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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Strange—I wonder what was happening a year ago that meant people were uninterested in going back in to work. I feel like something weird was happening, but I can't remember what it was.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.