10 ms·

This is a very surprising number given the expectations. There are many companies hiring in the service sector that cannot find enough workers. As such, average

• ineptech 5y ago
  I disagree, this seems like an expected outcome. The economy is turbulent; it has been disrupted and is in the process of adjusting. Some (relatively brief and localized) shortages are expected as the markets find a new equilibrium. Unemployment benefits are not causing the disruptive effects, they're (to some extent) protecting workers from the disruptive effects, which is exactly what they're supposed to do. They are not a handout, they pay for themselves historically; we should let them work.
• enraged_camel 5y ago
  The other likely factor is that many schools are either still closed or are doing remote learning, which means many parents are stuck with having to look after their kids when they would otherwise be working. edit: why the downvotes?
  • throwaway_kufu 5y ago
    Child care is a significant and major expense in the US, most of the people on HN that work for tech companies work for companies that more or less are openly hostile towards married employees with families, in fact anything less than a young single working willing to drink the company cool-aide often “isn’t a good culture fit”. But the average worker has additional costs that never get factored in just to work, transportation (for me that’s about $600/month), dry cleaning ($100), food (of course this can’t be negated entirely but is often more expensive while working outside the home). The downvotes are because the haves want the have nots to shut up and get back to work for them. It’s the equivalent of taking legitimate points raised by workers and responding with stop being a smart ass.
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The other likely factor is that many schools are either still closed or are doing remote learning, which means many parents are stuck with having to look after their kids when they would otherwise be working. Also, many day cares are still “temporarily” closed, operating at reduced capacity, not taking new children, or have been permanently shuttered due to the pandemic.
    • spamizbad 5y ago
      Or are open one week, closed the next when someone in contact with a child contracts COVID. Rinse and repeat.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • willcipriano 5y ago
    This also factors into peoples calculations. If you suddenly have to pay for childcare there isn't much of a point to go back to work, even for 15 - 20 an hour.
• envy2 5y ago
  It seems likely that low wages are contributing to this shortage. There's lots of evidence that once employers bump wages to $15+ an hour, the have little difficulty filling roles. This report from Pittsburgh is a good example: https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2021/05/04/how-local-companies-are-filling-open-roles.html https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2021/05/04/how-l...
  • fastball 5y ago
    Low wages only contribute to unemployment if you're paying people to not work. Otherwise the decision between "low wages" and "no wages" is an obvious one for everyone.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • kbelder 5y ago
      True for individuals, but married couples often do have to decide whether low wages are worth more than no wages for one of the couple. Same with teenagers.
  • jeffbee 5y ago
    There was a line of job seekers around the block at In-n-Out burger the other day. They pay $17/hr with paid time off, health/dental/vision and a 401(k) plan. The burgers are still $3.
    • hemloc_io 5y ago
      I've always wondered how local/regional chains, In-n-Out/Dicks, tend to be as cheap as national ones while usually having better food and paying much better than national chains. Usually they are also in higher COL areas as well so I'd assume they pay more in Tax/Rent etc.
      • sundaeofshock 5y ago
• BitwiseFool 5y ago
  This is anecdotal, but I have a friend currently on unemployment benefits and he's enjoying his 'time off' while looking for a more permanent job. He wants a good job, not just any job. So for him it makes sense to be choosy rather than just start working at some place with a help-wanted sign and lose his benefits while also losing his free time to search for something better.
  • xzit 5y ago
    Wow they must make a LOT in unemployment! That doesn't make sense at all to me, unemployment insurance didn't even cover half of my rent, and comes with a stigma. But like you said, it's a worthless anecdote.
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      The $600 increase (later dropped to $300 which obviously fell short of the same effect but worked in the same direction) brought the average unemployment check to about 100% of pre-unemployment wages (which was why that level waa chosen, as a flat amount in part because its easier for states to implement but also because it does more for those at the lower end of the income distribution.) And the pandemic reduced the stigma somewhat.
      • Izkata 5y ago
        You're underselling it - at an extra $600, about 40% of workers would make more on unemployment than at their job: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/employers-struggle-compete-600-unemployment-payments/story?id=70800696 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/employers-struggle-compete-6...
        • dragonwriter 5y ago
          > You're underselling it Your quantitative claim contradicts that characterization. > - at an extra $600, about 40% of workers would make more on unemployment than at their job Since what I reported was the rough policy target was that the average worker would be making the same with the boost, only 40% and not approximately 50% making more with the boost isn’t me overselling, if anything, it is the opposite.
• mc32 5y ago
  Definitely, Covid disbursements for many people surpass entry-level job wages. If your Covid relief works out to $15/hr why work for $15/hr? I probably would not move for anything less than $20/hr if I were in that position. A couple of states are tapering off Covid relief funds so we'll see how that affects worker availability.
  • nonameiguess 5y ago
    I can't speak to any actual person's mentality, but Covid relief is temporary, whereas wages are subject to a ratchet effect and establish a future baseline for what you'll be paid for the rest of your working life. If you're being offered more than you used to make before and it's anywhere near what you earn in temporary relief payments, the economically sanest decision is to take it. Provided you can, i.e. your kids' school isn't still shut down or something so you have to stay home to watch them.
    • mc32 5y ago
      Yes, there are advantages to taking the job such as if the job has prospects for promotions and you have fewer competing for them, and also you gain more experience and so on, but if your marketable skills are dead-end jobs, there isn't much to incentivize you.
  • sct202 5y ago
    Yeah one of my friends said a unemployment is basically the equivalent of $20/hr for her, but she would work for something similar for the benefits.
• whynotminot 5y ago
  So when people have a safety net they don't have to settle for wage slavery? Seems like things are working exactly as they should in a modern society. Business needs to pay a living wage to attract workers.
• oceanghost 5y ago
  Anytime you hear a company say they "cant find enough workers" you need to add to the end of that sentence the phrase "at the price I'm willing to pay." All they're saying is they're used to being able to dictate terms and they have less power to do that right now. It's almost as if there was some sort of global crisis that forced everyone to re-evaluate their priorities, and they realized that working for slave wages in dangerous work conditions for companies who demonstrably don't care about them, wasn't a great idea if you could avoid it.
  • seneca 5y ago
    > Anytime you hear a company say they "cant find enough workers" you need to add to the end of that sentence the phrase "at the price I'm willing to pay." Or add "... who are able to generate more value than they expect to be paid". Businesses exist to make a profit, and will gladly hire people who make them money. A typical waiter just doesn't generate enough value to justify paying them a wage that will compete with what they're currently being paid to sit around and freeload.
  • squidlogic 5y ago
    You could also replace “at a price I’m willing to pay” with “at a price my business can sustain and remain in the black.” I could offer $250k salaries to each line cook in the restaurant, but then I would have to charge something like $750 per entree. Such a business would fail to attract customers at that price and have to close.
    • ModernMech 5y ago
      Yes, that is an extreme example and quite absurd. But what if you pay them enough so they can comfortably afford their rent and healthcare? Then you charge a little bit more so the people who are comfortable enough to afford eating out can help make up the difference. Maybe you even make the restaurant a little less profitable in the process. What if in doing this, your line cooks now can afford to each out at other restaurants, and the cooks from those restaurants now can afford to eat at yours?
• mediaman 5y ago
  I've talked with several business owners in a major west coast metro. One has retail hospitality jobs open. Total take home pay is $80k annually. People won't even show up for interviews. He's never seen anything like it. Another is a manufacturing company. Starting pay is $20/hour for someone who can show up and use a tape measure. They're trying to add another shift of production to meet demand but can't get labor. There's a popular narrative of "poor business owner! Try not paying minimum wage!" but this is mostly coming from people who don't have first-hand experience in hiring, don't know business owners trying to hire less-skilled workers, and believe these reports are coming from people attempting to offer just the minimum wage. Financial incentives are not working. I'm not convinced it's only UI - it could be childcare as well, or reticence about COVID, or a mix of all above plus more. But it's clear it's not fictional, and it's clear it's not just a matter of not paying minimum wage.
  • abxytg 5y ago
    I can promise you that "People won't even show up for interviews. He's never seen anything like it." is not accurate. Either he isn't advertising the wage and he needs to be, or he is lying his ass off. I know so many people that would take any old job at $80k.
    • missedthecue 5y ago
      I don't think you're being nuanced enough. Wendy's in Montana is offering $17.50 an hour and not getting applicants. That's clearly a sign of some deep structural labor market issues.
      • abxytg 5y ago
        That's a TOTALLY different story than not being able to find people at $80k my guy. Also $17.50 is an incomplete picture. How many hours per week? Any benefits? I would bet a years salary that it is <40 and no benefits. Would you take that job?
        • missedthecue 5y ago