5 ms·

the positions are hard to fill because employers refuse to raise wages to a level that attracts the proper number of applicants. SXD

Retric 17y ago
The guy sitting next to me has a Masters in structural engendering from MIT. Yet, he is currently doing statics work, because it's better pay for less effort. He has friends who went into investment banking and are making 7 figures yet the idea of 100k right out of school is supposed to be a great job. The real choice in his mind was extreme pay for 90 hour work weeks or reasonable pay for a 9-5. And Engineering is neither of those.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  I think picking statics work over structural engendering was the right choice :-)
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Ow.
ljlolel 17y ago
employers refuse to raise wages because consumers do not derive enough value from the work to pay higher prices
- joezydeco 17y ago
  Man, I hope you never wind up in a hospital with your nurse reading that comment.
  - christonog 17y ago
    I would have to agree with this comment, my significant other is a nurse and she routinely tells me all the stresses that come with her profession. Think of what a doctor or a pharmacist does, except on a more personal level with the patient. That's the nurse. The nurse is the last line of defense when it comes to misdiagnosis and prescriptions, and in some cases needs to know more than both the doctor and pharmacist. Shouldn't that afford more value than what they are currently paid?
- geebee 17y ago
  If the employers came out and admitted as much, I'd be satisfied. However, many of these employers go to congress to complain about a shortage of labor in these fields.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    ...to try to remove an artificial restriction on applicants who would appreciate the wages they can profitably offer.
    - geebee 17y ago
      sure, but isn't that the case for all fields, not just the ones where a supposed labor shortage exists? How is nursing or software development any different from working on an assembly line, cutting hair or mowing lawns? Hard to believe that we couldn't bring hundreds of thousands of new workers to the US in these fields - the difference is that congress hasn't been convinced that a labor shortage exists. So in this case, my objection that we're enforcing these "artifical restrictions" very unevenly, based on whether congress declares a "labor shortage" in a particular field. And ultimately, the only way to truly remove the "Artifical restrictions" you're talking about would be unlimited immigration on a global scale. I actually love the idea as a long term goal for humanity, but for the moment, I think it would be insane for the US to pursue open borders, and even more so if the rest of the world doesn't reciprocate.
      - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        allowing large influxes of low IQ people is detrimental to a socialist economy since producers have to pony up for each one. In a capitalist economy where people are expected to pull their own weight, sure it would work.
      - randallsquared 17y ago
        Hard to believe that we couldn't bring hundreds of thousands of new workers to the US in these fields - the difference is that congress hasn't been convinced that a labor shortage exists. I think the difference is that there are enough people who can do some jobs who are willing to work for what other people are willing to pay, so there's no perceived need for people to try to get more. On mowing lawns, though, perhaps you aren't aware that in many places in the US, lawns are mowed primarily by immigrants who are willing to accept a lower wage than legal citizens would be (since they risk deportation if they complain about not getting minimum wage, or think they do). The real problem is that there's no way to know what the right answers are once you start trying to manage the economy rather than letting it go. Each attempt to solve a problem with force causes other problems, which are then ripe for solving with more force, but at each stage, the problems that you're going to cause are mostly invisible compared to the problem you're solving. It's pretty impressive that the US culture and governmental structure has resisted this trend as well and as long as it has, but at some point, things are going to go very badly more quickly than most people who haven't experienced such a thing can imagine. We can all hope that isn't soon. :)
- encoderer 17y ago
  That's a nice thought but in reality it's not the way scarcity works in an economy. How much you pay an employee has only a tangential relation to the value that employee produces for its customers (both internal and external). Only so far as it could contribute to a cost structure that could lead to a rev model that a consumer doesn't find value in. (COULD being operative because many businesses have a few of these top-heavy roles that are absorbed elsewhere). If you can't innovate your way out of it, and you can't scale your way out of it, you have no choice but to raise prices. If that breaks the camels back, so to speak, we have a name for that: It's called a poor business model. This applies to materials and services as well. Scarcity in Economics 101.

Retric 17y ago

The guy sitting next to me has a Masters in structural engendering from MIT. Yet, he is currently doing statics work, because it's better pay for less effort. He has friends who went into investment banking and are making 7 figures yet the idea of 100k right out of school is supposed to be a great job. The real choice in his mind was extreme pay for 90 hour work weeks or reasonable pay for a 9-5. And Engineering is neither of those.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
I think picking statics work over structural engendering was the right choice :-)
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Ow.

ljlolel 17y ago

employers refuse to raise wages because consumers do not derive enough value from the work to pay higher prices

joezydeco 17y ago
Man, I hope you never wind up in a hospital with your nurse reading that comment.
- christonog 17y ago
  I would have to agree with this comment, my significant other is a nurse and she routinely tells me all the stresses that come with her profession. Think of what a doctor or a pharmacist does, except on a more personal level with the patient. That's the nurse. The nurse is the last line of defense when it comes to misdiagnosis and prescriptions, and in some cases needs to know more than both the doctor and pharmacist. Shouldn't that afford more value than what they are currently paid?
geebee 17y ago
If the employers came out and admitted as much, I'd be satisfied. However, many of these employers go to congress to complain about a shortage of labor in these fields.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  ...to try to remove an artificial restriction on applicants who would appreciate the wages they can profitably offer.
  - geebee 17y ago
    sure, but isn't that the case for all fields, not just the ones where a supposed labor shortage exists? How is nursing or software development any different from working on an assembly line, cutting hair or mowing lawns? Hard to believe that we couldn't bring hundreds of thousands of new workers to the US in these fields - the difference is that congress hasn't been convinced that a labor shortage exists. So in this case, my objection that we're enforcing these "artifical restrictions" very unevenly, based on whether congress declares a "labor shortage" in a particular field. And ultimately, the only way to truly remove the "Artifical restrictions" you're talking about would be unlimited immigration on a global scale. I actually love the idea as a long term goal for humanity, but for the moment, I think it would be insane for the US to pursue open borders, and even more so if the rest of the world doesn't reciprocate.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      allowing large influxes of low IQ people is detrimental to a socialist economy since producers have to pony up for each one. In a capitalist economy where people are expected to pull their own weight, sure it would work.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      Hard to believe that we couldn't bring hundreds of thousands of new workers to the US in these fields - the difference is that congress hasn't been convinced that a labor shortage exists. I think the difference is that there are enough people who can do some jobs who are willing to work for what other people are willing to pay, so there's no perceived need for people to try to get more. On mowing lawns, though, perhaps you aren't aware that in many places in the US, lawns are mowed primarily by immigrants who are willing to accept a lower wage than legal citizens would be (since they risk deportation if they complain about not getting minimum wage, or think they do). The real problem is that there's no way to know what the right answers are once you start trying to manage the economy rather than letting it go. Each attempt to solve a problem with force causes other problems, which are then ripe for solving with more force, but at each stage, the problems that you're going to cause are mostly invisible compared to the problem you're solving. It's pretty impressive that the US culture and governmental structure has resisted this trend as well and as long as it has, but at some point, things are going to go very badly more quickly than most people who haven't experienced such a thing can imagine. We can all hope that isn't soon. :)
encoderer 17y ago
That's a nice thought but in reality it's not the way scarcity works in an economy. How much you pay an employee has only a tangential relation to the value that employee produces for its customers (both internal and external). Only so far as it could contribute to a cost structure that could lead to a rev model that a consumer doesn't find value in. (COULD being operative because many businesses have a few of these top-heavy roles that are absorbed elsewhere). If you can't innovate your way out of it, and you can't scale your way out of it, you have no choice but to raise prices. If that breaks the camels back, so to speak, we have a name for that: It's called a poor business model. This applies to materials and services as well. Scarcity in Economics 101.