The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment - <AUTHOR> http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx <comment><USER2> The BLS puts out 6 different unemployment statistics for every period. U3 is the "official rate", but you can also look at the other ones, including U4 = U3 + "discouraged workers", U5 = U4 + "marginally attached" workers, U6 = U5 + part time workers who would like to be full time. You can make arguments about which measurement is "right", but putting out an editorial implying that there is sleight-of-hand going on is silly--all the measurements are available, and comparing a single one to itself over time as a "headline rate" is completely reasonable.

<comment><USER3> Ha, I came here to make the same comment. Anyone who writes about the misleading nature of U3 without describing U6 exists, is a BLS reported figure, and that there is no prefect definition of "unemployed" is a hack.

There is plenty of bad reporting out there (including "analysis" from political talking heads that don't know the difference between U3 and U6), but U3 is like the snow forcasts for NY last week. If you don't care to look beyond the surface level, don't be surprised when a wide-breadth news establishment only gives the basics.

If anyone reading wants to see U6, or just doesn't know about raw data on FRED, go look at it [1].

[1] [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line...](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&recession_bars=on&log_scales=&bgcolor=%23e1e9f0&graph_bgcolor=%23ffffff&fo=verdana&ts=12&tts=12&txtcolor=%23444444&show_legend=yes&show_axis_titles=yes&drp=0&cosd=1948-01-01%2C1948-01-01&coed=2014-12-01%2C2014-12-01&width=670&height=445&stacking=&range=&mode=fred&id=UNRATE%2CU6RATE&transformation=lin&nd=&ost=-99999&oet=99999&scale=left&line_color=%234572a7&line_style=solid&lw=2&mark_type=none&mw=1&mma=0&fml=a&fgst=lin&fgsnd=2007-12-01&fq=Monthly&fam=avg&vintage_date=&revision_date=)

<comment><USER4> Serious question - looking at the graph, it looks like the disparity between U3 and U6 jumped quite a bit in 2009 and is just starting to get back the historical difference today. Do you think it was valid to be concerned about the disparity increasing by so much in 2009? That part does strike me as a little worrying, though it is coming back in line now, which seems good.

<comment><USER5> The difference looks fairly consistent:

Febuary 1995: U6 is 183% of U3.

Febuary 2000: U6 is 175% of U3.

Febuary 2004: 173%

Febuary 2006: 155%

Febuary 2007: 182%

March 2008: 178%

Febuary 2009: 183%

March 2010: 172%

Febuary 2011: 177%

Febuary 2012: 180%

March 2013: 184%

Febuary 2014: 188%

There quite a bit of variance, but it seems to be seems to have been consistently in the 170-185%, with a few outliers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The standard rate (U3) doesn't take underemployed or those who give up looking for work into account, but the U6 rate does. The U6 rate in January of 2009 was 14.2% and it is now down to 11.2% from its peak at 17.1% at the end of 2009/early 2010. Is the economy still struggling? Sure. Is unemployment headed in the right direction? Absolutely.

Edit: One thing that people commonly like to do is compare the U6 rate to the U3 rates of the past. "Unemployment isn't 5.6%, it's really closer to 12% ..." That's foolish because it's an apples to oranges comparison. Yes 11.2% is high unemployment, but what we judge as the low/satisfactory unemployment rate would come in somewhere around 7-7.5% when looking at the U6 rate -vs- the 4-4.5% that's considered low/satisfactory using the U3 rate.

Source: [http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp](http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp)

"The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full- time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over."

<comment><USER7> >>The standard rate (U3) doesn't take underemployed or those who give up looking for work into account, but the U6 rate does. The U6 rate in January of 2009 was 14.2% and it is now down to 11.2% from its peak at 17.1% at the end of 2009/early 2010. Is the economy still struggling? Sure. Is unemployment headed in the right direction? Absolutely.

But the decrease in unemployment and underemployment still don't paint the most accurate picture, because a lot of people who became employed did so at lower pay. I mean you may be employed full-time but if you're making 25% less than what you did before the crash, it's difficult to make the case that things are improving.

<comment><USER6> Can you share any information about people taking the same job for less pay? I haven't seen evidence of this, but I don't doubt that it's happening in some places. I'll admit that I live in sort of a bubble because my salary has doubled since 2008 and the salaries of many of my friends and family have grown quite a bit as well. Granted, most of the people I know work in some sort of tech-related field.

<comment><USER7> I don't have any citations handy, but there are a lot of stories, both reported in the press and relayed anecdotally, of people who got laid off during the crash and then got re-hired at lower pay once the dust settled.

On top of that, a lot of people were unemployed for a long time and then had to jump on the first offer they got, which often paid less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Economics student here.

One reason Economists are interested in Unemployment is because when it reaches a certain level it puts pressure on prices through upwards wage pressure (fewer people looking for work means employers need to pay more.) Defining Unemployment narrowly as only those actively looking for work and recently unemployed provides for a statistic best measures the labor market's functioning.

As others have noted, there are many other statistics that are collected which can elucidate social concerns.

<comment><USER9> That shows problem with the official number though.

If unemployment is down, wages should be up. But wages are down. That implies the unemployment rate is not accurately reflecting the true supply of labor.

Or, it shows what I believe: demand for labor is decreasing even as the economy grows.

<comment><USER10> This is wrong. Wages are rising. And as slack continues to be removed from the labor pool, wages will continue to rise.

From a week ago:

"An important measure of household income rose in December by the largest amount in nearly 8 years, signaling a long-overdue rebound in family earning power."

"Data from Sentier Research show that median household income in December rose 3.3% from the year before, the strongest year-over-year reading since October, 2006"

[http://finance.yahoo.com/news/families-are-finally- earning-m...](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/families-are-finally-earning- more-151120875.html)

From July:

"U.S. Wages, Benefits Rise at Fastest Pace in Almost Six Years"

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/employment-costs-rise-0-7-in- sec...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/employment-costs-rise-0-7-in-second- quarter-1406810233)

<comment><USER9> From your own source:

[https://s2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/WphI5hi8meGKLNEtu6eygg--/...](https://s2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/WphI5hi8meGKLNEtu6eygg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish- images/finance/2015-01-27/3603d370-a637-11e4-aaa8-7dade6203616_HHI.JPG)

So, incomes were flat or down for 14 years, and have since slightly rebounded to be just 4% less than in 2000, not 8% like they were. Shall I pop the champagne or do you want to?

<comment><USER10> Of course wages were flat or down, there hasn't been a particularly strong - or sustained strength - labor market since 2000. In the 2005-2007 time frame there was a brief respite, and that of course was not only fake (powered by the housing bubble) but crashed.

Fact is, once enough slack is removed from a labor pool, wages rise. Happens every time.

It's exactly what occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. Wages weren't booming in the 1990s until the unemployment rate got to a certain low level toward the last several years of the decade.

I wouldn't expect wages to rise when U3 unemployment is 7% or 8%. I would expect to see it at closer to the 4% to 6% range. That's historically what has been the case, and we're seeing it happen again right now. If we add another ~3 million jobs in 2015, wages will rise at a healthy clip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Take a look at this chart:

[http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/employment/...](http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/employment/workforce- changes.html?LFPR-25-54-since-1990.gif)

I fear that 1999 was "peak labor" \-- the point at which technology started to destroy more jobs than it created.

We HN types live in a bubble in which times couldn't be better -- but in the larger economy there are fewer jobs paying and they're paying lower wages. It's troubling.

<comment><USER11> 'fear'?

That's an odd response to our most precious resource, human minds, being freed from time sucking drudgery.

We've created the economic systems. They are not the Laws of the Universe. We can change them if they become a problem

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure you can call it being "freed" when freedom in this context is the freedom to starve or live on disability/food stamps/whatever you can find.

And while I agree that economic systems can and should be changed as we shift towards a post-labor society, I'm worried about political obstacles to that. Even in the height of the worst recession in 70 years, we couldn't get Congress to approve food stamps for people out of work. How are those same politicians going to feel about cranking the work week back to 20 hours and tripling the minimum wage to make everything balance out? And if companies end up having to pay the same in labor costs to offset their automating, then what's the point in them automating? Will we actually see automation-enabling technology (3D printing, robotics, etc) hit their own peak and slide backwards in the face of higher fees/social unrest/political change/etc etc etc?

It's a trickier situation than you're giving credit.

<comment><USER11> >How are those same politicians going to feel about cranking the work week back to 20 hours and tripling the minimum wage to make everything balance out?

They will feel how the people tell them to feel (ideally).

Now, the real problem, how to change people's minds?

I see that as a job well suited to HN frequenters: intelligent, imaginative, creative people need to take their responsibility as harbingers seriously and evangelize for a better future. Smack one molecule at a time and eventually the whole pot boils. Show people that the way things are done are not necessarily how they must be done. As a group, we've done a pretty good job in certain areas but I definitely see a lot of reluctance to tackle macro-social problems with the same zeal as attacking other historical accidents that impede progress like Uber taking on cab companies.

It's tricky, sure, but its all in our collective head.

<comment><USER12> Well, the overwhelming majority of people support an increase in the minimum wage, immigration reform, and a host of issues that Congress has not budged on. Why? Because they're beholden to a handful of special interests. I consider myself liberal, but if we're being bluntly honest both parties are stuck for the same reason. Even if one is worse than the other. ;)

I absolutely agree that we are in a great position to influence debate. If anything needs to be disrupted, it's the political system. I wish more folks with our skill sets were interested in tackling something like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not sure why this is being reported as new or interesting. "They don't count people who have stopped looking for work" has been reported to death for decades (always, year after year, decade after decade, as if no one had ever pointed this out before... it's one of those strange "perpetually surprising" stories, like "engineers look to nature for inspiration".)

What is new and interesting is that in the past six years the American labour participation rate--the fraction of the working-age-adult population that is either employed or looking for work--has plummeted from 66% to 63%: [http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000](http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)

To get a sense of what a big deal this is, you can re-run that chart to cover the full range of data from 1948-2014. After being flat at about 59% for two decades, the LPR begins to ramp up in the late 60's as Boomer women entered the workforce. It exhibits a broad flat peak from 1990 to 2008 at about the 66-67% level, and then starts its dramatic decline in sync with the financial crisis, and is now back at a level not seen since 1978.

This is a demographic shift of enormous proportions, and the answer to "Why" is not known: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/06/t...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/06/the- incredible-shrinking-labor-force-again)

There is a fairly desperate attempt to spin this as "Boomers retiring" but that runs into a problem of simple arithmetic: the population of the United States was 203 million in 1970, when the ramp-up in the LPR began. It is now 320 million, a factor of 1.5 higher. So for every Boomer retiring, there should be 1.5 new workers entering the workforce. Where are they?

<comment><USER14> Agreed. They taught this in high school economics class--a public high school economics class. I think the article is playing into the political rhetoric. For a politician to use the Unemployment Rate as a benchmark is fine as a delta since all the U values seem to track each other if this chart is accurate: [http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment- rate](http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate)

3% of what? I would not characterize that as plummeting, but after looking at the graph you linked to, it very much looks like a "plummet".

It doesn't sound like they have a definitive answer of the cause. The data is done by survey, and missed surveys are "imputed". (ftp://ftp2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar14.pdf) So I strongly suspect (but cannot support) there's probably some kind of assumption of a gaussian somewhere, and of course human behavior can assume many different "forms". In other words, I think they should be providing an error rate with these numbers. The other aspect is they probably have faith in the Gaussian I suspect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Realistic numbers for unemployment and other economic statistics are available at "[http://www.shadowstats.com"](http://www.shadowstats.com"). These are mostly computed from older Government definitions. Over the years, the way some key numbers are computed have been changed to make them look better. Shadowstats uses the old computation methods, which are more honest. It's a paid service ($175 a year) for people and businesses who need better numbers.

Their unemployment rate, currently at 23%, includes long-term discouraged workers, which the BLS stopped counting in 1994.

Their inflation value is based on the way inflation was computed before 1980. It includes house prices. Their value is currently 8%. This compares to the official number of 2%. Shadowstats has it right - increasing real estate prices are inflation.

<comment><USER16> Shadowstats is the dumbest thing I've ever read. If they have it right on inflation, the US has been in a recession since 1988. If they have it right re: house prices, houses are worth 60% less than they were in 1980 and we never had a housing bubble. One important note, Williams from Shadowstats definitely doesn't use 'the old computation methods' \-- he just arbitrarily adds a 'factor' to the CPI rate and claims that's the real number.

The BLS has published volumes about the idiocy of the assumptions behind Shadowstats. As have many economists from all over the spectrum.

Literally nobody worth listening to takes them seriously. Why would banks willingly offer 30-year fixed mortgages at 3.6% if inflation was 8%/year?

From the right-leaning AEI: [http://www.aei.org/publication/why-amity-shlaes- is-dead-wron...](http://www.aei.org/publication/why-amity-shlaes-is-dead- wrong-about-inflation/)

        Think for a moment what that means for real GDP growth the
        past three decades. Nominal GDP averaged about 5% from
        1986 through 2013. Of that 5%, 2% was inflation and 3% was
        real GDP growth. If inflation was really 5% — and often,
        according to Williams, it was much, much higher — then
        there has been no real economic growth in America all that
        time. Actually, we have probably been in a long depression
        from the Reagan years forward.

Or from the left-leaning John Aziz: [http://azizonomics.com/2013/06/01/the- trouble-with-shadowsta...](http://azizonomics.com/2013/06/01/the-trouble-with- shadowstats/)

        But Shadowstats is not calculating inflation any
        differently. They are not using the 1980s or 1990s
        methodology that they believe would be higher. All
        Shadowstats is doing is taking the CPI data and adding
        on an arbitrary constant to make it look like inflation
        is higher!

<comment><USER17> While I agree that Shadowstats is likely wrong, your counterfactual statement is not really counterfactual:

In the 70s and even early 80s, it was possible to support a family of 4 on the income of one average wage earner. In the 50s it was even a good life. Today it is nearly impossible to do, so something very significant happened to the value of money that is not reflected in the official inflation/wage disparity.

TVs and computers cost about 90% less than they did in 1980, and that's something the BLS happily takes into account in more ways than one ("hedonistic adjustment"). If you assume, e.g., that houses right now are worth what they were worth in 1980 and work everything out form there, it's a lot less inconsistent than you think. It is inconsistent, sure, but at about the same level of inconsistency that official BLS numbers suggest.

> Why would banks willingly offer 30-year fixed mortgages at 3.6% if inflation > was 8%/year?

Because they don't know how to get a higher return, regardless of what inflation really is. (Of which there are multiple definitions - some based on prices, and some on money supply - and they are useless if you are not consistent in the definition you use)

And the AEI quote is hyperbole. Read e.g. Karl Deninger for consistent numerical proof (if you accept his methodology, which is not mainstream but definitely not unreasonable) that indeed, all GDP growth in the last 30-40 years is smoke and mirrors.

<comment><USER16> I was going to type a big response calling out the random anecdotes but then I read;

> All GDP growth in the past 30-40 years is smoke and mirrors.

Which might be the most absurd thing I've ever read. At least it prevented me from typing a more thorough rebuttal though.

<comment><USER17> Suit yourself. I was replying to anecdotes with anecdotes - note that the quotes you gave do not actually bring anything to the table (neither do mine).

But I do urge you to read denninger. You will very likely disagree with him (I'm not sure if I agree with him), but he is consistent, and is very well supported by data. Whether you accept the axioms or not is up to you. As far as track record with predictions go, he has a significantly better one than essentially all mainstream media.

Ask yourself why you accept the GDP growth is real. If you do just because everyone else does, without looking at the numbers and at alternative explanations - that's religion. Which is fine - none of us has time to evaluate every single thing we believe in. But it is important to acknowledge it for what it is.

And for that matter, ask yourself why you accept GDP as a measure of growth and welfare - Kuznets, the person who came up with the definition thinks you shouldn't.

<comment><USER16> The fact that if Shadowstats' figures are correct, we didn't have a housing bubble and have been in a 30-year recession are far from anecdotes. As is Williams admission (referenced in the Aziz piece) that he _doesnt_ actually calculate the figures using the old methodology but rather just adds an arbitrary factor to the CPI data.

I 'believe' that GDP is higher and inflation is in check because I can buy a 60" LCD for $400, a hybrid car that gets 45mpg and will last 200k miles for $18k, I can get a 30-year mortgage for well under 4%, my cell phone is faster and more capable than a 5-year old laptop, I can get any physical good delivered to my door in 12 hours, doctors can perform miraculous procedures at podunk hospitals with fantastic success rates, and there are free courses available from the best schools on the planet in just about every subject.

Do I have to work longer hours than my parents did for a similar quality of life? Perhaps, but it seems like that is far more likely due to globalization and the fact that there are _billions_ of people participating in the global economy rather than some conspiracy. Do I think GDP is a perfect measure of growth or welfare? Not especially. I think median household income combined with hours worked is a better gauge but that doesn't mean the GDP stats are useless.

I'll gladly read some Denninger but I'm not sure how you explain the massive global shift from abject poverty to something resembling a first-world existence without economic growth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Some people would argue that Social Security Disability Insurance is soaking up a huge number of people that would rather be working as well: [http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/](http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/)

 _" But, in most cases, going on disability means you will not work, you will not get a raise, you will not get whatever meaning people get from work. Going on disability means, assuming you rely only on those disability payments, you will be poor for the rest of your life. That's the deal. And it's a deal 14 million Americans have signed up for."_

</comment><comment><USER19> "Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck."

Perhaps this definition hasn't caught up with the increase in freelancing and self-employment. Underemployment, particularly among lower skilled workers, surely is an issue in the U.S. but Gallup's approach could be undercounting some newer types of "good" jobs.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, agreed, that's a terrible definition of a good job. 1) Many people live off investments, pensions and passive income 2) Many people have income that is not regular or predictable, but large 3) Many people have good paying jobs that don't require 30 hours per week

That's a very narrow definition. That's why they are only asking for a target of 50% I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> On the subject of Basic Income. I think most people are missing some very important points by concentrating so hard on the costs, that is, the money provided to the recipients of the Basic Income.

\- Poor people spend pretty much everything they get and they do so locally, so a very large proportion of the BI will be immediately spent in the local economy thus increasing the opportunities for people to provide goods and services.

\- Having an income that will prevent you starving to death or having your house or car repossessed means that you have the opportunity to turn down a poorly paid or dangerous job. This will go some way to rectifying the imbalance of power between employees and employers and drive up wages at the bottom end

\- BI is not charity and is generally not intended to be means tested; every citizen gets it rich and poor alike. It is income and taxable in the normal way.

</comment><comment><USER22> "many Americans... don't know... Few Americans know this"

"wondering what hollowed out the middle class"

Perhaps the clueless people who don't know anything about what things mean ( the people this article is targeted at ) are the same people who are unemployed/under-employed ( notably also the group this is targeted at )

Summary of tfa: "The number news refers to as unemployment does not mean what you thought it means; it means X" Great, now how does this tell us anything we couldn't learn by looking up "unemployment rate" on wikipedia?

<comment><USER23> _now how does this tell us anything we couldn 't learn by looking up "xxx" on wikipedia?_

That applies to many things written. Not sure why you're singling this out. If every blog post written had to include original research, there wouldn't be much writing going on...

<comment><USER22> This is hacker news, I expect that things posted here are noteworthy to people who know what they are doing and can research stuff they are interested in for themselves.

Posts of the type "Did you know that the tooth fairy isn't real" are a waste of time to the professionals who read hacker news.

Also, anything I spend my time reading through expecting something unique / new and find nothing I respond this way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is well-known, I think, in economic circles. If you want another, arguably more accurate measure based on the government's previous (pre-1995) methodology, check out Shadowstats.com: [http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment- chart...](http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts)

It shows the real unemployment rate, counting short-term discouraged and marginally attached workers, to be around 22-23% today. That's up from around 12-13% before the 2008 recession.

<comment><USER16> How on earth is a vague chart, with absolutely no methodology, promoted by a charlatan to sell subscriptions "arguably more accurate" than a completely transparent nationwide survey?

Especially when that survey matches with literally all of the private measures of employment.

<comment><USER25> My favorite thing about Shadow Stats is that they claim inflation is really high and the government numbers are fake, but they haven't increased their subscription price since as far back as it goes on archive.org.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's interesting that so often everyone talks about how unemployment develops, but not how employment develops.

Unemployment statistics are not so useful, precisely for the reason given: people who've given up hope of finding employment are often excluded.

Employment statistics are much more real, because the taxman wants his own, so it covers everyone who actually works. Of course, there are imperfections here as well: people may be working part-time when they actually would like to have a full time job.

During the years 2000 - 2012, employment rate in United States has gone down from 74.1 % to 67.1 % [0].

In Germany, the rate has gone up from 65.6 % to 72.8 %. [1]

In Sweden, it is relatively unchanged, 74.3 % to 73.8 %. [2]

In Greece, the numbers have always been much lower: from 55.9 % down to 51.3 %. [3]

E.g. Korea and France are surprisingly low, in the 60's. Israel has increased during this decade a lot, and it seems to be due to more women working.

[0] [http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/howdoesyourcountrycompare- united...](http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/howdoesyourcountrycompare- unitedstates.htm)

[1] [http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/howdoesyourcountrycompare- german...](http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/howdoesyourcountrycompare-germany.htm)

[2] [http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/howdoesyourcountrycompare- sweden...](http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/howdoesyourcountrycompare-sweden.htm)

[3] [http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/howdoesyourcountrycompare- greece...](http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/howdoesyourcountrycompare-greece.htm)

Short-term comparisons of OECD here: [http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=STLABOUR](http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=STLABOUR)

</comment><comment><USER27> Boy, a polling org putting up political opinion pieces sure seems like a terrible idea.

<comment><USER28> It seems like it's equally about promoting one of Gallup's products, the "good job" metric they link to. I don't see anything partisan in the piece, simply because the same unemployment metric has been used by both Republicans and Democrats to further their goals.

<comment><USER27> Here's a piece from a conservative think tank that is essentially the same argument as what is in the "non-partisan" Gallup opinion poll: [https://www.aei.org/publication/tracking-the- unreported-15-6...](https://www.aei.org/publication/tracking-the- unreported-15-6-unemployed/)

It's been a pretty common talking point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The delta is the most relatable conclusion the average person can draw from the unemployment rate reports. Otherwise, without taking some economics classes, you're doomed to misinterpret.

</comment><comment><USER30> The various unemployment rates are pretty clearly defined and U3 is arguably not the most meaningful one to use but it is considered the "official" rate.

More information here:

[http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp](http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp)

</comment><comment><USER31> All these facts were true when unemployment rate was higher. So even if the numbers are off by some offset they improved.

<comment><USER32> It makes sense that the rate decreases - people give up hope and stop looking for jobs, or get shitty 3hrs/week jobs, and thus drop out of official statistics, without any actual improvement.

<comment><USER33> Here's U6, which takes into account these groups: [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/U6RATE](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/U6RATE)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've been thinking for a while that there need to be incentives put in place for companies who short-change their their employees (and by extension, the public as a whole) by hiring 3 part-time workers instead of one full-time.

This goes towards the "good job" / "American Dream" aspect of the article. People shouldn't have to work 2 or 3 part-time jobs to make a living if they don't want to, just because those are the jobs available. If somebody wants full-time employment (for which they are otherwise qualified), it would be better for them to have that.

Of course, it is cheaper for the corporations to use part-time, because it keeps them flexible with scheduling/substitutes and due to added costs like benefits etc.

I have been trying to figure out whether it makes sense to offer tax incentives/penalties which would push the balance towards more full-time jobs instead of part-time. One piece I have envisioned is forcing employers to offer the benefits a full-time employee would receive prorated to part-timers, with a penalty added for splitting it up. Make them want to offer a full-time job instead.

The part I am worried about is whether the effect is too strong and prevents somebody who actually only wants part-time work from finding employment (e.g.: a student, full-time parent, senior citizen or handicapped person). There needs to be some part-time work available, but generally a member of the workforce probably wants a full-time job.

<comment><USER35> The issue is already the amount of regulations that attach to a full time worker. Adding more will only generate adverse affects.

Using words like 'forcing' and 'penalising' will work in the opposite direction to what you might hope.

You already identify the issue - full time workers require benefits and the like. For many small organisations, these make the cost of a full time worker prohibitive, so they fill in with multiple part time instead. The employer is incentivised to keep people part time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Same as in Germany: Every government invents new possibilities to "count people out" of the official statistics. So the numbers fall, but unemployment stays the same or even rises.

</comment><comment><USER37> Some of the hypothetical examples of out-of-work people the author uses are pretty unlikely, and seem intended to cast an artificially wide net for his argument: i.e. engineers and health-care workers and math degree holders probably have lower than average unemployment rates, yet the author paints a picture of them mowing lawns and losing unemployment (i'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it's unlikely).

In a way, the author is committing the same sin as those he criticizes: he also oversimplifies the employment situation. The unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate vary dramatically by region and by profession (in California alone, compare the Bay Area to the Imperial Valley).

It's much better for some highly skilled individuals, especially in booming metros, and much worse for others, who are in either low skilled, or in regions experiencing secular decline.

Also, Gallup's own underemployment numbers (cited in the article) show both the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate at 7.1% and 15.9%, which is lower than where they were in Feb 2010, and that it is almost certainly lower than what they were in the depths of the great recession.

Nobody would argue that these stats aren't as good as they should be, but to say that things haven't improved at all is very disingenuous, which is why this reads more like political anger-rousing article than a well-reasoned op/ed. The latter isn't surprising considering that the first rumbles of the next presidential election cycle are here.

EDIT:wording

</comment><comment><USER38> Workforce participation, median, minimum, and bottom decile wage are in many ways vastly more informative than unemployment numbers. Yes, even the expanded U6 values BLS provides.

Participation tells you how many people are working. Minimum wage tells you how well the worst-paid fare (and as Adam Smith notes in _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ , "A man must always live by his work" \-- which he expands to mean: wages must provide _not only_ for the laborer, but for a spouse, children, _and the education of those children_ to provide for the _next_ generation of workers.

Median wage tells you where the _typical_ worker is. It's not skewed upwards by a few highly-compensated individuals as _mean_ would be. If you and I are at a bar and Bill Gates walks in, the _mean_ wealth has just jumped tremendously, the _median_ not so much.

Bottom decile tells you how those at the bottom rung of the compensation ladder, though not necessarily at minimum wage, are doing. Smith has a considerable amount to say on this as well.

The biggest problem with unemployment (and other economic / econometric metrics) is that once defined they become political, and an change to more meaningful statistics tends to make the administration in power look worse.

</comment><comment><USER39> Touting these unemployment numbers as a "big lie" is equally misleading. Especially when comparing this number to a past situation of which we don't know the disappointing details.

Just saying "only 44% of adults have a good job" doesn't sound like a good number either. This doesn't seem to count mothers, "house wifes" (if they choose that occupation voluntarily and gladly), college students and probably not even grad students.

<comment><USER20> Doesn't include retired people, investors, the rich, people with an irregular but high income, actors, singers, contract consultants, people taking a long vacation or sabbatical, people who own a business in the early stage, y-combinator companies...

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Most interesting is this: Many people compare other countries unemployment to US U3 not US U6/U5 while countries with gov. unemployement benefits (unemployed are people who get money, which includes people not looking or with a small amount of income) have numbers more in tune with U6/U5 and should be compared to U6/U5.

This makes the US economy always looks nicer.

(Same for GDP with chained dollars btw.)

</comment><comment><USER41> This article reads like a transcript of a drunk guy at a bar explaining his political point of view. Lots of stated assumptions about what other people don't know, backed up with zero facts to substantiate any claims made therein.

He claims repeatedly that "most people don't know [some fact about what goes into calculating the unemployment rate]." I think actually most people who read the news do, in fact, know that people who have been chronically out of work and given up looking are not counted among the unemployed. How could they not? It was hammered home over and over in the midst of the recession.

He never provides any numbers to support the claim that a large percentage of people fall into that category. He just states that it's left out of the calculation, that few people know it, and then leaves you to assume that therefore this must be a significant percentage of the population.

Stupid article.

</comment><comment><USER42> I personally don't know anyone that doesn't already understand the things this article is pointing out.

</comment><comment><USER43> I must say I am chocked at how many people seem to defend the U3 definition vs. U6

As far as can tell the number of actual fulltime jobs is decreasing and the number of jobs that aren't providing full time income is increasing.

Unless you have a political agenda why would you insist that U3 is better than U6?

<comment><USER16> Because it's directly comparable with the rest of the worked and is the measure we've used historically - both of which have value. If others decide U6 is the most important figure, it's reported in literally the same publication as the U3 figure and they can reference it accordingly.

<comment><USER43> The US and the EU measures unemployement differently. Also U3 is hiding things U6 aren't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I was once trying to compare US unemployment to other countries but was not sure which "U" statistic is closest to how others measure unemployment. Anyone has an idea for example within the EU?

<comment><USER45> U3

[http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=36324](http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=36324)

One of the reasons the U3 definition won't be changed (or alternately, why the other U rates were created) is that it's harmonized with the other OECD countries' rates. So, say, a 6% unemployment rate means the same thing in the U.S., Germany, Japan, Greece, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Others have mentioned U6 etc.

The issue of the headline figure not capturing certain key features is mentioned as nauseum on CNBC a or any decent financial news source.

Gallup and the person who posted this is trying to make it sound like a revelation. Further almost all types of employment has improved.

Here in the UK we have a similar obfuscation technique where the opposition says more women are out of work than ever, whereas the government says more women are in work than ever. Both are true, but behind the scenes it is because there is the largest population of work aged women ever.

</comment><comment><USER47> If you're getting unemployment benefit but do some undeclared job, you are employed but count as unemployed.

If you're not looking for a job, it's fair to not be counted as unemployed. Otherwise you can also count any kid in age of working in the statistics or family who have decided to have one member employed and the other taking care of the family.

The writer (CEO of gallup) pretty much explains that the stats behind the title is not what HE thinks it is.

This statistic describes those who want to work and cannot find a job.

</comment><comment><USER48> > None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is > unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so > hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks > -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed

Even the local news gives this disclaimer almost every time they mention the unemployment rate. Maybe it's not that nobody tells you, but that the author just didn't notice it.

</comment><comment><USER49> Before the 2008 financial crisis 1 of 8 american children where on food stamps. 2015 1 of 5 children are on food stamps. In short this is bad. I bet banker bonuses have went in the totally opposite direction, ie up since the financial crisis.

Here is the article [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/28/us-usa-economy- fam...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/28/us-usa-economy-families- idUSKBN0L12E120150128)

</comment><comment><USER50> It is far from being perfect metrics, I agree. However, it is a good way to compare unemployment fluctuation over time as long as we keep the same paramaters over time.

</comment><comment><USER51> I look at Gallup's web page about U.S. employment ([http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily- Workforce.asp...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily- Workforce.aspx)), and I have a question:

The sum of their "% Payroll to population", "% Underemployed", and "% Unemployed" appears to be about 70%. If they're disjoint categories, what is the other 30%?

</comment><comment><USER52> I don't get this argument. Let's put aside that the author seems to be unaware that the BLS puts out multiple unemployment statistics. It seems to me that what really matters is not what statistic is being used but rather that the statistic being used is consistent from year to year so we can see what the trend in employment is.

</comment><comment><USER53> Whether or not this information is always available each time BLS publishes the statistics is not the issue here.

The potentially alarming angle is whether the drop in unemployment is attributed to people finding jobs or to people leaving the workforce.

The current reporting of unemployment numbers certainly leaves room for spin, depending on how you want to package the news.

<comment><USER11> Only for people who don't know how to look up the data for themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> If we counted Spanish unemployment like that it would surely not be the same rate as it is today, 23.7%. This definitely includes people that has given up hope about finding a job.

On the other hand, it doesn't include those who are working without a legal contract, which I am sure would lower the percentage significantly since it's not uncommon.

</comment><comment><USER55> Right-leaning Gallup of course "forgets" to note that baby boomers retiring is making a material contribution.

</comment><comment><USER56> That's why the number of people 18-70 employed full time would be a much more interesting number.

No removing of prisoners, people on disability, housewifes, people that worked just one paid hour this week...

The picture painted by that number would be bleak in most of the developing word, that's why it's not readily published.

<comment><USER57> The problem here is that it wouldn't necessarily be bleak.

Housewives by choice, college kids and those just retired at 35 (or 65) are good things - these people are doing what they most want to do with their lives, and are having all their needs met without a job.

However, as we haven't been collecting this data for the last hundred years we don't know what's normal for this number. And we don't know what percentage of the population are these "good unemployed" and what percentage of people are the traditional (bad) unemployed, so our guesses suck as well.

I think this number should be released, but I don't think it will do much good for the first decade or 2.

\--

Addendum- after seeing maxericson's comment, I was reminded that I should not comment on things I don't know in depth. And it does seem like the U.S. does report the number of employed, it's just not what the press tracks. However, oddly, the numbers he links to seem to mainly be predicated on the same definition of unemployment, and do not seem to dive deeply into the category of "neither employed nor unemployed." Anyhow I'll leave my comment for the time being.

<comment><USER58> I expect the other tables there contain the information to get some answer to your "neither employed nor unemployed", several of them analyze the workforce. For instance:

[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm)

I don't think I'm very informed on this topic, I just happen to know the BLS is tracking a lot more than gets reported in the news.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> This American Life has an excellent exposé on this topic, from 2013: [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/490/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/490/transcript)

</comment><comment><USER60> This is how it's in Europe as well: unemployment rates can be redefined to include or exclude certain people depending on what are the desired results. I usually look at employment rates instead which comes with its own peculiarities.

<comment><USER61> > _unemployment rates can be redefined to include or exclude certain people > depending on what are the desired results_

The metrics aren't redefined, nor are there "desired results". There are a variety of unemployment measures at the BLS, and the information on how each are calculated is freely available. Why assume conspiracy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I always thought that the great lie in the employment statistics was due to high percentage of the American population that is in jail. USA has the greatest number of prisoners of the developed countries, and it skews the statistics.

<comment><USER63> Sure, but the total prison population has been static to falling since 2008 or so. This means it's _increasing_ the labor pool, not shrinking it.

[http://amsaltz.com/tag/achievement-gap/](http://amsaltz.com/tag/achievement- gap/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> The author is not a dummy. He is CEO of a top tier polling organization. Surely he understands U3 and U6, etc. He may have partisan leanings to the extent that this can be taken as a criticism of the current administration. Current policies may not be helping but I'm not sure that any partisan solutions provide the answers needed.

The bigger picture here is that the US sacrificed some broad-based increase in prosperity over the last 20+ years while helping the developing world to climb out of true poverty. You cannot bring 1 billion Chinese (and to a lesser extent other peoples) into the "middle class" through trade while at the same time sustaining the exceptionally high standard of living of so many Americans -- at least not without some major, hopefully-temporary dislocations.

At the same time, somewhat related to this, we are witnessing the passing of a period in which America enjoyed unique competitive advantages which are unlikely to re-occur in a similar form. No amount of IT innovation can make up for the passing of peak-US-cheap-oil-production (1970s), or the loss or diminishing of the dollar's reserve status and the US's central role in global trade (ongoing), or the temporary advantage of economic competitors being crushed in WWII (50's and 60's)...

The Americans worst affected by these policies were bought off to some extent with cheap imported consumer goods (think Walmart), oodles of credit, the spread of two income households and of course benefit programs.

Now, if you were to try to address this problem sincerely from a position that jobs and employment are desirable social goods you wish to maximize, you might aim for sensible policies that would reduce the cost of living for typical Americans (allowing them to attain desirable, economically justifiable employment at globally competitive wages), increase labor mobility (ability to move for opportunity), and reduce the barriers to employment at the bottom of the employment ladder. Secondary policy objectives might include simplifying the tax system, encouraging household formation, and restructuring education so that expensive college degrees are less necessary.

A lot of this has to do with how people are living in what kind of housing, how that housing is financed and what kind of transport they use to get to work and what kind of shape they are in mentally, physically and perhaps even spiritually to be be productive. I think major changes are needed to achieve broad-based 21st century prosperity growth in the US. Some of these changes would be deeply unpalatable and will only be considered if economic conditions worsen substantially.

Some here seem to think we are entering a post-employment society where jobs will be increasingly scarce because they are not needed and that this is a good thing. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. This kind of thing is the hallmark of privileged bubble thinking. If you really remove the dignity of work from so many, you run the risk of making the people themselves seem redundant.

</comment><comment><USER65> it's funny that some right winger would link this ridiculous article here, thinking it would fool the HN collective.

</comment><comment><USER66> Deficit is dropping like a stone, but republicans aren't looking to bring back government jobs, they are just looking to use the flavor of the day to make people afraid of the Obama administration.

<comment><USER67> Smaller government has been a part of the Republican platform since long before Obama.

<comment><USER66> It's part of the Republican platform when a Democrat president is in office, but it seems Republican presidents don't get the message. Deficits rose under every Republican president and dropped under every Democratic president, since the 1950s. But republicans always act as if it's the other way around.

Bush's administration for example financed: medicare overhaul, no child left behind, two wars overseas, and bank bailouts. The way they did the spending had little oversight and the results were mediocre, or negative. Under Obama's admin at least there was "recovery.org - track the money" and more accountability.

If republicans really want to cut government spending and deficits they should look into cutting the military budget. Not only does has it ballooned to take up nearly half of all non discretionary income, but apparently $7 TRILLION is unaccounted for. So until they do that, I don't consider their "platform" anything but a talking point to bring up ONLY against Democratic presidents. (In some way, it's good because it keeps them in check, but then republican presidents get a free ride from them.)

[http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/want-cut- governm...](http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/want-cut-government- waste-8-5-trillion-pentagon-142321339.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Right-leaning Gallup of course "forgets" to note that baby boomers retiring is making a material contribution. Also that the recession gave employers a good opportunity to automate workers out.</comment>


Scientists discover signalling circuit boards inside body's cells - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-circuit-boards-body-cells.html <comment><AUTHOR> The article itself is much better and open access: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10055-w](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10055-w)

Prof Mark Evans page at University of Edinburgh also has more prior background: [https://www.ed.ac.uk/discovery-brain-sciences/our- staff/rese...](https://www.ed.ac.uk/discovery-brain-sciences/our- staff/research-groups/mark-evans)</comment>


Why I gave up my US passport - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24338387 <comment><USER2> I grew up loving the philosophy and values I learned about America -- Jefferson, Adams, Thoreau, King, Edison, Feynman, ... welcoming Einstein and so many others. Young as the country and its culture is, we've produced some greats.

As I've matured and times have changed it's been impossible to miss other parts of America grade schools don't teach -- increasing division between rich and poor, decreasing social mobility, corporate control of the government, entrenched racism, sexism, jingoism, needless wars based on lies, ... I could go on. Anyone could.

I haven't lost faith in my country -- such vague words could mean so much in this context -- but I don't like how the powerful are influencing the processes that led to it flourishing so long, even taking into account its colossal mistakes (Prohibition?), nor how those without power aren't taking responsibility to gain power like they (we) could. I'm impressed with the love many foreigners have for much of our freedom, which I share.

I tell myself living in Manhattan is like living outside any country. Legally New York City may be part of the United States, but culturally it's its own world.

Still, I find it valuable to look at where you live sometimes with rose- colored glasses because life feels better when you love your home, but regularly to evaluate it warts and all. How else can you change it if you feel you can, or escape before the need becomes desperate, should the need arise?

(Here is where people often ask where it's better or point out places it's worse. I don't argue against asking those questions, but we don't _have_ to jump to comparisons with others, which distracts from evaluating it from what it could be. Or once professed or aspired to be.)

<comment><USER3> Don't you think that the division between rich and poor has historically been worse than it is today? I can't imagine that the early[edit] 1900's, characterized by horrendous labor practices that ultimately brought on the labor movement, were of a society with a more narrow division of rich and poor than of today. I have unsuccessfully looked for a reference to compare today's middle class to those of the early 1900s. Please share if you know of any.

<comment><USER4> Usually when people talk about the growing income gap they're not looking back as far as the early 1900s. Like here:

[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income- inequalit...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality- in-america-chart-graph)

If you want to look further back, you can probably find the data somewhere here:

[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is hard to fathom the complexities you face when overseas as a US citizen due to the US tax code, which is basically the only code of a major developed country to tax its citizens wherever they may live worldwide, regardless of their source of income.

There is a system of tax exemptions and credits within the code to offset the double taxation this would imply when living in a jurisdiction which imposes its own income taxes, as most countries in fact do. The difficulties arise in reconciling the US tax liabilities with those owed to the foreign country, calculating the applicable credits, etc. In practice this requires expensive tax professionals in most cases - and they get really expensive if you're an entrepreneur with an overseas corporation, which is pretty much a nightmare to deal with on several levels - different accounting standards, controlled foreign corporation tax reporting, paying estimated taxes when having no clue what the result of a complex tax calculation process will be, etc.

Besides income taxes, there are also bank account reporting requirements (TDF 90-22.1 form) which have made many people's lives difficult. The penalties for not reporting any foreign bank account are draconian even if you live overseas and need an account where you live (you will). Even worse, foreign banks are reluctant to deal with US citizens because of the reporting they in turn are required to do on their behalf, resulting in frequent difficulties opening and maintaining bank accounts overseas if you are a US citizen.

Finally, as a US citizen overseas you are still entitled to social security payments from the US government, but get no benefit from your contributions to Medicare, which only covers you within the USA proper. For that matter you also get no benefit from most of the residual income taxes you pay to the USA that you can't offset with tax exemptions/credits. It's not like those taxes will be used for any of the infrastructure etc. you use overseas.

</comment><comment><USER6> Last year I was a contract worker for a US company while living in Japan. In addition, I had some side income earned, and all this was taxed as a Sole Proprietor in Japan. The paperwork was about 5 pages worth of just filling in boxes with the numbers from my books.

My situation was pretty complicated on the US side, so I enlisted the help of a professional to get everything kosher on my US return. I have never seen such a complex tax return in my life. In the end, it was 40 pages long, and that is not including the FATCA I did seperately. And all that just to show that I owe $0 for US taxes.

However, we are considering moving back to the US, if even for just a year, so I keep my US citizenship for now.

</comment><comment><USER7> I haven't renounced yet, but it's so very tempting. The arrogance of the US's dual-taxation bullshit is enough of a reason to consider it.

<comment><USER8> Be honest: it's not really about your perception of arrogance in a tax policy. It's really about the money. You think you are entitled to the privileges of US citizenship but somehow exempt from its legal obligations.

<comment><USER9> What benefit from paying income taxes, exactly? You're not living there, so you don't benefit from any of the social services that income tax funds.

Just about every other country I can think of does not tax citizens abroad who do not earn money on their native soil. What makes you think the US system is right and all the others are wrong?

<comment><USER10> and yet you do not want to give up your citizenship, so clearly you feel you are benefiting from _some_ of the social benefits that your income tax funds.

<comment><USER11> My sole benefit is that my parents have not died, and I don't want some hopped-up border bureaucrat to be able to tell me that I can't visit them (or my brother) for five years because his coffee was too hot.

Remember how much _arbitrary_ and _non-appealable_ power U.S. border guards have over visitors.

I get nothing else from my U.S. passport, because the only country I use that passport for is…the U.S.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What I'd be more interested in is if there is harassment for doing so. My daughter is an American citizen unfortunately (happenstance of birth), but won't be living in the US for any foreseeable reason. She'll be burdened with tax and reporting issues all her life if she doesn't renounce. But if she does renounce, will they hassle her when visiting family? What about if she does do some temporary work in the US, will they deny visas?

<comment><USER13> Happen-stance of birth? What are the rules there about citizenship by birth? In the UK one of your parents has to be a citizen, or have been "legally settled" (allowed to stay indefinitely).

<comment><USER14> With the exception of children of foreign diplomats, if you are born in the USA, you have citizenship. Who your parents are is irrelevant.

<comment><USER15> can you link a citation to the 'exception' you mention?

<comment><USER14> Sure: [http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/101.3](http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/101.3)

The relevant portion is: "A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such a person may be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth."

<comment><USER16> So, rather than being _denied_ citizenship, it's almost like given their parents privilege, they are being _protected_?

<comment><USER17> They are protected from the duties of a citizen. Military service [1] and jury duty come to mind.

[1] I know that the US does not have conscription at the present time

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder what is going to happen to all those US citizens living abroad with the new health insurance requirements.. Will they be forced to pay even they can't benefit from the services ?

( Specially if they are already covered by their host country healthcare system. )

<comment><USER19> US citizens who live abroad for 330 days in a calendar year are exempt: see question 12 at [http://www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the- Individu...](http://www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Individual- Shared-Responsibility-Provision)

<comment><USER20> That's really harsh. Someone living abroad could easily spend > 35 days/year in the US on business or visiting family.

<comment><USER21> Not really. The point of the requirement is to subsidize the health care you will get if they find you unconscious, naked in a ditch without ID and can't tell if you are wealthy enough to pay or not.

Absent insurance, that privilege is paid for by the higher prices charged to people unlucky enough to need healthcare.

Now, if you can't get plans that consider the fact that you are only in the US for < 100 days a year, then yes it's harsh.

<comment><USER6> As an American that lives abroad, whenever I visit the US I make sure I always have traveler's insurance for myself and all my dependents that are traveling with me. Last year I was in the US for a over 100 days, and my traveler's insurance was valid for every second.

It shouldn't matter how many days you are in the US or not, it should matter where you declare your tax home.

<comment><USER21> Or the travelers insurance should count as health insurance in terms of that mandate. Does it?

<comment><USER6> Just a guess, but I don't think it will. The policy and all documents are not in English, and no reason for them to be either.

So if they make an exemption for travelers insurance, it will be hard for them to verify that it meets the criteria of the exemption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If a US-born citizen (as opposed to naturalized US citizen) renounces their citizenship, can they claim it again afterwards? Or is it forever gone?

<comment><USER23> The State department website on it says that the renunciation is final unless it meets certain guidelines, which basically means that if you did it at age 18+, you're going to have to go through the immigration process just like every other non American.

[http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html](http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html)

<comment><USER24> That's correct. Once you have renounced U.S. citizenship you are like all the other billions of people on the planet--if you qualify to re-enter the USA and apply for citizenship, you can do so.

The tax rules for giving up citizenship have specific provisions fully expecting people to give up citizenship twice. :-)

Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, and I do lots and lots of expatriation cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Unfortunately the US gov could not care less.

I'd be inclined to say "well if you left, then fine", but with the dual taxation and the inability of Congress to pay their bills (it is not just Democrat money, by a long shot)...what exactly are we paying for and why should everyone be responsible for it?

</comment><comment><USER26> Is there any historical examples of a representative democratic country simplifying its tax code? How was it done?

The United States have been around for centuries, and each elected governments and congresses have their own idea about how the tax code should look like. Probably that's why now we have very complicated system, because it's the aggregation of centuries' worth of ideas.

The logical step is to simplify it, but I don't think it's really possible with the current US political system. Each part of the complexity benefits some group, and every group will influence the lawmakers to keep their benefit/loophole.

<comment><USER27> New Zealand has dramatically ( _dramatically_!) simplified our tax for ordinary (salary/wage employees), especially in the 1980s and 1990s. Given the period was one of dramatic economic and social change I doubt most Kiwis could give you a remotely impartial account (myself included); a couple of key elements that appear to be completely absent in the US culture are:

1/ A willingness to accept loophole losses. I have almost nothing I can really claim on as a salaried employee - childcare and charitable donations are about it. There used to be more. I certainly can't claim deductions for "having a mortgage", for example. If I was a lot poorer or had a lot more children (7+) I could get a tax redution for that, but nothing like as generous as the US rates are.

Most of the loophole reduction went hand-in-hand with tax cuts, but we're talking dropping from a top rate of >60% by the end of the Muldoon government down to the 30s for the top tier.

2/ Much of the compliance burden _and risk_ falls on employers, so business groups tend to support simplification, because it mitigates risk and reduces costs for them.

3/ There's more a perception of getting value out of taxes paid in New Zealand than the US. Mainstream political dialogue tends to be around fixing perceived problems in government, not nuking it to a smoking hole, pissing in the hole, and sowing the ground with salt.

Many US progressives/lefties I've spoken with seem to react with suspicion and horror at the idea of being able to have the IRS estimate your taxes on your behalf in case they swindle them out of their tax breaks, which is both a nice combination of 1) and 3), and illustrates the gulf operating. Mainstream left/progressive voters in New Zealand are not commonly of the opinion that accepting the IRD's estimate on owed taxes is going to stiff them out of thousands of dollars in loopholes.

<comment><USER26> Nice example.

>> _Many US progressives /lefties I've spoken with seem to react with suspicion and horror at the idea of being able to have the IRS estimate your taxes on your behalf_

I felt the opposite when I first heard that US tax system was too complicated. What I know before about filing tax was simply 1) approve my employer's filing about my salary 2) declare child and donation. How complicated could that be?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'll be able to apply for Paraguayan citizenship in about a year, and I plan to renounce my US citizenship immediately afterwards.

I'm so much happier here in Paraguay (even with all the cultural differences), instead of the US. I also can't say I feel happy about how things have progressed in the US over the last few years - regarding politics and economics. I really expect that Paraguay is the country where I will build my family and my future.

</comment><comment><USER29> It used to be free to renounce U.S citizen ship, but I think it's $500 bucks to file for it now because too many people are lining up.

<comment><USER24> The fee is $450. Most people are happy to pay it.

(Disclaimer: lawyer; handle lots of these cases).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Current citizen, wife with dual citizenship. Long term we will probably end up in her country (an EU nation), we are already looking at strengthening some of those ties.

She had to divest some interests when she took up residence here, if we decide to go back over there (likely in the next 3-5 years), we will look carefully at whether or not staying in vested in the US makes sense. The US feels like it is trying to turn every benefit into something akin to a 401k -- HSA accounts, etc. Which isn't ideal, but they still aren't separating things from the employer based healthcare model...so in a sense many are getting the worst of both worlds.

Healthcare may actually be the motivating issue for us.

</comment><comment><USER31> Here is a quick youtube issue summarizing the citizenship based taxation issue the USA has. Supposedly it came out of the civil war:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DKFE...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DKFEpAWjeu4)

</comment><comment><USER32> If corporations are people, why do they not need to pay taxes when they go all "ex-pat?"

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm turning Japanese.

</comment><comment><USER34> Some of the stuff the people in the article write is just plain stupid. If I could get US citizenship for my newly born daughter (born in Poland) after being in the US total just 5 years, why she couldn't get it done, is beyond me. People who have lived in EU complaining about US burocracy and pointing it as a reason for giving up on an US citizenship are beyond me too. US taxation system is a walk in a park compared with EU. All the people from the article seem to be carefully selected socialists big time who just couldn't wait to give up on the US citizenship no matter what. And for one each of them there are literally thousands foreigners who would rather live in the USA, including Germans, Canadians, etc.

<comment><USER15> Yes, the article wasn't exactly clear but pretty much all of the stories (well, I only read a few) refer obliquely to one thing: you are subject to taxation by the United States even while you're a resident abroad, and paying taxes abroad.

It is as though your 'home state' continued to tax you (or make you file paperwork) long after you've moved to California. Nobody else (worldwide) does this. It doesn't make any sense.

This is a primary motivation people have for renouncing U.S. citizenship.

<comment><USER35> > _It is as though your 'home state' continued to tax you (or make you file > paperwork) long after you've moved to California._

This is an imperfect analogy (since there is not really a concept of "citizenship" for individual US states), but note that claiming residency in one state while living in another will often require you to pay taxes in both.

> _Nobody else (worldwide) does this. It doesn 't make any sense._

I think it is pretty clear its purpose is to prevent US citizens from deciding to live abroad in order to pay less income tax. The legislation that requires US citizens to report foreign bank accounts (which some of the people in the BBC article mention) is called the "Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act" [1] is supposed to prevent all citizens from committing tax evasion by hiding funds in foreign bank accounts.

I think there are multiple reasons why you or others could argue that these rules are counterproductive [2] or otherwise detrimental to the interests of the United States, but I do not think they can be dismissed out of hand.

[1]: [http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Foreign- Account-T...](http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Foreign-Account-Tax- Compliance-Act-\(FATCA\))

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act#Controversy)

<comment><USER15> Of course they can be dismissed. What you're not getting is that these people have to pay full taxes in the place they're actually living. A place you're not living has no business collecting further taxes from you.

<comment><USER35> > _What you 're not getting is that these people have to pay full taxes in the > place they're actually living._

In that case, they can claim a "Foreign Earned Income Exclusion" [1] which reduces or eliminates their American tax liability for up to $97,600 of income that they are "paying full taxes" on.

> _A place you 're not living has no business collecting further taxes from > you._

As other comments have noted, just because you are not living in the United States does not mean that you are not materially benefiting from citizenship. Despite living abroad, you can still vote, travel to and from the United States, and take advantage of US diplomatic representation in case of arrest.

[1]: [http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International- Taxpayers/Forei...](http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International- Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion)

<comment><USER36> As has already been stated many, many times, for most Americans living abroad who are not super-rich, the issue isn't the taxation - it's the complexity (and associated penalties) of the reporting requirements.

Basically, the US government's attitude toward Americans living outside the US, much like the US attitude toward non-Americans wherever they live, is "F __* You. "

Perhaps you think that this attitude is somehow justified. As a US citizen myself, I think that it is detrimental to long-term US interests.

<comment><USER35> > _Perhaps you think that this attitude is somehow justified._

I think it is a complex issue, and should not be dismissed as "not making any sense" or the government wanting to screw citizens living abroad over. As I have already stated, it is clear that the purpose behind the legislation is to prevent unreported income from being stored in foreign bank accounts.

Like with many complex issues, I think the current solution is imperfect and could be improved. Stating that it is stupid is not constructive.

<comment><USER36> I didn't say it was "stupid" \- don't put words in my mouth. And I completely understand the bureaucratic purpose behind it.

The reality is that the truly rich (like Mitt Romney) have plenty of legal ways to shield their income, offshore or otherwise. So these regulations screw (the vast majority of) Americans aboard with relatively modest incomes, while they are ineffectual against the rich few with tax accountants on their permanent staff.

tl;dr - these rules create more harm than benefit.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Collaborative music composing using Muxicall. - <AUTHOR> http://www.muxicall.com/

<comment><USER2> has potential. useless at the moment</comment>


Apple approves and then promptly removes app that tracks US drone strikes - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/03/28/after-12-rejections-apple-accepts-app-that-tracks-u-s-drone-strikes/ <comment><USER2> It is sad to see some HNers flag this report.

This was submitted 46 minutes ago and it is ranked #45 with 5 votes.

Meanwhile, at #39 is "Japanese researche firms part of global effort to develop spray-on solar panels" with just 3 votes (and submitted more than two hours ago). Btw I'm referencing #39 for ranking comparison purposes, I have nothing against that item.

<comment><USER3> HN ranking is very strange. But in some ways this is "old news"; Apple consistently refuse to allow what they deem to be "political" content on their App Store. Personally I strongly disagree with this kind of Maoism, but they have absolutely no intention of changing it, the public aren't going to boycott them for it, and the US government aren't going to force them to change it.

<comment><USER4> Out of curiosity, why should the government force them to change that policy?

<comment><USER3> It's hard to construct an argument that they should, other than reaching for "common carrier" status or some kind of anti-trust. To the extent that they're acting as a "publisher" they can publish what they like.

But it's still strange that Microsoft is forced to put in browser choice (and in some jurisdictions media player choice, I think), while Apple get to be a platform-monopolist. The usual argument against this is the non-dominance of the iPhone; so long as Android is the most popular OS _and_ allows some choice of stores, I don't think anyone's successfully going to make a case against Apple.

<comment><USER5> Both the browser choice, and the "N editions" (without media player) were in the EU/EEA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I didn't know the US is killing people in Yemen. When did you declare war against Yemen?

<comment><USER7> Generally it is not necessary to declare war against a country to conduct military operations in that country when those operations are done with the permission of and in cooperation with the government of that country.

The intended US targets in Yemen are generally people that the government of Yemen also wants to get rid of.

<comment><USER8> There's currently a civil/proxy war going on, therefore depending on where you are, the "government of Yemen" will be a different group. The US and Saudi Arabia supports one of those two side, Iran supports the other.

The rationale for not getting congressional approval for operations in Yemen is because it's part of the "war on terror".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Android versions seems untouched with an average rating of 4.7

Would someone flagging the app on the app store cause it to be pulled?

<comment><USER10> if anybody wonders, the link: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joshbegley...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joshbegley.dronestream)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best apps/website for Kids to learn programming - <AUTHOR> My younger brother (9year) who don't know english well. I will say he can just read simple english stories in english, is very curious to learn programming. Any app/websites which I can use to get him started. Much resources look outdated like Alice from MIT. <comment><USER2> [https://codecombat.com/](https://codecombat.com/) is pretty cool. I think it is a fine level for 9 yo.

</comment><comment><USER3> Have you found Scratch yet? [https://scratch.mit.edu/](https://scratch.mit.edu/)

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah, he started with it but didn't learn much.</comment></comment>


OpenBSD on EdgeRouter Lite - <AUTHOR> http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/OpenBSD-on-ERL <comment><USER2> That router uses as CPU a Cavium Octeon processor (MIPS architecture) with two cores. It supports MIPS 64 r2 and aligned data access, and it is a great platform for running big-endian unit tests.

It boots from a internal USB drive, that can be removed and changed (the only problem is that not all drives are compatible, and also, in most cases you will have to the pendrive in order to use it, not a problem).

I bought it not long ago for doing big endian on both 32 and 64 bit modes, and I can not be more happy. Amazing stuff. My intention was to put directly OpenBSD, but the default Linux distribution it uses (Vyatta, Debian derivative) works very well, being able to install packages via apt-get, so I use it too. To be able to run OpenBSD just changing the USB stick is amazing, and great for testing without spending lots of money on more expensive stuff (e.g. while there are many affordable, and quite good, routers with fast single-core MIPS 24K and 74K -e.g. TP Link-, usually have small flash disk (4-16MB) and low RAM (16-64MB), having to use remote filesystems or cross compiling; with the EdgeRouter Lite you can build and run, without worrying with cross compilers nor remote filesystems).

Amazing hardware: USB boot means no device brick risk, multiple OS boot. Also, is _very_ stable, no matter if it gets a bit hot, I had 0 hangs since I bought many months ago. Despite being not cheap, compared to other domestic equipment, it is worth it every cent it costs. In my opinion.

P.S. As contrast, another device I use for unit testing, a GuruPlug (ARMv5), has the risk of being bricked, make me being afraid of installing anything not really necessary (the point of using an ARMv5 instead of an ARMv6 like Raspberry Pi, is that the Pi supports unaligned memory access, so if you want to check those cases, you can't).

<comment><USER3> It's probably much too late for this to be helpful, but the issue with not all flash drives being compatible is because that version of uboot would probe for USB devices very early on and it doesn't probe again if it doesn't find anything. Changing bootdelay won't fix that because that happens afterwards. It can boot from practically any flash drive if you prepend "usb reset;" to bootcmd and then do a saveenv. Be careful when doing this, all of that configuration isn't stored on the flash drive obviously so if you aren't comfortable with uboot you can easily brick the router. Just do a printenv first and make sure to copy down the old bootcmd just in case you need it to recover.

<comment><USER2> Thank you for the explanation. That is not really a problem, as there is information about drives known to work (you can reach it e.g. via Google). Also, USB pendrives are cheap, so just trying with pendrives you already have it is probable you find many already working properly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does this compare to a PC Engines APU w/pfSense?

[http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx](http://store.netgate.com/kit- APU1C4.aspx)

[http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performan...](http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performance_lab_of_a_pc_engines_apu)

I guess the EdgeRouter is cheaper at least.

<comment><USER5> The PC Engines APU is great. Soekris is another hardware company making high- performance BSD-compatible routers:

[http://soekris.com/products/net6501-1.html](http://soekris.com/products/net6501-1.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does not support the hardware offloading though, so you're not getting the advertised processing speed.

<comment><USER7> But, as with RPi, you get to boot your own choice of OS.

In my opinion the advantage of this (=more control) easily outweighs tradeoff of not "opting in" to hardware features enabled via binary blobs.

A MIPS board that pretty much "just works" with BSD kernels. No brainer. I'll take it.

<comment><USER8> If this is your goal, then EdgeRouter X would be a much better choice. It has a faster CPU but no offloading, so it would outperform the Lite in this use case. The MSRP is also half that of the Lite.

<comment><USER9> it wouldn't because at this time there is seemingly no alternate operating system that supports it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> $91 for a router with a few mb of ram?

with some $20 more you can build a amd 5350 or a Intel j9200 with some 4 port pcie network card and have any os on a fully capable computer, probably using less power than that thing.

<comment><USER11> The hardware offloading (which seems to be missing with OpenBSD) is what makes that a great piece of hardware for the price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Though they have little in common besides "O-P-E-N" in their name, it's worth noting that OpenWRT works on a lot of Ubiquiti products, too.

<comment><USER13> Doesn't Ubiquiti use openwrt as their base?

<comment><USER14> I believe vyatta is their base.

<comment><USER6> Not always.

<comment><USER15> But for the product discussed here it is. (They actually hired some of the Vyatta devs to work on it, since the upstream project seems to be left to die at Brocade)

<comment><USER16> _since the upstream project seems to be left to die at Brocade_

Indeed, Brocade closed sourced the main product in 2012 and left the community edition to die.

Thankfully the Vyatta core was forked in 2013 (renamed VyOS) and is under active development as a free open source project. [1]

[1] [http://vyos.net/wiki/Main_Page](http://vyos.net/wiki/Main_Page)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Online Reputation Management for Restaurants - <AUTHOR> http://bistro.is

<comment><USER2> Wow, those colourful tiles are overpowering. Lost my focus immediately. You should consider simplifying them, focus on key features and not too wacky of colors, and more whitespace.

<comment><USER3> Seconded on the tiles. Maybe flip the current scheme? i.e. go white/light gray on the tile backgrounds, and use color on the icons themselves?

Looks good otherwise, and seems like a really useful service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not good:

> Unable to connect to MongoDB: connecting to > mongodb://web:###firstname.lastname@example.com:10036/bistro_production > failed: Operation now in progress

Hmm, as the site is down I don't even know how to contact them. Hope they'll see it here very fast.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the notice, Sujan. I didn't realize the MongoDB library we are using wasn't suppressing those types of errors out in production. Fortunately, all the data stored there is just crawl data, as we are careful to silo sensitive data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not a restaurateur, but I'd imagine they would be most interested in how you handle negative reviews. Couldn't find info on how you guys handle that.

Is this more of an alert system on reviews being placed?

<comment><USER6> Right now, we notify the restaurant owner that a negative review has come in and we encourage the owners to respond to any negative reviews (in a friendly manner).

Having a family in the restaurant industry, I can say that most negative reviews and rants can be diffused with a little discussion and an offer to make it right. With Bistro, we just want to find every mention (from review sites or even personal blogs) and just start that conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> [http://bistro.is/img/bistro-review.jpg](http://bistro.is/img/bistro- review.jpg) <\-- "this is a pretty good of your restaurant"

<comment><AUTHOR> Great catch! We fixed that early on in the live reviews, but clearly didn't update the screenshot.

Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Out of interest, how easy would it be for you to adapt the system to manage the reputation for hotels, for example?

Doesn't sound like too much work given that you've said the system works on either web scraping or with API's of other review sites? Obviously you wouldn't want to jeopardize Bistro in it's current format through generalizing the platform for other "industries", but if done right, looks like a good opportunity to me!

<comment><AUTHOR> It is surprisingly easy for us to rebrand into different industries. We did a test with the golf course industry a little while ago and it only took a few hours to go from idea to working product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In the top area, under "Location" I just see a comma. Also in the placeholder ("i.e., Monk's Cafe"), "i.e." should be "e.g."

<comment><AUTHOR> What is happening there is that we were able to get some geolocation data back from your IP, but a standard "City, State" format isn't available (for whatever reason).

That being said, you are absolutely right. It is very confusing. In the event that happens in the future, we will leave that field blank so users (such as yourself) can manually enter a location.

As for the "i.e." versus "e.g.," I was honestly not aware of the difference. You've prompted me to Google it, and the results are super interesting! Thanks for pointing it out! I'll make sure to get that updated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It detected correctly that I was in Toronto and then the search for restaurants names would all return homonyms all across the world. =(

<comment><AUTHOR> We recently opted to open up the restaurant searching outside of the target area to ensure we found the restaurant we were looking for (Google wasn't always returning accurate matches within the city selected), however it sounds like it is providing a confusing user experience.

Removing the city selection is something we've talked about, since it is less necessary, but it sounds like something we should move forward with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Like the design :-) Not sure if other seeing this, but there is a tiny comma near the closed button, screenshot here [http://www.tiikoni.com/tis/view/?id=3590fd8](http://www.tiikoni.com/tis/view/?id=3590fd8)

<comment><AUTHOR> I think what is happening there is that we were able to get some geolocation data back from your IP, but a standard City, State format isn't available (for whatever reason).

You are right, though, that is very confusing. In the event that happens in the future, we will need to leave that field blank so users (such as yourself) can manually enter a location.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Really great idea. Attacking any segment of brick&mortar businesses with this kind of product is a big opportunity.

I tried doing this before with SquidCube but it was a bit too broad, and lacked the required focus to be compelling.

<comment><USER6> The focus was one of the main things we found to be a differentiator in this business model. Down the road, we'd love to look in to a variety of customers, but we know for a fact that restaurant owners alone could use this. Thanks for the comments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> _You can share positive reviews, favorite the best ones or even reply to reviews on the original source._

For the reply, do you just link to the original site? Or do you let users reply through your interface?

<comment><AUTHOR> For the current version, we link directly to the review on the original site, however we are currently working on integrations with all of our review sites to allow our users to reply directly through our interface.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Bistro was designed with Proxima Nova, Adelle & Coquette typefaces and developed using Sublime Text 2 on a Mac."

What's the benefit of telling people that it's built with ST2?

<comment><USER6> I've always been a big fan of colophons in books and on websites—basically telling people how the thing that you're looking at was created.

It isn't necessary to the end user, but it is fun to show to designers and developers that we might want to work with.

<comment><USER15> If it isn't necessary for the end user, it shouldn't be on the site.

Put it in [http://humanstxt.org/](http://humanstxt.org/)

2c

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I like the idea. The fact that your Twitter account has a ton of fake followers is a bit shady, though.

</comment><comment><USER17> Very nice. Do you have a background in restaurants or did you identify the market?

<comment><AUTHOR> My co-founder's parents own a restaurant. Being the technical person of the family, he has always been responsible for managing the restaurant's online presence.

Checking and updating the large list of review sites and social networks took more time than he had, so Bistro was originally created as a way for him to keep a pulse on his family's restaurant's online reputation.

<comment><USER18> were you able to get any other early market or customer validation beyond your co-founder's personal problem? Awesome concept!

<comment><USER6> I'm the co-founder with the family restaurant…

We showed it off to a number of marketing managers of local restaurants in Boulder, CO and have since sold subscriptions to a number of restaurants in the area. Since the launch, we've gone through a number of tweaks and actually end up removing "features" fairly often. We know that restaurant owners are busy, but we continue to understand what they care about and what information we should drop to make their days easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How are you collecting the reviews? Web scraping?

<comment><AUTHOR> We aggregate all of our reviews and mentions through a combination of web scraping, API integrations, and manual scraping.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for the response.

What was the thinking behind current pricing structure? I think they are underpriced, but then again I know nothing about restaurant industry.

[Edit] Are you also doing sentimental analysis of mentions and reviews?

<comment><AUTHOR> Our pricing structure is the biggest point of debate among us, however we are testing different models across a few different marketing platforms and will stick with what performs the best in the long run.

As for sentiment analysis, we were performing a rudimentary analysis on all non-rated mentions (Twitter, Facebook, etc.), however the algorithm we were using was providing too many wrong sentiments, so we removed it for the time being. We are currently evaluating new algorithms and APIs, and may bring it back in if we can find one that can comfortably handle sarcasm (a favorite of the review sites) and mentions with no sentiment attached to it (the phrase "I am eating at <restaurant name>" is neither positive, nor negative).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "© 2012."

?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice catch. Definitely a typo, we're only a few months old, but I'll have that set dynamically from now on.</comment></comment>


The Ladybird Book of Computers: old but brilliant - <AUTHOR> http://www.pointlessmuseum.com/computer/default.html

<comment><USER2> Absolutely the finest introduction to computers ever written. I seem to have lost touch with my copy but it always had a place on my shelf when I was an IT manager - it was great to lend to people who needed an introduction they could absorb in just a (very) few minutes.

</comment><comment><USER3> What amazes me more than anything is that we've gone from no computers to computers in everything -- _in less than a single lifetime!_ That truly is incredible.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interesting to compare the 1971 and 1979 pages describing the future of computers: <http://www.pointlessmuseum.com/computer/027.html>

One has microcircuits with 10s of components, 8 years later there's the microprocessor with thousands.

</comment><comment><USER4> What amazes me is how accurate and detailed this book is, given that it was intended for children. It reads like it was written by a computer expert helped by a children's writer, rather than the other way around.

Too many books for children are written by a specialist in writing childrens' books, rather than someone who knows what they are writing about. The writer gets a half baked idea of what the book is about, and then even that gets dumbed down in the name of accessability.

</comment><comment><USER5> I owned the 1979 edition of this. While I had already been fiddling with computers for a few years before I'd read it, this book and its awesome illustrations (for the time) really helped me "get it."

</comment><comment><USER6> I just ordered one on abebooks - hard to resist at only a dollar plus shipping!

I always liked those books when I was younger. I wish 7 year old sspencer had encountered this particular one...

</comment><comment><USER7> I still have a copy of this :) The ladybird books were just great at this sort of thing.</comment>