Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[DBT]

Overpaying factory workers, steel workers, etc., is no solution to anything.

A basic summary:

CEO compensation packages have so many moving parts that pay out over time. And different corporate actions, such as stock buybacks, or the use of different accounting methods, can change the very targets that CEOs are supposed to hit under their pay incentive plans.

Ferracone notes that attractive CEO candidates will be doing pay comparisons of their own before accepting a position. "It's a competitive market. CEOs will work for the company that pays them fairly for the job they're doing. They're no different than anyone else in that regard."

And when boards increase CEO pay at some companies, that can drive other companies to pay more because their peer group norms go up.

Sky-high compensation packages often drive critics to ask: Are CEOs really worth all the money they're paid?

"Don't confuse pay with what people are worth. No human being is worth $20 million, but many executives cost $20 million," said Swinford.

Assuming some of these executives are "over"paid, are they the only ones? What about some celebrities, entertainers, pro athletes? Aren't some of these comparable?

Here are some examples of "over"paid athletes: Cristiano Ronaldo $56 million a year, Kobe Bryant $250 million a year, Lebron James (NBA) $30.96 million, Tom Brady (NFL) 27 million, Clayton Kershaw (MLB) $34.57 million -- per year.
https://www.spectatornews.com/sports/2017/03/are-professional-athletes-overpaid/

Aren't these just as bad, or even worse than most of these overpaid CEOs? Yet how is this going to be fixed by increasing wages to factory workers?

The solution is some kind of HIGHER taxation on the superrich. ALL of them, not just CEOs. And maybe there's a way to bring down some of the CEO compensation levels, but to overpay the common factory workers is no solution to anything. To single out a particular high-profile sector of the economy and overpay them doesn't do anything to fix the general problem for all of society. Rather, we need something which REDISTRIBUTES wealth from all those "over"-paid ones to ALL the rest of society.

There are probably many ways to do it. A higher income tax rate on the top levels is one. But there are others. Tax their mansions. Tax their private jets. Tax stock transactions.

But it makes no sense to prop up wages to common factory workers, already making over $50,000 per year -- probably higher than most of them are worth (according to the market) -- and then to pay for it increase the prices 330 million consumers must pay -- how does this fix anything? It just reduces the standard of living to ALL the poor and middle-income classes who must then pay higher prices in order to provide higher incomes to these select high-profile workers. Why? Why do steel workers and other select categories of workers deserve this subsidy which 330 million consumers must pay?

And increasing minimum wage and other propping-up of lower-level wages just prices thousands or millions of workers out of the market who cannot get an employer to pay them so much. It just eliminates some jobs, so that less production gets done = less supply = higher prices = lower living standard generally.

Why do you keep ignoring possible real solutions and just keep demanding higher wages for traditional factory workers, who are becoming less competitive? And by doing this you just keep drawing in more job applicants for these attractive high-profile (but less valuable) jobs, instead of letting the market (supply-and-demand) direct them to other kinds of work where there is greater demand. What do you have against letting society's needs be met (by the market), and instead are hell-bent on driving job-seekers into places where they're not needed?

There is NO SHORTAGE of factory workers! Why can't you figure that out?

Can't you understand the need for some solution which ends up producing GOOD results instead of the BAD results we get from your obsession-on-wages false solution? What do you have against GOOD results? Why is it that you want only BAD results?

Regardless of what CEO's, sportspeople, movie stars, etc, get paid, increasing wages for low to middle income earners is a benefit to those workers, the economy and society as a whole.

It may even help build a better, fairer, more decent culture.


Unlike our current condition where some get too much money while others struggle to make ends meet.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Guardian once again exhibits how little it cares for journalism. Good god, what a load of economic creationist propaganda. ... He's so incompetent he can't assess his own skills. He is Dunning-Kruger in action.

The Guardian is merely commenting on established statistics from multiple agencies. I have provided material from several sources.

This issue has nothing to do with Dorling or politics,

The Guardian's comments on the statistics were empty-headed drivel inspired by zero-sum-game ideology. You don't appear to be interested in defending its comments, so what was your purpose in posting them? If you only wanted to draw attention to those established statistics and the other material you've provided, okay, but what's your point? The Guardian claimed people it opposes are committing wrongdoings: that they're implying falsehoods and creating misery. Are you accusing someone of a wrongdoing?

it is just a simple fact of life and how our economic systems are structured to favour the few.

Passive voice noted. A person's income is what his customers trade to him in return for whatever he gives them, plus what other people donate to him for free, plus whatever he can make all by himself, plus whatever he seizes by force without the owners' permission. The latter two categories are typically negligible in modern western societies. The free donations are primarily composed of money that many people voted to take away from a few rich people and hand out to many poor people. So that income doesn't qualify as "structured to favour the few"; it's structured to favor the many. That only leaves the wealth customers trade to people in return for goods and services; so I take it that must be the income you're referring to. In what sense is that income "structured to favour the few"? However much wealth the few gain by this process, they must be delivering even more in exchange, or else their customers wouldn't continue trading with them. So that's a process that must necessarily favor the many as well as the few*.

(* Unless of course the few are just trading amongst themselves and aren't getting business from the many. There was once a world with ten million hunter-gatherers and ten thousand farmers. If the farmers had vastly more income than the hunter-gatherers, that could be described as a system "structured to favour the few". But it would hardly be a reason to think the farmers were wronging the hunter-gatherers and ought to give up the practice of farming.)

That the super rich have significantly increased their income and wealth over the last four decades while workers have fallen behind is not controversial.

Your display cynicism is misdirected. This is a global issue.

What did I say that was cynical? And of course it's controversial. I posted statistics refuting it, back in the "Taken $50 Trillion" thread. Global inequality is declining.

Here, for example, is an ABC report based on ABS figures.

It's official: the rich are getting richer.

''Well-off Australians are pulling away from the rest of the nation, with inequality of wealth rising in recent years, new figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show.

The data is detailed in the ABS's latest Household Income and Wealth Australia 2017-18 report, released today.

If what you meant is Australian workers have fallen behind, what's your point?

Chinese workers have significantly increased their income and wealth over the last four decades while Zimbabwean workers have fallen behind. Is that evidence that China wronged Zimbabwe, or that the economic system is improperly structured to favor China?

However, the report shows that wealth is highly concentrated in Australia.

No it doesn't. "Concentrated" is a zero-sum-game metaphor. Statistical analyses do not show metaphors are correct.

The average net worth of the top 20 per cent of households is more than 93 times that of the lowest 20 per cent — some $3.2 million compared to just $35,200.''

Well, that's what happens when some people consume nearly their whole income and other people don't. Is it supposed to mean somebody wronged somebody else? Does it perhaps mean it would be a good thing if rich people consumed more? That's the Broken Window Fallacy. Consumption is a form of destruction.

 

[DBT]

The Guardian's comments on the statistics were empty-headed drivel inspired by zero-sum-game ideology. You don't appear to be interested in defending its comments, so what was your purpose in posting them? If you only wanted to draw attention to those established statistics and the other material you've provided, okay, but what's your point? The Guardian claimed people it opposes are committing wrongdoings: that they're implying falsehoods and creating misery. Are you accusing someone of a wrongdoing?

it is just a simple fact of life and how our economic systems are structured to favour the few.

Passive voice noted. A person's income is what his customers trade to him in return for whatever he gives them, plus what other people donate to him for free, plus whatever he can make all by himself, plus whatever he seizes by force without the owners' permission. The latter two categories are typically negligible in modern western societies. The free donations are primarily composed of money that many people voted to take away from a few rich people and hand out to many poor people. So that income doesn't qualify as "structured to favour the few"; it's structured to favor the many. That only leaves the wealth customers trade to people in return for goods and services; so I take it that must be the income you're referring to. In what sense is that income "structured to favour the few"? However much wealth the few gain by this process, they must be delivering even more in exchange, or else their customers wouldn't continue trading with them. So that's a process that must necessarily favor the many as well as the few*.

(* Unless of course the few are just trading amongst themselves and aren't getting business from the many. There was once a world with ten million hunter-gatherers and ten thousand farmers. If the farmers had vastly more income than the hunter-gatherers, that could be described as a system "structured to favour the few". But it would hardly be a reason to think the farmers were wronging the hunter-gatherers and ought to give up the practice of farming.)

That the super rich have significantly increased their income and wealth over the last four decades while workers have fallen behind is not controversial.

Your display cynicism is misdirected. This is a global issue.

What did I say that was cynical? And of course it's controversial. I posted statistics refuting it, back in the "Taken $50 Trillion" thread. Global inequality is declining.

Here, for example, is an ABC report based on ABS figures.

It's official: the rich are getting richer.

''Well-off Australians are pulling away from the rest of the nation, with inequality of wealth rising in recent years, new figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show.

The data is detailed in the ABS's latest Household Income and Wealth Australia 2017-18 report, released today.

If what you meant is Australian workers have fallen behind, what's your point?

Chinese workers have significantly increased their income and wealth over the last four decades while Zimbabwean workers have fallen behind. Is that evidence that China wronged Zimbabwe, or that the economic system is improperly structured to favor China?

However, the report shows that wealth is highly concentrated in Australia.

No it doesn't. "Concentrated" is a zero-sum-game metaphor. Statistical analyses do not show metaphors are correct.

The average net worth of the top 20 per cent of households is more than 93 times that of the lowest 20 per cent — some $3.2 million compared to just $35,200.''

Well, that's what happens when some people consume nearly their whole income and other people don't. Is it supposed to mean somebody wronged somebody else? Does it perhaps mean it would be a good thing if rich people consumed more? That's the Broken Window Fallacy. Consumption is a form of destruction.

Some, but not all Chinese workers have improved their lot. As have workers in developing nations, and that is a good thing. But the the thing is, who are these workers, what was their income before wage improvement, what is it now and is it likely to keep improving?

But this is a detour from the point that workers in developed nations have been losing their hard earned gains in pay and conditions, losing their cut in the wealth they help to produce.

That is the focus. That is something that all workers face at some stage in the ebb and flow of power dynamics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Regardless of what CEO's, sportspeople, movie stars, etc, get paid, increasing wages for low to middle income earners is a benefit to those workers, the economy and society as a whole.

It may even help build a better, fairer, more decent culture.


Unlike our current condition where some get too much money while others struggle to make ends meet.

As always, the infinite pool of profits to fund the things you consider worthy. Companies aren't making that kind of money, any substantial increase to worker pay will result in a similar increase in prices and the end result is simply inflation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some, but not all Chinese workers have improved their lot. As have workers in developing nations, and that is a good thing. But the the thing is, who are these workers, what was their income before wage improvement, what is it now and is it likely to keep improving?

But this is a detour from the point that workers in developed nations have been losing their hard earned gains in pay and conditions, losing their cut in the wealth they help to produce.

That is the focus. That is something that all workers face at some stage in the ebb and flow of power dynamics.

The lot of the Chinese worker has improved a lot simply based on market forces without the protections you are envisioning.

 

[DBT]

Some, but not all Chinese workers have improved their lot. As have workers in developing nations, and that is a good thing. But the the thing is, who are these workers, what was their income before wage improvement, what is it now and is it likely to keep improving?

But this is a detour from the point that workers in developed nations have been losing their hard earned gains in pay and conditions, losing their cut in the wealth they help to produce.

That is the focus. That is something that all workers face at some stage in the ebb and flow of power dynamics.

The lot of the Chinese worker has improved a lot simply based on market forces without the protections you are envisioning.

Simply not true:

''Starting from July 1, China's capital city Beijing will increase the minimum wage per month to 2,200 yuan ($ 322.38) for full-time employees and hourly wage for part-time employees to 24 yuan, the highest in the country, Beijing Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau announced.

The financial center Shanghai has upped its minimum monthly wage by 60 yuan to 2,480 yuan, the highest in the country, and its hourly wage from 21 yuan to 22 yuan since April 1.

Southwest China's Chongqing municipality boosted its first and second levels of minimum monthly wages by 300 yuan to 1,800 yuan and 1,700 yuan, respectively, on Jan 1.''

''Furthermore, standards for unemployment insurance and employment injury insurance are also expected to be elevated. Shanghai has clarified that unemployment insurance will be increased from 1,770 yuan to 1,815 yuan, the report said.''

 

[DBT]

Regardless of what CEO's, sportspeople, movie stars, etc, get paid, increasing wages for low to middle income earners is a benefit to those workers, the economy and society as a whole.

It may even help build a better, fairer, more decent culture.


Unlike our current condition where some get too much money while others struggle to make ends meet.

As always, the infinite pool of profits to fund the things you consider worthy. Companies aren't making that kind of money, any substantial increase to worker pay will result in a similar increase in prices and the end result is simply inflation.

Nobody mentioned an 'infinite pool of profits' - the issue is stagnation of income and conditions over the last four decades while the upper end of town enjoyed significant gains on already high incomes.

And of course no really significant improvements in pay and conditions for the most vulnerable workers. Examples have been given but ignored.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some, but not all Chinese workers have improved their lot. As have workers in developing nations, and that is a good thing. But the the thing is, who are these workers, what was their income before wage improvement, what is it now and is it likely to keep improving?

But this is a detour from the point that workers in developed nations have been losing their hard earned gains in pay and conditions, losing their cut in the wealth they help to produce.

That is the focus. That is something that all workers face at some stage in the ebb and flow of power dynamics.

The lot of the Chinese worker has improved a lot simply based on market forces without the protections you are envisioning.

Simply not true:

''Starting from July 1, China's capital city Beijing will increase the minimum wage per month to 2,200 yuan ($ 322.38) for full-time employees and hourly wage for part-time employees to 24 yuan, the highest in the country, Beijing Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau announced.

The financial center Shanghai has upped its minimum monthly wage by 60 yuan to 2,480 yuan, the highest in the country, and its hourly wage from 21 yuan to 22 yuan since April 1.

Southwest China's Chongqing municipality boosted its first and second levels of minimum monthly wages by 300 yuan to 1,800 yuan and 1,700 yuan, respectively, on Jan 1.''

''Furthermore, standards for unemployment insurance and employment injury insurance are also expected to be elevated. Shanghai has clarified that unemployment insurance will be increased from 1,770 yuan to 1,815 yuan, the report said.''

As with the US minimum wage, few actually work for those amounts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Regardless of what CEO's, sportspeople, movie stars, etc, get paid, increasing wages for low to middle income earners is a benefit to those workers, the economy and society as a whole.

It may even help build a better, fairer, more decent culture.


Unlike our current condition where some get too much money while others struggle to make ends meet.

As always, the infinite pool of profits to fund the things you consider worthy. Companies aren't making that kind of money, any substantial increase to worker pay will result in a similar increase in prices and the end result is simply inflation.

Nobody mentioned an 'infinite pool of profits' - the issue is stagnation of income and conditions over the last four decades while the upper end of town enjoyed significant gains on already high incomes.

And of course no really significant improvements in pay and conditions for the most vulnerable workers. Examples have been given but ignored.

You never mention it but the only way your positions make sense is if it exists. If the pool wasn't infinite you would have to compare the proposed spending with the size of the pool. The utter unwillingness to do so says you either don't care about whether it works, or you consider it infinite.

 

[DBT]

Simply not true:

''Starting from July 1, China's capital city Beijing will increase the minimum wage per month to 2,200 yuan ($ 322.38) for full-time employees and hourly wage for part-time employees to 24 yuan, the highest in the country, Beijing Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau announced.

The financial center Shanghai has upped its minimum monthly wage by 60 yuan to 2,480 yuan, the highest in the country, and its hourly wage from 21 yuan to 22 yuan since April 1.

Southwest China's Chongqing municipality boosted its first and second levels of minimum monthly wages by 300 yuan to 1,800 yuan and 1,700 yuan, respectively, on Jan 1.''

''Furthermore, standards for unemployment insurance and employment injury insurance are also expected to be elevated. Shanghai has clarified that unemployment insurance will be increased from 1,770 yuan to 1,815 yuan, the report said.''

As with the US minimum wage, few actually work for those amounts.

It's a safety net. It's there for a reason. What people get paid for their labour depends on a number of factors.

 

[DBT]

Nobody mentioned an 'infinite pool of profits' - the issue is stagnation of income and conditions over the last four decades while the upper end of town enjoyed significant gains on already high incomes.

And of course no really significant improvements in pay and conditions for the most vulnerable workers. Examples have been given but ignored.

You never mention it but the only way your positions make sense is if it exists. If the pool wasn't infinite you would have to compare the proposed spending with the size of the pool. The utter unwillingness to do so says you either don't care about whether it works, or you consider it infinite.

That's nonsense. You are making up your own terms and conditions. It's called a Strawman.

 

[Bomb#20]

The lot of the Chinese worker has improved a lot simply based on market forces without the protections you are envisioning.

Actually the case is stronger than that. The number one reason the lot of the average Chinese worker has improved a lot over the last four decades is that four decades ago the world's leading preventer of inequality and of exploitation of the workers by the capitalists passed on to the great Workers' Paradise in the sky.

 

[Bomb#20]

Some, but not all Chinese workers have improved their lot. As have workers in developing nations, and that is a good thing. But the the thing is, who are these workers, what was their income before wage improvement, what is it now and is it likely to keep improving?

As the saying goes, all politics is local. Some are likely to keep improving; some aren't. I think throughout history the chief cause of failure to improve income is bad rulers. Zimbabweans got worse and worse off for forty years because forty years ago they voted an obvious psychopath into power because he was the candidate from the majority tribe. Income will probably improve now, since the psychopath died last year. I expect most workers in most developing nations will see wage improvements. Those ruled by Maduro, probably not.

But this is a detour from the point that workers in developed nations have been losing their hard earned gains in pay and conditions, losing their cut in the wealth they help to produce.

That is the focus. That is something that all workers face at some stage in the ebb and flow of power dynamics.

Well, it's partly power dynamics; and to whatever extent the cut of workers in developed nations is decreasing due to power dynamics, they need to unionize more.

On the other hand, more people than ever are helping them produce the wealth they help to produce. All those new contributors have to get a cut too. You can't broaden the base of helpers and simultaneously expect each helper to keep getting the same fraction as before. If customers aren't willing to pay more for the part of the production process that some specific group of workers contributes, because they have alternatives, then just continuing to do that part of production is not going to get paid better; if they unionize they'll just price themselves out of competition and get offered less work. The point of a union is to move along the supply/demand chart from the competitive price/quantity point to the monopoly price/quantity point; it only works if you actually have a monopoly. So for Australian workers to once again get the fraction of total production Australian workers used to get even though Indian workers are helping produce it, they'll need to convince the Indians to join their union.

 

[ZiprHead]

Walmart and McDonald’s are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

Walmart and McDonald’s are among the top employers of beneficiaries of federal aid programs like Medicaid and food stamps, according to a study by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office released Wednesday.
The question of how much taxpayers contribute to maintaining basic living standards for employees at some of the nation’s largest low-wage companies has long been a flashpoint in the debate over minimum wage laws and the ongoing effort to unionize these sectors.

EACH WALTON FAMILY MEMBER’S WEALTH SURGES $3.7 BILLION, OR 5.7%, YESTERDAY

The Billionaires’ Wealth Windfall Update is a periodic report on the outrageous growth in wealth of U.S. billionaires during the coronavirus pandemic. Data is based on daily real-time changes reported by Forbes.

Alice Walton:

Wealth as of Sep. 2: $69 billion, up $3.7 billion or 5.7% from yesterday.
Wealth has increased $14.6 billion since March 18, 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic – up from $54.4 billion, a 26.9% increase.
Wealth has increased $24.6 billion since Feb. 8, 2019 based on Forbes 2019 World’s Billionaires List – up from $44.4 billion, or 55.5%.
She is the 10th richest American.

Jim Walton:

Wealth as of Sep. 2: $68.8 billion, up $3.7 billion or 5.7% from yesterday.
Wealth has increased $14.2 billion since March 18, 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic – up from $54.6 billion, or 26.1%.
Wealth has increased $24.2 billion since Feb. 8, 2019 based on Forbes 2019 World’s Billionaires List – up from $44.6 billion, or 54.3%.
He is the 11th richest American.

Rob Walton:

Wealth as of Sep. 2: $68.5 billion, up $3.7 billion or 5.7% from yesterday.
Wealth has increased $14.4 billion since March 18, 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic – up from $54.1 billion; a 26.6% increase.
Wealth has increased $24.2 billion since Feb. 8, 2019 based on Forbes 2019 World’s Billionaires List – up from $44.3 billion, or 54.6%.
He is the 12th richest American.

McDonald's U.S. sales soar during coronavirus pandemic

McDonald's reported that its U.S. comparable sales grew by 4.6% in the latest quarter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody mentioned an 'infinite pool of profits' - the issue is stagnation of income and conditions over the last four decades while the upper end of town enjoyed significant gains on already high incomes.

And of course no really significant improvements in pay and conditions for the most vulnerable workers. Examples have been given but ignored.

You never mention it but the only way your positions make sense is if it exists. If the pool wasn't infinite you would have to compare the proposed spending with the size of the pool. The utter unwillingness to do so says you either don't care about whether it works, or you consider it infinite.

That's nonsense. You are making up your own terms and conditions. It's called a Strawman.

You are refusing to consider if the companies have enough profit to pay for what you're asking, let alone looking at the long-term effects of making investment unprofitable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The lot of the Chinese worker has improved a lot simply based on market forces without the protections you are envisioning.

Actually the case is stronger than that. The number one reason the lot of the average Chinese worker has improved a lot over the last four decades is that four decades ago the world's leading preventer of inequality and of exploitation of the workers by the capitalists passed on to the great Workers' Paradise in the sky.

Yes, that's good evidence. I've been in a lot of countries and it's very clear--the economy of a country is very much a function of it's government. "Communist" (not that there has ever really been communism)--the standard of living is very low but reasonably equal, other than for the party elites. Kleptocracy (pretty much any third world nation)--the standard of living is very low and rather variable, wealth only comes to the cronies. Capitalist--the standard of living is high but variable. This is fairly separate from dictatorship/democracy, but dictatorships are far more favorable to corruption and thus the standard of living is lower.

Note that this reflects the long-term government, it takes a long time for a country to fully reflect a change in government.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Walmart and McDonald’s are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

No surprise, as both businesses employ a lot of part-time workers and the biggest cause of needing welfare is a lack of hours worked.

Unfortunately, pushing businesses towards full-time employment will increase inequality and the unemployment rate.

 

[laughing dog]

Walmart and McDonald’s are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

No surprise, as both businesses employ a lot of part-time workers and the biggest cause of needing welfare is a lack of hours worked.

Unfortunately, pushing businesses towards full-time employment will increase inequality and the unemployment rate.

While that is possibility, it is not a certainty. It would be nice if your projections would reflect the uncertainty they deserve.

 

[DBT]

That's nonsense. You are making up your own terms and conditions. It's called a Strawman.

You are refusing to consider if the companies have enough profit to pay for what you're asking, let alone looking at the long-term effects of making investment unprofitable.

If they can't afford to pay their employees a reasonable rate, they should not be in business.

Are employees supposed to subsidize a poor business?

Are utility providers supposed to drop the price of their goods and services because a business can't afford to pay market value for them?

Are we to donate our time, skill and labour to businesses that are not profitable?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If there's really a SHORTAGE OF FACTORY WORKERS, then why do Trump and Bernie Sanders etc. want to BRING BACK THE FACTORIES?

You can't complain that there's a "shortage" of factory workers when the mindless masses are demanding more factories and more factory jobs to put them into, and complaining that the damn Chinese are stealing our factory jobs. That makes no sense.

There is NO SHORTAGE of factory workers!

In my region, there is a shortage of factory workers,

No, that refers only to very specialized workers. Not the ones DBT is complaining about whose wages are stagnating. If there were really any shortage of factory workers, then no one would ever complain about jobs being outsourced and companies "shipping our jobs" overseas.

. . . there is a shortage of factory workers, and skilled workers in the trades.

If that were really true, then the companies would automatically increase the wages as necessary to attract the workers they need (Or, if that is really true, then the companies are automatically increasing the wages as necessary), with no need for any laws or other pressure on them to do so. If they are not increasing the wage level, it proves there IS NO SHORTAGE, regardless of your impressions or anyone else's. It's impossible for there to be any real "shortage" and yet no increase in the wage level being offered.

Manufacturers here have been complaining about this for a number of years.

If that's really true, then they are continually increasing the wage level to attract them, without any pressure from the outside, including from any labor union. Probably their only real complaint is that they have to pay the workers too much, and they need immigration laws loosened to allow more visas, or other access to low-cost labor, which is opposed by the "fair trade" fanatics and immigrant-bashers and employer-bashers.

Yt their complaints continue. Hmmmm.

Because they continue to be unable to attract the workers at a low-enough labor cost level that makes it worth it to them to hire the workers. There's never a "shortage" of any kind of labor if the wage level is doubled or tripled in order to attract enough applicants. But beyond a certain level it's no longer worth it to the employer to pay that cost. So their only "complaint" has to be that something is blocking them from a source of cheap labor which they know is out there. Probably labor laws or unions or "fair trade" demands or immigration restrictions, i.e., free-trade-bashing in one form or another.

To be fair, the fast food chain restaurants have raised wages - they pay way above the minimum wage. But they still have trouble getting enough labor. Hmmm.

They're probably rejecting applicants every day who don't look "sharp" enough. With the high wages they have to pay, they are more finicky about who to hire, how pretty their face is, whether they're out-going enough, etc. So they're not getting enough of those "qualified" applicants.

Today, right now, in Nov. 2020, there are some disruptions in the economy due to the pandemic, causing a "shortage" here or there, so there's an apparent "shortage" of this or that as changes happen too fast.

But there is no general long-term "shortage" of factory workers who have to be paid $20/hour or more. If that were true, we would not hear complaints from laid-off factory workers about their jobs being "shipped" to China and other countries, because they could easily get rehired, which they keep complaining that they cannot be.

And the only real "shortage" of factory workers refers to the highly specialized ones, engineers and more technical workers, not the common factory workers, 90% of them, which DBT and others are pandering to -- i.e., the ones whose wages have stagnated, in those stats we keep seeing. There is no "shortage" of those workers.