Labor shortage or terrible jobs? • Hacker News Board

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#201

Post by inetknght » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #197

inetknght wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are all sunk costs. You need them regardless of whether you have a job or not They're not sunk costs if you literally don't have money to pay for them. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Your argument wasn't in good faith. You're saying that minimum wage is a livable wage which is a demonstrably false…

>They're not sunk costs if you literally don't have money to pay for them. Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. >You're saying that minimum wage is a livable wage which is a demonstrably false statement I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement.

> Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job.

Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job.

> I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement.

> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day*

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#202

Post by danaris » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #182

rossdavidh wrote: post #43

Well, there's a straightforward (I don't say easy) way to fix this: you require a high enough minimum wage (and healthcare, and sick leave, and etc.). It's not like the restaurant owner has the option of just deciding to pay twice or three times the labor costs, and trust that their customers will be happy to cover the difference, if their competitors don't have to do the same. Because, those restaurant (and retail a…

Tying healthcare insurance to employment isn't really the direction we want to be going. When the individual market was terrible, it made sense to push employers to buy it for their workers, because you got better coverage for less money that way. Now the state marketplaces are at least mediocre; coverage and costs are similar to what you might get as a small or mid sized employer. We should be pushing people towards…

That seems to be making quite a lot of assumptions—first, that even in the better states, costs to the employee are similar if they choose to get insurance individually rather than through their employer. Even assuming that the cost to the employer is similar to the cost I would have to pay out-of-pocket to get insurance on the state marketplace, which is not a safe assumption, just because I choose to do that doesn't mean my employer suddenly decides to give me all the extra money they would have paid for my health insurance in my paycheck.

Even if all that were true, it would only be in the better states. There is massive variation between the states on this, and some have (last I knew) truly abominable plans as the only real options.

No; what we need to be pushing towards is single-payer health care, the way nearly every other civilized nation on earth does it. The market-based system we have is a travesty that literally kills people in order to further enrich the richest among us.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#203

Post by gruez » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #201

gruez wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're not sunk costs if you literally don't have money to pay for them. Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. >You're saying that minimum wage is a livable wage which is a demonstrably false statement I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement.

> Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. > I made no such statement. Plea…

>Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job.

That makes zero sense from an accounting point of view.

>> I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement.

>> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day*

1. I'm not sure how you're getting "minimum wage is a livable wage" from that comment.

2. you seem to be fixated on "expenses" meaning living expenses (eg. rent, food, clothing, etc.), whereas I was only talking about expenses related to getting the job (eg. transport). This was pointed out several comments ago.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#204

Post by danaris » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #126

throwaway292893 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those exploited immigrants won't hold their breath. I'm sure those farms unwilling to pay a fair wage will start investing in those expensive machines' R&D. Then do it for all other crops.

> farms unwilling to pay a fair wage Half the blame has to go to consumers and a lack of desire for fair-wage strawberries that cost 2x as much.

That would only be true if, when I went to the supermarket, there was a display of strawberries that said over it "Low Low Prices Enabled By Virtual Slavery And Other Worker Abuses!", and another display of strawberries next to it that said "Slightly Higher Prices, But Their Workers Live Well!"

You can't claim the market will resolve things when there is no meaningful opportunity for customers to "vote with their wallets". It requires not only equal access to the two products, but also full information about what the differences are.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#205

Post by minimuffins » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #142

leetcrew wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

okay, it's a good option if you want/need work and you're a highschooler. I guess we could debate whether it is a good thing for a highschooler to have a job in the first place. that's going to depend on the situation. if you're working tons of hours to support your family instead of keeping up in school, that's going to hurt your long-term prospects. if you're working a couple shifts a week so you don't have to ask…

Honestly - working crap retail and food service jobs during high school was as much (or more) valuable education than what I learned in school. Certainly motivated me in college to study and work hard. The value of working is not only in the money earned, and I will force my children to get part-time jobs during high school.

I feel similarly, but I think a big part of that is that my schooling was so bad. Ideally I'd have not had to work and actually been learning something (and that's the goal I have for everyone, as a collective political desire).

On the other hand, I notice people who didn't have to work as kids and went straight into college and respectable white collar jobs usually have absolutely no idea how the rest of their fellow citizens actually work and live, so I'm thankful for the perspective.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#206

Post by gruez » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #196

gruez wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...unless you're not paying for those because you literally don't have any money. That's not how accounting works. If you got a FAANG job that paid $300k/year, then proceeded to blow $60k on a tesla, your net pay for the job isn't $240k.

Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse. Also, that $60k on a Tesla for the FAANG worker amounts to a small percent of the worker's disposable income. But that $2k amounts to over 100% of the minimum wage worker's disp…

> Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse.

Way to miss the point. Whether the item is a tesla or a can of beans is irrelevant. The point is that if previously you couldn't afford X, after getting a new job you could afford X, then you can't say that X is a cost/expense of getting the job.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#207

Post by inetknght » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #203

inetknght wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. > I made no such statement. Plea…

>Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. That makes zero sense from an accounting point of view. >> I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement. >> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to i…

> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day*

> I'm not sure how you're getting "minimum wage is a livable wage" from that comment.

The comment you replied to stated:

> There are a lot of jobs where your net pay is below zero, long term, when you factor in the external costs associated with working, such as needing transportation.

Transportation is just a single one of those costs. Nobody in their right mind is going to get a job that they recognize won't pay for their expenses and many people consider more expenses than just transportation.

> I was only talking about expenses related to getting the job (eg. transport).

That wasn't clear and is no doubt where our discussion went astray

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#208

Post by inetknght » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #206

inetknght wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse. Also, that $60k on a Tesla for the FAANG worker amounts to a small percent of the worker's disposable income. But that $2k amounts to over 100% of the minimum wage worker's disp…

> Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse. Way to miss the point. Whether the item is a tesla or a can of beans is irrelevant. The point is that if previously you couldn't afford X, after getting a new job you could af…

> The point is that if previously you couldn't afford X, after getting a new job you could afford X, then you can't say that X is a cost/expense of getting the job.

Sure I can if X is a basic necessity of life.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#209

Post by jolux » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #206

inetknght wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse. Also, that $60k on a Tesla for the FAANG worker amounts to a small percent of the worker's disposable income. But that $2k amounts to over 100% of the minimum wage worker's disp…

> Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse. Way to miss the point. Whether the item is a tesla or a can of beans is irrelevant. The point is that if previously you couldn't afford X, after getting a new job you could af…

What point are you trying to make? The federal minimum wage is not enough to cover people's expenses, whether those expenses come from holding the job or not is irrelevant as to whether such a situation is "sustainable." This feels like pedantry.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#210

Post by gruez » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #207

gruez wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. That makes zero sense from an accounting point of view. >> I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement. >> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to i…

> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day* > I'm not sure how you're getting "minimum wage is a livable wage" from that comment. The comment you replied to stated: > There are a lot of jobs where your net pay is below zero, long term, when you factor in the external costs associated with working, such as needing transportation. Transportation is just a single one of thos…

>many people consider more expenses than just transportation.

You (and other people) seem to think that food, housing, and healthcare is an expense in getting a job, but that makes zero sense from an accounting point of view. This is trivially proven with a thought experiment: let's say you were unemployed and had $2000/month in "required" expenses, and a job offered you $1000/month. Are you going to turn down that job because it "won't pay for my expenses"? Of course not, even though you're still losing money from an overall cashflow perspective, taking the job still provides you a +$1000 improvement to your financial situation[2].

[1] although I suppose you would need less calories if you didn't work, but I think that's safe to ignore

[2] for simplicity we can ignore government subsidies that gets cut off when you exceed a certain amount of income, or unemployment.