5 ms·

Employers are dropping quality standards for employees so fast that entire businesses have to shut down, because their employees leave and no one will work at a

Employers are dropping quality standards for employees so fast that entire businesses have to shut down, because their employees leave and no one will work at a wage that makes the business profitable

londons_explore 5y ago
I much prefer this way if saying it to "we can't find any staff", which so many businesses are saying. No... You can't find any staff willing to do this work for the pay you're offering. Offer more pay and you won't have an issue.
- kiklion 5y ago
  This is kind of ignoring that we don’t have high unemployment and our labor participation rate is nearly recovered as well. So anyone who wants a job, basically has one. A company raising wages isn’t going to create new labor by hiring an unemployed person, they are going to move labor by hiring one of their competitors employees. This doesn’t reduce the markets labor shortage.
  - aksss 5y ago
    Unemployment is about where it was in 2017, which continued to drop all the way until 2020. So not as low as it was pre-pandemic, but objectively quite low, yes. Doesn't take away from your point. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      U-3 unemployment is a garbage metric for most applications because it ignores anyone who has given up or underemployed. U-6 is a much better metric that doesn't sweep these factors under the rug.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >our labor participation rate is nearly recovered as well. I don't think this is true. Labor participation dropped a couple percent, made up about half the loss, then has been about the same since June 2020 Jan 2020 83% June 2020 81.5% OCT 2021 81.7% https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
- twodave 5y ago
  Or, in other words, businesses are losing their viability resulting in lost jobs as they shut down.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    If an unfilled job ceases to be advertised, is it really a lost job? When nobody has lost their job?
    - Cyphase 5y ago
      Maybe it's not a lost job, but it's a lost job opening. It's in the same ballpark.
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        > Maybe it's not a lost job, but it's a lost job opening. It's in the same ballpark. How so?
      - michaelt 5y ago
        I'd say it's the opposite. Surely the fact all our working men and women have job offers better than minimum wage, allowing them to better support their families, is something to be celebrated?
    - bruce343434 5y ago
      maybe in the same sense as "opportunity cost"
  - jjk166 5y ago
    You mean eliminated jobs. If it's not worth paying for, it's not worth doing.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      Not always. Markets are not in fact efficient. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29235395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29235395
- gwright 5y ago
  This is too simplistic. The business model might not work at all at the higher labor rates. That can result in a change in the model (e.g., restaurants that no longer have table service, just take out) or it might result in the business closing entirely because it no longer is financially viable.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    And those businesses have a right to exist because... ? Note that I do draw a distinction between activities which produce high positive externalities (and hence whose revenues strongly underrepresent net social gain), and those which produce high negative externalities, often contributing net harm. The first type of enterprise should be supported (tax breaks, subsidies, wage credits). The latter should be penalised (inverse). The pragmatics of money, power, and influence frequently invert that relationship, a tendency noted as far back as Adam Smith and before. That said, it's not clear to me what types of activity are having the greatest hiring challenges, though in some cases (e.g., healthcare), I'd class them among the former.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > And those businesses have a right to exist because... ? Because if USA doesn't start to get its exports up soon again after corona the entire economy will crash. And to do that USA needs to start to produce goods again at prices competitive with the rest of the world. And to do that businesses needs to produce those goods using workers at certain price points.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        So ... the downside risk of crashing an entire national economy is a concern? How was this priced-in or otherwise reflected in the earlier regime of valuation, management, or policy towards these firms? Does that downside risk represent an uncapitalised value of these ventures? Should that downside risk have been priced into goodwill, and hence, the access to financial or political capital of these businesses? Because what you're stating, while having merits on the basis of rational argument and evidence, is not a business or market-based rationale. It has its foundations in some melange of national economic policy, security, and social obligation. Not economic bases. (See also my other responses in this thread, particularly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29249685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29249685)

londons_explore 5y ago

I much prefer this way if saying it to "we can't find any staff", which so many businesses are saying. No... You can't find any staff willing to do this work for the pay you're offering. Offer more pay and you won't have an issue.

kiklion 5y ago
This is kind of ignoring that we don’t have high unemployment and our labor participation rate is nearly recovered as well. So anyone who wants a job, basically has one. A company raising wages isn’t going to create new labor by hiring an unemployed person, they are going to move labor by hiring one of their competitors employees. This doesn’t reduce the markets labor shortage.
- aksss 5y ago
  Unemployment is about where it was in 2017, which continued to drop all the way until 2020. So not as low as it was pre-pandemic, but objectively quite low, yes. Doesn't take away from your point. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    U-3 unemployment is a garbage metric for most applications because it ignores anyone who has given up or underemployed. U-6 is a much better metric that doesn't sweep these factors under the rug.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >our labor participation rate is nearly recovered as well. I don't think this is true. Labor participation dropped a couple percent, made up about half the loss, then has been about the same since June 2020 Jan 2020 83% June 2020 81.5% OCT 2021 81.7% https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
twodave 5y ago
Or, in other words, businesses are losing their viability resulting in lost jobs as they shut down.
- michaelt 5y ago
  If an unfilled job ceases to be advertised, is it really a lost job? When nobody has lost their job?
  - Cyphase 5y ago
    Maybe it's not a lost job, but it's a lost job opening. It's in the same ballpark.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      > Maybe it's not a lost job, but it's a lost job opening. It's in the same ballpark. How so?
    - michaelt 5y ago
      I'd say it's the opposite. Surely the fact all our working men and women have job offers better than minimum wage, allowing them to better support their families, is something to be celebrated?
  - bruce343434 5y ago
    maybe in the same sense as "opportunity cost"
- jjk166 5y ago
  You mean eliminated jobs. If it's not worth paying for, it's not worth doing.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Not always. Markets are not in fact efficient. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29235395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29235395
gwright 5y ago
This is too simplistic. The business model might not work at all at the higher labor rates. That can result in a change in the model (e.g., restaurants that no longer have table service, just take out) or it might result in the business closing entirely because it no longer is financially viable.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  And those businesses have a right to exist because... ? Note that I do draw a distinction between activities which produce high positive externalities (and hence whose revenues strongly underrepresent net social gain), and those which produce high negative externalities, often contributing net harm. The first type of enterprise should be supported (tax breaks, subsidies, wage credits). The latter should be penalised (inverse). The pragmatics of money, power, and influence frequently invert that relationship, a tendency noted as far back as Adam Smith and before. That said, it's not clear to me what types of activity are having the greatest hiring challenges, though in some cases (e.g., healthcare), I'd class them among the former.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > And those businesses have a right to exist because... ? Because if USA doesn't start to get its exports up soon again after corona the entire economy will crash. And to do that USA needs to start to produce goods again at prices competitive with the rest of the world. And to do that businesses needs to produce those goods using workers at certain price points.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      So ... the downside risk of crashing an entire national economy is a concern? How was this priced-in or otherwise reflected in the earlier regime of valuation, management, or policy towards these firms? Does that downside risk represent an uncapitalised value of these ventures? Should that downside risk have been priced into goodwill, and hence, the access to financial or political capital of these businesses? Because what you're stating, while having merits on the basis of rational argument and evidence, is not a business or market-based rationale. It has its foundations in some melange of national economic policy, security, and social obligation. Not economic bases. (See also my other responses in this thread, particularly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29249685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29249685)