This piece is a good exemplar of the problems with modern journalism.
First, let's take a look at the statistics cited in the piece which support the main thesis (the whole article is built on two facts):
* highest quit rate since .... 2019! 2019, wow, that was like ancient history. That makes this historic!
* 14 million (what a big number!) of 18-34 not in labor force. Isn't that number so big? OMG, look at how big that number is!
Whereas the data says both the total not in labor force number and the "do not want job" number has declined for all groups except those 55 and over![1] where it has slightly increased. Actually the WSJ got this right when it said the labor story of the day is people (primarily small business owners) taking early retirement. But then again, that story was written by an experienced journalist.
That's it. That's all the labor force participation statistics she cites in support of this "Great Resignation". The rest are a series of grievances about how bad people have it and how they're really not gonna take it anymore!
Well, OK, then.
So how could someone write a story with the exact opposite conclusion of what the labor force statistics say?
Why would someone think lying about a "Great Resignation" is responsible, objective journalism?
The problem with these type of activist, grievance-based, emptional pieces is that they are not news (describing how the world is) they are advocacy (describing how the world should be). And when you blur those lines, truth and engagement with reality is the first casualty. Raisa obviously thinks a great resignation is warranted and so just pretends that it's happening. As if her own intuition and circle of friends were more reliable than labor force statistics. So she disengages with the real world and starts pretending that it is actually occurring. She is LARPing the news!
And you often see this on the part of frustrated activists. The clues are phrases like "people are starting to wake up", without any actual data. It's perfectly understandable that this happens - lots of people have been secluded, isolated, and are beginning to lose it - but when it seeps into news reporting, it's very dangerous.
I think the whole resignation story is just nonsense. I am almost certain it can be explained by people being worried in 2020 so much that they sticked to whatever job they had.
Which leads to... many people quitting in 2021. Surprise! It's probably similar to the whole supply chain hickup.
> I am almost certain it can be explained by people being worried in 2020 so much that they sticked to whatever job they had.
I think that’s a major contributor. Anecdotally, I think burn out is another factor. Many of my co workers left, not because they would have left in 2020 anyway, but because stress and workload increased significantly. Even when the overall workload didn’t increase, many of my coworkers (including myself) were glued to our screens - working non stop into the evening, with no sense of boundaries. And for many of us, work life balance was already whack. COVID WFH just pushed it off a cliff.
I’m highly paid and enjoy the nature of my work, but every couple weeks I think about resigning. Honestly, I’m tired. I am highly paid, privileged, and have a wonderful boss, but sometimes I feel like a cog in a machine. My boss cares about me but my company just sees me as a replaceable resource. And that’s not to disparage my employer. It’s just the reality of working in corporate America.
I’m fairly convinced that the Great Resignation is the sum of:
1) Natural turnover that did not happen in 2020 adding to natural turnover in 2021.
2) 2021 natural turnover.
3) People (primarily women) not being able to return to work because of child and elderly care.
The reason I don’t think it’s something more than that is that other countries are not seeing a great resignation. Only the US is. And the US didn’t even have struct lockdowns unlike other countries including countries richer and poorer than the US on a per capita basis.
Also a lot of people lost their jobs during the covid crisis, and moved out of expensive cities, back to their parents houses not-in-manhattan, and because of realestate prices being even higher, a lot of them can't afford to come back, atleast not at shitty pay rates the most affected industries (service, food,...) are offering.
Work in global HR. Even though observations are annectodal, it is a real observable phenomena. Already companies I know are facing significant upticks of resignations just this beginning Q4. And these aren't your local fast food or retail or entry type of jobs I'm talking about.
You are downplaying reporting of +5% unemployment in 3 months, the difference between now and 2019 is that unlike 2019 those persons were either reemployed or counted as unemployed…now 14M Americans (aged 18-34) are immediately removed from the workforce instead of being counted as unemployed.
You can claim all you want that is not data, but it is and it is telling from a policy perspective. Since when have 18-34 year olds that quit been immediately removed from the workforce?
I’ll take a guess that you neither are an employer, low wage worker or government worker, because you seem pretty far removed from the reality facing the vast majority in the US.
>> You are downplaying reporting of +5% unemployment in 3 months
Maybe it is significant, but even if it was the author's data provides no context to evaluate the 3.9, 3.9, 4.3 million sequence.
>> the difference between now and 2019 is that unlike 2019 those persons were either reemployed or counted as unemployed…
Are you sure? I can't find this particular statement in the article. Did I miss something?
>> now 14M Americans (aged 18-34) are immediately removed from the workforce instead of being counted as unemployed.
Again, a single number with no context literally says nothing! If I came to you and said over the last three months our quantity of X increased by 400k from 3.9M, and and the total accumulation of some subset of X was now at 14M, do you have enough information to tell if this is unusually high, low or normal behaviour for X?
Online "news" needs to get hits and thus make money. Being actual news is a far distant priority to that.
People are interested in and believe there is a "Great Resignation" even though it's not happening. Why? I don't know. But I think this is the actual story - and I wish someone would write it.
But "you believe X and it's wrong" stories generally don't do well.
I honestly find your response here to be far more emotional than the actual article for what it's worth.
>So how could someone write a story with the exact opposite conclusion of what the labor force statistics say? Why would someone think lying about a "Great Resignation" is responsible, objective journalism?
It's not the opposite, though.
In fact nothing you're saying even contradicts what the article is saying. Basically your entire criticism is around what you perceive the authors intent is in writing the article, which is funny given your post.
I think the consumer is part of the problem with news. I won't lie, I come to hacker news everyday and even multiple times a day and refresh hoping to see some new article talking about something controversial or new or ingenious. How can you keep publishing content like that day after day? At some point, you have to inflate things a little, extrapolate, or even enter the realm of reporting on hypothetical and what ifs.
If you look at a chart of the labor force participation rate, it did drop to a low, and has only partially recovered to a rate last seen in the mid-late 1970s. That is significant. Certainly very different from the rate just previous in 2019. Though to really understand it, I think you might have to pick apart the data among different age ranges.
Right, but that instant drop was lockdowns. Basically the whole nation went into lockdown, then partially re-opened. Now you have a partial lockdown situation. E.g. restaurants limited to X people, etc.
If she had written a piece that said "the labor force may not recover from the lockdowns", then she could gather this piece of data and other pieces of data and make a case. But that's not the Great Resignation thesis.
FYI, I am not saying that we should not have good labor reporting -- now is one of the rare times when labor reporting is actually interesting. But not this Time piece. I could spend 10 minutes googling and come up with a more interesting, more fact base piece of journalism.
This is a really good critique. I would not have thought to read this article as critically as you did, and likely would have accepted it at face value. But now that you mention it, there's more issues I see:
"This is the highest mass resignation the U.S. has seen since 2019, pre-pandemic, and the numbers are still rising. In June, 3.9 million quit. In July, it was another 3.9 million. In August, 4.3 million."
The [3.9M, 3.9M, 4.3M] sequence seems cherry picked. It could just be normal noise for all we know. To me this kind of argument could be easily summarized with simple data visualization, i.e. a line graph with more datapoints (expand 3 month range to a full year, stack more years for context). A histogram of monthly resignations to attach a %-ile to it would also be great, but may not be as intuitive and there's a lot of complexity involved in trying to understand significance.
The author follows the monthly resignation numbers with:
"The numbers are even more notable for young workers: in September, nearly a quarter of workers ages 20 to 34 were not considered part of the U.S. workforce—some 14 million Americans, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who were neither working nor looking for work."
You interpret this as them saying 14M is a big number, but I think based on the preceding sentence, it's actually trying to say 14M is "more notable" than the ~3.9M in the preceding argument. I kind of think this is the case, as its a really common data mistake I see in articles: mixing up units. In this case of course, out-of-labor/month cannot be compared to cumulative out-of-labor-young/month.
That being said, I disagree with you on your attribution of this to activist journalism. And for context, I'll just say that unlike the vast majority of HN, I actually have a lot of respect for most modern journalism, and think most people complaining about journalism aren't comparing state of affairs in countries like China/Russia/Sri-Lanka without press freedom.
My more generous interpretation is that another underlying cause for these kinds of mistakes is simply a lack of familiarity with math, and especially statistics. A journalist with good intentions can still make these kinds of errors if they aren't familiar with good practise in statistics.
Finally, I just wanted to say, there are quite a few journalists that are pretty good at data-based journalism. I think Kevin Drum[1] is a particularly good example, since he'll often refute other articles by digging up more data and illustrating how marginal some percieved effect is in context.
In the state of Washington alone, they have lost many state employees due to choosing to not get the mandated vaccine. Around 1,900.
> The new data released by Reykdal's office show that schools statewide lost 470 employees due to the mandate, including about 188 teachers.[1]
> A total of 121 WSF (Ferry workers) employees who chose not to comply with the mandate were fired. As a result, the fleet has been reduced, creating disruptions to the schedule.[2]
> SEATTLE — Seattle Public Schools (SPS) will suspend more than 100 bus routes starting Monday, Oct. 18, due to a shortage of bus drivers that's been exacerbated by the state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
> Approximately 142 routes out of the district's 600 total bus routes will be suspended and impact around 6,700 students. However, SPS said because of the irregularity of ridership it's unknown exactly how many students will be impacted.[3]
> After Monday’s deadline for state employees to provide proof of vaccination or face being fired, the Washington State Patrol announced on Tuesday the number of employees it has lost due to the vaccine mandate.
> WSP spokesman Chris Loftis said in a news release that as of the close of business on Monday, 127 employees left employment “for varying reasons and in varying ways.”[4]
I could go on with more examples from that one state, and they're all from the last 2 weeks so very recent. We are firing people - police, hospital workers, fire fighters, bus drivers, etc. - at a time when we already have quite a shortage of those same workers in those professions. A lot of the current people working in those professions are working overtime, to pick up the slack from not having enough workers. They are getting burned out with the additional workload, and grows by the day as this drags on with no relief in sight. Now we take away even more, and are choosing to do so, putting an even greater burden on those who remain. If you live in Seattle, these changes have likely altered your life or someone you know. For instance, maybe you now have no way to get your child to school and have to take more time off of work to be able to do that. Or you sat waiting to get your car across the bay to get to work, but the ferry never came. Or you're waiting on hold for 911 for several minutes instead of seconds while an emergency is in progress, and once you reach them told it will be 15 minutes before someone can get to you. Or you're hearing gunshots in your neighborhood, and that never happened before as crime continues to skyrocket to levels not seen in 50 years. Or you're having to wait even longer for medical treatment while going to the hospital. All of this as a direct result of firing people who aren't "complying." It only takes a few percent from each industry to get fired to really muck up an already fledgling interconnected complex system.
This is just one state. The national mandates are set for next month in November, so we will be seeing more of this except on a national level.
We all have our personal opinions on the mandate. We also know human nature, but I think we have been ignoring it. We know, as we have seen, not everyone will "comply." Right or wrong, it's a fact, and nothing will change it if there is a mandate. If you think there are shortages of products, and food, and transportation delays now, just hold on and hold on tight. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, because it will happen and affect you just the same. I don't get the logic. I believe this will be more detrimental in the long run than what it was supposedly trying to prevent.
Almost all of the parent has no foundation. Describing the mindset of the author, with no evidence, is incredible (or, not credible).
It's a 'good exemplar' of criticism that, most of all, fits perfectly in the cultural trends and moment, pressing all the 'right' buttons, triggering all the currently well-conditioned emotions, like a great piece of marketing.
> There seems to be pretty strong sentiment out there that the minimum wage American worker is not being compensated correctly.
Seems to be? It has been obvious for at least 30+ years (my life).
The upper middle and top deciles of the US have had a really good run for the past few decades on the backs of the lower middle and bottom deciles of the US. ACA was probably the first legislation I saw to help those are the bottom (i.e. a wealth transfer).
If people aren't working, they need money from other sources. Where is it coming from? Is there any serious research on that question?
If it's spending savings, then the effect is temporary - savings will run out and labor supply will increase again. If it's spending less, we should see other negative economic effects.
If it's working for themselves, then what are the economic implications there? What is the economic impact of a major shift to new forms of employment and work? Is it sustainable?
> The burnout of startup culture is common
The article describes many people starting their own businesses - that is startup culture.
Many people I know are making so much money (regular money, but they're single / not living lavishly so it adds up quickly) in tech that they work a few years and then quit for as long as they feel like it. They can only be accounted for as half a person's worth of workforce if they're only worked half the time.
(And really the only reason I think most people don't do this is the godawful state of American health insurance.)
That's what I'm doing. Health insurance hasn't been an issue because I generate the correct amount of income to qualify for the maximum ACA subsidy. I might get back into the labor market come January but haven't decided yet. For now my expenses are very low and I could go for years at this burn rate no problem. Maybe I'll work a year or two and if the pandemic is most over with by then, do a couple of years of traveling, which is much less expensive when you're not confined to restricted vacation time windows.
Yep. A year ago, I worked 2.5 months, and quit, and the cash I had from those 2.5 months kept be afloat for about 9 months after leaving the company. Granted, I am super frugal, minimalist, and don't have kids/wife.
Now though, I had to take cash out of savings due to vehicle mechanical problems + not landing job as quickly as I hoped-- I've also not interviewed a ton, so I need to play it as a "numbers game" again.
>Savings will run out and labor supply will increase again.
This is my pet theory.
One dynamic that I think could be interesting is if enough people exit the labor force, and hold out for enough time, would it force employers to make concessions in order to re-attract laborers?
I already see this happening with always-remote or hybrid being thrown around as a perk in the “Who is Hiring” threads and on LinkedIn.
There's also the other side of the story... some people are actually trying to get a job, and are rejected (or more often ghosted) by companies that complain alot about not being able to get workers.
If remote work is still seen as an employer provided perk, the employer still doesn't get it and likely will do something stupid just as soon as they can.
> Savings will run out and labor supply will increase again.
Yet, before the pandemic there seemed to have been a plethora of articles proclaiming that young people are living paycheck to paycheck more than ever before. So where are those savings coming from?
A lot of it seems to be the crushing loss of hope. I absolutely hate my job. The pay is great compared to the service industry, but it also seems I'm making no progress for retirement. I'm wasting my life doing stuff I hate for a wage that gives the illusion that I'll one day be able to do something enjoyable.
Americans have an incredible leverage. The dollar goes far in other countries. And young people are realizing that. It's far too easy to work 6 months, save 10k and then live the next 6 months in another country for cheap.
There is absolutely no reason to work for abusive companies and psychopathic bosses.
If you are sick of your job, quit. There are more jobs available than ever in the history of America.
>It's far too easy to work 6 months, save 10k and then live the next 6 months in another country for cheap.
No one is realizing that. Saving 10k is unbelievably difficult unless you're making extremely good money to the point where it's out of reach for the majority of Americans. Most Americans can't even stomach a $500 emergency [0] so I don't know where you think these people can work such that they can have 10k set aside after six months.
Furthermore, the actual financial hit of living in another country for six months is incredibly difficult. Plane tickets, papers, storage (unless you don't want stuff when you come back), and taxes aren't just going to pay for themselves. Sure, if you make $200k, that's nothing, but the median household income in 2020 was ~$60k [1]. It often feels on HN that everyone has a $500k job except for me and on Reddit, it feels like everyone has a 15-inch dick except for me. The parent post makes me feel that same way.
"If you are sick of your job, quit" is terrible advice. You should quit your job if you are in a steady-enough financial situation to weather being unemployed for an extended period of time or if you have alternative employment lined up. Any other piece of advice is irresponsible to give to someone else.
> Saving 10k is unbelievably difficult unless you're making extremely good money to the point where it's out of reach for the majority of Americans. Most Americans can't even stomach a $500 emergency [0] so I don't know where you think these people can work such that they can have 10k set aside after six months.
I have contradictory anecdata on this. Two modifications to your premises, though:
- I did it all in the US, in an "expensive" area (Austin)
- For me, it was closer to 7 months of saving, but it was also closer to a year off than half a year (between 10 and 11 months, rather than 6)
Some more facts behind these numbers:
- I went out to eat during this 10.5 + 7 month period about as frequently as (probably more than) a normal household in 1970 would have, which is to say not often but also a not number that is zero, and I also splurged on craft beer and (cheap) wine and convenient/tasty food and unhealthy snacks from the store often enough
- There was no inherited property or parents' money or someone else otherwise taking care of me or any other tricks up my sleeve involved here (all different types of safety nets that I just didn't not use but that don't exist, so I wouldn't have been able to use it even if I wanted to)
- I was single during this time (so no "other half" to subsidize expenses)
- I cancelled my car insurance a few months into lockdown and was at the disadvantage of doing all this with no car
- I rent, and I have roommates, but I cover my share (I'm usually subsidizing e.g. their utility usage)
Saving 10k was difficult, but I was also bleeding money for other reasons during this time of savings, so anyone not subject to the circumstances I was in should actually be able to fare better. I also wasn't making "extremely good money". The I-hate-my-job company I was at hires for some-college experience to do monotonous, stressful work at <$20/hr. That's less than $45k per year, which is greater than your individual contribution to your half of the gross national average, assuming a two-person household, but it's nowhere close to even being a six figure job, let alone $200k or $500k.
>> Most Americans can't even stomach a $500 emergency
Your link doesn't say that. It says that for many Americans, if they ran in to a $500 emergency they would put it on a credit card, cut back on other expenses, or ask family or friends to help them out, rather than paying cash from savings.
>> You should quit your job if you are in a steady-enough financial situation to weather being unemployed for an extended period of time or if you have alternative employment lined up. Any other piece of advice is irresponsible to give to someone else
I don't agree with that at all. It depends on where you are at in life. If you have mouths to feed, or other similar obligations, then sure, you need to be careful. If you are 21 years old without a care in the world and the boss asks you to do something that you slightly disagree with, give the boss both middle fingers and walk out.
I don't think that is the reason. I think they are just tired of working abusive jobs and struggling than that not work and still struggle. There is a shortage of social safety nets though so anyone thinking of quitting without some savings please make sure you have a plan. Sometimes just getting temporary short term assistance can be a full time job in itself, and if you had a descent job before be prepared to have to interview for entry level crap jobs to keep your assistance. Unemployment isn't like it was at the start of the pandemic. They took all the supports away while COVID numbers are still high.
or they are incredibly short-sighted and assume they can manage to survive the next 60 years with whatever meagre savings that they may have and whatever skills that is relevant in 2021 is still relevant 10 years from now.
If you are in your 20s, you think you rule the world (Thanks to validation from Social Media). But those 20 year olds will become 30y and they will be the 'boomers'
The cycle will turn, employment will become harder and 'great resignation' may come back to bite them.
I'm not saying that this might happen. But to categorically say that "This is the way" is incredibly short-sighted
Let the kids go explore the world. Spending 6 months working and 6 months traveling in a cheaper place with friends sounds great.
It’s not like their $15/hr job is ever going to afford them a house if they just grind it out for the next 20 years. They can use that time for self discovery, learning new things, and maybe getting a more stable situation for the future. They have every right to demand to be treated with respect on the job and to quit if it’s shitty.
They have the privilege of a US passport and an exchange rate in their favor, might as well use it over the short term. Who knows what the world will even be like environmentally when they’re older and have spent their life doing the “proper thing”.
Most likely this won’t last, but it still is a good thing. People are realizing they have greater than zero options, even if it is minuscule. That realization will help their future thinking and choices.
In my case, I don’t even consider non remote jobs anymore (I have been remote since before COVID). Last time, I moved for a job - wasting a few thousand dollars on lease fee, relocation expenses etc. I am a little less stupid now
Most of these moves will turn out to be temporary breaks and that’s ok.
There’s a big range of possibilities that live between “never work again” and “I can’t have even a small gap in my resume lest my dedication to capitalism come into question”.
i don't think it's hard to game the system. Recently, unemployment checks were sent out of country to foreign scammers, the identities of incarcerated felons were used to make fraudulent claims (successfully)... so i can't imagine it's much effort to fool the agencies involved
Readit News
First, let's take a look at the statistics cited in the piece which support the main thesis (the whole article is built on two facts):
* highest quit rate since .... 2019! 2019, wow, that was like ancient history. That makes this historic!
* 14 million (what a big number!) of 18-34 not in labor force. Isn't that number so big? OMG, look at how big that number is!
Whereas the data says both the total not in labor force number and the "do not want job" number has declined for all groups except those 55 and over![1] where it has slightly increased. Actually the WSJ got this right when it said the labor story of the day is people (primarily small business owners) taking early retirement. But then again, that story was written by an experienced journalist.
That's it. That's all the labor force participation statistics she cites in support of this "Great Resignation". The rest are a series of grievances about how bad people have it and how they're really not gonna take it anymore! Well, OK, then.
So how could someone write a story with the exact opposite conclusion of what the labor force statistics say? Why would someone think lying about a "Great Resignation" is responsible, objective journalism?
The problem with these type of activist, grievance-based, emptional pieces is that they are not news (describing how the world is) they are advocacy (describing how the world should be). And when you blur those lines, truth and engagement with reality is the first casualty. Raisa obviously thinks a great resignation is warranted and so just pretends that it's happening. As if her own intuition and circle of friends were more reliable than labor force statistics. So she disengages with the real world and starts pretending that it is actually occurring. She is LARPing the news!
And you often see this on the part of frustrated activists. The clues are phrases like "people are starting to wake up", without any actual data. It's perfectly understandable that this happens - lots of people have been secluded, isolated, and are beginning to lose it - but when it seeps into news reporting, it's very dangerous.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm
I think the whole resignation story is just nonsense. I am almost certain it can be explained by people being worried in 2020 so much that they sticked to whatever job they had.
Which leads to... many people quitting in 2021. Surprise! It's probably similar to the whole supply chain hickup.
I think that’s a major contributor. Anecdotally, I think burn out is another factor. Many of my co workers left, not because they would have left in 2020 anyway, but because stress and workload increased significantly. Even when the overall workload didn’t increase, many of my coworkers (including myself) were glued to our screens - working non stop into the evening, with no sense of boundaries. And for many of us, work life balance was already whack. COVID WFH just pushed it off a cliff.
I’m highly paid and enjoy the nature of my work, but every couple weeks I think about resigning. Honestly, I’m tired. I am highly paid, privileged, and have a wonderful boss, but sometimes I feel like a cog in a machine. My boss cares about me but my company just sees me as a replaceable resource. And that’s not to disparage my employer. It’s just the reality of working in corporate America.
1) Natural turnover that did not happen in 2020 adding to natural turnover in 2021. 2) 2021 natural turnover. 3) People (primarily women) not being able to return to work because of child and elderly care.
The reason I don’t think it’s something more than that is that other countries are not seeing a great resignation. Only the US is. And the US didn’t even have struct lockdowns unlike other countries including countries richer and poorer than the US on a per capita basis.
You can claim all you want that is not data, but it is and it is telling from a policy perspective. Since when have 18-34 year olds that quit been immediately removed from the workforce?
I’ll take a guess that you neither are an employer, low wage worker or government worker, because you seem pretty far removed from the reality facing the vast majority in the US.
Maybe it is significant, but even if it was the author's data provides no context to evaluate the 3.9, 3.9, 4.3 million sequence.
>> the difference between now and 2019 is that unlike 2019 those persons were either reemployed or counted as unemployed…
Are you sure? I can't find this particular statement in the article. Did I miss something?
>> now 14M Americans (aged 18-34) are immediately removed from the workforce instead of being counted as unemployed.
Again, a single number with no context literally says nothing! If I came to you and said over the last three months our quantity of X increased by 400k from 3.9M, and and the total accumulation of some subset of X was now at 14M, do you have enough information to tell if this is unusually high, low or normal behaviour for X?
1. Gets submitted to Hacker News
2. Gets voted to the front page by HN readers
It must fit with a narrative that people already are predisposed to believe. Maybe that's why the piece gets written to begin with.
People are interested in and believe there is a "Great Resignation" even though it's not happening. Why? I don't know. But I think this is the actual story - and I wish someone would write it.
But "you believe X and it's wrong" stories generally don't do well.
>So how could someone write a story with the exact opposite conclusion of what the labor force statistics say? Why would someone think lying about a "Great Resignation" is responsible, objective journalism?
It's not the opposite, though.
In fact nothing you're saying even contradicts what the article is saying. Basically your entire criticism is around what you perceive the authors intent is in writing the article, which is funny given your post.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART/
If she had written a piece that said "the labor force may not recover from the lockdowns", then she could gather this piece of data and other pieces of data and make a case. But that's not the Great Resignation thesis.
FYI, I am not saying that we should not have good labor reporting -- now is one of the rare times when labor reporting is actually interesting. But not this Time piece. I could spend 10 minutes googling and come up with a more interesting, more fact base piece of journalism.
"This is the highest mass resignation the U.S. has seen since 2019, pre-pandemic, and the numbers are still rising. In June, 3.9 million quit. In July, it was another 3.9 million. In August, 4.3 million."
The [3.9M, 3.9M, 4.3M] sequence seems cherry picked. It could just be normal noise for all we know. To me this kind of argument could be easily summarized with simple data visualization, i.e. a line graph with more datapoints (expand 3 month range to a full year, stack more years for context). A histogram of monthly resignations to attach a %-ile to it would also be great, but may not be as intuitive and there's a lot of complexity involved in trying to understand significance.
The author follows the monthly resignation numbers with: "The numbers are even more notable for young workers: in September, nearly a quarter of workers ages 20 to 34 were not considered part of the U.S. workforce—some 14 million Americans, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who were neither working nor looking for work."
You interpret this as them saying 14M is a big number, but I think based on the preceding sentence, it's actually trying to say 14M is "more notable" than the ~3.9M in the preceding argument. I kind of think this is the case, as its a really common data mistake I see in articles: mixing up units. In this case of course, out-of-labor/month cannot be compared to cumulative out-of-labor-young/month.
That being said, I disagree with you on your attribution of this to activist journalism. And for context, I'll just say that unlike the vast majority of HN, I actually have a lot of respect for most modern journalism, and think most people complaining about journalism aren't comparing state of affairs in countries like China/Russia/Sri-Lanka without press freedom.
My more generous interpretation is that another underlying cause for these kinds of mistakes is simply a lack of familiarity with math, and especially statistics. A journalist with good intentions can still make these kinds of errors if they aren't familiar with good practise in statistics.
Finally, I just wanted to say, there are quite a few journalists that are pretty good at data-based journalism. I think Kevin Drum[1] is a particularly good example, since he'll often refute other articles by digging up more data and illustrating how marginal some percieved effect is in context.
1. https://jabberwocking.com/
ETA: Fixed unit confusion critique mistake, it's not resignation but out-of-labor.
> The new data released by Reykdal's office show that schools statewide lost 470 employees due to the mandate, including about 188 teachers.[1]
> A total of 121 WSF (Ferry workers) employees who chose not to comply with the mandate were fired. As a result, the fleet has been reduced, creating disruptions to the schedule.[2]
> SEATTLE — Seattle Public Schools (SPS) will suspend more than 100 bus routes starting Monday, Oct. 18, due to a shortage of bus drivers that's been exacerbated by the state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
> Approximately 142 routes out of the district's 600 total bus routes will be suspended and impact around 6,700 students. However, SPS said because of the irregularity of ridership it's unknown exactly how many students will be impacted.[3]
> After Monday’s deadline for state employees to provide proof of vaccination or face being fired, the Washington State Patrol announced on Tuesday the number of employees it has lost due to the vaccine mandate.
> WSP spokesman Chris Loftis said in a news release that as of the close of business on Monday, 127 employees left employment “for varying reasons and in varying ways.”[4]
I could go on with more examples from that one state, and they're all from the last 2 weeks so very recent. We are firing people - police, hospital workers, fire fighters, bus drivers, etc. - at a time when we already have quite a shortage of those same workers in those professions. A lot of the current people working in those professions are working overtime, to pick up the slack from not having enough workers. They are getting burned out with the additional workload, and grows by the day as this drags on with no relief in sight. Now we take away even more, and are choosing to do so, putting an even greater burden on those who remain. If you live in Seattle, these changes have likely altered your life or someone you know. For instance, maybe you now have no way to get your child to school and have to take more time off of work to be able to do that. Or you sat waiting to get your car across the bay to get to work, but the ferry never came. Or you're waiting on hold for 911 for several minutes instead of seconds while an emergency is in progress, and once you reach them told it will be 15 minutes before someone can get to you. Or you're hearing gunshots in your neighborhood, and that never happened before as crime continues to skyrocket to levels not seen in 50 years. Or you're having to wait even longer for medical treatment while going to the hospital. All of this as a direct result of firing people who aren't "complying." It only takes a few percent from each industry to get fired to really muck up an already fledgling interconnected complex system.
This is just one state. The national mandates are set for next month in November, so we will be seeing more of this except on a national level.
We all have our personal opinions on the mandate. We also know human nature, but I think we have been ignoring it. We know, as we have seen, not everyone will "comply." Right or wrong, it's a fact, and nothing will change it if there is a mandate. If you think there are shortages of products, and food, and transportation delays now, just hold on and hold on tight. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, because it will happen and affect you just the same. I don't get the logic. I believe this will be more detrimental in the long run than what it was supposedly trying to prevent.
[1] https://www.king5.com/article/news/education/teachers-school...
[2] https://www.islandsweekly.com/news/unvaccinated-wsf-employee...
[3] https://www.king5.com/article/news/education/seattle-public-...
[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/127-employees-leav...
Dead Comment
It's a 'good exemplar' of criticism that, most of all, fits perfectly in the cultural trends and moment, pressing all the 'right' buttons, triggering all the currently well-conditioned emotions, like a great piece of marketing.
There seems to be pretty strong sentiment out there that the minimum wage American worker is not being compensated correctly.
The market is supposed to fix this by adding wage growth and maybe it will.
Seems to be? It has been obvious for at least 30+ years (my life).
The upper middle and top deciles of the US have had a really good run for the past few decades on the backs of the lower middle and bottom deciles of the US. ACA was probably the first legislation I saw to help those are the bottom (i.e. a wealth transfer).
it will, if the lack of workers in jobs continue. Unless there's some other force at work preventing the market from correcting...
If it's spending savings, then the effect is temporary - savings will run out and labor supply will increase again. If it's spending less, we should see other negative economic effects.
If it's working for themselves, then what are the economic implications there? What is the economic impact of a major shift to new forms of employment and work? Is it sustainable?
> The burnout of startup culture is common
The article describes many people starting their own businesses - that is startup culture.
(And really the only reason I think most people don't do this is the godawful state of American health insurance.)
Now though, I had to take cash out of savings due to vehicle mechanical problems + not landing job as quickly as I hoped-- I've also not interviewed a ton, so I need to play it as a "numbers game" again.
This is my pet theory.
One dynamic that I think could be interesting is if enough people exit the labor force, and hold out for enough time, would it force employers to make concessions in order to re-attract laborers?
I already see this happening with always-remote or hybrid being thrown around as a perk in the “Who is Hiring” threads and on LinkedIn.
Maybe wage growth is finally on the horizon?
Yet, before the pandemic there seemed to have been a plethora of articles proclaiming that young people are living paycheck to paycheck more than ever before. So where are those savings coming from?
There is absolutely no reason to work for abusive companies and psychopathic bosses.
If you are sick of your job, quit. There are more jobs available than ever in the history of America.
No one is realizing that. Saving 10k is unbelievably difficult unless you're making extremely good money to the point where it's out of reach for the majority of Americans. Most Americans can't even stomach a $500 emergency [0] so I don't know where you think these people can work such that they can have 10k set aside after six months.
Furthermore, the actual financial hit of living in another country for six months is incredibly difficult. Plane tickets, papers, storage (unless you don't want stuff when you come back), and taxes aren't just going to pay for themselves. Sure, if you make $200k, that's nothing, but the median household income in 2020 was ~$60k [1]. It often feels on HN that everyone has a $500k job except for me and on Reddit, it feels like everyone has a 15-inch dick except for me. The parent post makes me feel that same way.
"If you are sick of your job, quit" is terrible advice. You should quit your job if you are in a steady-enough financial situation to weather being unemployed for an extended period of time or if you have alternative employment lined up. Any other piece of advice is irresponsible to give to someone else.
[0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-afford-a-50... [1]https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-27...
I have contradictory anecdata on this. Two modifications to your premises, though:
- I did it all in the US, in an "expensive" area (Austin)
- For me, it was closer to 7 months of saving, but it was also closer to a year off than half a year (between 10 and 11 months, rather than 6)
Some more facts behind these numbers:
- I went out to eat during this 10.5 + 7 month period about as frequently as (probably more than) a normal household in 1970 would have, which is to say not often but also a not number that is zero, and I also splurged on craft beer and (cheap) wine and convenient/tasty food and unhealthy snacks from the store often enough
- There was no inherited property or parents' money or someone else otherwise taking care of me or any other tricks up my sleeve involved here (all different types of safety nets that I just didn't not use but that don't exist, so I wouldn't have been able to use it even if I wanted to)
- I was single during this time (so no "other half" to subsidize expenses)
- I cancelled my car insurance a few months into lockdown and was at the disadvantage of doing all this with no car
- I rent, and I have roommates, but I cover my share (I'm usually subsidizing e.g. their utility usage)
Saving 10k was difficult, but I was also bleeding money for other reasons during this time of savings, so anyone not subject to the circumstances I was in should actually be able to fare better. I also wasn't making "extremely good money". The I-hate-my-job company I was at hires for some-college experience to do monotonous, stressful work at <$20/hr. That's less than $45k per year, which is greater than your individual contribution to your half of the gross national average, assuming a two-person household, but it's nowhere close to even being a six figure job, let alone $200k or $500k.
I agree with everything in your final paragraph.
Your link doesn't say that. It says that for many Americans, if they ran in to a $500 emergency they would put it on a credit card, cut back on other expenses, or ask family or friends to help them out, rather than paying cash from savings.
>> You should quit your job if you are in a steady-enough financial situation to weather being unemployed for an extended period of time or if you have alternative employment lined up. Any other piece of advice is irresponsible to give to someone else
I don't agree with that at all. It depends on where you are at in life. If you have mouths to feed, or other similar obligations, then sure, you need to be careful. If you are 21 years old without a care in the world and the boss asks you to do something that you slightly disagree with, give the boss both middle fingers and walk out.
If you are in your 20s, you think you rule the world (Thanks to validation from Social Media). But those 20 year olds will become 30y and they will be the 'boomers'
The cycle will turn, employment will become harder and 'great resignation' may come back to bite them.
I'm not saying that this might happen. But to categorically say that "This is the way" is incredibly short-sighted
It’s not like their $15/hr job is ever going to afford them a house if they just grind it out for the next 20 years. They can use that time for self discovery, learning new things, and maybe getting a more stable situation for the future. They have every right to demand to be treated with respect on the job and to quit if it’s shitty.
They have the privilege of a US passport and an exchange rate in their favor, might as well use it over the short term. Who knows what the world will even be like environmentally when they’re older and have spent their life doing the “proper thing”.
I'll need you to understand that basically no young person assumes they'll manage to survive the next 30, let alone 60 years.
In my case, I don’t even consider non remote jobs anymore (I have been remote since before COVID). Last time, I moved for a job - wasting a few thousand dollars on lease fee, relocation expenses etc. I am a little less stupid now
There’s a big range of possibilities that live between “never work again” and “I can’t have even a small gap in my resume lest my dedication to capitalism come into question”.
Just better gelato overall.