5 ms·

I'm always baffled by the people in these articles. From the anecdote at the beginning: he's having trouble hiring people for $12/hour (up to $70K/year with bon

I'm always baffled by the people in these articles. From the anecdote at the beginning: he's having trouble hiring people for $12/hour (up to $70K/year with bonuses, etc). I am also having trouble hiring people: I need a senior software engineer. Pay is $12/hour. It's taking me a long time to find workers. I guess people are just lazy and don't want to work.

brianwawok 10y ago
Did you try going to Spanish mass and ask if anyone wants to write you some code like the anecdote did?
moxious 10y ago
Yeah, the journos who are writing big articles about big trends always seem to want to anchor them with anecdata from the 2 local guys they talked to, as if that actually sheds light on the situation. Usually it just confirms whatever narrative their story is pushing. I don't know what's a fair price in every area of the country for all of these jobs, so beats me if $12 is good or bad, but beyond this one anecdote, people have been saying for years that there was a shortage of skilled labor in the country. So aside from whether this one guy is paying fairly or not, it does appear to be a real issue.
- fullshark 10y ago
  People relate much more to anecdotal examples than statistics. A good journalist for these types of stories has hard data underlying their premise and usually a good in-person interview or two to put a human face on it.
  - moxious 10y ago
    Agreed, people relating to them is why they do it, no question. It's just that engineers and scientists are typically trained to know that anecdata is a very poor way to reason about the world, it consistently leads you into the wrong conclusion, making you feel like you have support for a fact when you actually don't. If the good journalist has hard underlying data, I would not at all begrudge them the anecdotes, and yet I'd still like to see their data thank you very much.
- michael_h 10y ago
  It doesn't really matter if $12/hour is good or bad. If you're having trouble finding new workers, you're going to have to poach from the existing labor pool (aka from your competition) with higher wages and better benefits. If you can't pay the same wage as your competition because your business is swimming in overhead costs, then you will soon go out of business in favor of your more efficient competition. I believe this is supposed to be the good bit of the capitalist system.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > I don't know what's a fair price in every area of the country for all of these jobs, so beats me if $12 is good or bad, but beyond this one anecdote, people have been saying for years that there was a shortage of skilled labor in the country. So aside from whether this one guy is paying fairly or not, it does appear to be a real issue. If I say something and I make $N per year for believing that. Why would they stop saying it? The truth is, the "shortage" is largely in the poor quality of hiring screens and and a desire to pay the real market rate (rather than the lowest # they can hire the bare minimum of workers to function and work them 50 hours a week). If a shortage genuinely existed, you would see substantial wage growth. We don't have such wage growth. ------- Similarly, when labor organizations get too powerful you see the opposite effect that creates an artificial shortage: https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/The%20Complexities%20of%20Physician%20Supply.pdf https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/The%20Complexities%20of... > The rapid expansion in medical education was halted twenty years after it started as researchers, policymakers, and the educational community reassessed the need for further growth. This change recognized that the doubling of medical school graduates would lead to a growing supply for at least 35 years. In 1980, the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) reported (based upon the number of physicians needed to provide “necessary and appropriate” services) that a surplus of 70,000 physicians would be likely by the year 2000.20 With the promotion of tightly controlled managed care in the early 1990s, many groups reaffirmed the belief that the nation was facing a surplus. The national Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME),21 the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Pew Health Professions Commission,22 the AAMC,23 the AMA24 and other national physician associations expressed concerns about an impending potential surplus of physicians. > The medical education and training community responded to these recommendations. The number of graduates from U.S. medical schools remained virtually unchanged between 1980 and 2005. Despite this stagnation in medical school enrollment, the doubling of medical school enrollment during the 1960s and 1970s led to a steady stream of new physicians entering the workforce at a rate greater than those leaving the field. Consequently, the ratio of physicians to population increased steadily from 1980 onward. However, few health policy experts in the year 2000 would have argued that this constituted a surplus of physicians, even though this number grew from 202 per 100,000 in 1980 to 276 per 100,000 in 2000. 29 Bureau of Health Professions projections had estimated that physician demand - not a defined need - would increase over time. In fact, per capita utilization of medical services did rise as they had suggested it would.30 Other analyses had assumed major cost and utilization controls in health care.31 https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/458074/2016_workforce_projections_04052016.html https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/458074/2016_workf... > Washington, D.C., April 5, 2016—Under every combination of scenarios modeled, the United States will face a shortage of physicians over the next decade, according to a physician workforce report released today by the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges). The projections show a shortage ranging between 61,700 and 94,700, with a significant shortage showing among many surgical specialties. -------
maxsilver 10y ago
So this job pays $12/hr. Which is $1,555.05/month after tax, assuming 40hr work week. And the average 1-bed apartment rents in North Charleston, SC is roughly $1100/month (according to Zillow), leaving the employee $450/month to cover all food + medical + debt + transit + utilities and any other expenses. I can't imagine why no one is taking the position. It sounds like a fulfilling opportunity to install auto glass while living on the poverty line. It's like employers don't even attempt to think about anything from the employee's perspective -- even after they've struggled to fill their own positions. "Cheap business owners" couldn't be a more accurate byline.
- knz 10y ago
  > "Cheap business owners" couldn't be a more accurate byline. There have been a number of headlines recently about how corporate profits are near record highs. Isn't paying employees enough to buy the product considered capitalism 101?
  - diyorgasms 10y ago
    That's the Fordist school of thought, which is not universally accepted. Labor unions and employee protections have been weakened to the point that the working class has the choice to either work for subsistence wages or die of starvation/exposure.
- cbdfghh 10y ago
  >It's like employers don't even attempt to think about anything from the employee's perspective -- even after they've struggled to fill their own positions. "Cheap business owners" couldn't be a more accurate byline. Or maybe the job their trying to fill isn't worth that much to them (the employers, that is)? As an example, let's take a speech-writer for a presidential candidate. Company X (let's say it has 100 billion in the bank) wants a website, so it looks for an SEO firm, but it's cheap and not interested in investing in the website. X doesn't get skilled SEO consultants. X now has three choices - get minimum quality workers, drop the website project or pay more for better workers. Obviously, workers would prefer if X choses 3, but there are times when it just doesn't make sense to do so (or the company doesn't _think_ it needs to do so, and goes out of business): What if a company has a small audience comprised of people who don't find things online. Let's say the company runs a program only senators would use. That's a hundred person market which practically requires personal connection to their staff to make a deal. Hiring someone for $250,000 website is just not worth it. Practically, in a capitalist environment, workers are "contractors" selling themselves. The same way I would not pay for a big-iron computer when all I need is a laptop, companies don't want to pay $200,000 when they can find someone for less.
analogmemory 10y ago
North Charleston isn't exactly a large metropolis with a high cost of living. $12 isn't terrible for an job with almost no requirement except a warm body and two arms.
- sgnelson 10y ago
  And you're exactly right, but these days, that now works two ways. What I mean by this: Previously, economic theory theorized that people would move to where the jobs are. These days, it looks like more and more millennial (and read more educated, more sociopolitical advantaged specifically) want to move to a place they would like to live, and then find a job there. Cities are becoming larger, small towns are disappearing. Agglomeration is playing an ever larger role in where people live and work. People are tending to cities which have more opportunities, entertainment, etc. So my point is this, why would you want to live in North Charleston? Of course as I alluded too in my brief definition of advantaged millennial, not everyone has the choice/ability to move to wherever they want. But given that choice, why not move to another larger city where you have more options for better jobs with better pay? I think in some places, even thouguh cost of living is low, employers will need to sometimes pay more to attract the talent they need, and not just say, "cost of livng is low, live with the $12/hr wage and like it." But of course, that's how capitalism is supposed to work. If you can't find employees, it simply means you're not paying enough. Literally Economics 101. Granted, all of the above argument is a bit simple, and there's a lot of nuance involved in reality. Especially when it comes to peoples decision making about what job they choose and where they live. I also have little evidence to support my contention about less desirable places to live meaning higher wages, but it applies to jobs, so I don't see how it won't apply to places in the near future (well I do, it may never happen, but I think it's an interesting thing to keep an eye on).
20years 10y ago
Exactly! The article starts off trying to sell you on $12/hr. You can make $12/hr at much easier, less demanding jobs. They try and hold that carrot over your head of eventually making $70k, but even that isn't all that great, and how long before you get there? I agree with the article in that there are plenty of jobs out there. Just not good paying jobs. There is not really a talent shortage. Instead there is employers who pay good salaries shortage.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
You're missing the point. The thesis of the article is that "There are Plenty of Jobs Out There" and people are happily working at them. The article isn't claiming people are lazy and don't want to work. It's claiming that plenty of jobs exist and people are already working at them. It's also claiming that if you really are having a hard time finding one, there are plenty of people willing to hire you at a wage possibly lower than you might desire. I.e., no shortage of jobs.
snarf21 10y ago
Exactly, raise it to $20/hour to start and he'll have no trouble. Also, there is probably only 1 job in that company that can pay $70K (~$35/hour) + bonus. They'd be better off at $12/hour to work at a restaurant since they can eat free food to offset food costs. My guess is that for most areas the highly skilled glass installer has to cap out at more like $25/hour and that is someone who is also filling the role of training new hires, etc. Even so, there are one of these for every 4 "grunts" at $12/hour at the same company.

brianwawok 10y ago

Did you try going to Spanish mass and ask if anyone wants to write you some code like the anecdote did?

moxious 10y ago

Yeah, the journos who are writing big articles about big trends always seem to want to anchor them with anecdata from the 2 local guys they talked to, as if that actually sheds light on the situation. Usually it just confirms whatever narrative their story is pushing. I don't know what's a fair price in every area of the country for all of these jobs, so beats me if $12 is good or bad, but beyond this one anecdote, people have been saying for years that there was a shortage of skilled labor in the country. So aside from whether this one guy is paying fairly or not, it does appear to be a real issue.

fullshark 10y ago
People relate much more to anecdotal examples than statistics. A good journalist for these types of stories has hard data underlying their premise and usually a good in-person interview or two to put a human face on it.
- moxious 10y ago
  Agreed, people relating to them is why they do it, no question. It's just that engineers and scientists are typically trained to know that anecdata is a very poor way to reason about the world, it consistently leads you into the wrong conclusion, making you feel like you have support for a fact when you actually don't. If the good journalist has hard underlying data, I would not at all begrudge them the anecdotes, and yet I'd still like to see their data thank you very much.
michael_h 10y ago
It doesn't really matter if $12/hour is good or bad. If you're having trouble finding new workers, you're going to have to poach from the existing labor pool (aka from your competition) with higher wages and better benefits. If you can't pay the same wage as your competition because your business is swimming in overhead costs, then you will soon go out of business in favor of your more efficient competition. I believe this is supposed to be the good bit of the capitalist system.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
fweespeech 10y ago
> I don't know what's a fair price in every area of the country for all of these jobs, so beats me if $12 is good or bad, but beyond this one anecdote, people have been saying for years that there was a shortage of skilled labor in the country. So aside from whether this one guy is paying fairly or not, it does appear to be a real issue. If I say something and I make $N per year for believing that. Why would they stop saying it? The truth is, the "shortage" is largely in the poor quality of hiring screens and and a desire to pay the real market rate (rather than the lowest # they can hire the bare minimum of workers to function and work them 50 hours a week). If a shortage genuinely existed, you would see substantial wage growth. We don't have such wage growth. ------- Similarly, when labor organizations get too powerful you see the opposite effect that creates an artificial shortage: https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/The%20Complexities%20of%20Physician%20Supply.pdf https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/The%20Complexities%20of... > The rapid expansion in medical education was halted twenty years after it started as researchers, policymakers, and the educational community reassessed the need for further growth. This change recognized that the doubling of medical school graduates would lead to a growing supply for at least 35 years. In 1980, the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) reported (based upon the number of physicians needed to provide “necessary and appropriate” services) that a surplus of 70,000 physicians would be likely by the year 2000.20 With the promotion of tightly controlled managed care in the early 1990s, many groups reaffirmed the belief that the nation was facing a surplus. The national Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME),21 the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Pew Health Professions Commission,22 the AAMC,23 the AMA24 and other national physician associations expressed concerns about an impending potential surplus of physicians. > The medical education and training community responded to these recommendations. The number of graduates from U.S. medical schools remained virtually unchanged between 1980 and 2005. Despite this stagnation in medical school enrollment, the doubling of medical school enrollment during the 1960s and 1970s led to a steady stream of new physicians entering the workforce at a rate greater than those leaving the field. Consequently, the ratio of physicians to population increased steadily from 1980 onward. However, few health policy experts in the year 2000 would have argued that this constituted a surplus of physicians, even though this number grew from 202 per 100,000 in 1980 to 276 per 100,000 in 2000. 29 Bureau of Health Professions projections had estimated that physician demand - not a defined need - would increase over time. In fact, per capita utilization of medical services did rise as they had suggested it would.30 Other analyses had assumed major cost and utilization controls in health care.31 https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/458074/2016_workforce_projections_04052016.html https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/458074/2016_workf... > Washington, D.C., April 5, 2016—Under every combination of scenarios modeled, the United States will face a shortage of physicians over the next decade, according to a physician workforce report released today by the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges). The projections show a shortage ranging between 61,700 and 94,700, with a significant shortage showing among many surgical specialties. -------

maxsilver 10y ago

So this job pays $12/hr. Which is $1,555.05/month after tax, assuming 40hr work week. And the average 1-bed apartment rents in North Charleston, SC is roughly $1100/month (according to Zillow), leaving the employee $450/month to cover all food + medical + debt + transit + utilities and any other expenses. I can't imagine why no one is taking the position. It sounds like a fulfilling opportunity to install auto glass while living on the poverty line. It's like employers don't even attempt to think about anything from the employee's perspective -- even after they've struggled to fill their own positions. "Cheap business owners" couldn't be a more accurate byline.

knz 10y ago
> "Cheap business owners" couldn't be a more accurate byline. There have been a number of headlines recently about how corporate profits are near record highs. Isn't paying employees enough to buy the product considered capitalism 101?
- diyorgasms 10y ago
  That's the Fordist school of thought, which is not universally accepted. Labor unions and employee protections have been weakened to the point that the working class has the choice to either work for subsistence wages or die of starvation/exposure.
cbdfghh 10y ago
>It's like employers don't even attempt to think about anything from the employee's perspective -- even after they've struggled to fill their own positions. "Cheap business owners" couldn't be a more accurate byline. Or maybe the job their trying to fill isn't worth that much to them (the employers, that is)? As an example, let's take a speech-writer for a presidential candidate. Company X (let's say it has 100 billion in the bank) wants a website, so it looks for an SEO firm, but it's cheap and not interested in investing in the website. X doesn't get skilled SEO consultants. X now has three choices - get minimum quality workers, drop the website project or pay more for better workers. Obviously, workers would prefer if X choses 3, but there are times when it just doesn't make sense to do so (or the company doesn't _think_ it needs to do so, and goes out of business): What if a company has a small audience comprised of people who don't find things online. Let's say the company runs a program only senators would use. That's a hundred person market which practically requires personal connection to their staff to make a deal. Hiring someone for $250,000 website is just not worth it. Practically, in a capitalist environment, workers are "contractors" selling themselves. The same way I would not pay for a big-iron computer when all I need is a laptop, companies don't want to pay $200,000 when they can find someone for less.

analogmemory 10y ago

North Charleston isn't exactly a large metropolis with a high cost of living. $12 isn't terrible for an job with almost no requirement except a warm body and two arms.

sgnelson 10y ago
And you're exactly right, but these days, that now works two ways. What I mean by this: Previously, economic theory theorized that people would move to where the jobs are. These days, it looks like more and more millennial (and read more educated, more sociopolitical advantaged specifically) want to move to a place they would like to live, and then find a job there. Cities are becoming larger, small towns are disappearing. Agglomeration is playing an ever larger role in where people live and work. People are tending to cities which have more opportunities, entertainment, etc. So my point is this, why would you want to live in North Charleston? Of course as I alluded too in my brief definition of advantaged millennial, not everyone has the choice/ability to move to wherever they want. But given that choice, why not move to another larger city where you have more options for better jobs with better pay? I think in some places, even thouguh cost of living is low, employers will need to sometimes pay more to attract the talent they need, and not just say, "cost of livng is low, live with the $12/hr wage and like it." But of course, that's how capitalism is supposed to work. If you can't find employees, it simply means you're not paying enough. Literally Economics 101. Granted, all of the above argument is a bit simple, and there's a lot of nuance involved in reality. Especially when it comes to peoples decision making about what job they choose and where they live. I also have little evidence to support my contention about less desirable places to live meaning higher wages, but it applies to jobs, so I don't see how it won't apply to places in the near future (well I do, it may never happen, but I think it's an interesting thing to keep an eye on).

20years 10y ago

Exactly! The article starts off trying to sell you on $12/hr. You can make $12/hr at much easier, less demanding jobs. They try and hold that carrot over your head of eventually making $70k, but even that isn't all that great, and how long before you get there? I agree with the article in that there are plenty of jobs out there. Just not good paying jobs. There is not really a talent shortage. Instead there is employers who pay good salaries shortage.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

You're missing the point. The thesis of the article is that "There are Plenty of Jobs Out There" and people are happily working at them. The article isn't claiming people are lazy and don't want to work. It's claiming that plenty of jobs exist and people are already working at them. It's also claiming that if you really are having a hard time finding one, there are plenty of people willing to hire you at a wage possibly lower than you might desire. I.e., no shortage of jobs.

snarf21 10y ago

Exactly, raise it to $20/hour to start and he'll have no trouble. Also, there is probably only 1 job in that company that can pay $70K (~$35/hour) + bonus. They'd be better off at $12/hour to work at a restaurant since they can eat free food to offset food costs. My guess is that for most areas the highly skilled glass installer has to cap out at more like $25/hour and that is someone who is also filling the role of training new hires, etc. Even so, there are one of these for every 4 "grunts" at $12/hour at the same company.