The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Brian Swartz]

Do you really think this large of a sector of the economy is all paying shit? Esp. when in many cases they are paying more than they were a couple years ago?
And if so, where are the people not working getting their money from? How do they pay the bills? None of that makes any sense at all. Note that I can't properly comment on your link because paywall.

[albionmoonlight]

The way I saw it cynically put: A lot of people always suspected that their employers didn't care if they lived or died. The pandemic gave them proof. They have had trouble going back to work every since they got that knowledge.

[Brian Swartz]

That's fair, so let's assume that's true. It still doesn't explain how they are making end meet without working if they aren't getting enough for their needs from public assistance. And if they *are* getting enough their needs from public assistance, then that means that assistance is high enough they don't need to work. The evictions moratorium just recently ended (in a lot of states, some still have it in place). That's one pressure valve that we don't have enough data on yet.

[Atocep]

What Does A Worker Want? What The Labor Shortage Really Tells Us

[RainMaker]

Yes, we have data to show that workers produce more and are being paid less for it. We have data that shows the massive disparity in executive salaries and workers.

The Productivity–Pay Gap | Economic Policy Institute

There can be a lot of reasons for it, but with the data we have, we now know unemployment benefits was not one of them.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's fair, so let's assume that's true. It still doesn't explain how they are making end meet without working if they aren't getting enough for their needs from public assistance. And if they *are* getting enough their needs from public assistance, then that means that assistance is high enough they don't need to work. The evictions moratorium just recently ended (in a lot of states, some still have it in place). That's one pressure valve that we don't have enough data on yet.

This is from a year ago, but there's probably some correlation here:

52% of young adults in US are living with their parents amid COVID-19 | Pew Research Center

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We went looking for furniture a few weeks ago and it's 4-6 months to get anything except for what little is on hand, usually only in one color and if you don't want it, you're waiting. We bought a new sofa/love seat and we're looking at February at earliest for delivery.

We ordered a sofa and love seat back around January. It took a LONG time to finally show up.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

we have data to show that workers produce more and are being paid less for it.

That's literally not what that link shows. It says pay hasn't risen nearly as fast as productivity, not that workers are being paid less. Furthermore, the way they define productivity means that included in that is the effect of automation, which has been considerable. There's no definition there of how much of it is actually do to workers being more productive, and how much is due to work that workers don't have to even do anymore.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's literally not what that link shows. It says pay hasn't risen nearly as fast as productivity, not that workers are being paid less. Furthermore, the way they define productivity means that included in that is the effect of automation, which has been considerable. There's no definition there of how much of it is actually do to workers being more productive, and how much is due to work that workers don't have to even do anymore.

The Wall Street Journal article literally talks about the states that cut off unemployment benefits months ago and how they have seen no impact on labor shortages.

[sterlingice]

I suspect a lot of people significantly altered consumer choices over the last 18 months, too. There's the obvious like hardly anyone was taking vacations, car sales are way down because of supply (so you just nurse along the one you have), and eating out is way down. But if you were among those who lost some income, you started re-examining all your expenses: how many times eating out, how many things you ordered on Amazon you didn't really need, tv and streaming services, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if, for some segment of the population, you had permanently altered consumer spending habits, like the generation that grew up during the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, housing is biting people and I don't think it's going to let go for a while.

SI

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

What Does A Worker Want? What The Labor Shortage Really Tells Us

I think those issues are definitely important. But they also don't answer the question here. Either a significant section of the potential labor pool has enough income from other sources to avoid working indefinitely or they don't. I.e. if you don't have enough money, you don't have the luxury of deciding not to work because you don't like the offered conditions. That's something that only enters the calculus when you have enough money that you don't need to work.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Wall Street Journal article literally talks about the states that cut off unemployment benefits months ago and how they have seen no impact on labor shortages.

As I said, I can't read that because paywall. But let's take that as being true, which would mean that what I personally observed with my own eyes was somehow just localized to my area and not a widespread phenomenon. That's quite possible. It still begs the question of where people are getting the money to live on from. It has to come from somewhere.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I suspect a lot of people significantly altered consumer choices over the last 18 months, too.

This is a good point. It would definitely explain people who are upper-middle-class and above working less. It doesn't explain why people who aren't that well off, which are most of the relevant workers in this context, not going back to work. There's only so much you can reduce what you spend, at a certain point you still need necessities and you have be able to fund that somehow.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As I said, I can't read that because paywall. But let's take that as being true, which would mean that what I personally observed with my own eyes was somehow just localized to my area and not a widespread phenomenon. That's quite possible. It still begs the question of where people are getting the money to live on from. It has to come from somewhere.

Large pools of official data would trump your anecdotal evidence.

As for where they are getting money from, we don't know. It could be cutting costs by moving in with parents or eliminating expenses. Perhaps dual-income homes have decided they'd rather be single-income homes where one parent stays with the kids. Or a mix of a bunch of factors.

What we do know is that the jobs available and the pay is not enticing enough for the public.

I should add that there are not articles about labor shortages in the 6-figure executive field. Odd how the high paying jobs are easy to fill. Maybe there is a correlation between pay and working.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think those issues are definitely important. But they also don't answer the question here. Either a significant section of the potential labor pool has enough income from other sources to avoid working indefinitely or they don't. I.e. if you don't have enough money, you don't have the luxury of deciding not to work because you don't like the offered conditions. That's something that only enters the calculus when you have enough money that you don't need to work.

And we have the highest rate of young adults living with their parents since the Great Depression. We're also seeing a massive drop in college enrollments, which reduces the need for jobs among young adults.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As I said, I can't read that because paywall. But let's take that as being true, which would mean that what I personally observed with my own eyes was somehow just localized to my area and not a widespread phenomenon. That's quite possible. It still begs the question of where people are getting the money to live on from. It has to come from somewhere.

I lived like this back in 2019 when I was in between careers. Didn’t have much saved up (maybe $6k).

1. Three weeks of unemployment benefits paid my mortgage.
2. Cashed in a life insurance policy that I no longer needed which got me another $6k.
3. Ran up credit cards.

#3 is what kept me afloat. Of course those chickens all came home to roost eventually.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The way I saw it cynically put: A lot of people always suspected that their employers didn't care if they lived or died. The pandemic gave them proof. They have had trouble going back to work every since they got that knowledge.

Another theory is that for decades, companies have been on a cutting spree even during good economic times. So if you're running at barebones while being wildly profitable, where do you go when things take a turn for the worse? We're finding out.

The idea that tens of millions of people will immediately jump at the chance to come back to work when you snap your fingers seems implausible.

So I think poorly run companies play a large role. And the reason that is exacerbated is because the government bails out poorly run companies (as they did during the pandemic). If we're socializing losses, theirs no risk to companies.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I should add that there are not articles about labor shortages in the 6-figure executive field. Odd how the high paying jobs are easy to fill. Maybe there is a correlation between pay and working.

Of course there is. But it's also self-evidently not viable to pay entry-level workers six figures. So we have a couple of options here.

** Most businesses in America are incompetent to the point of not taking reasonable steps to address the labor shortage and allow their businesses to produce products at the level of consumer demand. If so we are simply going to have product shortages indefinitely, because the people running these companies are too dumb to even try to address the situation. This will also drive inflation, which hurts everyone.

** If that's not the case, and frankly even if it is, there's an upper-limit on what some jobs can pay without drastically increases prices. Eventually something's going to give. Either businesses will increase prices and wages significantly, which will hurt the poor the worst in terms of affording necessities but will ripple out to everyone, or people will eventually start coming back to work out of necessity. My guess is that the latter will happen, but the longer it takes the more it hurts everyone. The average American was already leveraged up in debt far too much before the pandemic; there's only so much more you can borrow etc. and a limit will eventually be reached.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It could be cutting costs by moving in with parents or eliminating expenses. Perhaps dual-income homes have decided they'd rather be single-income homes where one parent stays with the kids. Or a mix of a bunch of factors.

None of that adequately explains our current situation, particularly for the middle-class-and-below sector of society that generally doesn't have the resources to make the dramatic kinds of cutbacks that would be required. For upper income classes, yes absolutely that can happen.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So if you're running at barebones while being wildly profitable, where do you go when things take a turn for the worse? We're finding out.

Except that in most sectors of the economy we haven't seen profit margins going through the roof. So that doesn't seem to be a tenable theory.

[JPhillips]

You can't discuss the labor market independent of COVID. Whatever may be happening includes a number of people fearful of going back to work in person, especially in people-intensive workplaces.

[Brian Swartz]

Oh, I fully agree with that. I do think it's a significant factor. But that still doesn't change the fact that those people have to be able to support themselves somehow. I hope they aren't just maxing out all possible forms of debt like lungs mentioned. The cost of that in the long-term would be catastrophic. Particularly given that COVID isn't going away, we're all going to have to figure out how to live with it, etc.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Perhaps dual-income homes have decided they'd rather be single-income homes where one parent stays with the kids.
.

I think this is a huge one. Tons of families had to have one parent quit work when everything shut down because they literally had nowhere to send their kids while they worked. Lots of these jobs were blue collar that can't work from home. I think these families likely learned to exist on one income in that time, and between the covid risks and the risks of schools shutting down again a lot of these people aren't going back.

[JPhillips]

Unemployment also isn't static. Many people that are currently unemployed have worked some this year. I expect there's only a small number of people that haven't worked at all since March 2020.

[bob]

I also think the benefits going away wouldn't fully impact things until the eviction ban went away.

[NobodyHere]

Could lack of legal immigrants contribute to the shortage? I know it declined under Trump but I couldn't find any numbers after 2019?

I'm also going to theorize that part of the work force died of covid and covid also caused some boomers to retire.

Or maybe the FIRE movement is bigger than we all thought.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Of course there is. But it's also self-evidently not viable to pay entry-level workers six figures. So we have a couple of options here.

** Most businesses in America are incompetent to the point of not taking reasonable steps to address the labor shortage and allow their businesses to produce products at the level of consumer demand. If so we are simply going to have product shortages indefinitely, because the people running these companies are too dumb to even try to address the situation. This will also drive inflation, which hurts everyone.

Companies aren't necessarily incompetent, there is just no incentive for them to be competent and factor in risk. The government has made it clear that if you are a big enough company, you will be bailed out, have your payroll and rent covered, or given an unlimited supply of cash at next to zero percent interest rates. Not to mention labor and criminal law don't really apply to you either.

So if a department requires 8 people to run it, a smart company may hire 10 people to alleviate risk. Because if something bad happens and they are down to 6 people, they lose a lot of money. But if those losses are covered by the government, why care about that downside?

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

** If that's not the case, and frankly even if it is, there's an upper-limit on what some jobs can pay without drastically increases prices. Eventually something's going to give. Either businesses will increase prices and wages significantly, which will hurt the poor the worst in terms of affording necessities but will ripple out to everyone, or people will eventually start coming back to work out of necessity. My guess is that the latter will happen, but the longer it takes the more it hurts everyone. The average American was already leveraged up in debt far too much before the pandemic; there's only so much more you can borrow etc. and a limit will eventually be reached.

Do companies have no other expenses to cut to keep prices the same? You act like the large companies are in dire straits when in fact they're massively profitable providing enormous returns for investors.

The talk started with the furniture industry so I decided to look up some of the biggest public furniture companies in the country. Bassett, Ethan Allen, Flexsteel, La-Z-Boy, and Leggett have all spent millions in buying shares back in the past year. An act that provides zero benefits to the business and is only done to enrich the share price of investors. A fraction of that sum could be used to fill labor gaps. Even companies like Hooker which haven't bough back shares have dramatically increased dividends.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

None of that adequately explains our current situation, particularly for the middle-class-and-below sector of society that generally doesn't have the resources to make the dramatic kinds of cutbacks that would be required. For upper income classes, yes absolutely that can happen.

We don't know how people are doing it. We just know that unemployment benefits were not holding people back from taking jobs. Maybe as more data comes out, we'll learn more.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Except that in most sectors of the economy we haven't seen profit margins going through the roof. So that doesn't seem to be a tenable theory.

Markets continuously hitting all-time highs, companies are continuing a rapid pace of stock buybacks. I'd say for those at the top, things are going quite well. What are these failing sectors you're speaking of?

[Flasch186]

Statisticians
Data analysts
Truth tellers

You know people who cut through the Bullshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swaggs]

I keep coming back to the belief that a company is not a viable business if it requires its employees to make less than the cost of living to maintain its existence. If the company's margins are so close that they cannot pay their workers enough to have food, shelter, and transportation, it needs to fail and someone smarter, more creative, and more efficient needs to step up and take its place (or it is not a viable industry).

It would suck for some of my favorite restaurants or services or shops to go out of business, but it is also not practical for them to stay in business if they only exist and the only way to succeed is for full time workers to make lower than the cost of living and rely on the government for food or healthcare or their family for housing.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Markets continuously hitting all-time highs, companies are continuing a rapid pace of stock buybacks. I'd say for those at the top, things are going quite well. What are these failing sectors you're speaking of?

I didn't say they were failing. I said their profit margins weren't going through the roof, which they would be if your theory that they were making money hand over fist by employing fewer people was accurate.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Bassett, Ethan Allen, Flexsteel, La-Z-Boy, and Leggett have all spent millions in buying shares back in the past year. An act that provides zero benefits to the business and is only done to enrich the share price of investors. A fraction of that sum could be used to fill labor gaps.

How viable is a company that isn't attractive to investors? Buybacks don't provide zero benefits to the business. But leaving that aside for the moment ...

Just to use one of those examples, Ethan Allen has spent $100 million on buybacks in the past decade. They employ 4,250 people. So do the math. Let's say they spend *all* of that on increasing wages and don't buyback stock at all, and increase everyone's wages proportionally that works for them. It would come out to about a 6% increase in what they spend on labor. That's not nothing, but it's not going to move the needle much either. And of course, that's counting wages only; it's an even smaller increase if you include the value of benefits.

I'm not saying there are no cuts companies can make. I'm saying those cuts aren't zero-cost either, and they would need to make cuts dramatic changes to move the needle enough to solve the labor issues, changes of a magnitude far beyond their resources while maintaining prices at current levels. We're not talking about minimum-wage jobs. We're mostly not talking about jobs that would be minimum wage if it were jacked up to $15 hour nationwide. A lot of the jobs already pay well.

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

The government has made it clear that if you are a big enough company, you will be bailed out, have your payroll and rent covered, or given an unlimited supply of cash at next to zero percent interest rates. Not to mention labor and criminal law don't really apply to you either.

That's nice, but a lot of Americans don't work for a big enough company. So this isn't really particularly relevant as a matter of scale. Half of workers work for small businesses. A lot more work for larger businesses that aren't big enough to be a megacorp that fits into this category you're talking about.

[RainMaker]

What benefits do you think buybacks are providing the business?

Ethan Allen has over $100 million in cash on hand. They just gave a special cash dividend of $0.75 per share (on top of their normal dividend). So seems between that and the stock buybacks, they have a few bucks to invest in hiring new people without raising prices. And if not, how much money does a company need to hire more people?

Your stat counts a "small business" as having less than 500 employees. If you're running a business employing hundreds of people, you're likely fairly wealthy and have no problem accessing capital. Only 18% of employees work for companies with less than 20 employees (an actual small business). Regardless, these companies had access to PPP where the government covered their payroll AND rent for a significant period of time.

[Brian Swartz]

How does the cash on hand mean anything? You're clearly an intelligent person Rainmaker, which makes this argument confusing to me. I wouldn't suggest that Ethan Allen doesn't have access to enough cash/capitalization, but that isn't the point - it's about sustainability, profitability, etc.

I write this at the risk of dumbing down the conversation, but it seems evident we're misfiring at a fairly core assumption level somewhere in here. If they spent $100 million, or $200 million, or whatever, could they accelerate their manufacturing, hire more workers, etc? Absolutely they could. But as a basic example, if they spend say $100 million on a new labor force, that doesn't do any good if they can't sell the additional product for more than the labor + operational costs + raw materials etc. Just having access to the capital isn't enough; there's an upper limit on the wage that it is useful to hire new labor for. There are also the knock-on effects; if you hire for significantly above your current wage rate, then you either need to raise your current employees to that level (usually higher) or you run into very justified morale issues and productivity ones as well. A stable wage environment is integral to sustained operations, so whatever you boost the hiring rate to it has to be something that still allows a healthy profit for the forseeable future.

I don't know those contraints are exactly, I think one would have to be quite a student of the furniture business to know. The point though is that you can just throw that $100 million or whatever amount at paying new employees whatever it takes, that would be a myopic and foolish approach to running a business.

[RainMaker]

Your argument has been that these companies cannot afford to hire people at higher wages without raising prices. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the case.

A company like Ethan Allen is so profitable that they are not just putting out special cash dividends, but using their excess cash to juice the stock price at its high point. Two things you don't do if you're concerned about sustainability and profitability (like you said).

It's just debunked propaganda by people making 6 and 7-figure incomes who are upset that people won't work their garbage jobs for garbage pay. Like I said, there's no "labor shortage" in high-end executive positions for a reason.

[Flasch186]

For the longest time Labor has been squeezed

Now Labor squeezing back (with help from a pandemic) and business is crying foul

It’s horse shit because the pendulum head swing against Labor for about 40 years and now a few years of it swinging the other way and business isn’t making the capitalistic argument that they should.

Pay more and demand for their job goes up

I also don’t want to spend a bunch of time eloquently arguing with Brian because it doesn’t matter… at. All. The goal posts just move so the time invested in arguing and making a long winded post are simply wasted seconds and minutes .

Sorry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Your argument has been that these companies cannot afford to hire people at higher wages without raising prices.

Not really. I'm saying they can't pay a higher enough amount to make a significant difference, not that they can't increase them *at all*. I haven't made an all-or-nothing argument here.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's just debunked propaganda by people making 6 and 7-figure incomes who are upset that people won't work their garbage jobs for garbage pay. Like I said, there's no "labor shortage" in high-end executive positions for a reason.

It's neither debunked nor propaganda, and I've been among what you would call the 'working poor' my entire adult life.

How much do you think a company like Ethan Allen should be paying? Do you think six-figures for an average employee is reasonable? It's always easy to say they should pay more. How much more do you think they can afford, based on what, without raising prices? What evidence do we have whatever that amount would be would be enough to bring in the amount of needed employees?

Also, what's your definition of 'garbage jobs for garbage pay'? Anything below six figures?

What we have right now is just 'they should pay more' with no boundaries or reasonable constraints to it. That strikes me as empty rhetoric since as a matter of basic logic, there are limits.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Flash186

The goal posts just move so the time invested in arguing Sandy making a long winded post are simply wasted seconds and minutes .

The goalposts are typically moved by others, not by me. As a practitioner of this, you are of course well aware of that.

[Butter]

Any full time job, you should be able to afford an apartment, transportation, food, health care.

It's quite simple. Let's not act like people are asking for six figures when much of that would take far less

[Brian Swartz]

I only picked that number because Rainmaker brought it up earlier in the discussion as part of the high-end executive example. There are evident issues with that example which make it not particularly relevant to the discussion underway, but I was using his number, not mine, to narrow down what range of salaries he thinks is reasonable here. I'm still very interested in getting definition of that from him or anyone else.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Not really. I'm saying they can't pay a higher enough amount to make a significant difference, not that they can't increase them *at all*. I haven't made an all-or-nothing argument here.

Pretty sure all that cash on hand, special cash dividend, and buyback money could go toward hiring a few people at market value.

They don't have to pay more. Just stop crying and making excuses about people not wanting your shitty jobs.

And my definition of a shitty job is one that you can't fill.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Butter

Any full time job, you should be able to afford an apartment, transportation, food, health care.

It's quite simple. Let's not act like people are asking for six figures when much of that would take far less

Exactly. $5 more an hour and I bet all these jobs are filled.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

And my definition of a shitty job is one that you can't fill.

Absurd. There are a lot of jobs have gone unfilled for years, well prior to the pandemic, that pay more than $5 above your typical Ethan Allen employee. There are a lot of jobs that have gone unfilled that are above the median pay in this country. Paying their work force $5 more an hour would also eat up approximately two-thirds of their profit margin, making it dangerously small. That might be sustainable if they were able to cut expenses elsewhere in some way, but it's far from being a sure thing it's sustainable and still allow for a reasonable measure of agility. To circle back to square one, they of course aren't the losers here. The losers are consumers, average people, who find themselves once again enduring shortages that are mystifying to them

In other words, by your definition of a shitty job, there aren't many jobs in America that aren't shitty - or at least, that pay more than jobs which are shitty. My final word is that's a serious lack of perspective.

[Brian Swartz]

Adding to the pile of info, I'm not going to debate this just presenting it because I thought it was interesting to add to the pile of facts of the job situation, is historically high levels of people quitting their jobs continues:

https://twitter.com/nick_bunker/stat...462151/photo/1

Delta could explain some of this, but not all of it as it's been sustained for several months. I think I'm at the point of just grabbing some popcorn and seeing how things shake out by the end of the year, but I'm increasingly pessimistic about recovery/stability.

[bronconick]

New Harvard Research: In the Middle of the Great Resignation, Employers Are Rejecting Millions of Qualified Workers

Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, lead Harvard researcher Joseph Fuller "cited examples of hospitals scanning resumes of registered nurses for 'computer programming' when what they need is someone who can enter patient data into a computer. Power companies, he said, scan for a customer-service background when hiring people to repair electric transmission lines. Some retail clerks won't make it past a hiring system if they don't have 'floor-buffing' experience.'"

[albionmoonlight]

It's a fair question from Brian. I don't know that I am qualified to answer it as a solidly middle class government worker. I have as little practical sense of the bottom of the wage scale as I do the top. I feel very "It's one banana, Michael" about it.

But just going from my gut, I'd say that $40,000/yr feels like a "I can have kids on this and not worry about them going hungry, or us missing rent, or getting the power cut off" floor.

I just did the (simple) math, and that works out to $20/hr. Which does seem to be in shouting distance of where wages seem to be going in some places.

(Now I wait for people to flood this with statistics showing how that's either way too high or way too low for a "reasonable" wage :-)).

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It's a fair question from Brian. I don't know that I am qualified to answer it as a solidly middle class government worker. I have as little practical sense of the bottom of the wage scale as I do the top. I feel very "It's one banana, Michael" about it.

But just going from my gut, I'd say that $40,000/yr feels like a "I can have kids on this and not worry about them going hungry, or us missing rent, or getting the power cut off" floor.

I just did the (simple) math, and that works out to $20/hr. Which does seem to be in shouting distance of where wages seem to be going in some places.

(Now I wait for people to flood this with statistics showing how that's either way too high or way too low for a "reasonable" wage :-)).

Depends on where you live.

We have winter rentals here going for $2400/month. Just did a quick search for a 2 bedroom apartment in my area. First hit came back $2000/month. After taxes your 40K a year can't even cover rent.

[Ksyrup]

I don't know anything about who put this together, their methodologies, biases, etc., but this seems like a decent starting place:

Livable Wage By State 2021

I'm surprised to see KY at the bottom. But it also reinforces my decision to sell my Florida house at the absolute apex of the 2006 housing bubble and relocate to Kentucky.

Also, this is not based on a "family of 4" scenario, from what I can tell. It appears to be individual worker-focused.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't know anything about who put this together, their methodologies, biases, etc., but this seems like a decent starting place:

Livable Wage By State 2021

I'm surprised to see KY at the bottom. But it also reinforces my decision to sell my Florida house at the absolute apex of the 2006 housing bubble and relocate to Kentucky.

Also, this is not based on a "family of 4" scenario, from what I can tell. It appears to be individual worker-focused.

It's based on the MIT living wage calculator. And going to the MIT site it seems to correlate with the "2 Adults 0 Children" column the best, at least for Ohio.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Absurd. There are a lot of jobs have gone unfilled for years, well prior to the pandemic, that pay more than $5 above your typical Ethan Allen employee. There are a lot of jobs that have gone unfilled that are above the median pay in this country. Paying their work force $5 more an hour would also eat up approximately two-thirds of their profit margin, making it dangerously small. That might be sustainable if they were able to cut expenses elsewhere in some way, but it's far from being a sure thing it's sustainable and still allow for a reasonable measure of agility. To circle back to square one, they of course aren't the losers here. The losers are consumers, average people, who find themselves once again enduring shortages that are mystifying to them

In other words, by your definition of a shitty job, there aren't many jobs in America that aren't shitty - or at least, that pay more than jobs which are shitty. My final word is that's a serious lack of perspective.

Where are these high-paying jobs that just can't be filled? Like what industry are we talking about?

[RainMaker]

The quitting in retail trade makes sense if you've been to a retail store lately. The way people treat employees at stores.......

[miked]

I went to McDonalds right off the highway near my house a few weeks ago, it was late at night (like 9pm) and I just wanted to get my daughter a milkshake I had promised earlier. After waiting in the drive through line for like 5 minutes and realized it was going nowhere, I parked an went inside. There were 2 people working there (plus a manager) and one person had just started. People were screaming and getting all up in arms, like what do you expect from some 17 year old with no training with nobody to help. The manager said they were not allowed to pay over a certain wage and everyone who starts just quits after a week.

Side note, I should have just gone to CFA but it was one exit away and I had just played an hour of grueling soccer. But yeah, people were being total dicks to a bunch of kids over not getting their shit burgers fast enough.

[Flasch186]

Again, no matter what Brian says, capitalism is it. Pay more to make it worth their while to work at the job after weighing all of the pros and cons. If the business has to raise pricing (which many don't if they stop with the quarterly earnings charade and the buybacks and the unreal pay scale at the top [for now]) and their product isn't supported by market prices then guess what, capitalism fixes that too. It's amazing to me how fast the wealthy typically republican business owners shirk capitalism when it helps themselves make an argument or cry about things and then use capitalism to justify their 30 years' worth of behavior. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS (well you can because there are people out there who will bend themselves into pretzels to tow the company or ideological line). Capitalism fixes it all if the government doesn't come to their rescue when capitalism forces them to adjust.

[cuervo72]

Right now nursing jobs are rather hard to fill...