This is just a side-note, but I find it funny that labor economics is the topic almost always on most peoples' minds, yet the economics discipline doesn't really teach any depth for it in the intro/intermediate classes.
Like, if you're worried about AI/machinery/capital replacing labor, you talk to a labor economist not a macroeconomist.
+2
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
@realDonaldTrump I'm the most Senior member of Senate Finance Comm I was dropped as Conferee So I won't be in front line fighting for what u and I believe to cut taxes
He can use his newfound free time to spend his money on booze, women, and movies.
He's free to visit my place of business.
We have table games, slot machines, multiple bars, a 16 screen movie theater, and earnest young, independent professionals in lucite stilettos (who may or may not be paying their way through college) that discreetly recognize investors while hanging around the tables on the weekends.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
+2
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
I hear the British Navy had great success via Rum, Sodomy, and the lash awhile back. Maybe Blum's district just haven't found the correct incentive packages to offer.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
If only there was some way for demand to equalize with supply, possibly through wages...
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
I very seriously doubt this.
I don't. Wages have actually fallen in some areas, in inflation adjusted terms. Employers would rather complain to their Congressman than raise wages to a price level that fills a position.
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
I very seriously doubt this.
I don't. Wages have actually fallen in some areas, in inflation adjusted terms. Employers would rather complain to their Congressman than raise wages to a price level that fills a position.
In most of the jobs I have seen people bitching about not being able to fill with workers they are asking for the sun and the moon for experienced workers with very specific skill sets and then offering like 11-12 dollars an hour starting. Guess what people with that kind of qualification probably are already employed and likely making more than that. They either need to lower their bar and offer more on the job training or they need to raise wages.
Yeah I have no trouble believing that; it happened in Alabama when they tried to crack down on illegal immigration. The people who held all those low-paying jobs stopped coming into work, out of fear of being deported, so all the impacted businesses were suddenly unable to keep up their usual levels of production. The jobs stayed vacant, though, because they refused to raise wages when trying to fill the positions, and white people refused to work those manual labor jobs for so little.
There's a double standard amongst white republicans where they discredit any attempts to raise the minimum wage, yet would rather not work, than make minimum wage, as it's plainly not enough to live on.
This being the case, even in the best case scenario, any jobs created by a corporate tax cut would very likely be low-wage and part-time, which historically don't grow the economy, as domestic buying power would remain stagnant.
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
I very seriously doubt this.
I don't. Wages have actually fallen in some areas, in inflation adjusted terms. Employers would rather complain to their Congressman than raise wages to a price level that fills a position.
In most of the jobs I have seen people bitching about not being able to fill with workers they are asking for the sun and the moon for experienced workers with very specific skill sets and then offering like 11-12 dollars an hour starting. Guess what people with that kind of qualification probably are already employed and likely making more than that. They either need to lower their bar and offer more on the job training or they need to raise wages.
Yeah, this is more what I was meaning. I very highly doubt that jobs are being offered for actual wages and unable to find candidates, and not that they aren't able to find willing employees period.
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
I very seriously doubt this.
He's not lying. The unemployment rate in Iowa is below 3%. In some of the counties in the first district (NE Iowa), it is as low as 1.5%.
The options at that point are either try to bring in migrants to your community or bring people out of retirement and off of disability. There aren't too many other options when the unemployment rate is that low.
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
I very seriously doubt this.
He's not lying. The unemployment rate in Iowa is below 3%. In some of the counties in the first district (NE Iowa), it is as low as 1.5%.
The options at that point are either try to bring in migrants to your community or bring people out of retirement and off of disability. There aren't too many other options when the unemployment rate is that low.
That is a very different problem than what he's talking about.
The real irony of employers not finding employees is that they literally aren't paying enough for the job position.
Or they want extravagant credentials and then pay half what they should be for a job with those credentials.
When employment rates are that low companies should be increasing wages and salaries because the labor supply has the bargaining advantage. Employers unable to fill positions with that low rate means they aren't paying enough for non-regional job-seekers to be willing to come.
It's amazing how many of these factors are easily explained with actual classical economics, but policymakers just ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview of "pay the laborer 5 cents for every dollar I make".
The real irony of employers not finding employees is that they literally aren't paying enough for the job position.
Or they want extravagant credentials and then pay half what they should be for a job with those credentials.
When employment rates are that low companies should be increasing wages and salaries because the labor supply has the bargaining advantage. Employers unable to fill positions with that low rate means they aren't paying enough for non-regional job-seekers to be willing to come.
It's amazing how many of these factors are easily explained with actual classical economics, but policymakers just ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview of "pay the laborer 5 cents for every dollar I make".
As usual fuck the employers.
addendum: no welfare reform is going to fix that
This is an Entry-Level Position: 3-5 years experience required
The real irony of employers not finding employees is that they literally aren't paying enough for the job position.
Or they want extravagant credentials and then pay half what they should be for a job with those credentials.
When employment rates are that low companies should be increasing wages and salaries because the labor supply has the bargaining advantage. Employers unable to fill positions with that low rate means they aren't paying enough for non-regional job-seekers to be willing to come.
It's amazing how many of these factors are easily explained with actual classical economics, but policymakers just ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview of "pay the laborer 5 cents for every dollar I make".
As usual fuck the employers.
addendum: no welfare reform is going to fix that
This is an Entry-Level Position: 3-5 years experience required
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
The big companies have already said they will use tax cuts to pay dividends to shareholders, not create jobs, anyway
Even if shareholders and company board members were benevolent as hell tax cuts can't create jobs at a large scale. You have to see an increase in demand for your product/service to justify increasing your work force. Most consumers aren't rich so most consumers won't see an increase in disposable income that could spur the increase in demand GOP Congress members are talking about.
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
I very seriously doubt this.
I don't. Wages have actually fallen in some areas, in inflation adjusted terms. Employers would rather complain to their Congressman than raise wages to a price level that fills a position.
Well, that and there's a talent gap in a lot of areas. When you need someone with a lot of experience in say networking architecture, not only do you have to pay those people well, but it takes significant training and knowledge to be competent in that field. If they're going to make X dollars in Iowa, but could make similar (or more money) in other places, it's hard to be competitive for attracting talent.
So they complain to their Congressman because they have no idea how to solve this problem, but they keep banging the trickle-down economics drum, thinking that if people would just get off welfare all of a sudden a bunch of highly trained professionals will show up out of nowhere.
Hey guys, maybe you need to invest in public education.
My employer, part of a multinational aerospace conglomerate, struggles with this a lot. We have horrific salary employee turnover because, surprise, no one wants to live in BFE for significantly less money than they'd make almost anywhere else.
Let me tell you how much that improves our quality and on time delivery...
The big companies have already said they will use tax cuts to pay dividends to shareholders, not create jobs, anyway
It's delusional to think anything else, really. If demand suddenly shoots up and a company's profits double, they might give their employees a bonus (not all companies are soulless, just many), but they're not going to double the employees' salary. Same for a tax cut. Salaries are based on what a company has to pay to keep people working, not what they can afford to pay.
The big companies have already said they will use tax cuts to pay dividends to shareholders, not create jobs, anyway
It's delusional to think anything else, really. If demand suddenly shoots up and a company's profits double, they might give their employees a bonus (not all companies are soulless, just many), but they're not going to double the employees' salary. Same for a tax cut. Salaries are based on what a company has to pay to keep people working, not what they can afford to pay.
Yes you've identified the central problem with trickle down economics
As a side note, Republicans plan to use the tax plan as a reason why people shouldn't be on welfare anymore.
Other House Republicans similarly argued that there would be “no excuses” for poor Americans to need welfare once economic growth took hold.
“Once we light this economy up, my brother, there’s going to be jobs for everybody. So there will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said. “If we pass tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. When you have a vibrant economy, there’s no reason for Americans to suffer on welfare.”
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
“For us to achieve 3 percent GDP growth over the next 10 years from tax reform, we have to have welfare reform. We need people who are mentally and physically able to work to get into the workforce,” Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said.
“In my district, a lot of employers can’t find employees ... Sometimes we need to force people to go to work.”
I very seriously doubt this.
I don't. Wages have actually fallen in some areas, in inflation adjusted terms. Employers would rather complain to their Congressman than raise wages to a price level that fills a position.
Well, that and there's a talent gap in a lot of areas. When you need someone with a lot of experience in say networking architecture, not only do you have to pay those people well, but it takes significant training and knowledge to be competent in that field. If they're going to make X dollars in Iowa, but could make similar (or more money) in other places, it's hard to be competitive for attracting talent.
So they complain to their Congressman because they have no idea how to solve this problem, but they keep banging the trickle-down economics drum, thinking that if people would just get off welfare all of a sudden a bunch of highly trained professionals will show up out of nowhere.
Hey guys, maybe you need to invest in public education.
The real irony of employers not finding employees is that they literally aren't paying enough for the job position.
Or they want extravagant credentials and then pay half what they should be for a job with those credentials.
When employment rates are that low companies should be increasing wages and salaries because the labor supply has the bargaining advantage. Employers unable to fill positions with that low rate means they aren't paying enough for non-regional job-seekers to be willing to come.
It's amazing how many of these factors are easily explained with actual classical economics, but policymakers just ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview of "pay the laborer 5 cents for every dollar I make".
As usual fuck the employers.
addendum: no welfare reform is going to fix that
This is an Entry-Level Position: 3-5 years experience required
35k a year
Don't forget recent demonstrated skills in a computer package only used by that company and four Chinese box manufacturers which was only introduced 6 months ago.
Oh, and you'll need to be able to pass a two day exam procedure, and be ready to work 'flexible hours.
What we have is a wages gap. Employees live in a place, and could easily do a training course, or learn on the job to fill most openings you have. But people...
1) HATE moving to where you job is
2) Dislike learning new things
3) Dislike being disrespected with lowball offers
This is why your job can't be filled. You are asking too much, and paying too little. If you couldn't sell your products and you charged $1000 for a cupcake, you wouldn't say that your customer supply was inherently limited. Or that somehow American consumers needed to be retrained to like cake more. You would say that your competition (seling $4 cupcakes) was beating you on price and you needed to cut prices. And even though you may have unemployed people, most people are underemployed, or have an employed partner (ratio of households with no income for either partner is even lower than 4%)
So you are competing with the 'enjoyment salary' of staying at home, and with the real value provided by being able to say, get groceries, or do chores, or look after the kids. You need to beat that by some value even to attract unemployed people.
The real irony of employers not finding employees is that they literally aren't paying enough for the job position.
Or they want extravagant credentials and then pay half what they should be for a job with those credentials.
When employment rates are that low companies should be increasing wages and salaries because the labor supply has the bargaining advantage. Employers unable to fill positions with that low rate means they aren't paying enough for non-regional job-seekers to be willing to come.
It's amazing how many of these factors are easily explained with actual classical economics, but policymakers just ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview of "pay the laborer 5 cents for every dollar I make".
As usual fuck the employers.
addendum: no welfare reform is going to fix that
This is an Entry-Level Position: 3-5 years experience required
I just got my second of two sci/engineering degrees with several years of research work between them, been looking for an (not computer) engineering job for over a year at this point. Almost every standard bottom rung job is 2-5 years experience each exact job, the only new people that seemed to get picked up by a company are the handful that met what ever magical requirements they wanted for an intern back in the 2nd year of their degree. Everything else from what I've seen/heard is just the companies poaching the same people back and forth from each other. The only company that even bothered to talk to me lately was basically going to pay ~50-60% of what is usual and expect you to live at your desk basically. So I'm just doing private tutoring at the university here, at least that pays 25-30 $/hr easily even if its inconsistent as hell.
The real irony of employers not finding employees is that they literally aren't paying enough for the job position.
Or they want extravagant credentials and then pay half what they should be for a job with those credentials.
When employment rates are that low companies should be increasing wages and salaries because the labor supply has the bargaining advantage. Employers unable to fill positions with that low rate means they aren't paying enough for non-regional job-seekers to be willing to come.
It's amazing how many of these factors are easily explained with actual classical economics, but policymakers just ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview of "pay the laborer 5 cents for every dollar I make".
As usual fuck the employers.
addendum: no welfare reform is going to fix that
This is an Entry-Level Position: 3-5 years experience required
I just got my second of two sci/engineering degrees with several years of research work between them, been looking for an (not computer) engineering job for over a year at this point. Almost every standard bottom rung job is 2-5 years experience each exact job, the only new people that seemed to get picked up by a company are the handful that met what ever magical requirements they wanted for an intern back in the 2nd year of their degree. Everything else from what I've seen/heard is just the companies poaching the same people back and forth from each other. The only company that even bothered to talk to me lately was basically going to pay ~50-60% of what is usual and expect you to live at your desk basically. So I'm just doing private tutoring at the university here, at least that pays 25-30 $/hr easily even if its inconsistent as hell.
And demanding exact experience for an engineering job is just the stupidest thing. Being a decent engineer is just a way of thinking about products and the complete 'suite' of building one from raw materials to product on the shelf. Building a fridge takes pretty much all the same skills as building a go cart or building lego or building a filtration plant. You want people with diverse backgrounds to do better work.
I would like someone to ask (on the senate floor) exactly what the number is. What is the amount of wealth that the rich and the corporations need before the other 95% start seeing it?
I'd be interested in the answer
It'd be like that scene in Breaking Bad. "How big does this pile have to be?"
I would like someone to ask (on the senate floor) exactly what the number is. What is the amount of wealth that the rich and the corporations need before the other 95% start seeing it?
I'd be interested in the answer
It'd be like that scene in Breaking Bad. "How big does this pile have to be?"
It will always be argued we've never reached the T* point of the Laffer Curve.
+1
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I would like someone to ask (on the senate floor) exactly what the number is. What is the amount of wealth that the rich and the corporations need before the other 95% start seeing it?
I'd be interested in the answer
It'd be like that scene in Breaking Bad. "How big does this pile have to be?"
It will always be argued we've never reached the T* point of the Laffer Curve.
Negative taxes on the wealthy or bust i suppose.
+3
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Posts
Like, if you're worried about AI/machinery/capital replacing labor, you talk to a labor economist not a macroeconomist.
Hm
I mean there are innumerable historical examples where there were plenty of jobs and everyone had to work to earn what they had
It was called feudalism and the returns weren't too great for workers
But at least none of the uneducated disease ridden peasantry had to suffer on welfare
NNID: Hakkekage
Regarding that, another nice quote from that article:
He's free to visit my place of business.
We have table games, slot machines, multiple bars, a 16 screen movie theater, and earnest young, independent professionals in lucite stilettos (who may or may not be paying their way through college) that discreetly recognize investors while hanging around the tables on the weekends.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I hear the British Navy had great success via Rum, Sodomy, and the lash awhile back. Maybe Blum's district just haven't found the correct incentive packages to offer.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
If only there was some way for demand to equalize with supply, possibly through wages...
I very seriously doubt this.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't. Wages have actually fallen in some areas, in inflation adjusted terms. Employers would rather complain to their Congressman than raise wages to a price level that fills a position.
Not being able to find a worker is due to a combination of not having the talent pool and not being willing to pay what is necessary.
In most of the jobs I have seen people bitching about not being able to fill with workers they are asking for the sun and the moon for experienced workers with very specific skill sets and then offering like 11-12 dollars an hour starting. Guess what people with that kind of qualification probably are already employed and likely making more than that. They either need to lower their bar and offer more on the job training or they need to raise wages.
There's a double standard amongst white republicans where they discredit any attempts to raise the minimum wage, yet would rather not work, than make minimum wage, as it's plainly not enough to live on.
This being the case, even in the best case scenario, any jobs created by a corporate tax cut would very likely be low-wage and part-time, which historically don't grow the economy, as domestic buying power would remain stagnant.
Yeah, this is more what I was meaning. I very highly doubt that jobs are being offered for actual wages and unable to find candidates, and not that they aren't able to find willing employees period.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
He's not lying. The unemployment rate in Iowa is below 3%. In some of the counties in the first district (NE Iowa), it is as low as 1.5%.
The options at that point are either try to bring in migrants to your community or bring people out of retirement and off of disability. There aren't too many other options when the unemployment rate is that low.
That is a very different problem than what he's talking about.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Or they want extravagant credentials and then pay half what they should be for a job with those credentials.
When employment rates are that low companies should be increasing wages and salaries because the labor supply has the bargaining advantage. Employers unable to fill positions with that low rate means they aren't paying enough for non-regional job-seekers to be willing to come.
It's amazing how many of these factors are easily explained with actual classical economics, but policymakers just ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview of "pay the laborer 5 cents for every dollar I make".
As usual fuck the employers.
addendum: no welfare reform is going to fix that
This is an Entry-Level Position: 3-5 years experience required
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
35k a year
"We have to get these lazy people off of this coush welfare system!
...
We have to stop poor people from suffering under this miserable welfare system!"
It's like he got his notes mixed up from his CPAC speech and his townhall speech.
Even if shareholders and company board members were benevolent as hell tax cuts can't create jobs at a large scale. You have to see an increase in demand for your product/service to justify increasing your work force. Most consumers aren't rich so most consumers won't see an increase in disposable income that could spur the increase in demand GOP Congress members are talking about.
Well, that and there's a talent gap in a lot of areas. When you need someone with a lot of experience in say networking architecture, not only do you have to pay those people well, but it takes significant training and knowledge to be competent in that field. If they're going to make X dollars in Iowa, but could make similar (or more money) in other places, it's hard to be competitive for attracting talent.
So they complain to their Congressman because they have no idea how to solve this problem, but they keep banging the trickle-down economics drum, thinking that if people would just get off welfare all of a sudden a bunch of highly trained professionals will show up out of nowhere.
Hey guys, maybe you need to invest in public education.
Let me tell you how much that improves our quality and on time delivery...
It's delusional to think anything else, really. If demand suddenly shoots up and a company's profits double, they might give their employees a bonus (not all companies are soulless, just many), but they're not going to double the employees' salary. Same for a tax cut. Salaries are based on what a company has to pay to keep people working, not what they can afford to pay.
Yes you've identified the central problem with trickle down economics
There's actually starting to be significant evidence that the talent gap doesn't exist. What we'd really need is stronger labor movements to increase the bargaining power of labor.
Don't forget recent demonstrated skills in a computer package only used by that company and four Chinese box manufacturers which was only introduced 6 months ago.
Oh, and you'll need to be able to pass a two day exam procedure, and be ready to work 'flexible hours.
What we have is a wages gap. Employees live in a place, and could easily do a training course, or learn on the job to fill most openings you have. But people...
1) HATE moving to where you job is
2) Dislike learning new things
3) Dislike being disrespected with lowball offers
This is why your job can't be filled. You are asking too much, and paying too little. If you couldn't sell your products and you charged $1000 for a cupcake, you wouldn't say that your customer supply was inherently limited. Or that somehow American consumers needed to be retrained to like cake more. You would say that your competition (seling $4 cupcakes) was beating you on price and you needed to cut prices. And even though you may have unemployed people, most people are underemployed, or have an employed partner (ratio of households with no income for either partner is even lower than 4%)
So you are competing with the 'enjoyment salary' of staying at home, and with the real value provided by being able to say, get groceries, or do chores, or look after the kids. You need to beat that by some value even to attract unemployed people.
I just got my second of two sci/engineering degrees with several years of research work between them, been looking for an (not computer) engineering job for over a year at this point. Almost every standard bottom rung job is 2-5 years experience each exact job, the only new people that seemed to get picked up by a company are the handful that met what ever magical requirements they wanted for an intern back in the 2nd year of their degree. Everything else from what I've seen/heard is just the companies poaching the same people back and forth from each other. The only company that even bothered to talk to me lately was basically going to pay ~50-60% of what is usual and expect you to live at your desk basically. So I'm just doing private tutoring at the university here, at least that pays 25-30 $/hr easily even if its inconsistent as hell.
And demanding exact experience for an engineering job is just the stupidest thing. Being a decent engineer is just a way of thinking about products and the complete 'suite' of building one from raw materials to product on the shelf. Building a fridge takes pretty much all the same skills as building a go cart or building lego or building a filtration plant. You want people with diverse backgrounds to do better work.
It'd be like that scene in Breaking Bad. "How big does this pile have to be?"
It will always be argued we've never reached the T* point of the Laffer Curve.
Name of my band.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Negative taxes on the wealthy or bust i suppose.
Spiro: Senior Fellow, Economic Policy and Vice President, Health Policy, Center for American Progress. Not a dragon.
The question is was she sincere but naive or trying to come up with excuses for a yes?