[dtwest]

This is a very surprising number given the expectations. There are many companies hiring in the service sector that cannot find enough workers. As such, average hours worked is skyrocketing as well:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAELAH

It seems likely that unemployment benefits are contributing to this labor shortage.

[envy2]

It seems likely that low wages are contributing to this shortage. There's lots of evidence that once employers bump wages to $15+ an hour, the have little difficulty filling roles.

This report from Pittsburgh is a good example: https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2021/05/04/how-l...

[DamnYuppie]

What I am seeing on the ground is definitely disagreeing with this. 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. Where I live there are tons of people looking to hire at $20/hr and they are getting zero applicants. These jobs range from Walmart, local delivery drivers, yard crews, etc. It is pretty harsh trying to compete against free money.

[abxytg]

Let me know where you are! I know 5 - 10 people locally on unemployment looking for jobs >$13 / hr, 25hrs / week! They'd LOVE a good job with $20/hr, full time, and benefits. There is absolutely no such thing anywhere else in the USA, the people where you live are so lucky! I'm in a second tier West Coast city and anywhere with a help needed sign still up is offering ~$11/hr.

[DamnYuppie]

Boise, ID

[abxytg]

That's actually perfect! I know 3 people in Boise right now with college degrees looking for work like that. Do you hav specifics so I can forward to them?

[DamnYuppie]

Here are the ones I saw yesterday, 4/7.

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.

[octernion]

yeah i'd love to see just one job posting that falls into this category. as far as i can tell you are just making stuff up.

[supernovae]

I know a printer who can't hire people... he thinks its because of free money, but in reality it's because he's a supreme asshole and when people didn't HAVE to work for him, they chose not to.

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.

[DamnYuppie]

That maybe the case for that person but when people simply aren't even applying to jobs that is something else.

[supernovae]

If you're a great company to work for, you won't have any problems hiring. It really is that easy. Friends, Recommendations, Word of Mouth...

[elliekelly]

The $3,200 in stimulus provided over the course of a year is not “a lot of money” anywhere in the US. And since it’s the equivalent of $1.50/hour for a full time worker for the year it’s certainly not enough to discourage anyone from working.

[j0ba]

We're talking about unemployment benefits, not stimulus money.

[Dah00n]

No..

>"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."

[elliekelly]

If that’s the case then surely you’ll excuse the misunderstanding since “money in stimulus” is an unusual (and somewhat misleading) way for someone to say “unemployment benefits”.

[missedthecue]

It's boosted by the federal government, hence the stimulus. In some states, people are getting $4k a month for sitting on their butt. Even offering $5k or $6k a month, it's hard to lure people from 0 hours of work to 40 hours of work per week.

[devwastaken]

Haven't seen this personally, a lot of small businesses have closed and WalMart is the same wages. Went to a hiring event with "live interviews" and it was actually just a bag of paper with places that are hiring, with a candy bar and pens inside. All of it being things like home Depot, "nursing assistant", retirement homes, etc. Same as years before the pandemic but few of it being locally grown business. There was a "IT hiring event" and it was actually just entirely an ad for why you have to go to college and get an IT degree, nobody is actually looking to hire outside the box. I believe a number of places figured out they can downsize quite successfully.

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.

[kreeben]

>> people are getting a lot of money in stimulus

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.

[DamnYuppie]

As I stated in my comment it was based on recent conversations with business owners in my area, so I am the source.

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?

[codemac]

$14/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks is $28k/year.

$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.

[0]: https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/16

[bryanlarsen]

To emphasize your point in other words, this means that the difference between $14 and $20 is massive. $14/hr will just cover food & rent & essentials with nothing left for quality of life. $20/hr means you can afford beer.

[kreeben]

Today I woke up regretting being overly aggressive yesterday when replying to your comments. I also regret viewing your words in the worst way possible. Finally, I regret putting words into your mouth. I was (very, very) drunk last night and was acting foolishly. I used our discussion to win karma points. I'll try better next time. Will you accept my sincere apology?

[kreeben]

I found your unsubstantiated claim that "people aren't even applying to these great fucking job opportunities" laughable.

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?

[maxfurman]

I know I wouldn't work for Walmart even for $20/hr because their benefits are notoriously bad. You can compete with free money by offering a better total package than just money. Never mind the opportunity cost of working for Walmart instead of starting your own business, educating yourself, etc. etc.

[missedthecue]

Would you rather make $17 an hour playing video games in your pajamas or $20 an hour coming into work every morning?

That's the problem here. It's not the fault of the businesses.

[Dah00n]

Ah yes, the slogan used worldwide by ultra conservatives and the extreme right. Here in Denmark it is "Det skal kunne betale sig at arbejde! ("You should benefit from having a job!") Said by no-one ever who have actually had to sit on their ass with nothing to do for years. What is your dream is most people's nightmare. With no job you will live a second rate life as everyone who have been there long enough will know. In Denmark they will even have free healthcare like everyone else and yet people still would rather work then collect unemployment benefits (which is also much better and higher than it is in the States). It's a myth.

[Izkata]

Well, it was confirmed true a year ago: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/employers-struggle-compete-6...

[joshuamorton]

None of the jobs you listed give a consistent $20 salary. None of them give a consistent $15 salary.

$20 hour inconsistent gig work isn't the same as a $20 salaried job.

[spamizbad]

What metro area is this? I know people looking for work who would be delighted for $20/hour.

[imtringued]

If someone gets free money and they spend it, they increase demand for labor, which makes it easier to raise wages until working becomes attractive again.

[throwkeep]

They would have even less difficulty hiring if they paid $100 an hour. So I'd question how useful that framing is.

[xnx]

Extremely useful. That framing conveys that it is not a matter of absolutes, but negotiation. Anything for a price.

[ctdonath]

If those jobs don’t produce >$15/hr, they don’t happen.

[fastball]

Low wages only contribute to unemployment if you're paying people to not work. Otherwise the decision between "low wages" and "no wages" is an obvious one for everyone.

[kbelder]

True for individuals, but married couples often do have to decide whether low wages are worth more than no wages for one of the couple. Same with teenagers.

[jeffbee]

There was a line of job seekers around the block at In-n-Out burger the other day. They pay $17/hr with paid time off, health/dental/vision and a 401(k) plan. The burgers are still $3.

[hemloc_io]

I've always wondered how local/regional chains, In-n-Out/Dicks, tend to be as cheap as national ones while usually having better food and paying much better than national chains.

Usually they are also in higher COL areas as well so I'd assume they pay more in Tax/Rent etc.

[nonameiguess]

Don't know about all small businesses that provide quality employment and a quality product at low price while remaining in business, but In n Out is famously family owned by an extremely religious family with no desire to grow fast, take over their industry, or go public to turn investors into multibillionaires. They don't even have investors. Perfectly happy to just be ordinary millionaires and share the value of the company with their employees.

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.

[jeffbee]

Maybe they do, but I checked the ones in my county and the sites are owned by East Coast REITs. I'm sure they are able to negotiate reasonable long-term leases, of course.

[sundaeofshock]

They are privately held. I think it's safe to assume the owners are taking a smaller profit in order to maintain quality and treat their employees well.

[Der_Einzige]

Lack of advertising, far smaller menu, and motivated workers. I really wish Americans would stop choosing objectively worse food (McDonalds) over In-n-Out...

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...

[mcphage]

> I really wish Americans would stop choosing objectively worse food (McDonalds) over In-n-Out

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.

[squidlogic]

High paying fast food jobs are probably the exception not the norm.

Relying on low skill jobs to provide higher compensation without changing the underlying value prop of the employee seems to undermine fundamental economic principles.

[jeffbee]

Well, we need to turn that thinking around or our country will be (more) completely fucked. We need people who cook food and build houses and dig trenches, so we need to figure out how to make those people well-enough paid to live a life with dignity. There are tons of "low-skill" jobs that just need to get done.

[squidlogic]

There are low skilled cooks and high skilled cooks. A fast food worker is low skilled, as in, without prior skills a new entrant could do the task to a similar level of proficiency as someone who has experience.

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.

[BitwiseFool]

This is anecdotal, but I have a friend currently on unemployment benefits and he's enjoying his 'time off' while looking for a more permanent job. He wants a good job, not just any job. So for him it makes sense to be choosy rather than just start working at some place with a help-wanted sign and lose his benefits while also losing his free time to search for something better.

[xzit]

Wow they must make a LOT in unemployment! That doesn't make sense at all to me, unemployment insurance didn't even cover half of my rent, and comes with a stigma.

But like you said, it's a worthless anecdote.

[throwaway_kufu]

> and comes with a stigma.

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.

[xzit]

Having an unbroken employment history does not have the stigma that having gaps in your resumé does. Thank you for agreeing with me though.

[throwaway_kufu]

It’s not black and white. If you have a gap and the reason is because you got pregnant and gave birth there is likely no stigma at all. Meanwhile if you were working for Google and took a job driving for Uber you might not ever get the opportunity to address it in a future interview because the stigma.

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).

[octernion]

"thank you for agreeing with me" has to be one of the most-annoying neckbeard phrases in the english language.

[dragonwriter]

The $600 increase (later dropped to $300 which obviously fell short of the same effect but worked in the same direction) brought the average unemployment check to about 100% of pre-unemployment wages (which was why that level waa chosen, as a flat amount in part because its easier for states to implement but also because it does more for those at the lower end of the income distribution.) And the pandemic reduced the stigma somewhat.

[Izkata]

You're underselling it - at an extra $600, about 40% of workers would make more on unemployment than at their job: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/employers-struggle-compete-6...

[dragonwriter]

> You're underselling it

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.

[oceanghost]

Anytime you hear a company say they "cant find enough workers" you need to add to the end of that sentence the phrase "at the price I'm willing to pay."

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.

[squidlogic]

You could also replace “at a price I’m willing to pay” with “at a price my business can sustain and remain in the black.”

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.

[ModernMech]

Yes, that is an extreme example and quite absurd. But what if you pay them enough so they can comfortably afford their rent and healthcare? Then you charge a little bit more so the people who are comfortable enough to afford eating out can help make up the difference. Maybe you even make the restaurant a little less profitable in the process. What if in doing this, your line cooks now can afford to each out at other restaurants, and the cooks from those restaurants now can afford to eat at yours?

[squidlogic]

I think you underestimate how small margins are at most restaurants.

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.

[ModernMech]

> 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?

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.

[Dah00n]

$15/h is insane. The lowest pay at a McDonald's in Denmark is $18+ which is a crap wage.

[danaris]

Any business that cannot survive without paying its employees too little for them to live comfortably (not "extravagantly", but also not "desperately") does not deserve to exist. Period. Its business model depends on being subsidized by government programs that support the destitute.

[imtringued]

>I think you underestimate how small margins are at most restaurants.

That just means your business model is unsustainable.

[seneca]

> Anytime you hear a company say they "cant find enough workers" you need to add to the end of that sentence the phrase "at the price I'm willing to pay."

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.

[mediaman]

I've talked with several business owners in a major west coast metro.

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.

[jeffbee]

The business owners might not be wrong, but they might not be right, either. Many people, at least in my area, simply cannot accept jobs even if the compensation seems reasonable, because our housing crisis is severe and our transportation system is garbage. When the median home price is $1.6 million, people you want to hire at $20/hr are driving in from 2+ hours away, which when you consider that many schools and other child care systems are still closed or partially closed means that taking these jobs is simply not possible. The whole thing is tied together. Sensible land use and good transportation will keep a lid on wages. Bad land use and terrible transportation will cause wages to rise.

[N1H1L]

Exactly. Labor market is linked to many other things. Wages are the most important factor, but not the only factor.

[abxytg]

I can promise you that "People won't even show up for interviews. He's never seen anything like it." is not accurate. Either he isn't advertising the wage and he needs to be, or he is lying his ass off. I know so many people that would take any old job at $80k.

[missedthecue]

I don't think you're being nuanced enough. Wendy's in Montana is offering $17.50 an hour and not getting applicants. That's clearly a sign of some deep structural labor market issues.

[abxytg]

That's a TOTALLY different story than not being able to find people at $80k my guy.

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?

[missedthecue]

People in feb 2020 were taking the job for $12 an hour. Why won't they take it now for $17.50?

[octernion]

would love a citation for the $17.50 number. every posting for wendy's in MT is $13/hour, which is obviously pathetic.

[missedthecue]

First result

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.

[Dah00n]

For reference the lowest wage at a McDonald's in Denmark is above $18 plus extra for outside normal working hours like holidays etc.

[gruez]

The GDP per capita of denmark ($61,478) is 50% higher than montana ($39,356).

[mcphage]

I wonder which way cause & effect goes.

[Dah00n]

To add, one have a minimum wage while the other have a system where politicians have no say in wages (it's decided by employers and unions).

[godtoldmetodoit]

I was just listening to Yellen talk about this today, she definitely thinks childcare and concerns about covid are the primary forces keeping people from seeking work. Lot's of schools are still only having kids in a few days a week, shutting down at the first sign of a positive covid case etc.

[danaris]

COVID is still a major danger in most of the US, and hospitality is one of the industries where I, at least, would be most concerned about it. You have to be there in person, the customers are going to be coming from everywhere, and a significant percentage of the customers are going to feel fully entitled to abuse you—and the management is highly likely to tell you they're allowed to, and you just have to do whatever they want. Including let them get in your face with no mask, spittle flying.

$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.

[caeril]

This is one compelling argument for UBI being far superior to unemployment benefits or welfare. It supports your basic needs, but it doesn't eliminate the incentive to seek employment.

[ZoomerCretin]

Why do you feel this to be a compelling argument? It doesn't matter how high you think the wages are. If they are not attracting enough workers, they are too low.

[missedthecue]

They are competing with the money printer at the federal reserve.

This isn't a competitive environment.

[andrewjl]

Maybe not such a bad thing given the zeitgeist? Also higher and rising labor expenses force higher capex, a long-term benefit for American competitiveness.

[whynotminot]

So when people have a safety net they don't have to settle for wage slavery?

Seems like things are working exactly as they should in a modern society. Business needs to pay a living wage to attract workers.

[mc32]

Definitely, Covid disbursements for many people surpass entry-level job wages. If your Covid relief works out to $15/hr why work for $15/hr? I probably would not move for anything less than $20/hr if I were in that position.

A couple of states are tapering off Covid relief funds so we'll see how that affects worker availability.

[nonameiguess]

I can't speak to any actual person's mentality, but Covid relief is temporary, whereas wages are subject to a ratchet effect and establish a future baseline for what you'll be paid for the rest of your working life. If you're being offered more than you used to make before and it's anywhere near what you earn in temporary relief payments, the economically sanest decision is to take it.

Provided you can, i.e. your kids' school isn't still shut down or something so you have to stay home to watch them.

[mc32]

Yes, there are advantages to taking the job such as if the job has prospects for promotions and you have fewer competing for them, and also you gain more experience and so on, but if your marketable skills are dead-end jobs, there isn't much to incentivize you.

[sct202]

Yeah one of my friends said a unemployment is basically the equivalent of $20/hr for her, but she would work for something similar for the benefits.

[ineptech]

I disagree, this seems like an expected outcome. The economy is turbulent; it has been disrupted and is in the process of adjusting. Some (relatively brief and localized) shortages are expected as the markets find a new equilibrium.

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.

[enraged_camel]

The other likely factor is that many schools are either still closed or are doing remote learning, which means many parents are stuck with having to look after their kids when they would otherwise be working.

edit: why the downvotes?

[throwaway_kufu]

Child care is a significant and major expense in the US, most of the people on HN that work for tech companies work for companies that more or less are openly hostile towards married employees with families, in fact anything less than a young single working willing to drink the company cool-aide often “isn’t a good culture fit”. But the average worker has additional costs that never get factored in just to work, transportation (for me that’s about $600/month), dry cleaning ($100), food (of course this can’t be negated entirely but is often more expensive while working outside the home).

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.

[willcipriano]

This also factors into peoples calculations. If you suddenly have to pay for childcare there isn't much of a point to go back to work, even for 15 - 20 an hour.

[dragonwriter]

> The other likely factor is that many schools are either still closed or are doing remote learning, which means many parents are stuck with having to look after their kids when they would otherwise be working.

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.

[spamizbad]

Or are open one week, closed the next when someone in contact with a child contracts COVID. Rinse and repeat.