> But for now, Republican legislators are starting to turn to teenagers.
executives & shareholders: "we would rather hire kids than pay a living wage to adults"
Teens aged 14 and above are already able to work relatively long hours under current child labour laws, so why are you speaking as if teens in the US are forbidden from any type of work? https://www.oshaeducationcenter.com/articles/child-labor-law....
Aside from the fact that most kids can’t tell when they’re being exploited, why should kids be the stopgap for corporations that not even adults want
According to the rules of the “free market”, these jobs should either provide better conditions or working conditions or both in order to attract talent, because the issue is not an oversupply of capable workers, it’s less.
Aside from the fact that most kids can’t tell when they’re being exploited, why should kids be the stopgap for corporations that not even adults want
According to the rules of the “free market”, these jobs should either provide better conditions or working conditions or both in order to attract talent, because there’s plenty of workers— they just don’t want to work for the lack of return.
Could be several different reasons that all boil down to supply/demand and leverage.
In the article, it's claimed that many businesses can't afford to pay more, which is fairly believable for small businesses and for industries with global price pressures. The workers can't find better jobs, so they take whatever they can get.
"why don't those who do them deserve to make ends meet?"
They do, but society can't get it together to balance interests in a way that works for everyone (if that's even possible). Also, $15/hr should be fairly doable in a rural area.
That's what we should call a "Low value" business, which is actually what many businesses and entire industries are in the real world. Restaurants say they can't find workers, when the truth is pay and work conditions cannot attract workers. They say they can't afford to pay higher salaries, the response is "then raise prices". They say "then we'll lose our customers". Good! The business is not valuable enough and that means customers have to do without.
There is absolutely no need to continue with low value economic activity.
I'd like to correct that with "they believe they don't have an alternative." Almost all of them can get a better job, and that's why they are leaving bad employers and bad industries. Information is traveling faster than ever right now, and people are waking up. Gone are the generations of older people recommending a young person to take a shit job. Instead they are getting advice from the middle generations who have already been burned to stay far away from these jobs. Even people at the bottom have mobility and will go where better opportunities are found.
> Of course stuff like farm work and grocery stores are low paying, so it's not like they're just going to disappear.
Farm work has been massively automated with tractors and harvesters, those jobs have mostly disappeared. Today but a tiny percentage of the work force are employed in farming, when before it was the majority of the population. Grocery stores have changed as well. When before there were clerks handing goods over the counter, now people grab their products from shelves.
Experience showing up to work, following instructions, getting along with bosses and coworkers is valuable even if the work itself requires little skill.
And there we have it. "I don't view your work as being valuable enough to justify you being able to obtain basic needs for yourself (like food and shelter), let alone a family. Now give me my frappe."
Funny how we will still call such employees "essential" when it's time to force them to work in shitty and potentially dangerous conditions.
Can you read the article first before typing out your next comment? Those jobs have always hired teens without these imminent changes to child labour laws. You are defending something that hasn't changed, and isn't relevant to what people are concerned about as reported in the article link in this thread.
>a job he may have been happy to have as a first job or for supplemental income
You are contradicting yourself here. Those two conditions don't occur at the same time.
They are not, that's why minimum wage has lagged behind livable wage standards in the United States and Canada for decades, because minimum wages aren't livable wagges.
>the work will either just not get done or it will be automated
But I thought the free market runs itself? If an employee is bad they'd be gone in an eyeblink, so if a job is bad, why should it be allowed continued existence? Unemployment is at historical lows which is part of the reason why these awful jobs with awful pay can't be filled.
>Experience showing up to work, following instructions, getting along with bosses and coworkers
There are plenty of adults who work in """high value jobs""" failing all of that every, single, day. Some of them are here in this very thread advocating for child labour despite not having a single minute of experience working in any of these jobs that are about to exploit children.
You can learn this anywhere... in fact, I think there's a place where children can go that they're supposed to be on time, listen to staff, follow instructions, and get along with others. It's called school, dummy.
Except, obviously, this work is worth kicking wage, because we want to eat meat.
Also what's wrong with companies having to pay living wage instead of child labour ?
Pick up and drop off laundry? Sign me up! For $50? Umm. Maybe I'll pass.
Of course you see this effect where middle class people in developing countries have far more full-time help than all but the wealthiest do in the US and Western Europe.
I suspect that in the coming years, we'll see far more self-service, automation, and some services that are pretty commonplace today becoming much more of a luxury.
This has been a known thing, an upcoming problem for decades. Everyone knew this was coming. Everyone.
Canada is trying to get out of this hole (the fact that there are 1.4 births per two Canadians), the "population collapse" hole, via immigration, with 500k immigrants per year.
That would be like 5M immigrants per year in the US.
For a comparison, due to the 1 child policy, China's population will halve before 2035.
China is in very, very serious trouble. The entire West is too, but China's trouble will be far worse. Japan keeps building robots, and mechanized walk-assist devices.
There was no "great resignation", simply a well known "great retirement".
Now, should people be paid a decent wage? Of course!! But that won't change this problem one bit, as there are simply not enough working age adults.
And to highlight this, not only do retirees reduce thr number of candidates available for work, they also require more care. Health care, end of life care, nursing homes.
Heck, expecting an independent 70 year old to shingle a roof, something a cash strapped 30 year old might engage in, is far less likely.
So a "too heavy" society is a major issue. And we knew it was coming, for decades, and did not resolve the issue.
For additional clarity, the world will be at about 5 billion at 2040, without war or plague.
To resolve that, the 60yo+ generation now controlling 80% of the wealth will need to part with that wealth to incentivize the following generation to maintain their standard of living.
It turned out that when pressured with indefinite hand-to-mouth conditions, people found other ways to checkout of the economy, even if it meant living in the woods.
This isn't the cause of the labour shortage, and it will not solve it either.
Note: I already said; fair wage is sensible.
To resolve that, the 60yo+ generation now controlling 80% of the wealth will need to part with that wealth to
This number is wildly inaccurate. But beyond that, no one is hoarding anything.
Instead, it is called "retirement savings". It is money for housing, health care, nursing home costs, food, and to help offspring. Once retired, the valves open, because few have pensions, and even those that do, it is not enough.
So your desire already happens, naturally.
What you are describing is called "being responsible", and an attempt for people to not burden themselves on their children.
These are not miserable bastards, trying to keep money from the young.
And when these people die, that money doesn't vanish, it flows to offspring.
I can find no immediate evidence that any demographers actually claim this.
But I am really interested if there are other projections with lower numbers!
While there was a problem with health care funding in Canada, current issues are more severe. There are not enough doctors, nurses, and so on.
And this problem will get worse and worse, as it will everywhere. For example, even with covid numbers way down, hospitals in many areas of Canada are constantly overrun. Hospitals overrun is made worse, because many people have no family doctor, and must go to a hospital for minor issues.
There are not enough beds, with people often stuck in the halls, or being discharged early.
And this is just at the start of this employability crisis.
Now imagine how life expectancy looks, if you cannot get surgeries which extend that life, or, even have issues getting basic blood work done, and preemptive tests.
Most of the population stats you see, are predicated upon life expectancy staying the same, not crashing.
Secondly, China has been lying about population numbers for years, and recent numbers show it is far worse that they admit.
An ominous note here: this is not a temporary thing. With some reproductive numbers approaching 1 per two people, we are already slated for half a century of this, at least.
And if we try to bring those numbers up to "replacement" levels, as some areas have urged/begged their citizens to do? If we try to return them to at least 2.2 per couple?
It means a generation or two of people still caring for the excess elderly, and also caring for the excess young. Squeezed on both ends.
If you're talking about Gen Y and Z ( though Gen Y [millenials] only has another 10-15 years in a suitable baby-making age range) they'd have to also not be living paycheck to paycheck or with a very minor cushion to even entertain the idea of having kids.
I'm in my late 30s and I only have a couple friends who have had a baby in the last 10 years (well one is pregant). The rest are unable to afford more than their own 100-150 square foot room in a shared house due to the housing crisis in my city (Vancouver). I've already resigned that I would never be able to afford kids even if I wanted them
Quebec has all sorts of bonuses, tax deductions, monthly payouts per child, and Canada (the federal level) kicks in incentives as well. Quebec provides extremely low cost day care too.
Nothing makes a difference. It isn't money.
I often see couples with 2 new cars, $1000 smart phones, 70" TVs, saying it's money. While clearly everyone isn't well enough off for this, if money was the issue, why are well off people not having 4 kids? Or even 3, often?
In Vancouver, I have only a couple of friend with kids. One has a FAANG management job after years of IC. The other is a single mother who works odd jobs and has kids in their teens now (one might be 20 actually). She receives alimony and government benefits, and allowed her to keep them fed and even take them on vacation once a year, but only because she locked in a rental unit 20 years ago and never moved or got evicted, and has some untaxed money coming in from selling art, the benefits, and she never eats out (only cooks and shops on budget). And she has shared custody with the father of one who does have some kind of job.
This isn't possible for people who don't have that stable place to live, and even then she doesn't have the freedom that my parents did to take them to things that cost money
What I'd love to know is why this labour shortage doesn't lead to increased wages for the workers who are not retiring.
That said, wages have gone up some, but generally not for people that remain at a company, you have to be willing to switch jobs to get the benefit.
Boomers and their offspring loved to give away extra free labor. Younger generations have learned that's a fruitless endeavor.
I'm not sure how that follows. An aging population wants a different basket of goods and services but it's not necessarily smaller and is likely to be greater with respect to e.g. healthcare.