8 ms·

I hate these kinds of numbers because they hide the fact that most of these jobs do not provide a living wage.

TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
The article says the exact opposite. "employers bidding more to attract new workers and offering raises to retain their existing staff." "The rate of wage growth has doubled of late"
- Kerrick 8y ago
  It also says: > Yet the experience of towns like Ames and Des Moines show that such “labor shortages” might be due to insufficient wages and crummy working conditions > Indeed, across the economy, companies have shown a remarkable unwillingness to boost wages > Low wages continue to be an extraordinary problem preventing workers from connecting with a good job and keeping potential employees on the sidelines — in Iowa and across the country. > “But there’s still this cliff, around $13 or $15. If you are making less than that, you can’t take a job. And we are not seeing too many companies go over it.”
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  The rate of wage growth may have doubled, but if you double next to nothing, you're still next to nothing.
Veelox 8y ago
Hey, how about instead of requiring employers to pay more we reduce the cost housing, medicine, and schooling which are the biggest drains on people expenses.
- retbull 8y ago
  So instead of having someone pay more for what is a scarce resource lets just reverse inflation? I'm not seeing how that is easier.
  - Veelox 8y ago
    Rent, medical expenses, and college expenses have all out paced inflation so it is more important to fix the underlying issues in those markets than force employers to pay more.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Doing away with health insurance and student loans is unlikely to be a popular political position...
      - Veelox 8y ago
        No, but changing the health system so it is cheaper could be workable. Also, if made colleges partially responsible for ensuring loans were repaid it would reduce student debt.
    - jfoutz 8y ago
      Sure. That would be an efficient solution. No one wants to take that hit though. So we’re going to do the other thing.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  That doesn't make a lick of sense. Why are employers entitled to cheap labor?
  - agensaequivocum 8y ago
    True. They're not. Neither are employees entitled to high wages.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Yet, we're in an economy where employers are constantly complaining they can't find workers.
      - Veelox 8y ago
        When you hear someone say "I cannot find qualified workers" always add "at the price I am offering" because if they doubled or tripled the wage they offered, they could find a qualified person so it is a matter of price, not a matter of availability.
  - Veelox 8y ago
    The same reason that landlords are entitled to expensive rent, doctors to high salaries, and colleges to high tuition. Its the market rate for those things. I would say there are much better second order effects from focusing on bringing prices down than the second order effects of focusing on forcing employers to pay more.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "Its the market rate for those things. " I don't think you can say that when they're the ones who set those rates. Especially when they constantly complain about not being able to find qualified workers. "I would say there are much better second order effects from focusing on bringing prices down than the second order effects of focusing on forcing employers to pay more." Maybe, maybe not. But that's not an argument for not increasing wages.
- InclinedPlane 8y ago
  Why not both? The economy is healthier with safety nets that prevent people from "dropping out" of the economy through homeless, excessive debt, being trapped under huge debt burdens that limit their options, etc. But the economy is also healthier when it is fully participatory. When only a small slice of the public has any significant amount of discretionary spending the economy tends to stagnate.
  - Veelox 8y ago
    The biggest change to safety nets I want to see is the restructuring of benefit phase out because currently people get in a position that earn more money will decrease their standard of living. That is an awful thing for them and for society.
    - orangecat 8y ago
      Yes. That's why the argument against basic income of "it removes people's incentive to work" is so frustrating; to the extent that it's true, it's even more true of the current system.

The article says the exact opposite. "employers bidding more to attract new workers and offering raises to retain their existing staff." "The rate of wage growth has doubled of late"

Kerrick 8y ago
It also says: > Yet the experience of towns like Ames and Des Moines show that such “labor shortages” might be due to insufficient wages and crummy working conditions > Indeed, across the economy, companies have shown a remarkable unwillingness to boost wages > Low wages continue to be an extraordinary problem preventing workers from connecting with a good job and keeping potential employees on the sidelines — in Iowa and across the country. > “But there’s still this cliff, around $13 or $15. If you are making less than that, you can’t take a job. And we are not seeing too many companies go over it.”
s73v3r_ 8y ago
The rate of wage growth may have doubled, but if you double next to nothing, you're still next to nothing.

Veelox 8y ago

Hey, how about instead of requiring employers to pay more we reduce the cost housing, medicine, and schooling which are the biggest drains on people expenses.

retbull 8y ago
So instead of having someone pay more for what is a scarce resource lets just reverse inflation? I'm not seeing how that is easier.
- Veelox 8y ago
  Rent, medical expenses, and college expenses have all out paced inflation so it is more important to fix the underlying issues in those markets than force employers to pay more.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Doing away with health insurance and student loans is unlikely to be a popular political position...
    - Veelox 8y ago
      No, but changing the health system so it is cheaper could be workable. Also, if made colleges partially responsible for ensuring loans were repaid it would reduce student debt.
  - jfoutz 8y ago
    Sure. That would be an efficient solution. No one wants to take that hit though. So we’re going to do the other thing.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
That doesn't make a lick of sense. Why are employers entitled to cheap labor?
- agensaequivocum 8y ago
  True. They're not. Neither are employees entitled to high wages.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Yet, we're in an economy where employers are constantly complaining they can't find workers.
    - Veelox 8y ago
      When you hear someone say "I cannot find qualified workers" always add "at the price I am offering" because if they doubled or tripled the wage they offered, they could find a qualified person so it is a matter of price, not a matter of availability.
- Veelox 8y ago
  The same reason that landlords are entitled to expensive rent, doctors to high salaries, and colleges to high tuition. Its the market rate for those things. I would say there are much better second order effects from focusing on bringing prices down than the second order effects of focusing on forcing employers to pay more.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "Its the market rate for those things. " I don't think you can say that when they're the ones who set those rates. Especially when they constantly complain about not being able to find qualified workers. "I would say there are much better second order effects from focusing on bringing prices down than the second order effects of focusing on forcing employers to pay more." Maybe, maybe not. But that's not an argument for not increasing wages.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
Why not both? The economy is healthier with safety nets that prevent people from "dropping out" of the economy through homeless, excessive debt, being trapped under huge debt burdens that limit their options, etc. But the economy is also healthier when it is fully participatory. When only a small slice of the public has any significant amount of discretionary spending the economy tends to stagnate.
- Veelox 8y ago
  The biggest change to safety nets I want to see is the restructuring of benefit phase out because currently people get in a position that earn more money will decrease their standard of living. That is an awful thing for them and for society.
  - orangecat 8y ago
    Yes. That's why the argument against basic income of "it removes people's incentive to work" is so frustrating; to the extent that it's true, it's even more true of the current system.