And no increase in wages that indicate that to be the case. Just because a lot of people want to hire really cheap labor doesn't mean people can afford to take the jobs in the first place. Who is going to take a low wage part time job 50 miles away, or relocate for one?
Lots of jobs in my area, lots of unemployed 200 miles away, most without the skill sets allegedly in demand for the skilled jobs lots of 'demand' for fast food and construction, nobody is going to move here to take at the pay rates employers want to pay, which is illegal alien wages.
There is no labor shortage, never has been in our history. Some businessman's wanting to make more money faster but can't hire as many more workers as he
wants to isn't a 'labor shortage', it's just some people who are sniveling because they aren't making money as fast as he wants to, is all. If he's got enough workers to get it done in a week instead of two days, then he has enough; in fact we have an massive over-supply of labor, especially in construction, given how every boom cycle results in massive over-building problems.
So basically, because /you/ don't want to go where the jobs are, /you/ would prefer to steal /my/ money so you can stay there...
And I'm the "greedy" "selfish" one? LOL
What a stupid response. I guess you think people should be stupid enough to take jobs that don't pay, just because you don't feel like paying them.
Find me anybody, even you, who is going to jump up and move from, say, Poughkeepsie, New York, to Palm Springs, California, just because they heard a part time minimum wage job at a laundromat might be open?
I'll admit that I mis-read your second sentence. It is a common yarp from the "gimme yer money" crowd (aka socialist wannabes) that they shouldn't have to move to better paying jobs. Speed reading fail.
I will also argue that you're argument on the point is flawed because there are indeed good paying jobs in other places; if you don't want to move there that's your choice, but it cannot be expected that "someone else" will pay for your decision not to move where the "good money" is. Alaska is /always/ short workers, have been for decades, we pay out the nose for employees; tons of benefits, higher than average pay, etc. etc. Anyone who wants some cash can come work on the North Slope, two weeks on, two weeks off, damn near a 3 figure salary. Teaching up here is crazy too, also damn near 3 figures. TSA gets paid through the nose too, my California refugee is making $60k a year + full bens + retirement for "the easiest job I've ever had in my life" (he literally gets paid to play video games between the two daily flights from/to Deadhorse; two weeks on, two weeks off.)
In any event, the bottom line is that it is /not/ the employers responsibility to pay you more, it is /your/ responsibility as an employee to a) live within your means (aka what you've settled for making) OR b) find a job that pays what you think you're worth/pays what you need/pays what you want to make. Further, it is /not/ the employers job, nor the riches job, to "cover" whatever amount you are failing to go out there and get for yourself. That is stealing, flat out theft, and I'm astounded how many support that kind of bullshit.
I didn't say it was the entire argument, I'm not going to write a book just for a discussion on a message board. I agree there are jobs available, some of the paying well, but I also know it takes a considerable sum of money to move, and it isn't feasible in the cases of low paying labor or even a lot of skilled labor pay levels, and a few anecdotal stories about the oil patches don't make for much in the way of reality for most people's situations or the entire economy. Some jobs are 'available' because the pay is too low to attract anybody no matter how hard up they are, and many are just fishing expeditions by employers looking for somebody to screw.
I don't buy your belief that workers are operating in a level playing field with employers, and magically get to demand higher wages; their options are very limited and 'competition' is open ended, something many of the employers don't face, and in any case many in an industry collude to keep wages low, especially in the 'high tech' fields. Silly Con Valley is notorious for wage collusion schemes. you're only going to get a higher offer based on those agreements among the industry players, regardless of skill scarcity, period. And then they get to compete with Green Card scams, and employers also mostly lie about 'shortages', always have; you find the same sniveling in early Greek scroll, and throughout history.
What they mean is they could just make money faster if they had more skilled employees around, but then they don't want to pay to keep them around during slumps, so tough shit, just work overtime or do back orders. Filling back orders used to moderate the severity slow downs, keeping employment from declining too fast, but not any more, there is a big surplus of labor, actually, which causes a lot of more severe problems in the troughs between cycles, and that means political unrest.
Even my example wasn't just oil, but go ahead a fly that dishonest flag. How about a starting pay package of $30,380/y + 401k matching + medical/dental + tuition reimbursement + discounts on their products and services - oh by the way that's a part time job in Alaska, 20-24 a week. (
Alaska Jobs - Search Alaska Job Listings | Monster )
Reality is that your kind of thinking is a lot of why most folks can't pay their bills, much less ever get rich, because they're too content/uninspired/lazy to even research a job that makes what they want somewhere in the nation, much less to actually go through any steps (even a simple email application) to get said job. They'd rather just sit there and ***** about "how it is" when they don't actually have a ******* clue how it is. Hey, if they want to stay near their friends/family that's totally fine, it's the end point of their willingness to earn money - again that's fine, it's a personal choice they are free to make, but that absolutely does not make me, nor any business that happens to hires them, liable for the "more money" s/he thinks s/he needs/wants/deserves. If you want more money, ask for a raise (most do not) or start looking for a better paying job. It's not a hard concept because there are millions of businesses out there looking for employees at every pay rate imaginable, shit I'm looking for someone to clean out my basement @$50/h and can't ******* find anyone (though agreeably that's not a job someone should or would move to Alaska for heh)
Your bologna idea that businesses are "looking for someone to screw" implies that a business somehow owes the employee more than they negotiate to pay. Even if the pay rate offered by the business is truly and actually too low, then no one would take the position and there would be zero harm to anyone done by their placing the ad. However, if someone takes the job at the low rate, then that person has made an individual choice to take the job at that rate - and I'd argue in such a case that the rate apparently wasn't too low. Perhaps your personal opinion of the pay rate is that it's too low, but clearly the person who took the job didn't actually believe that or they wouldn't have taken the job. At worst, a business may hire someone on the cheap and the person taking the job might decide after a couple weeks that it's a shitty job they won't do for that rate - but even in such a case that person a) will get paid and more importantly b) agreed to accept that pay.
None of your "woe is me" rambling changes the fact that if you "negotiate" and settle for less pay than you need/want/think you are worth/think the job is worth, you're either a) expecting too much for your lack of skills/talent/education/experience or b) a moron (I'll add that there is an exception c) for folks who sometimes take jobs "for fun/getting out of the house/exercise/experience" rather than for the money, but those folks ain't bitching about the pay they agreed to.) Anyway, the business offers x rate of pay, you either accept it and take the job OR you decline it and walk away. The idea that a business should be required to pay what an individual thinks they are worth, or frankly even what the "woe is me society" thinks an employee is worth, is complete horseshit. IF no one took the job at the paying rate, the business would have to pay more if they wanted the position filled, there is no such thing as a filled job that pays too little - it just doesn't happen. There is also not some conspiracy web of business owners setting pay rates - you're completely ignoring that businesses are in constant competition with each other, not just for employees, but for everything; market share, research/development, etc. No ******* way you're going to get 100 business owners into a room to agree on a pay rate dude. We'd just turn around and undercut the rest of the owners so we got the better employees, they're the ******* competition - not only do I want their good employees, but I want all their customers/sales and all their profit, all of it (and that is the only place you can even try to fly the "business owners" are greedy. And even that isn't so much "greed" but more about "security" - after all if I don't have to worry about my competition being up my ass, then I don't have to worry about going out of business.)
You're theory on businesses paying less because of employee competition is just the way the real world works. It's called supply and demand. If there are a ton of people who can run a cash register or work at McDonald's or run a vacuum cleaner because the education and skill requirements of those jobs are low then there are more people who could do that job and thus those jobs pay less. If there are less people who can do low-skill jobs, the pay rates would go up - and if the current employment rate keeps dropping you'll see them start to pay more or offer more benefits in order to get more employees (and that is the story of Alaska in a nut shell, I've been watching it happen for over four decades now.)
I mean if you want to get serious about this discussion and be intellectually honest about your theories of employment - lets talk about the abysmal way the US government has treated businesses over the past decade plus and add that into the equation of "stagnant wage growth." Lets talk about ACA forcing millions of previously full time jobs to become part time jobs and how many potential higher paying jobs the cap of 50 full time employees before being required to more than double their employee costs did to the job market and wage growth - lets also talk about how the added costs of ACA stopped wage growth. Lets talk about the hostile business environment that chased jobs of all flavor to other nations. Lets talk about the oppressive business regulations that stifled profit margins and reduced enthusiasm to even bother risking the capital to open a business. (50% of all businesses fail the first year, after 10 years the failure rate is 70%) The more businesses there are, the higher wages they'd have to pay for the employees after all.
