https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAELAH
It seems likely that unemployment benefits are contributing to this labor shortage.
This report from Pittsburgh is a good example: https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2021/05/04/how-l...
Walmart, Sports Authority, D&B Supply, and Albertsons on Fairview and Eagle. Lowes on Eagle. All were $18-$20 some with bonuses.
Maverik on Fariview and 5 mile, Maverik on Fairfield and Cloverdale.
Both Walmart's on Overland.
Gemstate metals was looking for machinists.
A healthy economy is one where people have the flexibility to be choosey and places that offer shit-jobs have to change or go out of business.
>"The thing they are fighting against is people are getting a lot of money in stimulus so there is no desire for them to work."
There was even a union electrical apprenticeship, which had severe competition, only hired a few people a year, and required all manner of tests all required within 1 day of the event which was impossible to have. (Color blindness test, high school transcripts, etc) the guy really didn't care to be there.
Please define "a lot of money".
>> so there is no desire for them to work
Those lazies, why won't they work for peanuts?
>> Where I live there are tons of people looking to hire at $20/hr and they are getting zero applicants.
Source please, if you will.
I find it offensive and sad that you implied I called someone lazy, I didn't. I stated that competing with free money is challenging and is what is making it hard to find employees. Why work for $20/hr when you are getting unemployment benefits that nears $14?
$20/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks is $40k/year.
This is life changing amounts different.
Considering a living wage is considered $14/hour for Idaho[0] for a single, unmarried, no kids adult, I think the bigger problem is probably not unemployment, but with businesses not realizing that their wages are not competitive for labor against almost anything else.
You can't pay the median or worse and expect hiring to be quickly, especially in Boise - a growing urban area that is probably well outside the state's average.
EDIT: Apologies, that was a lazy comment. What I meant to say was "I found your comment to be laughable at best and ill-willed at worst."
If you are still into having a discussion with me, even though I offended you, can we make it revolve around the concept of "socialism" and the reasons behind many US citizens being afraid that going down the path of looking out for each other will lead to the US becoming The Soviet Union?
That's the problem here. It's not the fault of the businesses.
$20 hour inconsistent gig work isn't the same as a $20 salaried job.
Usually they are also in higher COL areas as well so I'd assume they pay more in Tax/Rent etc.
Rents might be high in Southern California, but the bulk of their rapid expansion was in the 70s and 80s when land was still reasonably cheap and they may actually own many of their own buildings.
That being said, it's long been time for In-n-Out to stop using American cheese and switch to Cheddar, but that's a whole industry problem...
Most Americans don't have that option, sadly.
> it's long been time for In-n-Out to stop using American cheese and switch to Cheddar
Please no—American cheese melts better. Or you need to have heavily processed cheddar to melt as nicely, and then there's not much of a difference.
Relying on low skill jobs to provide higher compensation without changing the underlying value prop of the employee seems to undermine fundamental economic principles.
Cooks at higher end restaurants, however, are skilled jobs. It takes years of knowledge and practice to master some culinary techniques, hence they are harder to replace, their work product can be sold for greater profit, and the individual will be able to obtain higher pay.
The same applies construction and most Amy other industry. Some jobs are low skilled, not requiring prior experience or skill, but many are skilled and can demand higher wages. This system incentivizes the individual to learn new skills, gain knowledge, try new things, and thereby gain a access to opportunities that pay higher wages.
But like you said, it's a worthless anecdote.
So does taking a shit job and that being in your employment history.
From the employee perspective it is a lot easier to monitor the job market and actively seek out employment while not employed.
It’s true unemployment is not enough for most people to pay their bills, but that is also true of a lot of full time employment...employers can blame unemployment for being unable to fill positions but if your full time position can’t compete with unemployment benefits the answer isn’t to take away a minimal safety net so employers can force shit wages and no benefits on workers...at best the employer gets the employee they wanted below a living wage and it’s left society as a whole with a significant number of unemployed works with absolutely nothing and not even enough shit jobs with shit wages to employ them all.
There is a reason your comment was downvoted, hint it’s not because people agree with you, and acknowledging a premises is correct while the conclusion is wrong is not the same as agreeing with you (but you knew that).
Your quantitative claim contradicts that characterization.
> - at an extra $600, about 40% of workers would make more on unemployment than at their job
Since what I reported was the rough policy target was that the average worker would be making the same with the boost, only 40% and not approximately 50% making more with the boost isn’t me overselling, if anything, it is the opposite.
All they're saying is they're used to being able to dictate terms and they have less power to do that right now. It's almost as if there was some sort of global crisis that forced everyone to re-evaluate their priorities, and they realized that working for slave wages in dangerous work conditions for companies who demonstrably don't care about them, wasn't a great idea if you could avoid it.
I could offer $250k salaries to each line cook in the restaurant, but then I would have to charge something like $750 per entree. Such a business would fail to attract customers at that price and have to close.
My example was hyperbolic to better draw attention to the principle.
The principle applies, as you admit, that the cost increase would need to be passed onto the customer, who in a competitive business environment will likely chose the lower cost option over two products of similar quality.
If the employer did offer a wage increase, it would need to fit in the overall business ecosystem. For small restaurants maybe they can only afford a $2 raise while breaking even. For the local car wash, maybe $1.25 is the limit. By increasing the wage to an arbitrary number ($15/hr), this ignores the market principles that each business operates under.
Another thought experiment: why only $15? Why not $25? Or $50? Wouldn’t that be better? To set a limit already admits the principle holds and therefore any solution without nuance is unlikely to result in a good outcome.
Don't these arguments apply any time the minimum wage is debated? I heard these same arguments in 2007, and the economy didn't implode (well, not because of the minimum wage). Why did we set it to $7.25 over $6.55? Why did we set it to $6.55 over $5.85? The minimum wage is already set, so the "market principles" have already been violated, yet the industry remains and is profitable.
> I think you underestimate how small margins are at most restaurants.... The principle applies, as you admit, that the cost increase would need to be passed onto the customer, who in a competitive business environment will likely chose the lower cost option over two products of similar quality.
No, I don't underestimate it. But I think if workers can't be paid enough to comfortably afford rent and healthcare then there should be no profit whatsoever. If someone is making a profit while someone else can't afford housing, then something is wrong.
I say set the minimum wage at a point that allows people some dignity, and let the market sort the rest out. Restaurants will set a price and customers will choose whether or not to pay it. Those restaurants that have a compelling menu at an acceptable price will prosper, others will fail and be replaced. Eventually an equilibrium will be reached as higher prices are normalized.
As a customer of restaurants, I can tell you I almost never care about price -- it's all about food and experience. I'm going to a restaurant later today and I'm going to pay 25% over the price of the meal so I can assure the waiter gets the cut they deserve. If that restaurant raises their prices 30-40% to pay their workers more, I will still eat there because I want the food and I don't want to cook.
That just means your business model is unsustainable.
Or add "... who are able to generate more value than they expect to be paid".
Businesses exist to make a profit, and will gladly hire people who make them money. A typical waiter just doesn't generate enough value to justify paying them a wage that will compete with what they're currently being paid to sit around and freeload.
One has retail hospitality jobs open. Total take home pay is $80k annually. People won't even show up for interviews. He's never seen anything like it.
Another is a manufacturing company. Starting pay is $20/hour for someone who can show up and use a tape measure. They're trying to add another shift of production to meet demand but can't get labor.
There's a popular narrative of "poor business owner! Try not paying minimum wage!" but this is mostly coming from people who don't have first-hand experience in hiring, don't know business owners trying to hire less-skilled workers, and believe these reports are coming from people attempting to offer just the minimum wage.
Financial incentives are not working. I'm not convinced it's only UI - it could be childcare as well, or reticence about COVID, or a mix of all above plus more. But it's clear it's not fictional, and it's clear it's not just a matter of not paying minimum wage.
Also $17.50 is an incomplete picture. How many hours per week? Any benefits? I would bet a years salary that it is <40 and no benefits. Would you take that job?
https://www.google.com/search?q=bozeman+montana+wendy%27s+hi...
Also, I don't understand why $13 is "obviously pathetic". I make a little over $15 an hour and I get by just fine.
/s
That sounds more like inflation than productivity actually going up.
$80k/yr for that? Risking my health (or even death) from COVID, guaranteeing damage to my mental health from the abuse? Yeah, pass.
I know less about the manufacturing sector, but from what I do know, it's going to have similar problems: you have to be there in person, and because it's widely considered to be "lower-class" work, there's a higher likelihood than average of abusive behavior toward workers.
This isn't a competitive environment.
Seems like things are working exactly as they should in a modern society. Business needs to pay a living wage to attract workers.
A couple of states are tapering off Covid relief funds so we'll see how that affects worker availability.
Provided you can, i.e. your kids' school isn't still shut down or something so you have to stay home to watch them.
Unemployment benefits are not causing the disruptive effects, they're (to some extent) protecting workers from the disruptive effects, which is exactly what they're supposed to do. They are not a handout, they pay for themselves historically; we should let them work.
edit: why the downvotes?
The downvotes are because the haves want the have nots to shut up and get back to work for them. It’s the equivalent of taking legitimate points raised by workers and responding with stop being a smart ass.
Also, many day cares are still “temporarily” closed, operating at reduced capacity, not taking new children, or have been permanently shuttered due to the pandemic.