Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday July 15 2017, @03:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the Stockholm-Syndrome dept.

I saw an story in Slate about stagnant wages in an economy that is growing otherwise:

There's a disturbance in the force of the U.S. economy. An airline canceled flights because it couldn't find enough pilots to steer them. Despite high demand, homebuilders in Colorado are throttling back activity because they can't find the workers to erect frames. Farmers in Alabama are fretting that crops may rot in the ground for a lack of workers to bring in the harvest.

[...] There are a whopping 5.7 million job openings (well over twice the level of eight years ago). Meanwhile, baby boomers are aging out of the workforce at a rapid clip and Mexicans, many of whom crossed the border to work, have been leaving the U.S. for years. The demand for workers is high.

Given these conditions, wages should be rising sharply. But look at this chart from the Atlanta Federal Reserve: They haven't been, and they're not. … Last week, the New York Times featured a Columbus, Ohio, cleaning company owner mystified that he couldn't find applicants for his $9.25-per-hour jobs ("I sometimes wish there was actually a higher unemployment rate," he actually said) and a Nebraska roofer who couldn't figure out why nobody applied for the $17-an-hour jobs she was offering. "The pay is fair," she said.

Actually, if not a single person applies for your job, the pay probably isn't fair. But that's where America remains stubbornly stuck: Employers won't pay enough, and workers either won't or can't demand more. There are likely a lot of reasons, but the biggest, or least most fixable, may be psychological: From an economic perspective, both sides of the hiring market should have the power to increase overall wages in the current climate—but they aren't.

[...] There could be a skills gap in which the workers out there simply don't have the training necessary to fill the open jobs. Or it could be that, as Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times ventured on Twitter, that "a lot of American businesses have lost the muscle memory of how to compete for workers." That is to say, they have literally forgotten the words to use, and the tools to deploy, when workers aren't lining up in droves to fill their positions.

I also found this in the Daily Caller. It discusses the shortage of H2B workers this year. Most folks here know about H1B workers... H2B is program for low skill seasonal workers which has seen rule changes and cuts this year.

Businesses in Bar Harbor, Maine are turning to locals to make up for a shortage of foreign guest workers that normally fill summer jobs in the bustling seaside resort town.
Because the H-2B visa program has already reached its annual quota, Bar Harbor's hotels, restaurants and shops can't bring in any more foreign workers for the rest of the busy summer tourist season.

[...] The shortage is so acute that companies are sweetening incentives for local workers. Searchfield says some businesses are offering flexible schedules that might appeal to older workers who might be interested in working only a day or two each week. And other companies have gone so far as to offer higher wages to entice locals.

Imagine that.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by RedBear on Saturday July 15 2017, @10:40PM (3 children)

    by RedBear (1734) on Saturday July 15 2017, @10:40PM (#539671)

    We need to practice eugenics on a mass scale one day (soon?).
    To solve this problem you need to take on board a tyrannical mindset.
    when the population became too great the rats began to kill each other.

    Oh, look, a eugenicist. How original. Because the Nazis had such great ideas, I guess? They were real big on eugenics, and made a valiant effort to implement their ideas. Are we better off for it?

    In nature, all culling does is make the remaining population stronger, faster, smarter and more prolific. We keep trying to control various animal populations this way and it keeps backfiring spectacularly. So we double down and do it again, because we're idiots.

    News flash. People have been saying "There are too many people!" for hundreds of years. Maybe thousands. They've always been wrong. Meanwhile, back in reality, the population of most developed countries is declining, and humans have been massacring each other for tens of thousands of years, since before there were even a million total humans in existence. Our problems with coexistence do not originate from overpopulation. It's estimated that the Earth could support 40 billion people if we had proper food distribution. But the population is self-regulating. It's slowing down. I doubt we'll ever reach 10 billion, much less 12 billion. But even that would be perfectly sustainable with sufficient cooperation.

    There's a simple way to control population growth. In every country where women are given equality, education, access to contraception, and employment options, the population growth comes to a screeching halt. Instead of 15 kids it becomes 1.75 kids per woman. Voila, stable or slightly negative population growth.

    So no, sociopath, we don't need to practice eugenics. Except on people who think horrific crimes against humanity will somehow solve humanity's problems. What we do need to do is fight for womens' rights and access to education and employment all around the world. Step one toward that goal is making sure everyone on Earth has access to clean water and sanitation. This remains the most pressing issue for about half of humanity. If you actually want to do something about that, and thereby help curb global population growth far more effectively than any eugenics program, try visiting Water.org.

    Oh, and human beings are not rats, last time I checked. Although I'm not entirely sure if we're better or far, far worse. Never seen a rat that had grand dreams of being a mass rat exterminator.

    --
    ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
    ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 16 2017, @12:58AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 16 2017, @12:58AM (#539718) Journal

    People will not make use of the nature responsibly and cooperation often breaks down into war. Which causes more pollution etc. While sustainable population levels may have misjudged in the past. It doesn't mean they are misjudged this time. And people wants to do more than just being alive.

  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday July 16 2017, @05:11AM (1 child)

    by deimtee (3272) on Sunday July 16 2017, @05:11AM (#539802) Journal

    Oh, look, a eugenicist. How original. Because the Nazis had such great ideas, I guess? They were real big on eugenics, and made a valiant effort to implement their ideas. Are we better off for it?
    In nature, all culling does is make the remaining population stronger, faster, smarter and more prolific.

    You do realise that culling and eugenics are the same thing. Are you actually saying that eugenics is no good because it makes a population stronger, faster and smarter?
    There are plenty of ethical arguments against eugenics, but arguing it doesn't work is arguing against both history and science.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @09:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @09:35PM (#540038)

      You glossed over the "more prolific" bit. If you cull to alleviate overpopulation, but the survivors are more prolific, you'll soon have overpopulation again.