Worker Shortage Crisis Deepening

Bro you have no idea what you’re talking about and what you’re advocating for is dangerous.

You’re talking about going from 8.25 min wage to 15.00. That’s an increase of 81.8% on your wages. You’re ARTIFICIALLY increasing wages on companies by 81.8%.

Now I want you to look at this chart on this page
https://www.caminofinancial.com/profit-margin-by-industry/

If you increase their cost of labor by 81.8% very few of them (only the massive companies) will be able to afford that labor increase given their profit margin. It would shrink their profit margin SO low that they’re wasting their time in business and should close their doors, take those funds, invest them elsewhere and get a job.

 

That's nonsense. A generic pre-canned right wing response. It has nothing to do with people not wanting to work for less than a living wage. Which forces businesses to pay more while not even having to increase the minimum wage. Which, in the end, we will obviously have to do. But it won't be a big "surprise" when we do.

Right-wingers love that "increase the national debt" argument because they feel they don't need to explain why adding to the national debt by investing in the country's future is a bad thing. It's why we progressives don't love pre-canned responses. But that is, of course, a different topic. Duly noted that you used it as your strawman to attempt to change the subject.

 

Ah...I do love the internet. One can be called a socialist loving liberal one minute and a right winger the next.

And speaking of pre-canned responses, what is a "living wage"? How does one define "living wage"?

Is a living wage the same for a single person sharing an apartment with a couple buddies as it is for a married person with two kids?

Is the living wage the same in Hill City Kansas as it is in Chicago?

 

They both are hybrid rolls with the clinic side having to attend at least 3 days a week (have to perform clinic) and the finance side will be a hybrid system, however we are looking at a mere 1 to 2 days a week in office with floating stations.

 

"Artificially"? No! The living wage is not artificial (any further than the fact that money is artificial). It's the amount of money needed to live when you work a full time job. If you want to argue that in some states it's not $15, but $14.99 or $13.99 in others... fine. But, whatever it is, it should make it unnecessary to work more than one full-time job to take care of their basic needs for housing, clothing and nourishment.

Then they go out of business, and a GOOD business entrepreneur takes over the demand and provides any services for which there is a need, either as a family business, or as a business that CAN pay the minimum wage. And the previous owners of those businesses can go work for them for a decent minimum wage.

Building a business is not for everybody. And it most definitely is not for somebody who relies on workers that need to work 2 or more jobs.

 

Nope as we have nurses for phlebotomy so most clinicians do not need certifications and finance there is no requirements for certifications other than those done through our institution which happen ever 3 years.

 

What is your theory as to why they won't come back? Don't those positions usually pay more than whatever they are receiving to be at home?

 

What part of this do you not understand? The market does not care what the living wage is. The living wage does not matter to the market. The market determines wages based upon supply and demand. If supply and demand does not dictate that your wages increase then by ANY DEFINITION, raising wages is an artificial increase in wages.

 

No they won’t because they won’t be able to afford to open the business at the paltry profit margin provided. They will invest their money elsewhere. Why the hell would they invest their time and money in a business with little to no profit margin when they can invest it elsewhere and make a large return?

 

I didn't call you ANYTHING. I described your response as a right-wing generic pre-canned response. I explained that it's the favorite of right-wingers who wish to avoid well-reasoned and though-out responses. But they could be used by anybody, I guess...

"Living wage" is whatever a typical person would need to pay, without government subsidies, for their basic needs in housing, clothing, food.... and other basic needs. There needs to be a federal minimum, and a state minimum that depends on the particular conditions of each state or region. State minimum wage should, at a minimum, be equal or above the Federal minimum wage.

This is a very basic concept. But I have explained it multiple times in the course of this debate.

 

Is family status taken into account when factoring what a living wage is?

As far as minimum wage, it should be set no larger than a city/town level. Anything more than that is stupid. The cost of living difference between Chicago and Red Bud Ill are too great to a statewide minimum wage to make any sense at all.

 

Normally speaking. I honestly have no clue as you'd think with 6.4% unemployment in my state, that we would at least have some applicants (outside of the 3). But I do think that the ones who are receiving up to $18 per hour with the enhanced benefits, there is really no need for people to apply until that is exhausted out.

 

Based on that, I would think the tide would change and you'd get inundated with applications/resumes once that's been exhausted.

As a person that has worked in HR, I would be inclined to interview those three (provided they meet the qualifications) because they've already shown they are willing to work rather than sit at home until the very last second. I flew to another state to interview some candidates. Two showed up of about 40 scheduled. The day prior that area was hit by a severe rain storm and people were flooded out. One woman showed up in a t-shirt, jeans and flip-flops. I was honestly impressed that she bothered to come. I hired her. A guy showed up too but I didn't hire him due to some stuff in his history report.

Good luck in your search. It might take a few more weeks but they'll be scrambling for jobs at some point. The well can't provide water forever.

 

Of course it doesn't! It's why there IS a federal minimum wage.

 

Then the business is not needed. It produces nothing to the country. As the OP states, there is a shortage of workers... win-win.

 

Oh, now you're asking me about the nitty gritty technical questions. They take into account whatever needs to be taken into account to eliminate poverty. What that is... is up to experts. Just establish a minimum living standard, and make it accessible to anybody who wants to work a full time job. It's all that matters.

We must err on the side of eliminating poverty. The only thing that is "stupid" is the richest nation in the world still dealing with poverty. That should not happen.

 

It is a basic concept but you don’t understand it.

Let me see if I can illustrate this for you.

We have a country. In our country we have 100 people. We will assume they all work (must not be liberals right? I keed).

20 of them make $30 an hour. 20 of them make $20 an hour 20 of them make $15 an hour and 20 of them make $10 an hour and 20 of them make $8 an hour and they work 40 hour weeks. Given their time at work they have productivity that equals to 60 widgets created and everybody, all 100 people, want the widgets. But the resources to make the widgets are in such short supply and high on demand that they’re expensive... they cost so much that only the people making $15 an hour and above can afford them.

You say, “That’s not fair!!! Everyone should have enough of a living wage that they can afford this widget that only people making $15 an hour can afford!!! We must force the business to increase ALL wages to $15 per hour minimum so that everyone can afford the widget.” So you do that.

We raise all wages to $15 an hour. So now all 100 people can afford the widget. But we have done NOTHING to increase production, we still only have 60 widgets. However now we have 100 people who can afford them instead of 60. So the widgets fly off the shelves and 40 people who have the money to purchase those widgets go without the widget.

Some of those people who go without are the ones making $20 and $30 an hour. Well now they’re pissed off because they want the widget too. So they go to the guy selling the widget and say look, next week when you make those 60 widgets I want one and I’m willing to pay you $100 more for that widget than you’re asking. The business owner says hell yeah you have a deal. So the next week comes and they get their widgets and he sells out again.

Well enough people hear about the deal that was made and they go to the business owner and say hey, I make $20 and $30 an hour too... I’ll give you $100 more for that widget than you’re asking and he sells out in preorders before he can even put them on the shelf. So the next week comes and all of sudden the widgets price has gone up, it’s $100 more than what it was last week. The price has increased because demand has increased but supply stayed the same.

Now all the people who are now making $15 can’t afford the widget... and the people who USED to be able to afford the widget at $15 an hour are pissed off because now they can’t afford the widget either. So what do they do? They go to their boss and say look this is bullshit. I’m a better employee than Jerry, that’s why you gave me a raise previously and now he’s making the same amount of money I’m making and I can’t afford the widgets that I need to provide for my family, so I demand a raise. And the people after them will demand a raise and so on and so forth.

You now have to come back again and say hey look it’s not fair they can’t afford the widget again!! We have to increase wages!! And it is a never ending cycle that INEVITABLY results in hyper inflation (though it can take a while to get there).

I’ll say this again. You CANNOT artificially increase wages without an increase in production. If you do so, ALL that’s going to happen is an increase in prices to price out the people who couldn’t afford it in the first place.

 

Whose job is it to eliminate poverty? The governments or businesses?

Would it be fair for a business to pay one guy doing the exact same thing as another more just because they are married or have kids?

Sadly, poverty is a fact of life that has existed in all of civilization, there is no actual way to eliminate it totally.

 

And for the record the same is true with stimulus packages. You cannot flood the market with money but have no increase, and in fact a massive deficit, in productivity. You will cause inflation. And if you don’t stop printing money to cover the massive spending your economy will devolve into hyper-inflation.

It is inevitable.

 

I'm sorry you took the time to right up this nonsense. But your example is so linear, juvenile and completely absent of any glimpse of reality that... Well... you wasted your time writing it, and I wasted mine reading it.

A living wage has nothing to do with buying a "widget". It has to do with... living! Basic human needs: eating, clothing, a roof over your head. There is nothing artificial about that. Living costs what it costs. It has nothing to do with "fairness" either. Everybody NEEDS all of them. And that is what establishes a minimum wage. There is nothing artificial about it.

 

Thanks for that. Unfortunately, 2 of the 3 do not meet the min qual's but I'm going to see if HR will work with past experience to compensate for the difference. To be candid, the min qual's are generally over zealous IMHO and at times, I'd rather take a person with experience over fresh meat right out of college with a masters.

 

If you err on the side of eliminating poverty, then you would have to force the people of Red Bud Ill to pay the same as the folks in Chicago....which would only make the cost of living for Red Bud the same as in Chicago.

 

Good luck. Come back and let us know how it works out.

 

America uses the best of all systems... always been that way... we do not limit ourselves to just one

 

Due to the shortage the Chamber of Commerce has approached Biden administration officials and lobbied to double the number of worker visas ans remove the caps on certain countries. I don't know what each individual blue state is citing as their justification for restrictions, but the consequences are the same whatever the rationale.