6 ms·
Is it worth considering whether increased/extended unemployment benefits are a factor in the employee shortage? The article mentions employees on "furlough" wh
by apeace 5y ago
Is it worth considering whether increased/extended unemployment benefits are a factor in the employee shortage?
The article mentions employees on "furlough" who are "biding their time". I'm not from the UK, but this appears to mean the government is paying much of their wage while they are not working.
Anecdotally (in the U.S.) I know several people who have remained on unemployment as long as they possibly can, despite the fact that their job would've hired them back by now. Technically this is breaking the rules of unemployment benefits, but there are several easy ways around it.
Not that the increased/extended unemployment benefits have been a bad thing. They were quite necessary, especially early on in the pandemic when there was so much uncertainty. Perhaps they're still necessary. But it seems to me that if you allow people not to work and still have money, many people simply won't work. Mystery solved.
- thechao 5y agoIf labor is a market, laborers are at a fundamental disadvantage compared to employers when it comes to clearance: the employer has an asymmetric advantage in its ability to wait to hire someone; laborers are a lot less capable. I don’t know that unemployment is a good solution, but I think it speaks volumes that people might be using it to balance the standard inequity.
- bottled_poe 5y agoCan you explain this further? It sounds like you may be assuming employers are able to simply not hire and bear the opportunity cost. How are you weighing that up against employee urgency?
- sokoloff 5y agoNot GP, but forgoing opportunity does not carry the same urgency as forgoing food, utilities, and housing. Both are important. One is urgent.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoEmployers need employees, and employees need employers. If you have orders to fill, and noone to do the work, you're just as fscked, as if you have bills to pay, and no money to do it. Employers get an added benefit of being able to wait it out a bit, since they generally have more money than workers, and workers have unemployment benefits, which means that they can wait it out (until the benefits stop). The problems will be more apparent when the benefits stop, poorer employers will close down in the meantime, and when people have to go back to work, there will be fewer workplaces for them available, bringing the wages down.
- achenatx 5y agoassuming the demand is still there, other employers will take up the slack and potentially be in a position to hire the employees.
- agumonkey 5y agothat's only partially true, as a company you have infinitely more leverage in society than an individual you weigh more, you're worth more, it doesn't last forever but the difference is staggering
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoYou also have product to sell/deliver, and no unemployment benefits. Many, many businesses have failed during the current plague situation... maybe not amazon and walmart, but a lot of small and middle sized businesses.
- agumonkey 5y agoyes but depending on the state / size of your company, you can reallocate people in emergency mode, work more yourself (if you're the boss), ask for loans at the bank, you can absorb a lot more than a single individual can
- fundad 5y agoThe business owner can close up and file for unemployment if that pays more than they’d make paying prevailing wages.
- dcolkitt 5y agoThis is a common refrain, but I doubt many who say have actually actual experience as an employer. In many businesses the inability to staff leads to existential threat to the entire business. If you're a restaurant and can't seat customers or a SaaS startup and can't keep your service uptime, you'll go out of business very quickly. That represents millions in enterprise value. In contrast an employer who gets fired, but is otherwise competent, might be looking at a few weeks of unemployment and a couple thousand in lost income.
- civilized 5y agoIf the business is run sensibly and isn't hemorrhaging a large percentage of its workers, not hiring just means delayed growth, not an existential threat.
- josephcsible 5y agoGovernmental meddling since last March has caused a lot of businesses to hemorrhage a large percentage of their workers even though they were run sensibly.
- neilwilson 5y agoA business has no right to exist. If you want staff, pay the rate or close. Or automate/improve your processes. We need businesses in an economy, not any particular business.
- csa 5y agoI have seen many employers who look for unicorns rather than using optimal stopping (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_stopping https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_stopping) for positions that are more flywheel multiplier positions rather than existential positions. In the long term, it rarely leads to the death of their business, but it substantially lowers the quality of life of most/all of those working in the business.
- chrisseaton 5y agoPeople who are furloughed are still employed. They are not contributing to these statistics.
- lugged 5y agoPretty much. I was sceptical of that they did in Aus but it sort of worked. Instead of just giving everyone unemployment they, Doubled unemployment for those that needed it Created a new system that injected money into businesses, but only if they kept you employed, i.e. subsidized wages. This let things snap back really quickly. Though there is still a lot of damage and the new lock down in Sydney is hurting without the same measures again. The thing were finding is those that left jobs are just hard to get back into jobs, it takes time to hire negotiate and train people