Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 427 posts

Re: It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

#291

Post by holler »

jzb wrote: post #141
holler wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The barber shop I went to for years used to charge $35 for a haircut pre-pandemic, which with a ~$10 tip ($45) already felt real high. Now a haircut is $50 and I no longer go, opting instead to cut my own hair w help from my girlfriend. Maybe people don’t want $50 haircuts.

As a guy who gets a pretty standard, quick-and-easy cut, I get this. At the same time, $50 a month or whatever is pretty cheap compared to what I looked like after my partner tried her hand at cutting my hair at the start of the pandemic. $50 or look like I've got the mange? I'll pay the $50!

lol! it took a few tries but she got it down and luckily enjoys doing it so far... saving me $50/month!

Re: It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

#292

Post by Daishiman »

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #207
zozbot234 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Healthy food was generally prepared at home from fresh raw ingredients. Perhaps there was a small veggie garden in the back yard. Yup, that's called a subsistence economy. It's a very good thing that we can spend our time doing something better than back-breaking agricultural work and general housekeeping. That's what progress is all about.

False dilemma. There is a state of being between subsistence farming and outsourced meals, and it's characterized by frugality and patience.

It's perfectly possible to have good meals on the go, as evidenced by the fact that Italians, Spaniards, French and Peruvians can get simple lunch fares with high-quality ingredients and affordable prices, and it's not necessarily about home-cooked meals either.

Re: It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

#293

Post by tmmx »

bsagdiyev wrote: post #287
gilbetron wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$5k total, or $5k in addition to their salary? If you dug into it, I'm guessing it would be the latter.

$5k total. That’s his salary. They make maybe $40k before tax on a good year, over the two of them, him and his wife who works as a preschool teacher. They’re both almost at retirement age at this point and are going to work until they die.

5k is a lot in Kazakhstan. (Just noticed the username)

Re: It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

#294

Post by kodah »

atom_arranger wrote: post #267
kodah wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why a UBI is good for businesses -- customers have more money in their pockets. I'm a proponent of UBI and I think this claim needs a citation for the level of certainty that you expressed. I have always viewed that UBI will likely be bad for small businesses, but that by the time that we need UBI there won't be many small businesses left. There are two pilots of UBI worth paying attention to: Finland and O…

If UBI is implemented we may be able to do away with minimum wage, at which point small businesses could possibly offer better (more interesting, less stressful) working conditions for less money, it’s possible people might go for that. Right now companies must make $X per employee per hour. If their business cannot do that it’s deemed that it’s not productive enough and should not exist.

Agreed, that is a possible future, but it also depends on not raising taxes for already cash strapped SMB's and bankrolling those efforts with large corporations and high income earners who have lots of capital to fight those initiatives.

Re: It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

#295

Post by kodah »

pseudalopex wrote: post #282
kodah wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither of these is a UBI. They're considered quasi-UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Quasi-U... I do agree there are better implementations to be had, and that the implementation probably makes all the difference in outcomes. That said, I wouldn't say they're expressly not UBI. I also just learned about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Alaska_...

Quasi expressly means not really. Google claims under 9,000 results for quasi UBI. Some use it to highlight how actual UBI would be better. Some use it to describe programs like basic income for everyone in rural regions. Not expanded unemployment benefits.

It's also a good expression for something that doesn't perscriptively follow UBI but accomplishes the net effect or intended outcome. I'm willing to admit that there's more than one way to accomplish what UBI wants to accomplish.

Re: It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

#296

Post by giantg2 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #264
giantg2 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention your competitors may be switching to robots, greatly reducing their labors to the point it might not be competitive if you're using humans and don't have the capital for the robot.

Why is that everyone else's problem? No one is entitled to not be out competed by a more efficient business.

"Why is that everyone else's problem?"

Where did I say that? But now that you brought it up... the problem isnt from competition, but from the paradigm shift that prevents low skill labor from supporting themselves (or trying). There is a lot of debate about how mass automation will affect macroeconomics and labor.

Re: It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

#298

Post by effingwewt »

atrus wrote: post #12

Painfully obvious too. My little local Mexcian place will be closing down because of a lack of cooks. Talking to the owner, he was complaining about government benefits, and how they all want $20 an hour. I don't understand it, that you'd either a) be willing to drive your business into the ground serving a limited menu because you won't hire a couple cooks at $20 an hour, or b) have a business so close to the brink…

Amazing is the cognitive dissonance on display. The business owners one and all took the PPP loans which were essentially grants, and that was OK, but when it's for the workers it's destroying their predatory businesses. And they would rather close than make less profit to pay a living wage. We already get no healthcare and no retirement. How much further down can we be pushed?

Re: It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

#299

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kodah wrote: post #295
pseudalopex wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quasi expressly means not really. Google claims under 9,000 results for quasi UBI. Some use it to highlight how actual UBI would be better. Some use it to describe programs like basic income for everyone in rural regions. Not expanded unemployment benefits.

It's also a good expression for something that doesn't perscriptively follow UBI but accomplishes the net effect or intended outcome. I'm willing to admit that there's more than one way to accomplish what UBI wants to accomplish.

But you're then using evidence from the not-UBI to claim that a UBI doesn't do something (benefit businesses), when the difference between the UBI and the not-UBI is that the not-UBI wouldn't be expected to do that thing.

Re: It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

#300

Post by mbrodersen »

smsm42 wrote: post #228
angelzen wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of dirty secrets. There was a time not so long ago when there was not so much demand for dining out. Healthy food was generally prepared at home from fresh raw ingredients. Perhaps there was a small veggie garden in the back yard. There was plenty of time for shopping and cooking, and people didn't have to somehow squeeze these activities between the long commute back home from the second job and sleep time,…

Sure, it "was prepared" - but by whom? For example, by the wife - for whom it would be a full-time job, together with another full-time job of raising the kids and another one of cleaning the house and maintaining it. Or, in richer homes, by a servant - who would often work for little more than home and food, and certainly wouldn't have such benefits as mandatory vacation, sick leave, pension fund, unemployment insur…

I have a full time job and cook my own meals from raw ingredients. It doesn’t take a lot of work.
Post reply on HN