7 ms·

> “It’s not understood in the broader public discussion, people aren’t quitting their jobs to leave the labor force they are quitting their jobs to take other j

> “It’s not understood in the broader public discussion, people aren’t quitting their jobs to leave the labor force they are quitting their jobs to take other jobs” Well maybe it would be more well understood if you didn't run titles like "A record 4.5M workers quit their jobs". The linked BLS report gives some more useful statistics: > "Over the 12 months ending in November 2021, hires totaled 74.5 million and separations totaled 68.7 million, yielding a net employment gain of 5.9 million."[1] [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

capableweb 5y ago
Well, the title was not "A record 4.5 million workers stopped working" but instead "quit their jobs". That most people get new jobs after quitting is fairly obvious I think, while if they wrote "stopped/refuses to work", the other point would have been obvious.
- admax88qqq 5y ago
  That's more nuance than most readers will apply. Especially with the popular conception of "nobody wants to work." If you're in the "nobody wants to work anymore" camp, this headline will confirm your belief as it is easily taken as "look at how many people don't want to work!" It's negligent reporting.
  - vikingerik 5y ago
    It's not negligent. It's deliberately misleading for the click-bait. They know exactly what they're doing.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    "That's more nuance than most readers will apply." Certainly more than what's seen here in this thread.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    You're not their audience, they probably don't care what you (or I) think. There are multiple layers of filters and network effects and algorithms between most content and most people. Feeds like HN don't suffer the effects of the filters and algorithms, but are very sensitive to network effects (we aren't here for underwater basket weaving, we want the nerdy techy startup stuff. ) The target audience includes or overlaps with the antiwork crowd. Whatever algorithms and filters select for this content rewards the writer regardless of accuracy or quality of prose, because it gets clicks.
- munk-a 5y ago
  That title was pretty needlessly misleading. A much fairer title would be "4.5 million workers changed jobs" - look it's even shorter than "quit their jobs". I think it's extremely fair to consider that title unnecessarily click-bait-y.
jacobolus 5y ago
Yes, this is a good thing. Better headline: “Record number of workers switch to jobs with better working conditions, pay, and benefits.” We might also add “Employers forced to raise wages for others who remain.”
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  > We might also add “Employers forced to raise wages for others who remain.” Is this part happening? Are those who remain getting raises or just the new people hired as replacements? Heard a lot about that.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Most definitely is happening at business that employ the lowest wage workers.
  - dudus 5y ago
    In my circle people are leaving eng jobs as seniors where they make 200k to offers of 400k-600k. People who remained got little to no raises and are looking around for other opportunities. It's crazy, to me it feels like a bubble waiting to burst.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I am placing my bets on the USD losing purchasing power rather than nominal wages declining again. It would not be good for either political party to let nominal wages go down, at least for the bottom 50% of earners.
      - dcolkitt 5y ago
        Agree with this. For the "bubble" in high-end SWE comp to burst, the "bubble" in VC would have to burst. And VC isn't a liquid asset class that's likely to crash on a Black Tuesday like event. The explosion in VC capital has been primarily driven by a reach for yield among institutions, endowments, pensions and sovereign wealth funds. All of this money is extremely sticky, and once allocated will take 10+ years to de-allocate. So really the only way we see private equity funding collapse is if public equities quickly crater, forcing endowments to rebalance to stay in their allocation mandate. And that could possibly happen, given how rich public equity valuations are. But the reality is the modern Fed is never again in our lifetime going to let nominal stock prices fall by 35% or more like they did in 2008. The traumas from the GFC are simply too ingrained in the current generation of central bankers and policy makers. If push comes to shove and equities hit a bear market (20% drawdown), the Fed is going to turn the liquidity faucet to max. The forever war against Covid gives them a convenient excuse. In the scenario, you'll probably just see the Fed let inflation run hot at 10%+ for a few years. Again the Covid transitory narrative gives the cover.
specialist 5y ago
Thanks. I've been reading about innumeracy and lame press coverage my entire adult life. Ditto how to lie with stats, charts, maps. Clearly, shaming and scolding from the sidelines hasn't compelled anyone to improve. It's almost as though there's another force at work, silently undermining reason, relentlessly overwhelming rational discourse. Like some nefarious hidden incentive structures which reward attention getting over honest discourse. But every time I've broached the topic, I get ridiculed. (One actual quote is "sweaty, paranoid kook". True story.) Since I just yell at the TV and shriek at the newspaper, which helps no one, I've mostly opted out. I'm eager for any and all notions, no matter how blue sky, for how to do better. Because I'm completely fresh out of ideas. And exhausted.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > It's almost as though there's another force at work, silently undermining reason, relentlessly overwhelming rational discourse. There is - it's called the profit motive, and in journalism produces the incentive to write clickbait. This is pretty well established, I don't understand why you have had negative experiences broaching this as discussions of clickbait happen all the time online.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Generally, criticizing the people profiting from the racket, to their faces, is poorly received. And they buy ink by the gallon, as the cliché goes.
- content_sesh 5y ago
  > It's almost as though there's another force at work, silently undermining reason, relentlessly overwhelming rational discourse. Like some nefarious hidden incentive structures which reward attention getting over honest discourse. But every time I've broached the topic, I get ridiculed. (One actual quote is "sweaty, paranoid kook". True story.) The term you're looking for is "manufacturing consent". I highly recommend Herman and Chomsky's book by the same name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
- 5y ago
soperj 5y ago
Based on the fact that there are 129.32 million full-time employees in the United States (as of Nov 2021), that means 57% of people who are working are new to that job within the last 12 months? and only 54.82 million have actually stayed in their job the last 12 months. That seems like a really high turn over.
- Wohlf 5y ago
  You're assuming every person who took a new job is staying there, but there could be a large number of people switching several times.
  - themanmaran 5y ago
    The BLS report mentions: "These totals include workers who may have been hired and separated more than once during the year."
guelo 5y ago
I don't get this complaint. 4.5M people did quit, that's the fact they're reporting on. You are the one that seems to want editorializing about what people did after they quit, in their headline, to push your agenda.

capableweb 5y ago

Well, the title was not "A record 4.5 million workers stopped working" but instead "quit their jobs". That most people get new jobs after quitting is fairly obvious I think, while if they wrote "stopped/refuses to work", the other point would have been obvious.

admax88qqq 5y ago
That's more nuance than most readers will apply. Especially with the popular conception of "nobody wants to work." If you're in the "nobody wants to work anymore" camp, this headline will confirm your belief as it is easily taken as "look at how many people don't want to work!" It's negligent reporting.
- vikingerik 5y ago
  It's not negligent. It's deliberately misleading for the click-bait. They know exactly what they're doing.
- mcguire 5y ago
  "That's more nuance than most readers will apply." Certainly more than what's seen here in this thread.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  You're not their audience, they probably don't care what you (or I) think. There are multiple layers of filters and network effects and algorithms between most content and most people. Feeds like HN don't suffer the effects of the filters and algorithms, but are very sensitive to network effects (we aren't here for underwater basket weaving, we want the nerdy techy startup stuff. ) The target audience includes or overlaps with the antiwork crowd. Whatever algorithms and filters select for this content rewards the writer regardless of accuracy or quality of prose, because it gets clicks.
munk-a 5y ago
That title was pretty needlessly misleading. A much fairer title would be "4.5 million workers changed jobs" - look it's even shorter than "quit their jobs". I think it's extremely fair to consider that title unnecessarily click-bait-y.

jacobolus 5y ago

Yes, this is a good thing. Better headline: “Record number of workers switch to jobs with better working conditions, pay, and benefits.” We might also add “Employers forced to raise wages for others who remain.”

MattGaiser 5y ago
> We might also add “Employers forced to raise wages for others who remain.” Is this part happening? Are those who remain getting raises or just the new people hired as replacements? Heard a lot about that.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Most definitely is happening at business that employ the lowest wage workers.
- dudus 5y ago
  In my circle people are leaving eng jobs as seniors where they make 200k to offers of 400k-600k. People who remained got little to no raises and are looking around for other opportunities. It's crazy, to me it feels like a bubble waiting to burst.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I am placing my bets on the USD losing purchasing power rather than nominal wages declining again. It would not be good for either political party to let nominal wages go down, at least for the bottom 50% of earners.
    - dcolkitt 5y ago
      Agree with this. For the "bubble" in high-end SWE comp to burst, the "bubble" in VC would have to burst. And VC isn't a liquid asset class that's likely to crash on a Black Tuesday like event. The explosion in VC capital has been primarily driven by a reach for yield among institutions, endowments, pensions and sovereign wealth funds. All of this money is extremely sticky, and once allocated will take 10+ years to de-allocate. So really the only way we see private equity funding collapse is if public equities quickly crater, forcing endowments to rebalance to stay in their allocation mandate. And that could possibly happen, given how rich public equity valuations are. But the reality is the modern Fed is never again in our lifetime going to let nominal stock prices fall by 35% or more like they did in 2008. The traumas from the GFC are simply too ingrained in the current generation of central bankers and policy makers. If push comes to shove and equities hit a bear market (20% drawdown), the Fed is going to turn the liquidity faucet to max. The forever war against Covid gives them a convenient excuse. In the scenario, you'll probably just see the Fed let inflation run hot at 10%+ for a few years. Again the Covid transitory narrative gives the cover.

specialist 5y ago

Thanks. I've been reading about innumeracy and lame press coverage my entire adult life. Ditto how to lie with stats, charts, maps. Clearly, shaming and scolding from the sidelines hasn't compelled anyone to improve. It's almost as though there's another force at work, silently undermining reason, relentlessly overwhelming rational discourse. Like some nefarious hidden incentive structures which reward attention getting over honest discourse. But every time I've broached the topic, I get ridiculed. (One actual quote is "sweaty, paranoid kook". True story.) Since I just yell at the TV and shriek at the newspaper, which helps no one, I've mostly opted out. I'm eager for any and all notions, no matter how blue sky, for how to do better. Because I'm completely fresh out of ideas. And exhausted.

beaconstudios 5y ago
> It's almost as though there's another force at work, silently undermining reason, relentlessly overwhelming rational discourse. There is - it's called the profit motive, and in journalism produces the incentive to write clickbait. This is pretty well established, I don't understand why you have had negative experiences broaching this as discussions of clickbait happen all the time online.
- specialist 5y ago
  Generally, criticizing the people profiting from the racket, to their faces, is poorly received. And they buy ink by the gallon, as the cliché goes.
content_sesh 5y ago
> It's almost as though there's another force at work, silently undermining reason, relentlessly overwhelming rational discourse. Like some nefarious hidden incentive structures which reward attention getting over honest discourse. But every time I've broached the topic, I get ridiculed. (One actual quote is "sweaty, paranoid kook". True story.) The term you're looking for is "manufacturing consent". I highly recommend Herman and Chomsky's book by the same name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
5y ago

soperj 5y ago

Based on the fact that there are 129.32 million full-time employees in the United States (as of Nov 2021), that means 57% of people who are working are new to that job within the last 12 months? and only 54.82 million have actually stayed in their job the last 12 months. That seems like a really high turn over.

Wohlf 5y ago
You're assuming every person who took a new job is staying there, but there could be a large number of people switching several times.
- themanmaran 5y ago
  The BLS report mentions: "These totals include workers who may have been hired and separated more than once during the year."

guelo 5y ago

I don't get this complaint. 4.5M people did quit, that's the fact they're reporting on. You are the one that seems to want editorializing about what people did after they quit, in their headline, to push your agenda.