7 ms·

Offer more money. That’s the entire solution. These people didn’t become ghosts. If there’s no supply of labor at the price you’re offering, then increase the p

Offer more money. That’s the entire solution. These people didn’t become ghosts. If there’s no supply of labor at the price you’re offering, then increase the price.

brianwawok 5y ago
Inflation is going to be great!
- KirillPanov 5y ago
  Going? Evidently you have not visited a lumberyard in 2021...
  - bruce511 5y ago
    It's important to understand that the price of one thing does not inflation make. Yes, lumber has shot up, but that is a function of supply and demand, not inflation. Demand went through the roof, supply was constrained, prices rose, and are now falling, although there is still backlog and so prices remain high. Supply and demand pricing is not inflation, it is the Free Market in action in all of its glory.
    - KirillPanov 5y ago
      Of course. But lots of things are going up in price [1]. Lumber makes the best anecdote because it's a tangible commodity that everybody has bought at some point (and many buy semi-regularly), and it can't be blamed on semiconductor shortages. Not even with Deere's silly LTE-enabled feller-bunchers. Also, unlike so many other industries, it makes no sense for forestland owners to take a hit to their profits in order to not "lose customers". Firstly, it's a commodity. But more importantly, they need to use those dollars they earn at the sawmill today to plant, manage, and maintain roads (expensive!) to a crop that won't come to market for another fifty years. This is especially true when they decide (always with trepidation) to accelerate the cycling of a few years' worth of land, as Rayonier has just done during the past month. Accelerating X years of harvest means making a bet that you know what the next X years of inflation look like. The futures markets' liquidity depth is nowhere near sufficient to hedge the amount of harvest acceleration that homebuilders are clamoring for. That's why they are a canary in the coalmine for sudden and non-transient inflation. I'm sure Janet Yellen will downvote this comment. [1] https://nyts.link/https:/www.wsj.com/articles/whirlpool-considering-more-price-increases-if-inflation-exceeds-forecasts-11626987883 https://nyts.link/https:/www.wsj.com/articles/whirlpool-cons...
      - nradov 5y ago
        The increase in lumber prices recently was due to sawmill capacity constraints. Forest land owners didn't have higher profits.
    - aunty_helen 5y ago
      You should see this: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi The guy that predicted the 2008 housing crash (the guy from the movie) rang alarm bells earlier in the year on twitter that the US is headed for hyper inflation. That was until the SEC paid him a visit and he deleted his twitter. If you want, go on youtube, type 'inflation 2021', adjust your portfolio. August 11 is the date this will all hit the fan as July's numbers will be out.
- eru 5y ago
  Inflation is a monetary thing. Depends mostly on how much money gets 'printed'.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    No, that is not how inflation work (even though some Monetarists still believe so). See any of the following links: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/what-is-inflation/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/what-is-inflation/ https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111314/what-causes-inflation-and-does-anyone-gain-it.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111314/what-causes-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation?wprov=sfti1
    - eru 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes is pretty much in line with what I said. (Just to be clear, by inflation I mean an increase in the general price level. Not the enlargement of the stock of money itself.)
aledalgrande 5y ago
Yeah simple free labor market rules.
- na85 5y ago
  Corporations, especially not giant entrenched monopolies like railroads, don't actually support the free market. They pay lip service to free market ideals when it's beneficial to do so, but as soon as the free market means they need to pay more for labor, well, they offshore what they can and then complain of a skills gap or a labor gap. It's actually just a "5 years experience university educated and willing to work for peanuts" shortage.
  - aledalgrande 5y ago
    They might not believe in it, but the market doesn't care about it. When it tilts on the workers side like now, for the sheer number of available jobs, companies have to adapt. When there is a job shortage, workers have to adapt.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    I have to laugh at these too. Prior to coming into CS, I did a lot of general labor. I couldn't get machinist jobs or general blue collar labor jobs even though the positions said "willing to train." None gave me the time of day. On top of that, higher paying (compared to most) general labor factory jobs wouldn't even set up interviews. I'm pretty sure I didn't get picked for one job just because I asked what "swing shift" was. A lot of these companies are liars masquerading as if they can't find people. There are people who are applying, but HR is choosier than most even in the CS field. I really don't get it. Also, many factories do shady garbage where you go through temp-to-hire agencies, promising getting hired on after 90-120 days, then hold you on the leash for 12 months and not hire you. All these companies can suck it. They absolutely deserve the "shortage" they've created. Most people end up wanting to go to retail or get a degree because they're sick of being treated like a literal personal labor slave who honestly is more likely to be fired on a whim than the average office worker. General labor working conditions are at rock bottom. We traded excessive safety for being treated like robots. Ever tried talking to someone for fun at a factory full of temp-to-hires? You don't exactly get to know anybody. So the system is devised to treat you as a robot. If robot-38273 does not perform, decommission them and get a new robot.
ALittleLight 5y ago
I suspect they'll support increasing the supply of labor instead.
- eru 5y ago
  That would be great, too.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    For everyone other than the country's current labor force, yes.
    - eru 5y ago
      Actually, not. There's at most a very minor effect on wages. The baby boomers entering the labour force didn't impoverish the existing labourers, for example. If you are concerned, there's a relatively simple key-hole solution for migration: just auction off visas to the highest bidders, and distribute the proceeds amongst existing voters.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        "at most a very minor effect on wages" strikes me as deeply implausible. The US has added tens of millions of immigrants in the past few decades. Many of them are willing to work for conditions and wages that native workers aren't willing to put up with. How could that do anything but depress wages? Nearly 90% of farm workers are immigrants[1]. That has, at most, "a minor effect on wages"? I'm extremely skeptical of that. 1 - https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/about-farmworker-justice/who-we-serve/ https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/about-farmworker-justice/w...
        eru 5y ago
        If there were less migrants, natives wouldn't have cushy farmworker jobs. That wouldn't be profitable. By and large, there would simply be fewer farmworker jobs: Farmers would switch to less labour intensive crops, eg wheat instead of fruit, and make slightly less money. Migrant's basically 'create' their own farmworker jobs. Those jobs wouldn't exist without them. Researchers have looked at the effect of migration on wages. Just ask your favourite search engine for 'migration and wages' (or similar terms), and see many papers. Eg https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration... or https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/th... or https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers/long https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-th... or https://www.oecd.org/els/42365109.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/42365109.pdf (just to give the top results I get from Google). Basically, the papers say that the effect is probably zero, or at most very small. So something you could relatively easily compensate existing workers (or voters) for, by laying a fee or tax on the migrants.
mjevans 5y ago
More money? Much of the problem yeah. Good Bosses Stable CAREERS (regular, predictable, hours; real advancement, a career path) Maybe a strong union that's worth joining. Rail probably has one of these, but a Barista probably doesn't (and should).
- planet-and-halo 5y ago
  Yeah the stability thing is huge. Businesses and workers are at complete odds on this, because workers want to have a steady income and stop worrying about it, while businesses want the ability to adjust their labor costs on the fly. Workers have caught onto the game now, though, and are taking the same mercenary approach that businesses do. What I think we're living through is the natural end result of that process: incredible short-termism, catastrophic loss of institutional knowledge, social instability due to a pervasive sense of insecurity and worthlessness/lack of social bonds. This is what happens when your economic theories abstract away everything about human beings except their desire to maximize utils.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    Completely agree. But to be fair, I think a lot of economists would also agree with you here.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    "catastrophic loss of institutional knowledge," Government Engineering has been a giant sucking sound of retirements. The knowledge loss is crazy. Larry even tried to quit so they dropped his targets and increased his pay.
refurb 5y ago
The money isn't the only problem. At least in Canada, railroad work is a completely shit job because it's so poorly run by the companies. Not sure the company could pay enough to keep from having a "shortage" and still stay profitable.
- prawn 5y ago
  Might depend on the job itself, but in Australia I get the impression that there are some easy and very well compensated rail jobs. Double pay on weekends, triple pay if it rains. $50/h to stand around a lot of the time. A friend does it on the side and can make more in a shift or two over a weekend than he does doing 5 days/week at his normal white collar day job.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Dunno about the employee side, but the big Canadian railroads became quite hated by their customers when they moved to "precision scheduled railroading". Basically, running trains on a scheduled and your load better be ready when the train is going. So more like a scheduled transit service than a "we'll wait for you and set up runs for you". I guess that improves margins, but I also wonder how much work/profit they throw away by becoming more hostile to their customers. It's worked out well for the shareholders anyway.
  - nradov 5y ago
    That doesn't seem like hostility, it's standard practice in many parts of the transportation industry. If you want to send cargo from Hong Kong to Long Beach the ship is going to leave port on schedule whether your container arrives in time or not.
    - Scoundreller 5y ago
      I'm guessing it leaves the logistics to the customer rather than the railroad. You probably can't send your railcar too early either. Unlike a ship, trains get broken up and re-assembled regularly on long journeys, so you might draw the short end of the scheduling stick.
BurningFrog 5y ago
These "just pay more" arguments seem to assume all employers have infinite money, and only refuse to pay employees more because they're mean. Or am I missing some more sophisticated angle?
- nine_zeros 5y ago
  Just as workers lose income from time to time when they lose jobs, it is ok for business owners to cut their own salaries and profits for a short period of time while they attract workers.
- agrajag 5y ago
  Would you feel better with “demand in other sectors has been deemed more valuable and your business model may be unfeasible in the current labor climate?” Means the same thing.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    That would be true if workers are getting better employment in other jobs. If people find unemployment more attractive than working, that is a different problem. The percent of the population working a job has dropped 6‰ since a peak in 2000. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
    - 8note 5y ago
      That still sounds like a "your business model is bad" problem. If you can't pay people a wage to match how bad the job you want them to do is, your business shouldn't exist
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        That is a different point than the idea that everyone is moving on to higher paid jobs. I fully agree that some jobs aren't worth doing at a given price. But this is all relative to someone's next best option. You have take both sides of the decision into account and there are more factors at play. Of course some business models are unsustainable. That said, I think it is dishonest to claim people are finding better pay elsewhere. If people think they can have a better life by not working at all, I think it is relevant to discuss why that is the case and if that is problem that needs to be discussed.
missedthecue 5y ago
Is "pay more money" your solution to the housing shortage as well?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Offer more money. That’s the entire solution. These people didn’t become ghosts. If there’s no supply of labor at the price you’re offering, then increase the price.

brianwawok 5y ago

Inflation is going to be great!

KirillPanov 5y ago
Going? Evidently you have not visited a lumberyard in 2021...
- bruce511 5y ago
  It's important to understand that the price of one thing does not inflation make. Yes, lumber has shot up, but that is a function of supply and demand, not inflation. Demand went through the roof, supply was constrained, prices rose, and are now falling, although there is still backlog and so prices remain high. Supply and demand pricing is not inflation, it is the Free Market in action in all of its glory.
  - KirillPanov 5y ago
    Of course. But lots of things are going up in price [1]. Lumber makes the best anecdote because it's a tangible commodity that everybody has bought at some point (and many buy semi-regularly), and it can't be blamed on semiconductor shortages. Not even with Deere's silly LTE-enabled feller-bunchers. Also, unlike so many other industries, it makes no sense for forestland owners to take a hit to their profits in order to not "lose customers". Firstly, it's a commodity. But more importantly, they need to use those dollars they earn at the sawmill today to plant, manage, and maintain roads (expensive!) to a crop that won't come to market for another fifty years. This is especially true when they decide (always with trepidation) to accelerate the cycling of a few years' worth of land, as Rayonier has just done during the past month. Accelerating X years of harvest means making a bet that you know what the next X years of inflation look like. The futures markets' liquidity depth is nowhere near sufficient to hedge the amount of harvest acceleration that homebuilders are clamoring for. That's why they are a canary in the coalmine for sudden and non-transient inflation. I'm sure Janet Yellen will downvote this comment. [1] https://nyts.link/https:/www.wsj.com/articles/whirlpool-considering-more-price-increases-if-inflation-exceeds-forecasts-11626987883 https://nyts.link/https:/www.wsj.com/articles/whirlpool-cons...
    - nradov 5y ago
      The increase in lumber prices recently was due to sawmill capacity constraints. Forest land owners didn't have higher profits.
  - aunty_helen 5y ago
    You should see this: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi The guy that predicted the 2008 housing crash (the guy from the movie) rang alarm bells earlier in the year on twitter that the US is headed for hyper inflation. That was until the SEC paid him a visit and he deleted his twitter. If you want, go on youtube, type 'inflation 2021', adjust your portfolio. August 11 is the date this will all hit the fan as July's numbers will be out.
eru 5y ago
Inflation is a monetary thing. Depends mostly on how much money gets 'printed'.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  No, that is not how inflation work (even though some Monetarists still believe so). See any of the following links: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/what-is-inflation/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/what-is-inflation/ https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111314/what-causes-inflation-and-does-anyone-gain-it.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111314/what-causes-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation?wprov=sfti1
  - eru 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes is pretty much in line with what I said. (Just to be clear, by inflation I mean an increase in the general price level. Not the enlargement of the stock of money itself.)

aledalgrande 5y ago

Yeah simple free labor market rules.

na85 5y ago
Corporations, especially not giant entrenched monopolies like railroads, don't actually support the free market. They pay lip service to free market ideals when it's beneficial to do so, but as soon as the free market means they need to pay more for labor, well, they offshore what they can and then complain of a skills gap or a labor gap. It's actually just a "5 years experience university educated and willing to work for peanuts" shortage.
- aledalgrande 5y ago
  They might not believe in it, but the market doesn't care about it. When it tilts on the workers side like now, for the sheer number of available jobs, companies have to adapt. When there is a job shortage, workers have to adapt.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  I have to laugh at these too. Prior to coming into CS, I did a lot of general labor. I couldn't get machinist jobs or general blue collar labor jobs even though the positions said "willing to train." None gave me the time of day. On top of that, higher paying (compared to most) general labor factory jobs wouldn't even set up interviews. I'm pretty sure I didn't get picked for one job just because I asked what "swing shift" was. A lot of these companies are liars masquerading as if they can't find people. There are people who are applying, but HR is choosier than most even in the CS field. I really don't get it. Also, many factories do shady garbage where you go through temp-to-hire agencies, promising getting hired on after 90-120 days, then hold you on the leash for 12 months and not hire you. All these companies can suck it. They absolutely deserve the "shortage" they've created. Most people end up wanting to go to retail or get a degree because they're sick of being treated like a literal personal labor slave who honestly is more likely to be fired on a whim than the average office worker. General labor working conditions are at rock bottom. We traded excessive safety for being treated like robots. Ever tried talking to someone for fun at a factory full of temp-to-hires? You don't exactly get to know anybody. So the system is devised to treat you as a robot. If robot-38273 does not perform, decommission them and get a new robot.

ALittleLight 5y ago

I suspect they'll support increasing the supply of labor instead.

eru 5y ago
That would be great, too.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  For everyone other than the country's current labor force, yes.
  - eru 5y ago
    Actually, not. There's at most a very minor effect on wages. The baby boomers entering the labour force didn't impoverish the existing labourers, for example. If you are concerned, there's a relatively simple key-hole solution for migration: just auction off visas to the highest bidders, and distribute the proceeds amongst existing voters.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      "at most a very minor effect on wages" strikes me as deeply implausible. The US has added tens of millions of immigrants in the past few decades. Many of them are willing to work for conditions and wages that native workers aren't willing to put up with. How could that do anything but depress wages? Nearly 90% of farm workers are immigrants[1]. That has, at most, "a minor effect on wages"? I'm extremely skeptical of that. 1 - https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/about-farmworker-justice/who-we-serve/ https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/about-farmworker-justice/w...
      - eru 5y ago
        If there were less migrants, natives wouldn't have cushy farmworker jobs. That wouldn't be profitable. By and large, there would simply be fewer farmworker jobs: Farmers would switch to less labour intensive crops, eg wheat instead of fruit, and make slightly less money. Migrant's basically 'create' their own farmworker jobs. Those jobs wouldn't exist without them. Researchers have looked at the effect of migration on wages. Just ask your favourite search engine for 'migration and wages' (or similar terms), and see many papers. Eg https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration... or https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/th... or https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers/long https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-th... or https://www.oecd.org/els/42365109.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/42365109.pdf (just to give the top results I get from Google). Basically, the papers say that the effect is probably zero, or at most very small. So something you could relatively easily compensate existing workers (or voters) for, by laying a fee or tax on the migrants.

mjevans 5y ago

More money? Much of the problem yeah. Good Bosses Stable CAREERS (regular, predictable, hours; real advancement, a career path) Maybe a strong union that's worth joining. Rail probably has one of these, but a Barista probably doesn't (and should).

planet-and-halo 5y ago
Yeah the stability thing is huge. Businesses and workers are at complete odds on this, because workers want to have a steady income and stop worrying about it, while businesses want the ability to adjust their labor costs on the fly. Workers have caught onto the game now, though, and are taking the same mercenary approach that businesses do. What I think we're living through is the natural end result of that process: incredible short-termism, catastrophic loss of institutional knowledge, social instability due to a pervasive sense of insecurity and worthlessness/lack of social bonds. This is what happens when your economic theories abstract away everything about human beings except their desire to maximize utils.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  Completely agree. But to be fair, I think a lot of economists would also agree with you here.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  "catastrophic loss of institutional knowledge," Government Engineering has been a giant sucking sound of retirements. The knowledge loss is crazy. Larry even tried to quit so they dropped his targets and increased his pay.

refurb 5y ago

The money isn't the only problem. At least in Canada, railroad work is a completely shit job because it's so poorly run by the companies. Not sure the company could pay enough to keep from having a "shortage" and still stay profitable.

prawn 5y ago
Might depend on the job itself, but in Australia I get the impression that there are some easy and very well compensated rail jobs. Double pay on weekends, triple pay if it rains. $50/h to stand around a lot of the time. A friend does it on the side and can make more in a shift or two over a weekend than he does doing 5 days/week at his normal white collar day job.
Scoundreller 5y ago
Dunno about the employee side, but the big Canadian railroads became quite hated by their customers when they moved to "precision scheduled railroading". Basically, running trains on a scheduled and your load better be ready when the train is going. So more like a scheduled transit service than a "we'll wait for you and set up runs for you". I guess that improves margins, but I also wonder how much work/profit they throw away by becoming more hostile to their customers. It's worked out well for the shareholders anyway.
- nradov 5y ago
  That doesn't seem like hostility, it's standard practice in many parts of the transportation industry. If you want to send cargo from Hong Kong to Long Beach the ship is going to leave port on schedule whether your container arrives in time or not.
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    I'm guessing it leaves the logistics to the customer rather than the railroad. You probably can't send your railcar too early either. Unlike a ship, trains get broken up and re-assembled regularly on long journeys, so you might draw the short end of the scheduling stick.

BurningFrog 5y ago

These "just pay more" arguments seem to assume all employers have infinite money, and only refuse to pay employees more because they're mean. Or am I missing some more sophisticated angle?

nine_zeros 5y ago
Just as workers lose income from time to time when they lose jobs, it is ok for business owners to cut their own salaries and profits for a short period of time while they attract workers.
agrajag 5y ago
Would you feel better with “demand in other sectors has been deemed more valuable and your business model may be unfeasible in the current labor climate?” Means the same thing.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  That would be true if workers are getting better employment in other jobs. If people find unemployment more attractive than working, that is a different problem. The percent of the population working a job has dropped 6‰ since a peak in 2000. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
  - 8note 5y ago
    That still sounds like a "your business model is bad" problem. If you can't pay people a wage to match how bad the job you want them to do is, your business shouldn't exist
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      That is a different point than the idea that everyone is moving on to higher paid jobs. I fully agree that some jobs aren't worth doing at a given price. But this is all relative to someone's next best option. You have take both sides of the decision into account and there are more factors at play. Of course some business models are unsustainable. That said, I think it is dishonest to claim people are finding better pay elsewhere. If people think they can have a better life by not working at all, I think it is relevant to discuss why that is the case and if that is problem that needs to be discussed.

missedthecue 5y ago

Is "pay more money" your solution to the housing shortage as well?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]