov't benefits to survive (at least outside of covid-times)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lettergram 6y ago
  Feel free to read my other response. Generally, I agree you should be suspect of my statements. We should also be suspect if the statements you’re making. The reality is that neither of us have solid stats because, in my opinion, politically no one wants to investigate how often the system is taken advantage of. Frankly, it’s hard to determine “can someone work” is a nearly impossible question to answer. Instead it’s, “how much money do you make a year” for many of these programs
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Thanks, I thought this and your other response were very insightful.

Minor49er 6y ago

The book "Men Without Work: America's Invisible Crisis" by Nicholas Eberstadt also points to this too. Even though it's four years old, it uses BLS data to show the labor force participation rate and how it has been gradually declining for decades. There also isn't a clear solution since there are so many different causes that contribute to the high number. The Axios article is highlighting the problem, but is going about it in the wrong way by conflating terms and not offering any further insight into the issue. If they mentioned the participation rate or the types of measurement that you noted, it would be a much stronger piece. But I want to underline your point that the data is available and anyone curious should look at it to see the trends for themselves.

mattmcknight 6y ago

I agree, the structure of the argument in the Axios piece is misguided: BLS produces U6, and the journalists don't talk about it, so the BLS is doing something wrong (says journalist). The idea of a national living wage is ridiculous, given the vast disparities in the cost of living.

jjk166 6y ago
Why should it matter that cost of living varies? If you move to San Francisco, you should know that your money isn't going to go as far; conversely if you move to Tulsa you should reasonably be able to take advantage of the low cost of living to build up your savings. If you're residing in Tulsa and still only just surviving, you're not earning a living wage. Then there's the fact that besides food and rent pretty much everything we buy nowadays is nationally priced - amazon doesn't give you a discount for moving to a low cost of living area; and you don't get to pay lower taxes because cost of living is higher. But beyond all this, the disparities arise almost exclusively because of a few outliers - maybe 5% of people in the country can live comfortably on less than $20k/yr and less than 10% require substantially more; the vast majority of Americans are close to the average.
- closeparen 6y ago
  It's tougher to say that people in high COL areas need to uproot themselves when they fall on hard times. Depending on the means testing scheme, this can actually come out more expensive for the welfare system. Sure it can spend less on rent, but now that you're 3000 miles away from Grandma it also has to buy childcare. Now that you're in a new place with no friends, maybe you get depressed and need mental health services. Etc, etc.
- mattmcknight 6y ago
  Rent is absolutely not nationally priced. It can vary 10x. Because we don't want to set a baseline unemployment statistic which counts people as unemployed when they are earning enough to live in a decent apartment, while the same wage would leave them homeless in a city. By setting higher minimum wages, we effectively raise the cost of living everywhere, as the price for the slow changing supply of housing rises. As the cost of living rises, the comparative advantage of goods produced in the USA is further reduced in comparison to countries with lower costs of living. This results in less manufacturing occurring in the country, and eventually more real unemployment. What we should be doing is allow for the creation of more low cost of living areas, where what is globally a decent salary is sufficient.