Unemployment/wages/economy/the future/I need more coffee

[Carrie12345]

I’m over here pondering big issues thanks to jerks in comment sections, lol.

The unemployment rate in my area is still up, but no longer in a scary way (imo.) Apparently, we tend to sit around 5-6%, with some higher spikes here and there, and obviously the highest at lockdown. April 2020 was over 21%. We got below 9% last month.  I assume some families still have someone at home since many of our schools are only in-person a couple days a week.

Back to comments sections. Job fairs, specifically for seasonal and resort type work, have been pretty big flops. And commenters are LOVING blaming it on “free government money” keeping people “lazy”. They clearly have no interest in looking at how quickly the majority of people rushed back to work when they were able.

Anyway, I’m trying to ponder what kind of changes we should really be looking to embrace. If we continue to degrade (economically and socially) occupations like dishwashing, crop picking, hotel services, ride operators, etc., what right do we have to be annoyed when our favorite little establishments can’t service us? Who are we really going to point at when trying to claim that we deserve to receive room service even if it means Bob Smith won’t be able to pay his rent? Especially when we also say that Bob Smith should find a better job if he wants to pay his rent. And then if he does, who is going to bring us our waffles and a fruit cup? Mary Jones? Surely she doesn’t need enough money to pay her bills and, if she does, she should find a better job. And so on, and so forth.

I’m actually trying to avoid thinking about the complete collapse of capitalism, lol, but how does that happen when we tell people both that they should “be better” and that someone had better serve our completely non-essential needs regardless of their own needs? (Though obviously there are some essential ones in there, too, like agriculture.)

I probably shouldn’t be trying to contemplate such big issues so early in the morning.

[Wheres Toto]

We're seeing this a lot around here with restaurants.  They are having a hard time finding employees.   But employers still want to pay way below minimum wage, and for many places there still aren't as many customers as there used to be so tips aren't as good as they used to be, plus they are then required to be around a bunch of people not wearing masks so putting their health at risk.   I can't blame them for not wanting to do it.  

Honestly, the more I learn about capitalism, the more I realize that it can be pretty inhumane, and that things like healthcare and education can't run on a supply and demand model.  Then I realize that we don't have full market driven capitalism, but in the worst way because we actually have huge protections and bailouts for large corporations, but few for average people.  That's completely ass-backwards.  

I actually have a marketing degree and have worked in marketing and advertising quite a bit.   But that doesn't really go into the nuances behind the way the system as a whole really runs.  

[Scarlett]

I am on several local FB pages. It is pretty stressful because people are mean and small:minded. But  I like to keep an eye on the workings of my community. 
 

What I am seeing is low wages for a lot of these service jobs.  And also, I am seeing a lot of people who don’t have jobs.  I few months ago we had an old built in wall oven that we needed hauled off.  I posted about my 48 hour ordeal with this 20 something man who advertised on FB that he picked up scrap like that for free.  I finally was able to get rid of the oven and this man for $10 which was a deal for me.... but now I see his name VERY frequently.  It is always the same.  ‘Looking for anything to get me through the week’.  Or anytime someone advertises needing any type of help he answers ‘ I can do that’.  The truth is he for some reason cannot manage his life. It could be drugs, it could be something mental, or emotional or it could be family issues.  Maybe all of that.  But I don’t really think the problem is lack of work. 
 

My SIL can’t find a contractor or any trades to bid the house they want to build.  Dh says they have never had so much work (engineering firm).  
 

I think we all know someone who took the extra unemployment all the way to the end ( has it ended?) but I know more who were so eager to get back to work.  So I think there are big combinations of problems that keep people ‘down’.  Ad honestly I don’t think it is a problem that humans can solve. Not the societal big picture problem.  Individuals can become self aware enough to solve some of their own problems though.

[SKL]

Most of this is not new.  But I will say I've seen the phenomenon of people being better off, in the short run, collecting aid than working.  And while I think most individuals do think about the longer term and work toward it, there is still a significant percentage who don't.

I can see how one would consider waiting tables nowadays hazardous.  Where I live, such people have had the opportunity to go get vaccinated.  I can also see how it's not as lucrative with fewer people in a restaurant.  That said, I think it will be a bad thing for society if the restaurants go out of business because of all this.  Eating out is a simple pleasure that, at least in the US, is normally accessible to almost everyone.  Having real choices is a good thing, whether you like capitalism or not.  I think they should wait until restaurants can operate at full capacity before they require wage hikes etc.

[Carrie12345]

30 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

Honestly, the more I learn about capitalism, the more I realize that it can be pretty inhumane

This is what I’ve been stuck on for a while. In so many sectors, it’s the people exerting the most energy who are paid the least and treated the worst. There are exceptions of course, but wth? And we actively discourage people from making careers of those things and still expect the positions to be filled.

[SKL]

Capitalism isn't a human, so why would it be humane?  That isn't its purpose.  However, you can see by the results that other systems aren't really humane either.  As a prof from a socialist country pointed out to me, the most meaningful difference is that socialism requires a lot more bureaucracy than capitalism, which means more potential for corruption.  Coupled with the lack of legitimate ways to make money, this means bribery runs the country.

[Carrie12345]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

Most of this is not new.  But I will say I've seen the phenomenon of people being better off, in the short run, collecting aid than working.  And while I think most individuals do think about the longer term and work toward it, there is still a significant percentage who don't.

I can see how one would consider waiting tables nowadays hazardous.  Where I live, such people have had the opportunity to go get vaccinated.  I can also see how it's not as lucrative with fewer people in a restaurant.  That said, I think it will be a bad thing for society if the restaurants go out of business because of all this.  Eating out is a simple pleasure that, at least in the US, is normally accessible to almost everyone.  Having real choices is a good thing, whether you like capitalism or not.  I think they should wait until restaurants can operate at full capacity before they require wage hikes etc.

That’s a perfect example of what I’m wondering though. My kids have been restaurant dishwashers. (As was I, once upon a time.) It was hard work for little pay, so they found jobs they enjoyed more with higher wages. As teenagers in high school. And I completely supported that, because dishwashing sucks.  So who do we think “deserves” to be stuck in that washroom with poor compensation so that we can enjoy the simple pleasure of an omelet and bottomless coffee?  People have faces, names, and stories.  I want to know who we’re talking about, and why we expect them to do it.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

One of my good friends owns a restaurant and cannot find people to work.  He pays well over minimum wage plus tips. 
But then, I have applied for many master’s degree level human services jobs and none want to pay more than $18 an hour when I’m making $25 and frequent overtime as a paramedic. I just got offered a job starting at $15.75 an hour as a family advocate. They want a master’s degree for the job.  Yesterday my local Walmart was hiring for the bakery/deli at $17 an hour.  They just can’t find people to work, and our unemployment rate seems to be low anyway.   
Like being vaccinated, it seems that everyone who wants to work is already working.

Every day I see more restaurants posting on Facebook that they are reducing hours because they can’t find staff.  Restaurants are full here so tips should be normal. And the hourly wages offered are above minimum wage.  I don’t know what the answers are or where the workers are.  It can’t be that everyone wants enhanced unemployment.

[Carrie12345]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

One of my good friends owns a restaurant and cannot find people to work.  He pays well over minimum wage plus tips. 
But then, I have applied for many master’s degree level human services jobs and none want to pay more than $18 an hour when I’m making $25 and frequent overtime as a paramedic. I just got offered a job starting at $15.75 an hour as a family advocate. They want a master’s degree for the job.  Yesterday my local Walmart was hiring for the bakery/deli at $17 an hour.  They just can’t find people to work, and our unemployment rate seems to be low anyway.   
Like being vaccinated, it seems that everyone who wants to work is already working.

Every day I see more restaurants posting on Facebook that they are reducing hours because they can’t find staff.  Restaurants are full here so tips should be normal. And the hourly wages offered are above minimum wage.  I don’t know what the answers are or where the workers are.  It can’t be that everyone wants enhanced unemployment.

Yes, that’s a huge thing, too. The number of jobs that require an advanced degree for relatively low wages is insane. Especially in human services.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

That’s a perfect example of what I’m wondering though. My kids have been restaurant dishwashers. (As was I, once upon a time.) It was hard work for little pay, so they found jobs they enjoyed more with higher wages. As teenagers in high school. And I completely supported that, because dishwashing sucks.  So who do we think “deserves” to be stuck in that washroom with poor compensation so that we can enjoy the simple pleasure of an omelet and bottomless coffee?  People have faces, names, and stories.  I want to know who we’re talking about, and why we expect them to do it.

I don't find dishwashing to be such a terrible thing to do.

That said, like most people, I've done my fair share of minimum-wage jobs while preparing for more lifestyle-sustaining jobs.  I expect my kids to do the same.  I pointed out to them that most of the wait staff and fast food workers are students not much older than they are, and they need to be looking for some work gig, paid or unpaid, for the coming summer.  I don't see why it should be negatively charged.

And some people like a certain kind of "mindless work" enough to keep doing it for years.  There's nothing wrong with that either.

I've worked below minimum wage for years in "salaried," "professional" positions that required long hours with no overtime.  That too was considered a step on the ladder.  I actually liked it less than my factory or food service jobs, but it too was temporary in the grand scheme of things.

If I had to go back to flipping burgers, honestly, I would have no problem doing that.  The hardest thing for me is learning how to do new things at sufficient speed.  I don't need to do something that others find impressive.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

That’s a perfect example of what I’m wondering though. My kids have been restaurant dishwashers. (As was I, once upon a time.) It was hard work for little pay, so they found jobs they enjoyed more with higher wages. As teenagers in high school. And I completely supported that, because dishwashing sucks.  So who do we think “deserves” to be stuck in that washroom with poor compensation so that we can enjoy the simple pleasure of an omelet and bottomless coffee?  People have faces, names, and stories.  I want to know who we’re talking about, and why we expect them to do it.

Great question.

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

I don't find dishwashing to be such a terrible thing to do.

That said, like most people, I've done my fair share of minimum-wage jobs while preparing for more lifestyle-sustaining jobs.  I expect my kids to do the same.  I pointed out to them that most of the wait staff and fast food workers are students not much older than they are, and they need to be looking for some work gig, paid or unpaid, for the coming summer.  I don't see why it should be negatively charged.

And some people like a certain kind of "mindless work" enough to keep doing it for years.  There's nothing wrong with that either.

I've worked below minimum wage for years in "salaried," "professional" positions that required long hours with no overtime.  That too was considered a step on the ladder.  I actually liked it less than my factory or food service jobs, but it too was temporary in the grand scheme of things.

If I had to go back to flipping burgers, honestly, I would have no problem doing that.  The hardest thing for me is learning how to do new things at sufficient speed.  I don't need to do something that others find impressive.

And then we get back to the time honored belief that these service jobs are meant for teens who will move on in a few years.  And I don't have a problem with that, but not everyone can move on for various reasons outlined in my post above.  So for the worker who is ok with the mindless work of something like washing dishes (although it can be quite physically exhausting) are they doomed to low wages?  

 

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

And then we get back to the time honored belief that these service jobs are meant for teens who will move on in a few years.  And I don't have a problem with that, but not everyone can move on for various reasons outlined in my post above.  So for the worker who is ok with the mindless work of something like washing dishes (although it can be quite physically exhausting) are they doomed to low wages?  

 

It depends how you define low wages.  I think that in general, even in service jobs, there are raises over time, so that if the minimum wage is a reasonable minimum, then a 40-hour week should support a person.  And those who are unable to gradually rise to the level of a living wage, due to various issues, should have access to tax-funded subsidies.

I'm not commenting on whether the current minimum wage is reasonable.  It varies by location.  I don't believe minimum wage needs to be a "living wage."

One problem we have in some service jobs is the requirement to pay union dues, which are pretty stiff for part-time, low-wage people, and which provide no benefit to them.  I think that should change if we actually care about these people.

[mom2scouts]

2 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

One of my good friends owns a restaurant and cannot find people to work.  He pays well over minimum wage plus tips. 
But then, I have applied for many master’s degree level human services jobs and none want to pay more than $18 an hour when I’m making $25 and frequent overtime as a paramedic. I just got offered a job starting at $15.75 an hour as a family advocate. They want a master’s degree for the job.  Yesterday my local Walmart was hiring for the bakery/deli at $17 an hour.  They just can’t find people to work, and our unemployment rate seems to be low anyway.   
Like being vaccinated, it seems that everyone who wants to work is already working.

Every day I see more restaurants posting on Facebook that they are reducing hours because they can’t find staff.  Restaurants are full here so tips should be normal. And the hourly wages offered are above minimum wage.  I don’t know what the answers are or where the workers are.  It can’t be that everyone wants enhanced unemployment.

Yes, I drove two miles from home yesterday and then home and it was mostly through a residential area and into a commercial corner. I saw seven help wanted signs in those 15 minutes. Almost all of them had signs that offered well above minimum wage and I live in a low cost area. 

[Bootsie]

What I am seeing in my area is that there are a lot of restaurants and retail establishment looking for workers.  For my college students, however, the hiring of entry-level professional, management trainee, and similar positions appears slow.  In the types of jobs with lower turnover, firms want to hold off on hiring until they see a bit more economic recovery and have an idea of where their company is headed.  Also, they prefer to hire people who seem to be a good long-term match which requires more interaction with more people during the interview process. So, they are holding off until more people are together in the office.

Establishments that are dependent on entry-level workers are finding it difficult to compete when the potential workers are receiving unemployment benefits that exceed what they will make if they go to work.  I know a number of college students who would have spent this past year working a part-time job while attending college.  If they make $1600 per month unemployment, they would have to make over $20 per hour working 20 hours per week to just break even financially.  The local businesses are hurting.  First they had to close; now they can reopen but they can't afford to pay way over $20 per hour for workers.  

[HeartString]

I was thinking about this today. I think the missing piece of information is all the women who had to leave the workforce to care for kids doing school at home.   Many of those were moderately skilled jobs that still needed to be done by someone.  A person who is a great cashier can be a receptionist, or file clerk.  I worked as a human resource assistant right out of high school. That leaves a smaller pool of people available to work at McDs. 

And very few people who have worked an 8-5 office job want to go back to shift work at McDs so the moms that quit to deal with virtual school are just going to hold out and wait for another office job once the kids are back in school. Many of them won’t bother looking for new jobs until September to avoid the summer care issue. 

 

There are also the 500,000 or so people that were alive in 2019 and aren’t anymore.  Not all of those were elderly retired people.   Crassly-the jobs that used to be filled by people who have passed still needed to be filled.  That causes people to move up and opens up positions at the bottom for entry level workers. 

Im sure some people are just riding out the unemployment, but that’s not the only issue.  

Edited April 28, 2021 by HeartString

[frogger]

3 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

That’s a perfect example of what I’m wondering though. My kids have been restaurant dishwashers. (As was I, once upon a time.) It was hard work for little pay, so they found jobs they enjoyed more with higher wages. As teenagers in high school. And I completely supported that, because dishwashing sucks.  So who do we think “deserves” to be stuck in that washroom with poor compensation so that we can enjoy the simple pleasure of an omelet and bottomless coffee?  People have faces, names, and stories.  I want to know who we’re talking about, and why we expect them to do it.

As you say, your children went and found better jobs. The person who is washing dishes thinks that is their best option. The solution is not to take awsy someone's best option, it is adding more options. If people have more options then there will be fewer people willing to wash dishes and restaurants who pay the most will get them. This will lead to an increase in dishwasher's wages.

We need more freedom, not less.

[HeartString]

Depending on which state you’re in, the unemployment rate is really low most places, which kind of contradicts the idea that a whole bunch of lazy bums are just not working.  It’s between 3-5% in a lot of states which is really low.  

 

[frogger]

3 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Yes, that’s a huge thing, too. The number of jobs that require an advanced degree for relatively low wages is insane. Especially in human services.

I think that is because there are a large number of people who want to do them because they are fulfilling in a different sense so they are willing to take less pay otherwise they would choose to take a different kind of work that paid more. My daughter wants this type of job. She knows that it pays less so she is finding ways to get there without debt. If she only cared about money she would choose something less fulfilling or physically harder and more miserable such as working out in the elements.

[HeartString]

8 minutes ago, frogger said:

As you say, your children went and found better jobs. The person who is washing dishes thinks that is their best option. The solution is not to take awsy someone's best option, it is adding more options. If people have more options then there will be fewer people willing to wash dishes and restaurants who pay the most will get them. This will lead to an increase in dishwasher's wages.

We need more freedom, not less.

That’s true. If everyone gets a better job, no one is left to do the “not good” jobs.  Not because people are lazy, but because they improved themselves.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

It depends how you define low wages.  I think that in general, even in service jobs, there are raises over time, so that if the minimum wage is a reasonable minimum, then a 40-hour week should support a person.  And those who are unable to gradually rise to the level of a living wage, due to various issues, should have access to tax-funded subsidies.

I'm not commenting on whether the current minimum wage is reasonable.  It varies by location.  I don't believe minimum wage needs to be a "living wage."

One problem we have in some service jobs is the requirement to pay union dues, which are pretty stiff for part-time, low-wage people, and which provide no benefit to them.  I think that should change if we actually care about these people.

No benefit to them? How about almost free excellent health insurance, increased wages, and participation in a retirement saving plan? That’s what low wage home health aids, including part-time workers, got in my state when they unionized. And already public employees represented by unions don’t have to pay dues, they can opt out and still get the benefits. I have mixed feelings about unions, but to claim they provide no benefits to workers is quite the stretch.

[Carrie12345]

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

As you say, your children went and found better jobs. The person who is washing dishes thinks that is their best option. The solution is not to take awsy someone's best option, it is adding more options. If people have more options then there will be fewer people willing to wash dishes and restaurants who pay the most will get them. This will lead to an increase in dishwasher's wages.

We need more freedom, not less.

I sort of mostly agree with that.  Like, the two job fairs I’m thinking of didn’t have enough applicants to fill half their positions. One of them actually had 20 applicants for 200 positions. Since our area unemployment rate is getting closer to normal, I assume people have found jobs they like better and/or pay better. So how can people in the comments sections get so angry that these businesses don’t have enough people to provide services? 

[Carrie12345]

6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 

There will ALWAYS be people to fill those positions.  As teens grow into adults...........12yr olds grow into teens.  The supply of laborers for these sorts of positions isn't going to go away.  Fluctuate, yes.  Disappear, no

But what we’re seeing IRL is that there AREN’T people to fill those positions. And “we” are getting mad about it.

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Depending on which state you’re in, the unemployment rate is really low most places, which kind of contradicts the idea that a whole bunch of lazy bums are just not working.  It’s between 3-5% in a lot of states which is really low.  

 

Certain sectors of the labor market are highly localized.  Nationally, the unemployment rate is 6% (compared to 3.5% in February 2020).

[HeartString]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Until people stop having kids, there will always be a fresh supply of teens starting on that path to improvement.   The supply of humans "starting at the bottom and working their way up" is always replenishing itself, and certainly not just through teens. 

We’re in a baby bust though.  Declining birth rates will mean less of those workers. Not 0, but not enough to fill all of the low pay job that exist today.  Which will lead to fewer restaurants and other places that rely on those workers.  

[Carrie12345]

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

I think that is because there are a large number of people who want to do them because they are fulfilling in a different sense so they are willing to take less pay otherwise they would choose to take a different kind of work that paid more. My daughter wants this type of job. She knows that it pays less so she is finding ways to get there without debt. If she only cared about money she would choose something less fulfilling or physically harder and more miserable such as working out in the elements.

In my view, that’s a dangerous way to look at it. And it shows in the high turnover of CPS workers, teachers, etc.   What they want and what they can hang in there for don’t always match up. There are a lot of human services people who burn out even before they’ve finished paying for their education.

[frogger]

6 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I sort of mostly agree with that.  Like, the two job fairs I’m thinking of didn’t have enough applicants to fill half their positions. One of them actually had 20 applicants for 200 positions. Since our area unemployment rate is getting closer to normal, I assume people have found jobs they like better and/or pay better. So how can people in the comments sections get so angry that these businesses don’t have enough people to provide services? 

Honestly, the comments sections seem to filled with angry people who just hate the other side, whatever that is, and are venting. 

I ignore the hateful discussions that just blame and don't contribute to problem solving at all. 

[HeartString]

10 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Certain sectors of the labor market are highly localized.  Nationally, the unemployment rate is 6% (compared to 3.5% in February 2020).

Thats why I said depending on where you live.  Several states are at  just above 3%.  And many more are at 5%.   
 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-unemployment-update.aspx

 

5% nationally was widely considered full employment for years, so riding along at 6% at this point in the pandemic  isn’t really evidence of people not willing to work. Not with people still having good reasons not to work, such as not being vaccinated yet, or caring for kids that are still home from school.  

Edited April 28, 2021 by HeartString

[Carrie12345]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

That's not permanent though.  And the reasons people aren't filling them in this moment has so many other factors that what's going on right now isn't really a great indicator of long term things.  These things go up and down, just like the weather.  People are afraid to go to work because of the virus.  People are afraid to let their kids work because of the virus.  People want to work, but don't want to wear a mask so they chose something more remote.  People took advantage of the quarantine to go to school and now are unwilling to dial back or quit school to go back to work at McDs.  People *want* to go back to work, but can't find care for their kids who aren't in school yet.  Lots and lots of factors could keep people from going back to work, unemployment is just one piece of the puzzle. 

 

FTR.....I am not going to work.  But if I felt like it.....it would be something quick and entry level. 

I suspect it IS indicative of the long term. Like I said, my area is less than 3 points more than it’s usual unemployment rate, and some of that is due to parents needing to be home with kids. It’s not a *crushing* overage from the norm. There just aren’t enough people that want those jobs. At some point, that needs to be accepted.

[frogger]

8 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

In my view, that’s a dangerous way to look at it. And it shows in the high turnover of CPS workers, teachers, etc.   What they want and what they can hang in there for don’t always match up. There are a lot of human services people who burn out even before they’ve finished paying for their education.

CPS workers and teachers are government paid. Those specific occupations are a little different in that tax payers are hiring them but aren't the ones using the service. I think CPS especially simply needs more gov't funding but abused children can't afford lobbyists, go figure.

I'd love to see a lobbying organization started by donors who cared to bring to light and fight for this particular cause. 

This is also why there is an understanding that people leaving the school system might mean less funding for public schools, not more even if those leaving are no longer using up public school resources. If people aren't vested in the school system they are less inclined to support it. Of course, public school reform could and should be its own thread.

Edited April 28, 2021 by frogger
Typos

[prairiewindmomma]

I think what we are seeing here is a lack of sustainable living jobs. There was a recent survey and 2 people earning $15/hr each could afford a 2 bedroom apartment in only 4 states. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/14/minimum-wage-workers-cannot-afford-rent-in-any-us-state.html

I don’t think we are looking at the collapse of capitalism, but I do think we see the very wealthy not paying an appropriate amount of taxes. They haven’t for a long time—since the 80s—and until we politically rebalance our economy by fixing the tax structure I don’t think conditions for the working and middle classes are going to improve.

 

[prairiewindmomma]

Fwiw, I am pushing my kids towards areas of employment where I think they will be needed for the next 40 years. So far, one is finishing up an electrical engineering degree, and my kid in high school is going into the trades. 
 

Plan to eat, iykwim. 😉 We did a bunch of budget calculators together and have really talked openly about finances. So far, these kids should be wanted and needed wherever in the world they choose to live.

[Moonhawk]

Also, as an aside: some jobs have gone national. As in, they are no longer being local-only hires. The slow move towards this trend in some industries I think got sped up by work-at-home Covid times. An art director for a small-but-respectable design firm said they got over 350 applicants for a graphic design position, I think previously the expected pool was around 50-80. So, in some industries, you are competing against more people, who can be equally or more skilled/experienced, who are living in a LCOL than you, and so can accept a lower offer. 

I'm too tired and have too much unpaid work to do for the business today to give an opinion on what this means.

 

[frogger]

Part of the problem is also that the things people need most, housing, healthcare, and education are also the most gov't controlled. There are huge restrictions on the supply of these goods from zoning laws where wealthy people can exclude high density housing, to CON laws, restricting medical personnel across state lines, AMA lobbying to restrict other workers from doing routine procedures, restrictions in number of residencies keeping supplies of doctors down, etc etc.

And don't get me started on the inequities of the educational system. I'm sorry but homeschooling and private school are simply not in the budget for many.

It doesn't help to just give people more money if that money buys less of what they need most.

Edited April 28, 2021 by frogger
Typos

[HeartString]

5 minutes ago, frogger said:

Part of the problem is also that the things people need most, housing, healthcare, and education are also the most gov't controlled. There are huge restrictions on the supply of these goods from zoning laws where wealthy people can exclude high density housing, to CON laws, restricting medical personnel across state lines, AMA lobbying to restrict other workers from doing routine procedures, restrictions in number of residencies keeping supplies of doctors down, etc etc.

It doesn't help to just give more people money if that money buys less of what they need most.

I think some of that is that we see “government”, but the zoning restrictions are local, and “welfare” comes from the federal government.  It’s not costing the city anything for the federal government to give people money to buy the houses that the city made more expensive.  

Edited April 28, 2021 by HeartString

[Bootsie]

9 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I think what we are seeing here is a lack of sustainable living jobs. There was a recent survey and 2 people earning $15/hr each could afford a 2 bedroom apartment in only 4 states. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/14/minimum-wage-workers-cannot-afford-rent-in-any-us-state.html

I don’t think we are looking at the collapse of capitalism, but I do think we see the very wealthy not paying an appropriate amount of taxes. They haven’t for a long time—since the 80s—and until we politically rebalance our economy by fixing the tax structure I don’t think conditions for the working and middle classes are going to improve.

 

I am not seeing how you are drawing the bolded conclusion.  According to the survey:

The graphic shows what the hourly wage would need to be for a person to afford a 2-bedroom rental while spending 30% of their wages on rent.  WV, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Arkansas are four places where that can be done on less than $15 per hour.  But, other states like Texas, the amount is $20.90.  So, if 2 people ear $10.45 EACH in Texas, it would be affordable.  The only states in which I am seeing that it takes more than $30 per hour ($15 per person) are Washington, California, Mass, and DC.

[frogger]

7 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I think some of that is that we see “government”, but the zoning restrictions are local, and “welfare” comes from the federal government.  It’s not costing the city anything for the federal government to give people money to buy the houses that the city made more expensive.  

Local government is government 

Just as state government is government. Usually it is the states restricting health care supply, although the Fed's started supporting medical residencies and then capped what they would allow meaning almost no growth in number of doctors, raising medical costs.

I think we like to focus on the Fed's because they are more glamerous but really a lot of our lives is dealt with at a local level and the good thing about that is we can influence local politics more.

 

Oh, and it isn't just low income people who are affected by high home prices. A lot of this money is simply coming out of working people's pockets, making life hard.

Edited April 28, 2021 by frogger

[JumpyTheFrog]

4 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

Then I realize that we don't have full market driven capitalism, but in the worst way because we actually have huge protections and bailouts for large corporations, but few for average people.  That's completely ass-backwards.  

We let Big Business privatize the profits and socialize the losses. We did it during the Great Recession and learned nothing from it.

3 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Every day I see more restaurants posting on Facebook that they are reducing hours because they can’t find staff. 

They can't find staff at the current wages and conditions offered. Perhaps businesses need to consider not only paying more, but arranging schedules so people looking for a second job can make the schedules line up. All these places who have the schedule change every week with only 1-2 days notice must make it about impossible for many people who would otherwise work there.

10 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I think what we are seeing here is a lack of sustainable living jobs. There was a recent survey and 2 people earning $15/hr each could afford a 2 bedroom apartment in only 4 states. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/14/minimum-wage-workers-cannot-afford-rent-in-any-us-state.html

Keeping the interest rates so long for so long has allowed property prices to skyrocket far ahead of where they would be otherwise. People can't earn anything in banks, so they pour money into real estate or the stock market. The invention of mortgage-backed securities means most banks don't have skin in the game when they make loans. If they loan someone too much money for their income, it doesn't matter because the tax-payers (or pension funds) are the ones who will take the loss, not them. This makes it easy for them to approve loans at percents of income they never would've approved in 1975.

[fraidycat]

Although we're not in the US, so things are a little different here w/regards to wages (minimum is over $11/hr. here) another problem with the lower wage/service type jobs is the treatment of the staff by the customers. My niece just turned in her notice a few days ago, not because of wages, management, or the work, but because she was tired of being called vulgar names by drive-thru customers. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

27 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Thats why I said depending on where you live.  Several states are at  just above 3%.  And many more are at 5%.   
 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-unemployment-update.aspx

 

5% nationally was widely considered full employment for years, so riding along at 6% at this point in the pandemic  isn’t really evidence of people not willing to work. Not with people still having good reasons not to work, such as not being vaccinated yet, or caring for kids that are still home from school.  

I got curious and compared the unemployment in my state pre-covid (4.6%) to now (5.6%).  And as more things (hopefully) open up as more people (hopefully) get vaccinated, then it should improve even more. 

I want to point out that some sectors (agriculture but also some more manual labor jobs) are hurting because of immigration policies. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Maybe more businesses will get desperate enough to begin hiring teens again. It seems like most places I go don't have anyone under 18-20 working there. Even most fast food workers have been adults for the last 10+ years. I suspect (but have no proof) teen employment tanked during the Great Recession and never recovered.

[HeartString]

5 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

They can't find staff at the current wages and conditions offered. Perhaps businesses need to consider not only paying more, but arranging schedules so people looking for a second job can make the schedules line up. All these places who have the schedule change every week with only 1-2 days notice must make it about impossible for many people who would otherwise work there.

One place near me wants 1 worker to work 3 shifts every day, each shift is 90 min for minimum wage.  It’s like 8-9:30, 11-12:30, and 3-4:30.  Who wants to do that?  No one apparently because they can’t hire anyone for it.  

[Carrie12345]

3 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I want to point out that some sectors (agriculture but also some more manual labor jobs) are hurting because of immigration policies

Agriculture scares me the most.
If my local BK has to close, I’ll survive without my occasional onion rings and nuggets. Fresh food, otoh...
The local farm my kids have worked on has been having difficulty hiring LOCAL pickers for years.  They don’t pay any sort of amazing wage, but it is well above our legal minimum wage. (Still 7.25 here, though I don’t know a single place that pays that low.)

[frogger]

1 minute ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

Maybe more businesses will get desperate enough to begin hiring teens again. It seems like most places I go don't have anyone under 18-20 working there. Even most fast food workers have been adults for the last 10+ years. I suspect (but have no proof) teen employment tanked during the Great Recession and never recovered.

I'm curious how much of this is do to the higher costs and risks of hiring teens. There are so many restrictions on what they can do and when they can do it, it would be simpler to just hire an older person if at all possible. 

[prairiewindmomma]

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am not seeing how you are drawing the bolded conclusion.  According to the survey:

The graphic shows what the hourly wage would need to be for a person to afford a 2-bedroom rental while spending 30% of their wages on rent.  WV, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Arkansas are four places where that can be done on less than $15 per hour.  But, other states like Texas, the amount is $20.90.  So, if 2 people ear $10.45 EACH in Texas, it would be affordable.  The only states in which I am seeing that it takes more than $30 per hour ($15 per person) are Washington, California, Mass, and DC.

Sorry, you are right. I read a local article this morning and posted a National article link. I need more coffee.

Locally, two workers at $15/hr can’t hack a 2 br rental. The average 2 bedroom rental in my city is $2200. Add in utilities and you are over $2500.

[Carrie12345]

5 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

Maybe more businesses will get desperate enough to begin hiring teens again. It seems like most places I go don't have anyone under 18-20 working there. Even most fast food workers have been adults for the last 10+ years. I suspect (but have no proof) teen employment tanked during the Great Recession and never recovered.

 

2 minutes ago, frogger said:

I'm curious how much of this is do to the higher costs and risks of hiring teens. There are so many restrictions on what they can do and when they can do it, it would be simpler to just hire an older person if at all possible. 

I’m curious as to how much is due to all of the studying and extracurriculars we’ve pushed in the name of getting into “good schools”.
In my immediate area, teens need to drive (or have an available driver) a decent distance to and from work, cutting into their overall availability to begin with.  If they’re expected to have a sport, an activity, and some APs... it doesn’t leave much. 

[frogger]

7 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

I’m curious as to how much is due to all of the studying and extracurriculars we’ve pushed in the name of getting into “good schools”.
In my immediate area, teens need to drive (or have an available driver) a decent distance to and from work, cutting into their overall availability to begin with.  If they’re expected to have a sport, an activity, and some APs... it doesn’t leave much. 

Yes, geography makes a difference. People who can afford extracurriculars have a different dynamic at play then lower and middle class who can't afford extracurriculars anyway.  We have had a number of publicized cases of businesses being fined big time because a kid worked extra hours or used the wrong tool. The violations weren't extreme and things I'd happily let my child do if it weren't for big brother.

I'd assume you are wealthier so you don't see the frustration of your kids dealing with all these regulations. My son has to work to pay for his extra-curricular activity or he can't do it. Working classes definitely feel the bite of regulations more than the wealthy.

Edited April 28, 2021 by frogger

[Carrie12345]

1 minute ago, frogger said:

Yes, geography makes a difference. People who can afford extracurriculars have a different dynamic at play then lower and middle class who can't afford extracurriculars anyway.  We have had a number of publicized cases of businesses being fined big time because a kid worked extra hours or used the wrong tool. The violations weren't extreme and things I'd happily let my child do if it weren't for big brother.

I'd assume you are wealthier so you don't see the frustration of your kids dealing with all these regulations. My son has to work to pay for his extra-curricular activity. 

Well, yes, my household is in a decent income bracket.  My 3 oldest kids have still worked in retail, restaurants, farms, and emergency services, so we’re pretty familiar with regulations. 

[ktgrok]

 

3 hours ago, Scarlett said:

And then we get back to the time honored belief that these service jobs are meant for teens who will move on in a few years.  And I don't have a problem with that, but not everyone can move on for various reasons outlined in my post above.  So for the worker who is ok with the mindless work of something like washing dishes (although it can be quite physically exhausting) are they doomed to low wages?  

 

And how are they "teen jobs" when they are open during school hours? 

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

In my view, that’s a dangerous way to look at it. And it shows in the high turnover of CPS workers, teachers, etc.   What they want and what they can hang in there for don’t always match up. There are a lot of human services people who burn out even before they’ve finished paying for their education.

And then the best and the brightest get recruited to better paying jobs, leaving the well...less than the best to fill these critical roles. Not good. 

25 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

Maybe more businesses will get desperate enough to begin hiring teens again. It seems like most places I go don't have anyone under 18-20 working there. Even most fast food workers have been adults for the last 10+ years. I suspect (but have no proof) teen employment tanked during the Great Recession and never recovered.

Part of it is teens overburdened with sports, extra curriculars, etc. Part of it is that people hiring know the older folks need the money to eat and the teens don't. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

32 minutes ago, HeartString said:

One place near me wants 1 worker to work 3 shifts every day, each shift is 90 min for minimum wage.  It’s like 8-9:30, 11-12:30, and 3-4:30.  Who wants to do that?  No one apparently because they can’t hire anyone for it.  

See, this is just idiotic! Do the managers and owners whine that "nobody wants to work?" How about they give people a decent schedule?!

31 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

The local farm my kids have worked on has been having difficulty hiring LOCAL pickers for years.  They don’t pay any sort of amazing wage, but it is well above our legal minimum wage. (Still 7.25 here, though I don’t know a single place that pays that low.)

I am under the impression that decades ago it was much more common for teens to work on farms than now. Is part of the problem a lack of transportation?