5 ms·

> Job market is weakening with no recovery in sight What are you talking about? Unemployment is at historic lows, the job market hasn't been this good in a lon

by jupp0r 4y ago

> Job market is weakening with no recovery in sight What are you talking about? Unemployment is at historic lows, the job market hasn't been this good in a long time. Sure, some ad-revenue based companies are laying off some workers, but the market is great.

tobyjsullivan 4y ago
Don't forget about all the two-year-old companies that never had a realistic business model to begin with. If they can't survive, who can? /s
- jupp0r 4y ago
  Not sure what you are implying. If your hypothesis was true, wouldn't unemployment numbers rise? When did HN become the place where contradicting anecdotal evidence with data gets me downvoted?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tobyjsullivan 4y ago
    Not every comment on the internet is an argument.
    - bradwood 4y ago
      Oh yes it is!! ;)
andirk 4y ago
Unemployment is measured basically only by # of people receiving unemployment benefits. It grossly undercounts. A less quantitative number but way more useful is "underemployment". I don't know what that # is, but looking at low unemployment numbers alone can be misleading. https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Unemployment is measured basically only by # of people receiving unemployment benefits. Untrue; the headline unemployment figure is those in the labor force, not employed, and actively seeking work (they may be recieiving benefits, have exhausted benefits, or have not qualified for benefits because of the nature of their prior employment or their departure from it, or because they were never previously employed.)
  - andirk 4y ago
    Correct. I said "basically" and linked to the primary source for the detailed definition. It's not possible to know what a person is doing if they are not part of a program that follows them. For example, I have been unemployed many times for months and there is no way to track me because I was not on unemployment or using any program in my job search. Therefore, acc to Dept of Labor stats, I was not "unemployed". "Unemployment" is not the full picture.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > It's not possible to know what a person is doing if they are not part of a program that follows them. For example, I have been unemployed many times for months and there is no way to track me because I was not on unemployment or using any program in my job search. Therefore, acc to Dept of Labor stats, I was not "unemployed". The headline unemployment figure (and the alternative measures) come by way of the monthly Current Population Survey [0], not data fron unemployment benefit programs. The idea that the unemployment rate is, either definitionally or methodologically, restricted to only include benefit recipients is simply false. It's a popular lie by political propagandists who know the truth and want to push the myth of systematic distortion, and I guess your argument is a natural way for someone who has internalized that propaganda, doesn’t know the methodology, but has seen thr definition to try to rationalize what they have internalized, but its just not true. [0] https://www.bls.gov/cps/ https://www.bls.gov/cps/
      - andirk 4y ago
sgt 4y ago
I think it varies and it depends on how you look at it and your current position. Remember 2008 and the recession? A lot of people barely noticed it, yet it was absolutely detrimental to others.

by jupp0r 4y ago

tobyjsullivan 4y ago

Don't forget about all the two-year-old companies that never had a realistic business model to begin with. If they can't survive, who can? /s

jupp0r 4y ago
Not sure what you are implying. If your hypothesis was true, wouldn't unemployment numbers rise? When did HN become the place where contradicting anecdotal evidence with data gets me downvoted?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tobyjsullivan 4y ago
  Not every comment on the internet is an argument.
  - bradwood 4y ago
    Oh yes it is!! ;)

andirk 4y ago

Unemployment is measured basically only by # of people receiving unemployment benefits. It grossly undercounts. A less quantitative number but way more useful is "underemployment". I don't know what that # is, but looking at low unemployment numbers alone can be misleading. https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Unemployment is measured basically only by # of people receiving unemployment benefits. Untrue; the headline unemployment figure is those in the labor force, not employed, and actively seeking work (they may be recieiving benefits, have exhausted benefits, or have not qualified for benefits because of the nature of their prior employment or their departure from it, or because they were never previously employed.)
- andirk 4y ago
  Correct. I said "basically" and linked to the primary source for the detailed definition. It's not possible to know what a person is doing if they are not part of a program that follows them. For example, I have been unemployed many times for months and there is no way to track me because I was not on unemployment or using any program in my job search. Therefore, acc to Dept of Labor stats, I was not "unemployed". "Unemployment" is not the full picture.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It's not possible to know what a person is doing if they are not part of a program that follows them. For example, I have been unemployed many times for months and there is no way to track me because I was not on unemployment or using any program in my job search. Therefore, acc to Dept of Labor stats, I was not "unemployed". The headline unemployment figure (and the alternative measures) come by way of the monthly Current Population Survey [0], not data fron unemployment benefit programs. The idea that the unemployment rate is, either definitionally or methodologically, restricted to only include benefit recipients is simply false. It's a popular lie by political propagandists who know the truth and want to push the myth of systematic distortion, and I guess your argument is a natural way for someone who has internalized that propaganda, doesn’t know the methodology, but has seen thr definition to try to rationalize what they have internalized, but its just not true. [0] https://www.bls.gov/cps/ https://www.bls.gov/cps/
    - andirk 4y ago

sgt 4y ago

I think it varies and it depends on how you look at it and your current position. Remember 2008 and the recession? A lot of people barely noticed it, yet it was absolutely detrimental to others.