[dasz]

Lazy yet stealing jobs. Yup that makes sense.

The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs. Difficult doesn't imply impossible however. One countering argument is that the more people there are the more taxation there is to support social programs. The truth therefore is that immigration has both good and bad aspects so there's a balancing point: Fully open or fully closed borders are likely a bad idea in general.

"Social programs" here being things like education and health. "Minor" things like that...

[peoplefromibiza]

> The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs

The counter argument is that in an aging Country like mine, less immigration is killing social programs (caregivers are mostly immigrants here) and entire economic sectors (like catering and hospitality) because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job, but the trumpets both left and right shout that the other party is not doing enough to create new jobs and people lament that they can't find one.

We can call it the Schrödinger job that's both nowhere to be found by employers and yet highly prized among the population.

I believe Schrödinger would be very surprised to see that his experiment can be applied to social phenomenon and not only to quantum mechanics.

[gadders]

>> because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job

because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job at a price employers want to pay

Fixed it for you. There is never a labour shortage, only a shortage at a particular wage rate.

[peoplefromibiza]

> because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job at a price employers want to pay

> Fixed it for you

I like people who assume without knowing like anybody else, but that's not the point.

These are jobs that usually pay above average salaries, people simply don't want to work on the evening (restaurants serve dinners, you know...) or in the weekend (restaurants work the most when people do not work or are on holiday etc. etc.)

So they both want the money and the time.

Long story short: they don't want to do the job, which is legit, but can't at the same time complain that there are no jobs IMO.

> There is never a labour shortage, only a shortage at a particular wage rate

There are limits though, over a certain threshold it becomes nonsensical, at some point it's better to kill the job sector entirely and call it a day.

If a waiter wants the same salary of a CEO, probably she/he's shooting too high...

Or they imagine that restaurants should be for billionaires only, that would shrink the number of available jobs to the bare minimum and skyrocket the skills needed to actually do the job.

Schrodinger at work here too.

p.s.: in my Country collective negotiation is the norm, one cannot easily pay radically different salaries for the same job. On the flip side once hired it's not as easy as in other Countries to be fired, it is actually pretty difficult to fire someone.

[gadders]

>> These are jobs that usually pay above average salaries, people simply don't want to work on the evening (restaurants serve dinners, you know...)

People will do all sorts of unsavoury jobs if the pay is high enough. Plenty of people work night shifts in various jobs.

>> There are limits though, over a certain threshold it becomes nonsensical, at some point it's better to kill the job sector entirely and call it a day.

This we can agree on.

------ Update due to the posting too fast rules ----

If I offered to pay you $10,000/night as a waiter in a restaurant, I guess you would take the job. I would.

If I offered you $1/night, you probably wouldn't.

Hopefully, somewhere between those two points is a number that will get people to work and be profitable for the restaurant owner. I'm not sure why people think supply and demand applies to other goods but not labour.

[worker_person]

Upper Limit. Hiring you at $3,000 a month will increase my income by $3,000.

No reason to hire you. Below $3,000 and I can make money.

But ~1/3 employees are lazy and I can't fire them. So I have build in some safety margin for the bad employee's.

So I can pay you $2,000 a month and on average I'll break even. No thanks.

So I can pay you $1,500 a month, I'll make $500.

[peoplefromibiza]

> People will do all sorts of unsavoury jobs if the pay is high enough. Plenty of people work night shifts in various jobs.

One would think...

Problem is that people that are willing to do that are not that many as you imagine.

Maybe where you come from people would kill themselves for money, but not here.

You know who would do almost anything to get a job and become better integrated with society while also feeling better about themselves?

Immigrants.

> If I offered to pay you $10,000/night as a waiter in a restaurant, I guess you would take the job. I would.

Surprise, I would not.

My best friends have restaurants and pubs, if I ever wanted to do that job I would already do that.

But it's not my job, it's not what I am good at and if someone gave me $10,000 night to do that job I would feel like a fraud. Also I would imagine that if you pay me that much, one that is actually good at the job is being paid at least 2x that amount, because I really suck at that!

People have consciences, believe it or not not everyone is a money-slut.

I'm much better off doing my job, which is what I really like to do.

But back on topic: if you offer a waiter 2,000 euros / month + tips (it's a very good salary in Italy) and they stop coming at work after a few days "because I wanted to go to the beach with my friends" there's something different going on, which is not "not enough money".

Besides: there are many psychological studies that point out that people would accept lower salaries for more meaningful jobs or better work/life balance and that they work more willingly if it's a favor to someone (even if it's people they do not know) and/or for free than for a paid position, where they feel like they are only doing it for the money but don't really wanna do that. So they prefer to say no to the money and don't do the thing at all.

Correlations have been found.

For example, I would push someone on a wheelchair for free, but if they offered me money to do it, I would politely refuse with an excuse, because it's not something I wanna do for money (not that I do not like money in general, it's that I do not want to do it as a job, paying someone it's exactly that: hiring the person for the job)

[flerchin]

> Surprise, I would not.

Yes, I find it surprising. Seems to not compute.

>But back on topic: if you offer a waiter 2,000 euros / month + tips

This is poverty wages. That waiter would never be able to afford a home and family of his own. The waiter would find time to go to the beach around his work schedule if he was properly compensated.

[simonh]

If there are more job openings than there are workers to fill them, then it doesn't matter what wages anyone is willing to pay, surely some of those jobs are going to go un-filled?

[bell-cot]

> Lazy yet stealing jobs. Yup that makes sense.

There are lots of people for whom logic, and logical consistency, are non-priorities. If they are anti-immigrant* and emotional, assume that they're trying to articulate their emotions - not get an 'A' on their Public Policy 401 term paper, nor favorably impress people with quite different priorities and educational backgrounds from their own.

*Of course, their anti-immigrant "beliefs" may learned from demagoguery they've been exposed to, which was a good-enough emotional match for their economic & social pain & insecurity.