5 ms·

Pretty obviously can't have a real great resignation without significant wage increases, which would most likely increase inflation (or more accurately, be symp

Pretty obviously can't have a real great resignation without significant wage increases, which would most likely increase inflation (or more accurately, be symptomatic of latent inflation that hadn't yet reached prices).

wayoutthere 5y ago
Which is exactly what’s happening. Our starting offers are up 15% over pre-pandemic and we’re still having trouble closing the candidates we want.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  What does your interview process look like, if you don't mind my asking.
wolverine876 5y ago
> significant wage increases, which would most likely increase inflation Or it could decrease corporate profits, as more goes to their workers and less to their managers and shareholders. Hasn't it been at an historical extreme the other way? If so, the adjustment should be expected and shouldn't be inflationary.
- jeffreyrogers 5y ago
  Increasing wages across the board should lead to increased inflation either way unless people start saving at higher rates. Edit: my reasoning is that increased wages leads to increased spending, which increases prices unless goods/services can be supplied cheaper, which is unlikely since productivity growth is low.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Given M amount of money, if that money goes to shareholders or the company coffers or managers or workers, it can be spent or saved. Why is it more likely to be spent by workers? I gotta say, the notion that it's somehow a negative that workers get a larger share is a bit convenient for the shareholders, managers, and companies.
    - jeffreyrogers 5y ago
      The money going to shareholders isn't really coming from the workers though, it's coming from stock price appreciation. They could cut their dividends and give that to employees instead, but they don't have large dividends to begin with. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just saying that increasing wages across the entire economy will cause increased prices unless something offsets it (e.g. increased productivity that keeps pace with wage increases... which doesn't seem likely).
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > The money going to shareholders isn't really coming from the workers though, it's coming from stock price appreciation. They could cut their dividends and give that to employees instead, but they don't have large dividends to begin with. Money is conserved: the profits go somewhere, even if to retained earnings that the corporation spends; some amount could be given to the workers to spend. Again, how is that more inflationary? Also, spending is inflationary only in certain conditions, such as when demand is constrained. Not all spending is inflationary.
        jeffreyrogers 5y ago
        > Money is conserved I agree with this. You should run the numbers and look at how much companies could improve workers wages by. I did this a few years ago with Walmart, I was surprised by how small the amount was. I think these companies are more constrained than you think, and the huge difference in earnings (which I'm not defending) between the executives and the average worker is more due to their scale and the fact that they can skim a bit off every worker than due to pure exploitation. E.g. Walmart has ~2m employees. $100 from each is $200m more for the executives, but it's not really going to make much a difference to an employee to get an extra $100 per year.

wayoutthere 5y ago

Which is exactly what’s happening. Our starting offers are up 15% over pre-pandemic and we’re still having trouble closing the candidates we want.

cratermoon 5y ago
What does your interview process look like, if you don't mind my asking.

wolverine876 5y ago

> significant wage increases, which would most likely increase inflation Or it could decrease corporate profits, as more goes to their workers and less to their managers and shareholders. Hasn't it been at an historical extreme the other way? If so, the adjustment should be expected and shouldn't be inflationary.

jeffreyrogers 5y ago
Increasing wages across the board should lead to increased inflation either way unless people start saving at higher rates. Edit: my reasoning is that increased wages leads to increased spending, which increases prices unless goods/services can be supplied cheaper, which is unlikely since productivity growth is low.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Given M amount of money, if that money goes to shareholders or the company coffers or managers or workers, it can be spent or saved. Why is it more likely to be spent by workers? I gotta say, the notion that it's somehow a negative that workers get a larger share is a bit convenient for the shareholders, managers, and companies.
  - jeffreyrogers 5y ago
    The money going to shareholders isn't really coming from the workers though, it's coming from stock price appreciation. They could cut their dividends and give that to employees instead, but they don't have large dividends to begin with. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just saying that increasing wages across the entire economy will cause increased prices unless something offsets it (e.g. increased productivity that keeps pace with wage increases... which doesn't seem likely).
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > The money going to shareholders isn't really coming from the workers though, it's coming from stock price appreciation. They could cut their dividends and give that to employees instead, but they don't have large dividends to begin with. Money is conserved: the profits go somewhere, even if to retained earnings that the corporation spends; some amount could be given to the workers to spend. Again, how is that more inflationary? Also, spending is inflationary only in certain conditions, such as when demand is constrained. Not all spending is inflationary.
      - jeffreyrogers 5y ago
        > Money is conserved I agree with this. You should run the numbers and look at how much companies could improve workers wages by. I did this a few years ago with Walmart, I was surprised by how small the amount was. I think these companies are more constrained than you think, and the huge difference in earnings (which I'm not defending) between the executives and the average worker is more due to their scale and the fact that they can skim a bit off every worker than due to pure exploitation. E.g. Walmart has ~2m employees. $100 from each is $200m more for the executives, but it's not really going to make much a difference to an employee to get an extra $100 per year.