Only 47% of working age Americans have full time jobs | Hacker News Reader

Only 47% of working age Americans have full time jobs

theautomaticearth.blogspot.com

32 pointssdizdar15 comments

How many of these "missing workers" are simply mothers, homemakers, and students? The article does not mention these classes.

The article is also using an extremely broad definition of the labor force: anyone over the age of 16. That definition can be useful for some demographic calculations, but I don't think it supports the conclusions being drawn here. In addition to your categories, it includes millions of retirees.

What on earth is wrong with that? Just because you're still in high school is no excuse not to be pulling your weight 40 hours a week (harrumph)

Also, the article starts off saying "The total non institutional civilian labor force (Americans 16 years and older who are not in a institution -criminal, mental, or other types of facilities- or an active military duty)", then goes on to discuss further the breakdown without ever mentioning military employment again.

When it comes to the military, you're only talking a couple million people; Not significant enough to move the needle.

"# Part time employed for non-economic reasons: 18.184 million people. Non-economic reasons include school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, but also childcare problems and family or personal obligations."

I would assume those people would fall into that category, but I might be missing something.

That category is those who are part-time employed due to these reasons. People who have no job at all because of these reasons – perhaps because they don't even want a part-time job – fall into the 100+ million people over 16 neither working nor seeking work.

Using that definition of unemployment, what was the rate at the last peak of employment? How much WORSE off are we?

Flexible employment is a positive thing, as long as people can get employed at the level they want.

For example, I know people who would go stir crazy taking care of kids or elderly parents at home if that was all they did, or people who have interests that they're passionate about but don't pay the rent (starving artists, startup founder, etc.)

When I was starting my business, I asked for and got reduced hours at my "day job", and it helped me get over the hump to profitability (still doing consulting for them).

Underemployment is a problem - usually caused a structural deficiency in the way that non-pay benefits are allocated in this country. Plenty of employers wouldn't care if you worked less than full time if they could get the work done and they didn't have to pay extra per employee for health care and other benefits.

Wow, I had no idea so many people were on foodstamps. I really feel like I am missing out on the current welfare feeding frenzy. If I were to get laid off today I think I would be able to turn my 'benefits' into a 2-3 year vacation.

If you have any money in the bank, it's doubtful--- you generally don't qualify for food stamps if you have more than $2000 (perhaps up to $5000, depending on the state and your family size), since they're only intended for people who actually have no money.

Money is easy to dispose of, or at least hide under the mattress. I'm sure I could also go the the ER enough times to be diagnosed with some chronic condition that will qualify me for SSI.

Well, sure, all sorts of fraud is possible to commit. You could also sell shoddy products under false pretenses, or build a broken webapp that keeps rebilling people when they try to cancel, or offer to buy a company with money you don't have; or all sorts of other ways to take money that you're not legitimately entitled to, but may or may not manage to get away with.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter!

You've never been poor have you? And I don't just mean "Oh, I guess I have to eat Ramen more than I used to" poor. I mean "Damn, how am I going to pay rent this month?" poor or "How do I feed my kids?" poor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com