SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by number6 on Saturday July 15 2017, @06:38PM (13 children)
The issues and problems arising around us today are just the flotsam and jetsam of a bigger problem.
Advancements in technology and science have rendered a large swath of the earths population unnecessary and dangerous for co-existence.
We need to practice eugenics on a mass scale one day (soon?). Earth has limited resources. Taxing robots is not a solution to the population problem.
To solve this problem you need to take on board a tyrannical mindset.
The other day I bumped into a retired ecologist and we had a chat; he mentioned to me a famous rat experiment:
A group of rats enclosed in a contained space were given an abundant food supply and perfect living conditions; they were allowed to breed and populate without restriction; the number of rats in the contained space became large and congested; more food was supplied to accomodate all the rats......but having food was not enough; when the population became too great the rats began to kill each other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @06:43PM (1 child)
Prove you're more civilized than a rat and kill yourself. Kill yourself now.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @07:34PM
You know what he's saying is something that many people believe. For instance even Bill Gates has regularly alluded to 'population management' as an important issue.
His solution is certainly phrased in about as an abrasive way as he could possibly manage, but there are extremely humane ways of enforcing this - if it's a desirable goal. For instance, allow women to be paid $xx,xxx to have their reproductive capacity permanently removed. If they later decide they want children there would be nothing stopping them from adopting. Personally, I don't think population management is the problem or a solution, but attacking somebody because you find an idea distasteful isn't accomplishing anything.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @07:19PM (2 children)
You're assuming a flat level of productivity or productive individuals. Things are proportional. The ratio you're interested in is the number of people necessary to produce all the goods and services for the rest of society. That ratio continues to plummet. But the important thing here is that it's a ratio. Our problems aren't suddenly solved by having fewer people. 300 million, 30 million, 30 million, even 300k. The problem is that there's only a need for a relatively small chunk of society to be working, but our entire economic system takes the necessity and inherent value of mass employment as an assumption.
That rat experiment had so many confounding variables it was absurd. The experiment sample was packed in things the effective size of a shoe box with 0 stimulu, heavily inbred, and more. It was more of an experiment in torturing animals to the point of driving them insane. On Earth we have more than 16 billion acres of habitable (non mountainous, non oceanic) land. The rat experiment is in no way whatsoever relevant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 16 2017, @07:07AM
What is a "need"? In today's world, there is an enormous want for people to work.
What's wrong with the assumption?
(Score: 1) by Goghit on Sunday July 16 2017, @06:08PM
True enough. The observation of the "beautiful ones" amuses me though. These were small subgroups in semi-private locations of the habitat that spent all their time grooming, eating, and sleeping, completely abandoning normal social behaviours like sex and caring for offspring. And then one of them was elected president...
(Score: 5, Informative) by RedBear on Saturday July 15 2017, @10:40PM (3 children)
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
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 16 2017, @12:58AM
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)
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
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.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 16 2017, @12:55AM
People not only need food. They need space and self fulfillment.
And open office landscapes is torture because there's no privacy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 16 2017, @08:03AM
Then why isn't it happening? I'll note this study [voxeu.org] which saw two thirds of the world getting paid 30% or more (adjusted for inflation) in 2008 than they were in 1988. Median income went up by more than 60% over that time period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @11:41AM (1 child)
Look up TED talks and a documentary by Hans Rosling. The population problem is slowly solving itself.
Yes, it's going to get worse first, but not by too much, and then it will reverse.
The problem is, we have an economic system that is dependent on ever increasing growth. Look at what happens to countries with a declining population, or even counties within the US with declining populations. Then consider this on a global scale. Either way, we're screwed unless something fundamental changes.
And don't fall into the trap that your 3 minute musings are sufficient to understand and solve the problem...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 16 2017, @11:11PM
Population growth != economic growth. You can get economic growth from increasing automation and greater longevity, for example. And countries with declining population are actually doing rather well.