18 comments

[ 56.9 ms ] story [ 454 ms ] thread
The article talks about how the Fed chair thinks we might be overestimating jobs and with the number of people I know who are currently struggling to find jobs I would believe that (not engineers, just people that had random jobs). Lots of people I know are out of work right now.
A few articles I've read note that there are indications that there has been a very strong "low fire, low hire" pattern. So while we don't see mass layoffs, those who are out, are really out.
The most meaningful American employment stat should be employed Americans with health insurance.

What's the point of being considered 'employed' if you can be wiped out with one trip to the ER?

So I sort of agree that there's a narrower version of employment that we should care about more than the top-line number. I'd define as maybe "households with at least one dependent under 20 and ~hours worked by household members." I would then break that down into several groups: fine (have healthcare, make enough to cover typical costs for their area, household works < 55 hours/week/adult, and can save 15% for retirement on a household basis), the struggling (make less than this, but work, or work > 55 hours/week/adult, but can cover housing and most basic expenses), and the hopeless (income too low to cover basic costs or not employed). IE If someone is working 60/hrs a week @ $10/hr, and has a kid, maybe not "unemployed" but IMO categorically, almost the same. Same thing if they just do gig work to net $20k/yr. Or are actually unemployed.

All that said, the main issue with the health insurance metric is that it would end up being a forcing function for the continued coupling of work and healthcare, which is bad and toxic.

How reliable are the unemployment numbers? Trump sacked people for not liking the numbers.
The US job market is way more dynamic than people realize. Roughly 1/5 of jobs are changed every year in roles permanently lost to roles newly created.

Gross job creation & destruction annually is roughly 10–12 percent of all jobs (new positions added and permanently lost across all employers).

This is down from the past, when it was 15-18 percent.

Source: US Census Bureau Data https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_job_destruction_rate

I get the feeling most of the newer jobs that are going to be created are going to be in the blue collar fields and the US isn't geared for providing those. I'm also not sure that people who have been conditioned to work white collar jobs will be happy to work in blue collar jobs.
> I get the feeling most of the newer jobs that are going to be created are going to be in the blue collar fields and the US isn't geared for providing those.

What blue collar field/industry is expected to grow?

> I'm also not sure that people who have been conditioned to work white collar jobs will be happy to work in blue collar jobs.

A quick google search shows about 60% of workers are white collar and about 30% are blue collar. I suspect blue collar workers are not going to be happy with the influx of white collar workers competing for their jobs.

Most job listings are fake - keep the investors, competitors and other employees think you are hiring. And who knows, maybe the right resume will actually be worth a look.
I've heard this from other people. Is there any evidence of it though?
Studies have shown at least 30% are ghost jobs, which means in practice probably higher.

Add the fact that they stick around longer and I can comfortably say 50%+ of the jobs people are applying to are fake.

H1B abuse is rampant, so the headline is what we expect. Jobs are for the foreign born, just look at HN for evidence of that. They even hire lawyers to help the outsourced labor “navigate our system.”
After Trump didn’t like the numbers, weren’t unemployment figures kept secret from then on by the administration?