Labor shortage or terrible jobs? • Hacker News Board

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#211

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

paulpauper wrote: post #122

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that would last? I know I wouldn't be able to sit on my ass and just play video games for very long, even if I got paid or won the lotto, or whatever. My wife wouldn't either (though, we tend to marry our equal - or I hope we do). I'm generally curious as to what percentage of the population would actually sit for their entire lifetime and be stoned, play video games and make nothing for the long term. I…

It depends on individual preferences. Individuals with a high preference for $ would still go to work, whereas others would play games at home. This could mean higher productivity at work and better customer and employer satisfaction, as people who hate working and hate their jobs and do their jobs poorly, would just play videos games instead.

I guess, yeah. I might do something a little more creative but similar. It's just hard for me to imagine just not creating something, anything. Lack of imagination on my part, really. I can't imagine that anymore than the argument of "people will just use their checks to buy heroin and be drug addicts". I assume there are a small percent, but it's small. I just assume people would still want to make things for the sake of making things. Just for purpose =/

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#212

Post by throwaway292893 » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #181

throwaway292893 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be able to "choose to not be employed", someone else is picking up the slack for you and you are taking away benefits that could be used on someone that NEEDS it (disability, elderly, etc.) When others see that you can just give up and get paid, they will also become burnouts. Eventually you will run out of other people's money.

I wish this logic was more frequently applied to large corporations and their externalities or to the military. How much money was flushed down the drain to develop dubious weapon systems like the F-35 or to clean up messes like Deepwater Horizon. Yet when we give ordinary people some money suddenly it's a moral failing on their part and we're "picking up the slack". Here's an idea: next time there's an oil spill, le…

I do too, but currently the opposite logic is being applied to unemployment benefits. Maybe there will be an article about those shady defense contracts and eco projects but that's not the topic.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#213

Post by slv77 » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #113

mywittyname wrote: post #20

I've long felt that many jobs paid unsustainably low wages. 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. These jobs have been propped up by debt. It looks like the pandemic has put and end to this. Transportation costs have skyrocketed to such a degree that it's basically impossible for a poor person…

>I've long felt that many jobs paid unsustainably low wages. Can you elaborate on this? $7.25 * 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day, especially if you factor in that in high cost of living areas the minimum wage is also higher than $7.25.

Unlike capital equipment a business doesn’t pay for the cost of replacing labor as it ages. The cost in the US of raising a child is about $250,000 or about $3 per hour over 40 years. Businesses expect a pool of qualified and educated labor but don’t pay for childcare expenses.

Employees are expected to have reliable transportation to get to the employers place of business but they do not cover transportation expenses. The cost of $400 a month for reliable transportation works out to $2.50 per hour.

Employees are typically required to have work appropriate clothing. In the US this cost has often been pushed to employees. In some cases even tool costs have been pushed to employees.

Employees have wear and tear on joints due to repetitive movements which will eventually have to be treated. Machines need maintenance and businesses are expected to pay the costs but with labor that is pushed back to the employee.

The economics of minimum wage only work short term for people who are young, healthy and with no children where experience gained will lead to a higher paying job in the near future.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#214

Post by xondono » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

colpabar wrote: post #84

xondono wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Everyone is trying to milk the government for “support”, especially if they can get it in cash.

Why shouldn't they? The government taxes everything it possibly can, and for the past year the government has put a ton of restrictions in place that caused a lot of people to lose their jobs. It is now time for the government to start using those taxes to provide the safety net it promises us. If the pentagon can "lose" 125 billion dollars ($125,000,000,000), I really don't care that people with the ability to "milk…

I’m not saying they shouldn’t. I’m just saying you should not be surprised of their complaints.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#215

Post by inetknght » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #210

inetknght wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $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 j…

> that makes zero sense from an accounting point of view

Well the world doesn't work like your armchair accounting.

> a job offered you $1000/month. Are you going to turn down that job because it "won't pay for my expenses"?

$1000/month is _less_ than that minimum wage. So I'll assume it's indeed a part time job.

Taking that job means 4 hours less time each day looking for a better job because you're busy with this part time one. Not only 4 hours less for work, but another 1 or 2 hours each day because now you're driving to and from that job. So 6 hours less each day. That's an expense.

Now that you're working it also means being less eligible for any government assistance. $1000/month to work 4 hours/day while taking $800 less government assistance comes out to... a net of $200/month. For 4 hours/day of work and an additional 2 hours/day for transportation.

If you look at the raw money, you're making more money. Homelessness is on the horizon and inching ever closer even if it's approaching slower.

Are those 6 hours to you really worth your time when you could have spent those 6 hours trying to find an even better job?

And when you do reach homelessness, is that $1000/month job going to continue employing you?

I think that's the dilemma that the commenter at the start of this thread posits. Jobs are "available" but they're not sustainable. And people are turning down $18/hr stressful part-time jobs because they can't afford them.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#216

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

minimuffins wrote: post #205

seibelj wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fello…

[deleted]

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#217

Post by recursivedoubts » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

cratermoon wrote: post #30

recursivedoubts wrote: post #7

Maybe one of these days the pro-labor left and the pro-labor right are gonna figure it out, stop taking the bait, and we'll finally get a real revolution.

> pro-labor right Such a thing does not exist.

lol perfect

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#218

Post by luckylion » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:37 PM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #127

luckylion wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do with people who don't have any skills that are worth more money? Do you just let the government take care of them perpetually?

Yes. We already do that. Many of my coworkers at Target are on medicaid and SNAP and get child care assistance and they will be, perpetually (well not so much the child care part). We just also make them work until they're 70+ anyway.

> We just also make them work until they're 70+ anyway.

Or in other words: we make them work. If we didn't we'd still need someone to do the work, only it wouldn't be your current coworkers. And we'd have to tax that person severely, so we have enough money to fund the early retirement of your coworkers. I'm not sure that person will be happy.

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#219

Post by pydry » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #193

pydry wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the short term or long term? Wasnt transfer from profits supposed to be impossible in both cases because of competition?

Are you talking about how profits shouldn't exist because of competition?

I'm talking about your claim that the cost of raised wages would be inevitably passed on to consumers.

I'm sure there's a good reason why employers lobby so hard to keep wages down even when it doesn't affect them in the slightest cos they can just pass the costs on...

Re: Labor shortage or terrible jobs?

#220

Post by medvezhenok » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #200

cratermoon wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think America has been too scared of inflation for too long This is true! The Federal Reserve, since the Carter administration, has acted like even the slightest bit of inflation is impending doom.

Remarkably, since the tail end of the Bush administration, it's the opposite: the Fed has desperately tried to get inflation up to its 2% target level, and mostly missing. The reasons are debatable, but I'd argue that it's mostly because the mechanisms they're using end up inflating the stock market instead of consumer goods. There are economists terrified of any inflation, but it's an attitude that's more popular wi…

The reason is quite clear - the Fed cannot transfer money effectively to the poor/middle class; it's fiscal policy that can do that (and labor unions to some degree, which were gutted in the 80s).

Inflation doesn't happen when you give more to the people that don't consume (and sustained inflation only happens when there is an actual shortage of some good, and arguably we have overcapacity for everything today so inflation will only happen under either a commodity price shock or complete breakdown of supply lines (transitory inflation can happen like it is now - from the COVID shock))