Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

I mean, the US and other countries have reached “full employment” on several occasions - a level of unemployment where effectively everyone who wants a job had one (the unemployed who do exist are the small fraction you cant eliminate as people are in between jobs or seek other opportunities - employment “friction”).

View on HN

"full employment" is a misleading term. Unemployment only counts people who have been actively looking for a job in the last 4 weeks, and so excludes many chronically unemployed. In addition underemployment is not counted at all: in today's "gig economy" many people can't find full time employment and have to work multiple part time jobs.

"Full employment" absolutely builds in the reserve army of labor power into the definition.

This is the labor force participation rate for men in the US from 1948 to now from the US bureau of labor statistics

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001

Was 86% or above before 1950, never above 70% over the past 5 years. The trend has been downward the whole time.

You realize the labor participation rate accounts for the retired? A stat that might change with the aging workforce?

According to the department of labor's bureau of labor statistics, it is the opposite of what you said.

From 2000 to 2020, the labor participation for men from 20 to 44 has fallen. Labor participation for men 45 to 54 varies from flat to down. The labor participation rate for men 55 and older has risen. Working age men are less employed than they were, retirement age men are more employed than they were.

https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-particip...

The main issue with that notion is that the statistics simply favor excluding a lot of people from being counted as employed or unemployed. There's a rather large third group of simply not working that is problematic in the sense that these people still need taking care off financially (healthcare, housing, education, etc.).

A lot of people that are not technically unemployed are also not working fall into a few groups: those that are dependent on others to work; those that are too young or too old to work; and those that have simply given up on the whole notion of working because they are no longer able to physically or mentally (or both).

And there is of course a big problem with poverty even among those that work. So unemployment figures look great. Poverty figures, not so much. IMHO basic income would be a fair and simple way to ensure we get rid of poverty that should not break capitalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com