71–80 of 116 posts
This is a bit weird. US unemployment is at 4.6% http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 US growth is about 2% http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locati... That's really pretty good. Most developed countries would be happy with that.
2% growth is very low. Jobs =! well paying secure jobs.
I'm trying to reconcile these two quotes: > a few good auto-glass installers, no experience necessary and, > commissioned a study of company shortages. Energy, water, and land came up, but the No. 1 answer around the world was skilled labor Perhaps no experience is necessary for the auto-glass gig, but the metal stamping and machining? Are these all trades one can pick up on the job, by walking in from the street? Be…
Even today's rate is only 3% or so lower than the 2006 rate, so if you add it to the unemployment rate it's still not very bad.
Just another perspective on this as it seems to be something that comes up over and over in these discussions.
Let's do this experiment: let's have all businesses double whatever wage they are currently paying. Is there still a shortage of workers? No? Ah, in that case, we have solved the problem.
You miss the point. Labor is inelastic. If you double the wage, it might take the market years to respond if the skill in question is not quickly acquired. Buying high skilled workers is not like buying gumballs, where prices and high demand can quickly stimulate supply, and the two meet in the middle. Gumballs don't have to sell their house and move. Gumballs don't have to take care of their kids while going back to…
What was the result? A flood of workers coming in how left their families, homes, and everything to live in trailers (or even the truck cabs) for the opportunity.
If the this had happened near a real city like Sioux Falls SD with available housing and had been long term (like the OP's scenario), people absolutely would have moved their families and put down roots.
I'm always baffled by the people in these articles. From the anecdote at the beginning: he's having trouble hiring people for $12/hour (up to $70K/year with bonuses, etc). I am also having trouble hiring people: I need a senior software engineer. Pay is $12/hour. It's taking me a long time to find workers. I guess people are just lazy and don't want to work.
The article isn't claiming people are lazy and don't want to work. It's claiming that plenty of jobs exist and people are already working at them. It's also claiming that if you really are having a hard time finding one, there are plenty of people willing to hire you at a wage possibly lower than you might desire.
I.e., no shortage of jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the journos who are writing big articles about big trends always seem to want to anchor them with anecdata from the 2 local guys they talked to, as if that actually sheds light on the situation. Usually it just confirms whatever narrative their story is pushing. I don't know what's a fair price in every area of the country for all of these jobs, so beats me if $12 is good or bad, but beyond this one anecdote, p…
> I don't know what's a fair price in every area of the country for all of these jobs, so beats me if $12 is good or bad, but beyond this one anecdote, people have been saying for years that there was a shortage of skilled labor in the country. So aside from whether this one guy is paying fairly or not, it does appear to be a real issue. If I say something and I make $N per year for believing that. Why would they sto…
We don't have such wage growth.
Actually we'd have growth in compensation (wages + benefits). And we do, in fact, have that growth: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no fast way out of the situation. Training and education is ultimately the answer, but to fill today's jobs, that needed to happen 2-4 years ago. So today, I think we're up a creek in any case. Still, best get to training and educating people ASAP, because 2 years from now is coming sooner than most people think. We could complain about how much it costs to do this, or we could just shut up, do it, and then e…
There's no fast way out of the situation. Of course there is and at least some Republicans at least claim they're going to take it: slash immigration, lower the labour supply, raising its prices.
Next up: solve hunger by setting food on fire.
I'm always baffled by the people in these articles. From the anecdote at the beginning: he's having trouble hiring people for $12/hour (up to $70K/year with bonuses, etc). I am also having trouble hiring people: I need a senior software engineer. Pay is $12/hour. It's taking me a long time to find workers. I guess people are just lazy and don't want to work.
I'm always baffled by the people in these articles. From the anecdote at the beginning: he's having trouble hiring people for $12/hour (up to $70K/year with bonuses, etc). I am also having trouble hiring people: I need a senior software engineer. Pay is $12/hour. It's taking me a long time to find workers. I guess people are just lazy and don't want to work.
North Charleston isn't exactly a large metropolis with a high cost of living. $12 isn't terrible for an job with almost no requirement except a warm body and two arms.
Cities are becoming larger, small towns are disappearing. Agglomeration is playing an ever larger role in where people live and work. People are tending to cities which have more opportunities, entertainment, etc.
So my point is this, why would you want to live in North Charleston? Of course as I alluded too in my brief definition of advantaged millennial, not everyone has the choice/ability to move to wherever they want. But given that choice, why not move to another larger city where you have more options for better jobs with better pay?
I think in some places, even thouguh cost of living is low, employers will need to sometimes pay more to attract the talent they need, and not just say, "cost of livng is low, live with the $12/hr wage and like it." But of course, that's how capitalism is supposed to work. If you can't find employees, it simply means you're not paying enough. Literally Economics 101.
Granted, all of the above argument is a bit simple, and there's a lot of nuance involved in reality. Especially when it comes to peoples decision making about what job they choose and where they live. I also have little evidence to support my contention about less desirable places to live meaning higher wages, but it applies to jobs, so I don't see how it won't apply to places in the near future (well I do, it may never happen, but I think it's an interesting thing to keep an eye on).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this job pays $12/hr. Which is $1,555.05/month after tax, assuming 40hr work week. And the average 1-bed apartment rents in North Charleston, SC is roughly $1100/month (according to Zillow), leaving the employee $450/month to cover all food + medical + debt + transit + utilities and any other expenses. I can't imagine why no one is taking the position. It sounds like a fulfilling opportunity to install auto glass…
>It's like employers don't even attempt to think about anything from the employee's perspective -- even after they've struggled to fill their own positions. "Cheap business owners" couldn't be a more accurate byline. Or maybe the job their trying to fill isn't worth that much to them (the employers, that is)? As an example, let's take a speech-writer for a presidential candidate. Company X (let's say it has 100 billi…
Just imagine the businesses that suddenly become profitable if employers could provide nothing beyond room and board and employees weren't allowed to quit!
Until the 70s, the US really had no competition. To compete, you need a stable (legal) system - No one would invest money in a country where it's not far-fetched that someone will overthrow the government, nationalizes your company and throws you in jail.
Oh, and because of geo-politics, one couldn't invest in USSR friendly countries (both from the US side and the other side)
So no one would invest in the USSR, Africa, the Middle East, China or India, Europe and Japan were in shambles. So who built up industry? The US.
After the 60s, different countries started stabilizing. First Japan, then China, now most of the world is actually quite stable, so now the average US worker has to compete against all of India, China, Bangladesh, etc.
You have more supply and the same demand (the world).
And the problem is nothing can really be done about it.