4 ms·

I can't really answer your question directly because I am one of the folks that retired early and only hear rumors now, but I can say for certain it has affecte

I can't really answer your question directly because I am one of the folks that retired early and only hear rumors now, but I can say for certain it has affected businesses everywhere. I drove a ways to a bank and found they lost their last "banker". All they have are tellers now. The tellers are all in training to become bankers. They directed me to a bank 1.5 hours away but said they lost people too so I should make a solid appointment. ALL the remaining small businesses in the small town up the highway from me say "HELP WANTED". Some of the small businesses are closed for good. Many phone numbers just ring out or error now. I should add I moved to the middle of nowhere.

throwawaysea 5y ago
I feel like the help wanted signs at small businesses is largely due to COVID related measures that made it easy to stop working and enjoy an extended vacation. Things like stimulus checks and eviction bans. But the clock is ticking and people will need to return to work for those same wages as before. If they hold out they will still end up with the same purchasing power once inflation does its work.
- mattbrewsbytes 5y ago
  Something nearly every comment overlooks in this is the 700,000+ people in the US that simply have died due to Covid. That is the entire population of a small US city. I would guess a vast majority (i.e. 350k+) held jobs, this may have opened up new opportunities for those in lower skilled/retail that were ready for a move. Inflation is increasing as well so people need higher pay but I bet a lot of businesses haven't seen inflated prices hit their P&L yet where they can "afford" higher wages. I say "afford" because I believe they can pay higher wages but the capitalism mantra of always higher returns means they won't pay more until they meet that objective for a quarter or two.
  - Leherenn 5y ago
    According to [1], over half the 700k were over 75, and about 3/4 were above 65. I am not sure what the median retirement age is in the US, but I would assume most people retire around 65. It sounds unlikely to me that "a vast majority (i.e. 350k+) held jobs". [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
    - mattbrewsbytes 5y ago
      Thanks for data! I was lazy and throwing out guesses. Looks like working age groups (18 up to 65) were ~165k people which might have had an impact on job opportunities.
      - mrfusion 5y ago
        But even if that 165K a certain amount would have died of other causes if not this. The best you can really do is look at excess mortality.
  - MrWiffles 5y ago
    Extremely good point WRT losing 700k people. Some estimates I've heard of (just skimmed headlines) claim it's well over a million who've died from COVID in the US alone, and that's just so far - sadly, that number is only going to go up, and even moreso with states like Texas outright banning vaccine mandates. Also, consider the "domino effects" of that million+ loss: people losing a spouse, sibling, child, parent, etc. now may be in an even further economically disadvantaged position than they already were, thanks to losing that person and therefore that income source they provided. Some may have moved in with friends and are still grieving, not able to interview well for a job; some have been able to co-habitate and make ends meet with increased unemployment help from the government (especially when combined with eviction moratoriums that we're now seeing aren't valid legally anymore). And for professionals, "remote" is becoming the new norm despite corporate tyrants/sociopaths/control freaks trying to kill it. Mix that economic disadvantage situation in with credit reports being a piece of the background check process in some jobs (which I think should be illegal as hell but I digress...), combine that with "remote is the new norm" emerging, rapidly increasing inflation and unrealistic employer expectations with laughably low pay, and yeah you start to see why nobody wants to go back to a lot of jobs, especially the shit ones. Also... > Inflation is increasing as well so people need higher pay [...] the capitalism mantra of always higher returns means [employers] won't pay more until they meet [higher revenue objectives] for a quarter or two. Not at all disagreeing here, just wanted to point out a few things about this (as it's a complicated kind of thing.) 1. For-profit companies have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to generate those higher returns. This is literally the entire reason for a profit-driven company to exist, "doing good for the world" bullshit be damned. 2. Human beings are always, by far, the largest cost for any company, so increasing wages, benefits or hiring is the last thing you want to do from a profit perspective, at least in the short term (which is all the vast majority cares about, especially publicly traded companies). 3. My only very minor nitpick with that statement isn't about them being able to "afford" higher wages, but that it'll never happen until they're FORCED to pay higher wages, either by government action (minimum wage increase, etc.) or market conditions (can't hire? try paying better - it works!) 4. As soon as that happens though, they'll increase prices to their customers as much as possible in excess of their cost to pay higher wages because they can blame the increased margin beyond that wage compensation on said wage increase. For example, if I have to raise prices 10% to compensate for paying employees better, it would make sense to aim for ~15% and pocket that +5% margin, and if anybody gives me any flack over it I just blame it on the cost of rising wages. (Issues of public balance sheets etc. withstanding; not an accountant so I don't know if this level of visibility is realistic or not, assume it isn't.) 5. The only thing that'll keep those price increases under control is free market competition or the consumer's ability to forego that product/service. In some cases you can do this (movies, streaming services, etc.) and in some cases you can't (electricity, fuel, rent, food, internet, phone, etc.). So the moral of the story is: competition keeps prices under control, and inflation just breeds more inflation, with as little as possible going to "the little guy" because it's the company's responsibility to increase returns for investors; employees are just an "expendable" means to an end, a necessary fiduciary "evil", so why pay them more unless you have to? (I don't at all agree with this thinking, but this is how the world works, unfortunately. Capitalism is NOT the problem here, lack of competition is.)
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > largely due to COVID related measures that made it easy to stop working and enjoy an extended vacation. The jobs report that just came out debunks this theory. Your assumption that people are just “enjoying an extended vacation” seems pretty detached from the reasons people actually cite for leaving the workplace (going back to school, caring for kids, caring for elderly, illness, etc.). Hopefully the new data available helps you change some assumptions about other people. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/biden-gambled-that-cutting-off-federal-jobless-aid-would-drive-people-back-to-work-the-september-jobs-report-blew-a-hole-through-that-idea/ar-AAPhKzR https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/biden-gambled-that-c...
znpy 5y ago
> drove a ways to a bank and found they lost their last "banker". All they have are tellers now. My dad used to work in a bank and is now retired. The way he described the retail banking industry when he left is that "bankers" were being basically phased out. Banks nowadays mostly have tellers and 90% of their work is to gether documents and documentation, all the important decision will be taken more centrally, probably with the aid of some kind of AI/ML engine. This view is confirmed by my recent experience in getting a mortgage: all the bank clerk did is collect documents proving my ability to repay a mortgage, but the final decision was delegated to some sort of central evaluation center. ---- On a sidenote, this also means that the performance of a bank office in a certain city mostly does not depend on their employees there, and marketing mantras like "we entrust people to thrive / we empower people to thrive" is mostly BS. Whereas 25-30 years ago a "banker" at the local branch of a bank could have followed their own instinct and could actually have helped people thrive, nowadays there probably is a hughe part of the decision taken by an automated system.
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  I am not surprised that banks are going the centralized decision route. Unfortunately in my case, banker at my bank is a title required to perform several functions. They could give me money but could not perform account modifications.

throwawaysea 5y ago

I feel like the help wanted signs at small businesses is largely due to COVID related measures that made it easy to stop working and enjoy an extended vacation. Things like stimulus checks and eviction bans. But the clock is ticking and people will need to return to work for those same wages as before. If they hold out they will still end up with the same purchasing power once inflation does its work.

mattbrewsbytes 5y ago
Something nearly every comment overlooks in this is the 700,000+ people in the US that simply have died due to Covid. That is the entire population of a small US city. I would guess a vast majority (i.e. 350k+) held jobs, this may have opened up new opportunities for those in lower skilled/retail that were ready for a move. Inflation is increasing as well so people need higher pay but I bet a lot of businesses haven't seen inflated prices hit their P&L yet where they can "afford" higher wages. I say "afford" because I believe they can pay higher wages but the capitalism mantra of always higher returns means they won't pay more until they meet that objective for a quarter or two.
- Leherenn 5y ago
  According to [1], over half the 700k were over 75, and about 3/4 were above 65. I am not sure what the median retirement age is in the US, but I would assume most people retire around 65. It sounds unlikely to me that "a vast majority (i.e. 350k+) held jobs". [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
  - mattbrewsbytes 5y ago
    Thanks for data! I was lazy and throwing out guesses. Looks like working age groups (18 up to 65) were ~165k people which might have had an impact on job opportunities.
    - mrfusion 5y ago
      But even if that 165K a certain amount would have died of other causes if not this. The best you can really do is look at excess mortality.
- MrWiffles 5y ago
  Extremely good point WRT losing 700k people. Some estimates I've heard of (just skimmed headlines) claim it's well over a million who've died from COVID in the US alone, and that's just so far - sadly, that number is only going to go up, and even moreso with states like Texas outright banning vaccine mandates. Also, consider the "domino effects" of that million+ loss: people losing a spouse, sibling, child, parent, etc. now may be in an even further economically disadvantaged position than they already were, thanks to losing that person and therefore that income source they provided. Some may have moved in with friends and are still grieving, not able to interview well for a job; some have been able to co-habitate and make ends meet with increased unemployment help from the government (especially when combined with eviction moratoriums that we're now seeing aren't valid legally anymore). And for professionals, "remote" is becoming the new norm despite corporate tyrants/sociopaths/control freaks trying to kill it. Mix that economic disadvantage situation in with credit reports being a piece of the background check process in some jobs (which I think should be illegal as hell but I digress...), combine that with "remote is the new norm" emerging, rapidly increasing inflation and unrealistic employer expectations with laughably low pay, and yeah you start to see why nobody wants to go back to a lot of jobs, especially the shit ones. Also... > Inflation is increasing as well so people need higher pay [...] the capitalism mantra of always higher returns means [employers] won't pay more until they meet [higher revenue objectives] for a quarter or two. Not at all disagreeing here, just wanted to point out a few things about this (as it's a complicated kind of thing.) 1. For-profit companies have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to generate those higher returns. This is literally the entire reason for a profit-driven company to exist, "doing good for the world" bullshit be damned. 2. Human beings are always, by far, the largest cost for any company, so increasing wages, benefits or hiring is the last thing you want to do from a profit perspective, at least in the short term (which is all the vast majority cares about, especially publicly traded companies). 3. My only very minor nitpick with that statement isn't about them being able to "afford" higher wages, but that it'll never happen until they're FORCED to pay higher wages, either by government action (minimum wage increase, etc.) or market conditions (can't hire? try paying better - it works!) 4. As soon as that happens though, they'll increase prices to their customers as much as possible in excess of their cost to pay higher wages because they can blame the increased margin beyond that wage compensation on said wage increase. For example, if I have to raise prices 10% to compensate for paying employees better, it would make sense to aim for ~15% and pocket that +5% margin, and if anybody gives me any flack over it I just blame it on the cost of rising wages. (Issues of public balance sheets etc. withstanding; not an accountant so I don't know if this level of visibility is realistic or not, assume it isn't.) 5. The only thing that'll keep those price increases under control is free market competition or the consumer's ability to forego that product/service. In some cases you can do this (movies, streaming services, etc.) and in some cases you can't (electricity, fuel, rent, food, internet, phone, etc.). So the moral of the story is: competition keeps prices under control, and inflation just breeds more inflation, with as little as possible going to "the little guy" because it's the company's responsibility to increase returns for investors; employees are just an "expendable" means to an end, a necessary fiduciary "evil", so why pay them more unless you have to? (I don't at all agree with this thinking, but this is how the world works, unfortunately. Capitalism is NOT the problem here, lack of competition is.)
long_time_gone 5y ago
> largely due to COVID related measures that made it easy to stop working and enjoy an extended vacation. The jobs report that just came out debunks this theory. Your assumption that people are just “enjoying an extended vacation” seems pretty detached from the reasons people actually cite for leaving the workplace (going back to school, caring for kids, caring for elderly, illness, etc.). Hopefully the new data available helps you change some assumptions about other people. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/biden-gambled-that-cutting-off-federal-jobless-aid-would-drive-people-back-to-work-the-september-jobs-report-blew-a-hole-through-that-idea/ar-AAPhKzR https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/biden-gambled-that-c...

znpy 5y ago

> drove a ways to a bank and found they lost their last "banker". All they have are tellers now. My dad used to work in a bank and is now retired. The way he described the retail banking industry when he left is that "bankers" were being basically phased out. Banks nowadays mostly have tellers and 90% of their work is to gether documents and documentation, all the important decision will be taken more centrally, probably with the aid of some kind of AI/ML engine. This view is confirmed by my recent experience in getting a mortgage: all the bank clerk did is collect documents proving my ability to repay a mortgage, but the final decision was delegated to some sort of central evaluation center. ---- On a sidenote, this also means that the performance of a bank office in a certain city mostly does not depend on their employees there, and marketing mantras like "we entrust people to thrive / we empower people to thrive" is mostly BS. Whereas 25-30 years ago a "banker" at the local branch of a bank could have followed their own instinct and could actually have helped people thrive, nowadays there probably is a hughe part of the decision taken by an automated system.

LinuxBender 5y ago
I am not surprised that banks are going the centralized decision route. Unfortunately in my case, banker at my bank is a title required to perform several functions. They could give me money but could not perform account modifications.