Businesses say they can't find qualified workers. Are they right?

[rousseau]

Yea, I've heard similar stories before. I'm lucky in my foresight, having done extensive research on where opportunity is in my province. In Ontario, the Toronto area accounts for 60% of the dev work that's done in the province.... 60%!!. So I plan to get myself situated there for the long term.

Single people are free to move around. With families it can cost the partner's job.

Yea, that's part of the reason why I'm planning on making the move now, and not later. My girlfriend is working a low wage, easily transferable job right now .. if we establish ourselves in a place with a surplus of work we're less likely to run into issues down the road.

 

[ksen]

Overpaid according to whom?

The usual market rates before and after. The .com boom was accompanied by a spike in the salaries of the people that made those systems.

Overpaid according to whom?

(I didn't think this question would be so difficult to answer)

Just because you don't believe someone can be overpaid doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I didn't say I don't believe someone can be overpaid. I believe CEOs and executives are grossly overpaid.

I'm asking on whose say so are we just accepting that someone is overpaid?

There is no real authority that will satisfy your questions.

I'll grant you that I am going to be very skeptical of the claim that people are overpaid if the one making the claim has a vested interest in keeping wages as low as possible.

 

[Underseer]

If they can't find employees with the right skills willing to work for peanuts, that's the same thing as not being able to find employees with the right skills.

Since they can't find employees with the right skills, we will have to import them from a country with a superior education system like India. They have all kinds of people willing to work for very little money!

 

[Nexus]

If they can't find employees with the right skills willing to work for peanuts, that's the same thing as not being able to find employees with the right qualifications.

Since they can't find employees with the right qualifications, we will have to import them from a country with a superior economic system like India. They have all kinds of people willing to work for very little money!

FIFY

qualifications = impoverished
superior economic system = more desperate workers

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, he meant what he wrote the first time. He really believes that stuff.

 

[RavenSky]

I wonder if the more accurate claim is that businesses cannot find qualified candidates at the offered compensation.

That, I suspect, is the more accurate statement.

 

[bilby]

The closer your employment market gets to the utopian 'free market' model, the less likely it is that anyone will be trained to do anything. But that's OK, because the aristocrats can live lives of luxury anyway, as long as labour is dirt cheap. You don't need to train a backhoe driver (or to purchase a backhoe) if you can afford to pay for a thousand men with shovels. This is the labour model that works so effectively in Africa, where construction sites are a teeming mass of labourers with hardly a machine in sight.

Though the mass hiring of people instead of machines has an aspect that I had originally not thought of.
Many (many) years ago I used to work with a fellow who worked in India before independence (1947-48). He was a manager of a club that had extensive greens and gardens and hired many workmen. I asked him about the stories of all the labourers and not much machinery. He said it was true and I asked why?
He said that those men had families to feed and besides if they were busy working (for a pittance he agreed) then they wouldn't be on the streets causing trouble.
Not the best solution, but for some people it beats starving.

I am sure that justification worked to salve the conscience of a person who was massively more wealthy than the locals, but the reality is that had machines been cheaper, those locals would have been sacked without a second thought; and had any one of them shown the slightest hint of a political view that would have led them to 'cause trouble' on the streets, he would have been out on his arse faster than you can say "Mahatma Gandhi".

The guys who were out on the streets overthrew the British a few years later, which rather suggests that there were insufficient country clubs paying enough wages to keep the majority of Indians out of 'trouble'.

 

[credoconsolans]

They can't find qualified candidates because

1) they don't pay shit
2) they're not offering full time jobs
3) they're not offering benefits
4) their requirements are extremely specific - they want a candidate to walk in the door already able to do the job
5) they don't train

 

[bilby]

So, a shortage of skilled workers.

Having recently come off of a stint of unemployment, I find this interesting. But then I have a mismatch between my degree and experience, so I find it difficult to get as far as the HR manager.

Issue one is that hiring ain't easy. You've got to work hard to make sure you're not hiring a worthless bum.

While this is certainly true...

There was an episode of King of the Hill where Strickland Propane hired a drug addict. Since that increased the number of people working at the company above some legal limit, Hank was unable to fire the druggie and instead Strickland Propane had to make all sorts of accommodations for his "disability".

...I find your use of an example from fiction less than compelling as a reason to believe that it is as big a deal as you suggest.

I am highly sceptical that an employer would have a hard time sacking a drug addict, particularly in Texas, which is an 'at-will' employment state. It wouldn't even be hard to sack such an employee here - and we actually have some solid laws in place that protect people from being fired without cause.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm sorry I tried to offer an example everyone could relate to. Next time I'll be sure to violate confidence in order to give an example you will approve of.

 

[bilby]

I'm sorry I tried to offer an example everyone could relate to. Next time I'll be sure to violate confidence in order to give an example you will approve of.

A fictional example is less compelling than no example at all. I am certain that, if there are real cases of this type, there are at least some that are public knowledge. If you insist on keeping information confidential, you have to put up with the fact that others won't be aware of it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Overpaid according to whom?

The usual market rates before and after. The .com boom was accompanied by a spike in the salaries of the people that made those systems.

Overpaid according to whom?

(I didn't think this question would be so difficult to answer)

The same way that people think they are underpaid. By co-workers, companies, the individual, etc.

I think the correct answer is they are considered overpaid by managers and executives who rely on keeping wages down in order to continue receiving their own bloated paychecks and stock options.

Almost right. Yes, it's the managers and executives, who are worth more, because they are in greater demand and in shorter supply, whereas the lower-down employees are easily replaceable, as each one of them could be replaced by several hundred applicants lined up ready to take their job at a lower salary level.

IOW by people who have a vested interest in keeping wages suppressed.

Actually, it's mostly the CONSUMERS who have a vested interest in keeping those wages suppressed, as long as the work still gets done anyway. It's ultimately the consumers who have to pay the salaries, i.e., all of us, and so it's in our interest that the costs, including labor costs, be kept down, if the work can get done just as well at lower labor cost, which it usually can be, as most of the wage-earners can easily be replaced by other job-seekers who will do the work for less.

Just like it's good for all of us for workers to be replaced with robots which can do the same job at lower cost.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Everyone should be paid only what they're worth. Then we're all better off.

And all workers pretty much think they are overpaid. So who is right? I think your answer is always workers.

Did you mean to say all workers pretty much think they're underpaid?

Undoubtedly. And they're wrong, they're mostly OVERpaid, because they could easily be replaced by someone who would do the same work just as well at a lower wage level. But this isn't allowed in our economy, because of the crybaby psychology which dominates the system.

Because of this crybaby mentality, we're all worse off, because prices are higher than they should be, and more work could get done if wages were not artificially propped up so high, thus discouraging much employment that would get more work done, which would benefit us all. For example, all the infrastructure work needing to be done but which gets put off because of artificially high labor cost.

Anyway, I don't know how you can look at the stagnant and declining wages of the past 30 or so years and not conclude that at this point in time the workers are most likely correct in that they are being underpaid.

It's easy to explain: Their value has declined. Most jobs have declined in value because those workers are becoming more and more easily replaceable, which makes them less valuable. Anyone with high-school-level econ should be able to figure this out.

Don't forget the overall increase in worker productivity.

The term "worker productivity" is a misnomer. It's another example of the crybaby mentality, where we pander to the wage-earners by pretending that their value as increased, when it is clearly DEcreasing.

It's not the workers who have become more productive, but the machines they operate. Just because the company gives the worker a better machine to operate does not mean that the worker's value has increased. On the contrary, the new machines, robots, computers, programs, etc., have become EASIER to work with, so that it requires LESS skill and intelligence and education to operate them.

So we need to stop being deluded by terms like "worker productivity" and other slogans which pander to the crybaby mentality of most wage-earners who are looking for more excuses to justify their employer-bashing impulses instead of doing something to improve themselves and become more productive and valuable instead of less valuable.

And the right's answer to the growing gap between rising productivity and falling wages?

But there's no real "gap" here, because the falling wages are accompanied by falling worker value. Higher value of the machines IS being accompanied by higher incomes to scientists and engineers who design the higher-value machines. So no real gap.

Eliminate the minimum wage so employers can pay less but hire more workers which will increase productivity and make the gap wider.

Even if the "gap" does widen, everyone will be better off if the production cost can be reduced, including labor cost, so that more can be produced and made available to all consumers at lower prices.

There's nothing wrong with a widening gap, as long as the gap between the more valuable producers/workers and the less valuable is increasing. That widening gap reflects a widening gap in value between the higher- and lower-income earners.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#58
Loren Pechtel

What they want is lower-cost labor instead of crybabies who demand more than they're worth.

So they reject the crybabies and go in search of lower-cost immigrant workers, to the benefit of consumers, because lower cost of production = lower prices to consumers = higher standard of living.

Same reason why they replace costly workers with labor-saving devices like robots and computers. It's all basic economics.

But since the crybabies don't understand basic economics, but only whine for higher pay than their market value, the employers lie to them and go after the cheaper labor. Because they put serving consumers, and thus the country (and of course profit), above pandering to whining crybabies.

Here I disagree with you. Foreign workers come with a big government subsidy--that green card.

Well, whatever the "subsidy" is, take it away and let the employers hire them at no subsidy. Even then there would still be a good influx of immigrant labor to replace the American crybabies who have to be paid more than they're worth.

And of course there's also the cheap foreign labor, working for us in Asia etc., who also benefit consumers and make our economy better for us all.

You know, that "oursourcing" that all the crybabies whine about.

 

[Under the Rose]

I'm sorry I tried to offer an example everyone could relate to. Next time I'll be sure to violate confidence in order to give an example you will approve of.

In Canada, there is this silly thing called 'Duty to Accommodate.' It really depends on a great many details on whether or not you can dismiss an employee or whether you have to at least attempt remedial action. (If they are not past probation you don't even have to provide a reason for no longer requiring their services.)

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Its a weird world. My neighbor a Professional Engineer with seven years of College, several Degrees, and decades of business experience is going through a long period of unemployment.
Not that he hasn't sought work, or that he refuses job offers, but prospective employers upon looking at his resume, or inquiring of his education and work experience decide he is 'not qualified' by virtue of being 'overqualified'.
Fact is that if he were hired, his education would pose an immediate threat to the job security of most of these lackeys and supervisors.

 

[Under the Rose]

#58
Loren Pechtel

What they want is lower-cost labor instead of crybabies who demand more than they're worth.

So they reject the crybabies and go in search of lower-cost immigrant workers, to the benefit of consumers, because lower cost of production = lower prices to consumers = higher standard of living.

Same reason why they replace costly workers with labor-saving devices like robots and computers. It's all basic economics.

But since the crybabies don't understand basic economics, but only whine for higher pay than their market value, the employers lie to them and go after the cheaper labor. Because they put serving consumers, and thus the country (and of course profit), above pandering to whining crybabies.

Here I disagree with you. Foreign workers come with a big government subsidy--that green card.

Well, whatever the "subsidy" is, take it away and let the employers hire them at no subsidy. Even then there would still be a good influx of immigrant labor to replace the American crybabies who have to be paid more than they're worth.

And of course there's also the cheap foreign labor, working for us in Asia etc., who also benefit consumers and make our economy better for us all.

You know, that "oursourcing" that all the crybabies whine about.

You make some interesting comments, LPT.

I have to confess to being just a tiny bit curious about what you do for a living and what your gross income is because you surely do not come across as a minimum wage earner.

Just saying...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

higher demand for it = higher "worth" / higher supply of it = lower "worth" ("value")

#59
lpetrich

ksen:I call bullshit on the employers claiming they can't find qualified workers.

You're right -- they're lying. What they want is lower-cost labor instead of crybabies who demand more than they're worth.

Define "worth".
I repeat, define "worth".

"Worth" or "value" of anything is whatever price it commands in the competitive market, determined only by supply-and-demand, based on the free choices of buyers and sellers without interference from 3rd parties.

Most commodities are priced this way, though the market is not perfectly competitive and free. But it is mostly free and competitive, whereas for labor the market is distorted by government and labor unions which impose higher labor cost onto employers, higher wage-levels than that of the market.

What makes this definition of "worth" or "value" the right one is that if it is followed rigidly by all, then all of us are made better off, because all the producers/workers will do their best performance, and it is good performance of needed work which creates value and wealth and increases the standard of living.

So they reject the crybabies and go in search of lower-cost immigrant workers, to the benefit of consumers, because lower cost of production = lower prices to consumers = higher standard of living.

As if consumers get their spending money from picking money trees.

How they get their money is their personal individual problem, not a social problem. The social problem is to get the maximum level of needed work done, or the best performance from producers. Production serves a social need, but not consumption.

We replace workers with robots in order to save on labor cost, and we're all better off because of it, even if those replaced workers then have no money. It's the production that matters and has value, not the spending by consumers.

Making production better and less costly is always good for all of us, regardless of lost jobs and incomes to the less competitive who are replaced.

What matters is not how much money workers spend or are paid, but how much benefit or needed work they contribute in order to acquire their money. That benefit or work they do is their contribution to the economy, not their spending of the money.

Geez, I wish I had some money trees in my backyard. It would make me a much better consumer.

We don't need better consumers. We need more work done, better workers, better production, better performance of the work to serve consumers.

 

[bilby]

It must be so wonderful in that special, magical world where consumers and workers are totally distinct and separate classes.

They had a go at that in the feudal era, and it was pretty excellent (as long as you were one of the handful of consumers; it pretty much sucked donkey balls to be one of the multitude of workers).

 

[lpetrich]

#59
lpetrich

Define "worth".
I repeat, define "worth".

"Worth" or "value" of anything is whatever price it commands in the competitive market, determined only by supply-and-demand, based on the free choices of buyers and sellers without interference from 3rd parties.

Capitalist-utopian spherical-cow economics. Yawn.

Most commodities are priced this way, though the market is not perfectly competitive and free. But it is mostly free and competitive, whereas for labor the market is distorted by government and labor unions which impose higher labor cost onto employers, higher wage-levels than that of the market.

Labor unions are private organizations, and are as legitimate as Chambers of Commerce and business lobbies. Or do only business leaders have a right to cooperate and to lobby governments? Do only they have a right to try to rig markets to their advantage?

So they reject the crybabies and go in search of lower-cost immigrant workers, to the benefit of consumers, because lower cost of production = lower prices to consumers = higher standard of living.

As if consumers get their spending money from picking money trees.

How they get their money is their personal individual problem, not a social problem.

It is a social problem if they are not paid enough to consume what they help produce. Think about that. Think long and hard about that.

Production serves a social need, but not consumption.

What's the point of production? To fill up warehouses? To dig holes and then fill them up again?

We replace workers with robots in order to save on labor cost, and we're all better off because of it, even if those replaced workers then have no money. It's the production that matters and has value, not the spending by consumers.

But I thought that you were pro-consumer.

Geez, I wish I had some money trees in my backyard. It would make me a much better consumer.

We don't need better consumers. We need more work done, better workers, better production, better performance of the work to serve consumers.

I take it that you volunteer by giving back everything that you nominally earn, so you will not be a financial burden on your employer.