DISAPPOINTING JOBS REPORT is whose fault?

The current bad jobs numbers are the fault of:

• Democrats/Republicans, by opposing admission of a million or so immigrants to fill the vacant jobs.

• Total voters
3

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
It's not that the jobs aren't there, but rather that there's a shortage of workers taking the jobs available. Maybe this is due mostly to the pandemic, which isn't over, and which is making employment less attractive.

Companies are even cutting back production for lack of needed workers. Who's to blame for this? And why basically is this bad?

What's wrong is not high unemployment, but that needed work is not getting done. There's a need for more truck drivers, dock workers at the ports, and some skilled workers like plumbers and electricians. Also firefighters, and many other kinds of workers -- but job-seekers are staying home rather than taking the jobs that are open.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/08/joe-biden-brushes-off-second-poor-jobs-report-in-row/

But the new report showed the US added just 194,000 jobs in September — far short of economists’ expectations of about 500,000.

The shortfall compounded a hiring slowdown in August, when the US added 366,000 jobs, according to revised figures released Friday — far below economists’ expectations of 720,000.

“President Biden is now a whopping 944,000 jobs short of what he promised from his last stimulus and worse, has lost the confidence of the American people to lead the economy.”

Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said, “Over 300,000 FEWER jobs created than expected in September – further proof Biden’s economic policies are hurting our country.”

Brad McMillan, chief investment officer for Commonwealth Financial Network, explained the lower unemployment rate, noting that “the declines in the unemployment measures and the participation rate show that the movement of people back to the labor force has paused.”

Harvard economist Jason Fruman tweeted, “Job openings: 11.7m Unemployed: 7.7m The 1.5 openings per unemployed is the highest ever recorded.”

Unprecedented high-job-openings to number-of-unemployed ratio.

What's the solution?

Take in more immigrant workers!

There's obviously no shortage of potential workers.

Most of the vacant jobs could be filled, in a short time -- only 2 or 3 or 4 months -- by letting in an extra million immigrants who could take them. Only a few jobs are so high-skill that no immigrants could do them. Probably the whole problem would be solved in less than a year, if all the migrants needed would be taken in. And it would be easy to get all of them vaccinated, so that cannot be the obstacle.

So, what is the obstacle? Why can't Biden admit a half million or million migrants to take the jobs needing to be filled? Only because:

The American people are crybabies, who hate immigrants who might compete with them, and/or

they are crybaby-panderers who demand that companies pay workers more than their real competitive market value
and not be allowed to hire them at low labor cost which would make it profitable to hire them. Maybe the labor cost is higher now, for domestic workers, because of the pandemic. But the simple solution to that is to take in a half-million or million immigrants, to meet the labor shortfall.

But the fear is that immigrants will drive down the wage level or steal jobs from red-blooded Americans.

Which means basically that we're a nation of crybabies and crybaby-panderers. And Biden and Trump are among the crybaby-panderers, not essentially disagreeing with each other, but united in their leftist employer-bashing philosophy to pander to the crybabies who hate competition and insist that work has to be done only by high-paid red-blooded native-borns who are entitled to the American Dream no matter how much it costs and are unable to compete against the newcomers.

The economy -- 330 million Americans -- are suffering because of this.

So both Reds and Blues think it's better to let the economy suffer, let the production be lower, so less wealth is created, and so American consumers -- ALL Americans -- must have their living standard reduced, because of our need to pander to the crybabies who feel threatened by competition from immigrants.

What other reason could there be for not taking in enough migrants to fill the vacant jobs?

none

Banned
Job creation for immigrants? What a novel idea.

Harry Bosch

Contributor
It's not that the jobs aren't there, but rather that there's a shortage of workers taking the jobs available. Maybe this is due mostly to the pandemic, which isn't over, and which is making employment less attractive.

Companies are even cutting back production for lack of needed workers. Who's to blame for this? And why basically is this bad?

What's wrong is not high unemployment, but that needed work is not getting done. There's a need for more truck drivers, dock workers at the ports, and some skilled workers like plumbers and electricians. Also firefighters, and many other kinds of workers -- but job-seekers are staying home rather than taking the jobs that are open.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/08/joe-biden-brushes-off-second-poor-jobs-report-in-row/

But the new report showed the US added just 194,000 jobs in September — far short of economists’ expectations of about 500,000.

The shortfall compounded a hiring slowdown in August, when the US added 366,000 jobs, according to revised figures released Friday — far below economists’ expectations of 720,000.

“President Biden is now a whopping 944,000 jobs short of what he promised from his last stimulus and worse, has lost the confidence of the American people to lead the economy.”

Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said, “Over 300,000 FEWER jobs created than expected in September – further proof Biden’s economic policies are hurting our country.”

Brad McMillan, chief investment officer for Commonwealth Financial Network, explained the lower unemployment rate, noting that “the declines in the unemployment measures and the participation rate show that the movement of people back to the labor force has paused.”

Harvard economist Jason Fruman tweeted, “Job openings: 11.7m Unemployed: 7.7m The 1.5 openings per unemployed is the highest ever recorded.”

Unprecedented high-job-openings to number-of-unemployed ratio.

What's the solution?

Take in more immigrant workers!

There's obviously no shortage of potential workers.

Most of the vacant jobs could be filled, in a short time -- only 2 or 3 or 4 months -- by letting in an extra million immigrants who could take them. Only a few jobs are so high-skill that no immigrants could do them. Probably the whole problem would be solved in less than a year, if all the migrants needed would be taken in. And it would be easy to get all of them vaccinated, so that cannot be the obstacle.

So, what is the obstacle? Why can't Biden admit a half million or million migrants to take the jobs needing to be filled? Only because:

The American people are crybabies, who hate immigrants who might compete with them, and/or

they are crybaby-panderers who demand that companies pay workers more than their real competitive market value
and not be allowed to hire them at low labor cost which would make it profitable to hire them. Maybe the labor cost is higher now, for domestic workers, because of the pandemic. But the simple solution to that is to take in a half-million or million immigrants, to meet the labor shortfall.

But the fear is that immigrants will drive down the wage level or steal jobs from red-blooded Americans.

Which means basically that we're a nation of crybabies and crybaby-panderers. And Biden and Trump are among the crybaby-panderers, not essentially disagreeing with each other, but united in their leftist employer-bashing philosophy to pander to the crybabies who hate competition and insist that work has to be done only by high-paid red-blooded native-borns who are entitled to the American Dream no matter how much it costs and are unable to compete against the newcomers.

The economy -- 330 million Americans -- are suffering because of this.

So both Reds and Blues think it's better to let the economy suffer, let the production be lower, so less wealth is created, and so American consumers -- ALL Americans -- must have their living standard reduced, because of our need to pander to the crybabies who feel threatened by competition from immigrants.

What other reason could there be for not taking in enough migrants to fill the vacant jobs?

Totally agree. It's so hard to understand. We don't have enough people. We don't have enough workers. And yet we have a huge group of people who want to escape misery and work. And we won't let them in. Why? I can understand not letting them in when labor is abundant. But why follow this in incredibly tight markets? I can tell you that "inshoring" is real with US manufacturers. We are tired of depending on the flacky supply system from China. Manufacturers want to bring those jobs back to America. But how when there aren't enough workers?

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Good. Wage growth has suffered for decades for low and middle wage earners. Keep the press on.

laughing dog

Contributor
Oh dear, another ironic “crybaby economics” OP that presupposes a simple mahic wand approach to an economic issue.

TSwizzle

Contributor
Have these migrants been vaccinated? Or will the vaccine mandate not apply to them?

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
No, it's not about "jobs for people" --

It's about people needed for jobs which otherwise won't get done.

Job creation for immigrants? What a novel idea.

No, it's not about "job creation" for someone needing a job, but about getting needed work done.

"Job creation" is what Trump and Biden and Bernie Sanders etc. mean when they preach the need for more factories not for needed production but as places to put excess job-seekers which we don't have a place for. So the "job creation" solution has meaning only when the problem is excess job-seekers cluttering up the streets or unemployment office and which we're afraid will go on a rampage if we don't create some factories to put them in to keep them out of mischief.

An example of "job creation" is what King Charles I did in order to appease some striking workers who needed something done to protect their jobs from being eliminated:

Jobs Created by ELIMINATING Wind Power
Last year a wind-powered sawmill was built near the Strand, London. (The Strand is a major road following the Thames River.) Apparently it has been such a successful business that a lot of sawyers are out of work. (A sawyer is a man who saws wood by hand.) King Charles the 1st of England is fighting an economic slump so he demolishes the sawmill in order to quell a possible riot and puts the sawyers back to work. http://tspwiki.com/index.phptitle=1634#Jobs_Created_by_ELIMINATING_Wind_Power_.2A

So the need for "job creation" was to appease these crybaby striking workers who would have gone on a rampage because their jobs were being eliminated by machines. That's what "job creation" usually means, as the number of job-seekers/laid-off workers gets so large that we don't know what to do with them unless some "jobs" are created or protected from being eliminated, and to fix this the government does what's necessary to increase jobs to accommodate all those excess workers or job-seekers cluttering up the place and threatening to go on a stampede.

But that's obviously not the need today, with excess jobs and scarcity of workers to do them. So our need today is not for artificial factories to put excess workers into -- as Biden and Trump want with their China-bashing anti-trade measures to produce more U.S. factories to put workers into to keep them out of mischief -- no, today's need is for more workers to get needed work done.

It's not clear that we've ever really needed the Biden-Trump-Sanders "job creation" tool to provide artificial factories worshiped by some as the source of jobs and thus economic progress; but even if there were times when artificial factories served a purpose, it certainly is not now when the problem is more jobs (real jobs needing to be done to make production better) and yet a lack of needed workers to fill them. This clearly translates into economic loss for the whole country, causing inflation and shortages, and reducing everyone's living standard.

So it shouldn't be difficult to recognize the need to increase immigration at this time especially, to meet this need.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Have these migrants been vaccinated? Or will the vaccine mandate not apply to them?

Obviously vaccinations must be mandated for all of them. And obviously there would be no resistance to this by the migrants who want to enter and want employment.

Swammerdami

Staff member
Have these migrants been vaccinated? Or will the vaccine mandate not apply to them?

This is a trick question. If vaccination is mandatory, then Joe Biden is a freedom-hating fascist dictator in the tradition of Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, and Oprah Winfrey.
But if the emigrants are subject only to perfunctory tests, then they are would-be terrorists brought in to steal our jobs, cough and sneeze on our oldsters, and rape our girls.

Lose-lose for the libs! Make America Great Again!!

prideandfall

Veteran Member
What other reason could there be for not taking in enough migrants to fill the vacant jobs?
because the only thing that americans hate more than the concept of every white person living in this country being able to live a decent and dignified lifestyle consistent with being a member of the richest and most advanced civilization in the history of our species is the idea of any not-white person in this country being able to live a decent and dignified lifestyle consistent with being a member of the richest and most advanced civilization in the history of our species.

none

Banned
Make colonists pay for taxes on the products thier slaves produce? Are you insane?

TSwizzle

Contributor
Have these migrants been vaccinated? Or will the vaccine mandate not apply to them?

Obviously vaccinations must be mandated for all of them. And obviously there would be no resistance to this by the migrants who want to enter and want employment.

Excellent news, they can fill in for all the people that were fired from their jobs due to failing to comply with the vaccine mandates.

SimpleDon

Veteran Member
In a normal functioning economy, long-term growth is the population increase. A population increase of young adults out of school, starting to work, getting married and setting up households, buying cars, buying homes, etc. We have seen this many times in the US economy in the past; the post WWII boom of returning GIs, the Reagan boom caused by the baby boomers becoming independent, the mini-boom twenty-five years later of the baby-boomers children.

This is what we see when we study economics by looking at what really happens in the economy instead of trying to force the economy into fulfilling a fantasy theory of how the economy should run.

SimpleDon

Veteran Member
Have these migrants been vaccinated? Or will the vaccine mandate not apply to them?

Obviously vaccinations must be mandated for all of them. And obviously there would be no resistance to this by the migrants who want to enter and want employment.

Excellent news, they can fill in for all the people that were fired from their jobs due to failing to comply with the vaccine mandates.

Do you really think that anti-vaccers have the capacities needed to contribute to the economy in any meaningful way? Their single descriptive characteristic, that they consider vaccines to be ineffective or dangerous after being given to hundreds of millions of people say that they don't.

Swammerdami

Staff member
In a normal functioning economy, long-term growth is the population increase. A population increase of young adults out of school, starting to work, getting married and setting up households, buying cars, buying homes, etc. We have seen this many times in the US economy in the past; the post WWII boom of returning GIs, the Reagan boom caused by the baby boomers becoming independent, the mini-boom twenty-five years later of the baby-boomers children.

This is what we see when we study economics by looking at what really happens in the economy instead of trying to force the economy into fulfilling a fantasy theory of how the economy should run.

For the average widget buyer, the production of 200 widgets for 200 people is no better than producing 100 widgets for 100 people. It is corporate stock prices whose continued rise depends on population increase.

Anyway, the current U.S. malaise is not caused by a shortage of consumers or workers. One big reason why Europe is booming now but not America is that European governments discouraged pandemic-related layoffs.

Ford

Contributor
Rabid libertarians: "Why don't you just quit your low wage job and better yourself?"

Workers today: "Okay. Fuck my current employer. The business down the street is offering more money, better benefits, and better working conditions. I quit!"

Rabid libertarians: "Not like that! Why don't you want to work for us?! You ungrateful lazy bastards!!!"

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Rabid libertarians: "Why don't you just quit your low wage job and better yourself?"

Workers today: "Okay. Fuck my current employer. The business down the street is offering more money, better benefits, and better working conditions. I quit!"

Rabid libertarians: "Not like that! Why don't you want to work for us?! You ungrateful lazy bastards!!!"

People must realize when they have the power. These instances are few. The last was the collapse of the housing market. Fewer realized the power they had to screw over the banks by forcing them to reappraise their property and obtain a lower mortgage in the face of so many foreclosures on the bank’s books.
For today’s workers, it’s more evident. Don’t want to pay me more? Duck you. I’ll move on down the road. It’s only people’s naive sense of fair play in our capitalism run amok system holding them back.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Who's against more immigrant labor other than the uncompetitive crybabies? and xenophobes?

Oh dear, another ironic “crybaby economics” OP that presupposes a simple magic wand approach to an economic issue.

What's "magic" about job-seekers at point A being allowed to take jobs at point B? Is it "magic" to combine a job with someone who wants to work?

Was it "magic" more than 100 years ago when America took in millions of immigrants to get needed work done? Was all that benefit to the U.S. economy, like getting the railroads done quicker, a "magic wand" approach to an economic issue?

If so, this is "magic" which has worked well historically. And when the opposite is done and immigrant labor is curtailed, like Trump tried to do, and like what's happening in England right now where there's a labor shortage, and like America did 100 years ago to appease the xenophobes, the net result has been damaging to the economy.

And who are the ones who throw a tantrum when immigrant labor increases? Isn't it the uncompetitive workers who are afraid it threatens their job? or someone pandering to them?

So, what's wrong with calling them crybabies, when their clamor is only to make themselves better off at the expense of everyone else who has to pay for it? when the result is to prevent needed work from getting done which would benefit the entire population? and when the only benefit is to this minority of whining uncompetitive wage-earners who instead of throwing a tantrum could choose to improve themselves and become better producers?

What's wrong with calling someone a "crybaby" when their whining is only to make themselves personally better off at the cost of net damage imposed onto everyone else?

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
In a normal functioning economy, long-term growth is the population increase. A population increase of young adults out of school, starting to work, getting married and setting up households, buying cars, buying homes, etc. We have seen this many times in the US economy in the past; the post WWII boom of returning GIs, the Reagan boom caused by the baby boomers becoming independent, the mini-boom twenty-five years later of the baby-boomers children.

This is what we see when we study economics by looking at what really happens in the economy instead of trying to force the economy into fulfilling a fantasy theory of how the economy should run.

For the average widget buyer, the production of 200 widgets for 200 people is no better than producing 100 widgets for 100 people. It is corporate stock prices whose continued rise depends on population increase.

Anyway, the current U.S. malaise is not caused by a shortage of consumers or workers. One big reason why Europe is booming now but not America is that European governments discouraged pandemic-related layoffs.

It depends on what economies of scale exist in widget production. In most cases you'll make a higher % of profit when you make more product.

laughing dog

Contributor
Oh dear, another ironic “crybaby economics” OP that presupposes a simple magic wand approach to an economic issue.

What's "magic" about job-seekers at point A being allowed to take jobs at point B? Is it "magic" to combine a job with someone who wants to work?

Was it "magic" more than 100 years ago when America took in millions of immigrants to get needed work done? Was all that benefit to the U.S. economy, like getting the railroads done quicker, a "magic wand" approach to an economic issue?

If so, this is "magic" which has worked well historically. And when the opposite is done and immigrant labor is curtailed, like Trump tried to do, and like what's happening in England right now where there's a labor shortage, and like America did 100 years ago to appease the xenophobes, the net result has been damaging to the economy.

And who are the ones who throw a tantrum when immigrant labor increases? Isn't it the uncompetitive workers who are afraid it threatens their job? or someone pandering to them?

So, what's wrong with calling them crybabies, when their clamor is only to make themselves better off at the expense of everyone else who has to pay for it? when the result is to prevent needed work from getting done which would benefit the entire population? and when the only benefit is to this minority of whining uncompetitive wage-earners who instead of throwing a tantrum could choose to improve themselves and become better producers?

What's wrong with calling someone a "crybaby" when their whining is only to make themselves personally better off at the cost of net damage imposed onto everyone else?

The current situation in the US is a short-run labor shortage at best. The non-crybaby market solution is for those labor markets where there is a shortage to raise wages in order to induce more qualified people into the labor market.

Your solution is a long-run. It is magical thinking to opine that these immigrants will have the necessary language, labor and cultural abilities and skills to seamlessly do the productive work and magically get to the areas where there are those shortages.. Moreover, that those communities where they settle will seamlessly welcome and help those immigrants and their children integrate into society.

Toni

Contributor
It's not that the jobs aren't there, but rather that there's a shortage of workers taking the jobs available. Maybe this is due mostly to the pandemic, which isn't over, and which is making employment less attractive.

Companies are even cutting back production for lack of needed workers. Who's to blame for this? And why basically is this bad?

What's wrong is not high unemployment, but that needed work is not getting done. There's a need for more truck drivers, dock workers at the ports, and some skilled workers like plumbers and electricians. Also firefighters, and many other kinds of workers -- but job-seekers are staying home rather than taking the jobs that are open.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/08/joe-biden-brushes-off-second-poor-jobs-report-in-row/

But the new report showed the US added just 194,000 jobs in September — far short of economists’ expectations of about 500,000.

The shortfall compounded a hiring slowdown in August, when the US added 366,000 jobs, according to revised figures released Friday — far below economists’ expectations of 720,000.

“President Biden is now a whopping 944,000 jobs short of what he promised from his last stimulus and worse, has lost the confidence of the American people to lead the economy.”

Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said, “Over 300,000 FEWER jobs created than expected in September – further proof Biden’s economic policies are hurting our country.”

Brad McMillan, chief investment officer for Commonwealth Financial Network, explained the lower unemployment rate, noting that “the declines in the unemployment measures and the participation rate show that the movement of people back to the labor force has paused.”

Harvard economist Jason Fruman tweeted, “Job openings: 11.7m Unemployed: 7.7m The 1.5 openings per unemployed is the highest ever recorded.”

Unprecedented high-job-openings to number-of-unemployed ratio.

What's the solution?

Take in more immigrant workers!

There's obviously no shortage of potential workers.

Most of the vacant jobs could be filled, in a short time -- only 2 or 3 or 4 months -- by letting in an extra million immigrants who could take them. Only a few jobs are so high-skill that no immigrants could do them. Probably the whole problem would be solved in less than a year, if all the migrants needed would be taken in. And it would be easy to get all of them vaccinated, so that cannot be the obstacle.

So, what is the obstacle? Why can't Biden admit a half million or million migrants to take the jobs needing to be filled? Only because:

The American people are crybabies, who hate immigrants who might compete with them, and/or

they are crybaby-panderers who demand that companies pay workers more than their real competitive market value
and not be allowed to hire them at low labor cost which would make it profitable to hire them. Maybe the labor cost is higher now, for domestic workers, because of the pandemic. But the simple solution to that is to take in a half-million or million immigrants, to meet the labor shortfall.

But the fear is that immigrants will drive down the wage level or steal jobs from red-blooded Americans.

Which means basically that we're a nation of crybabies and crybaby-panderers. And Biden and Trump are among the crybaby-panderers, not essentially disagreeing with each other, but united in their leftist employer-bashing philosophy to pander to the crybabies who hate competition and insist that work has to be done only by high-paid red-blooded native-borns who are entitled to the American Dream no matter how much it costs and are unable to compete against the newcomers.

The economy -- 330 million Americans -- are suffering because of this.

So both Reds and Blues think it's better to let the economy suffer, let the production be lower, so less wealth is created, and so American consumers -- ALL Americans -- must have their living standard reduced, because of our need to pander to the crybabies who feel threatened by competition from immigrants.

What other reason could there be for not taking in enough migrants to fill the vacant jobs?

It’s a bit less that there’s a shortage of workers than it is that there’s a shortage of people willing to risk their lives for low wages. Employers need to ensure that their employees are safe at work and that they are fairly compensated. Yeah, Walmart, I’m talking to you and all retailers and food service as well.

I’m all for sane and humane immigration policies but we cannot let employers who wish to exploit immigrants by paying them poorly, not offering benefits and not improving poor working conditions drive immigration policy. If the working conditions and compensation are not good enough for Americans, they aren’t good enough, period.

It isn’t being a crybaby to expect safe working conditions, reasonable and predictable work schedule and a liveable wage. I’m fine with the govt. providing wage supports for small businesses and gradually tapering off as the employer reaches benchmark revenues and income and number of employees. Walmart and Amazon and other behemoths can start paying taxes at a fair level and help subsidize rather than canabolize small businesses.

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
It's not that the jobs aren't there, but rather that there's a shortage of workers taking the jobs available. Maybe this is due mostly to the pandemic, which isn't over, and which is making employment less attractive.

Companies are even cutting back production for lack of needed workers. Who's to blame for this? And why basically is this bad?

What's wrong is not high unemployment, but that needed work is not getting done. There's a need for more truck drivers, dock workers at the ports, and some skilled workers like plumbers and electricians. Also firefighters, and many other kinds of workers -- but job-seekers are staying home rather than taking the jobs that are open.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/08/joe-biden-brushes-off-second-poor-jobs-report-in-row/

But the new report showed the US added just 194,000 jobs in September — far short of economists’ expectations of about 500,000.

The shortfall compounded a hiring slowdown in August, when the US added 366,000 jobs, according to revised figures released Friday — far below economists’ expectations of 720,000.

“President Biden is now a whopping 944,000 jobs short of what he promised from his last stimulus and worse, has lost the confidence of the American people to lead the economy.”

Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said, “Over 300,000 FEWER jobs created than expected in September – further proof Biden’s economic policies are hurting our country.”

Brad McMillan, chief investment officer for Commonwealth Financial Network, explained the lower unemployment rate, noting that “the declines in the unemployment measures and the participation rate show that the movement of people back to the labor force has paused.”

Harvard economist Jason Fruman tweeted, “Job openings: 11.7m Unemployed: 7.7m The 1.5 openings per unemployed is the highest ever recorded.”

Unprecedented high-job-openings to number-of-unemployed ratio.

What's the solution?

Take in more immigrant workers!

There's obviously no shortage of potential workers.

Most of the vacant jobs could be filled, in a short time -- only 2 or 3 or 4 months -- by letting in an extra million immigrants who could take them. Only a few jobs are so high-skill that no immigrants could do them. Probably the whole problem would be solved in less than a year, if all the migrants needed would be taken in. And it would be easy to get all of them vaccinated, so that cannot be the obstacle.

So, what is the obstacle? Why can't Biden admit a half million or million migrants to take the jobs needing to be filled? Only because:

The American people are crybabies, who hate immigrants who might compete with them, and/or

they are crybaby-panderers who demand that companies pay workers more than their real competitive market value
and not be allowed to hire them at low labor cost which would make it profitable to hire them. Maybe the labor cost is higher now, for domestic workers, because of the pandemic. But the simple solution to that is to take in a half-million or million immigrants, to meet the labor shortfall.

But the fear is that immigrants will drive down the wage level or steal jobs from red-blooded Americans.

Which means basically that we're a nation of crybabies and crybaby-panderers. And Biden and Trump are among the crybaby-panderers, not essentially disagreeing with each other, but united in their leftist employer-bashing philosophy to pander to the crybabies who hate competition and insist that work has to be done only by high-paid red-blooded native-borns who are entitled to the American Dream no matter how much it costs and are unable to compete against the newcomers.

The economy -- 330 million Americans -- are suffering because of this.

So both Reds and Blues think it's better to let the economy suffer, let the production be lower, so less wealth is created, and so American consumers -- ALL Americans -- must have their living standard reduced, because of our need to pander to the crybabies who feel threatened by competition from immigrants.

What other reason could there be for not taking in enough migrants to fill the vacant jobs?

It’s a bit less that there’s a shortage of workers than it is that there’s a shortage of people willing to risk their lives for low wages. Employers need to ensure that their employees are safe at work and that they are fairly compensated. Yeah, Walmart, I’m talking to you and all retailers and food service as well.

I’m all for sane and humane immigration policies but we cannot let employers who wish to exploit immigrants by paying them poorly, not offering benefits and not improving poor working conditions drive immigration policy. If the working conditions and compensation are not good enough for Americans, they aren’t good enough, period.

It isn’t being a crybaby to expect safe working conditions, reasonable and predictable work schedule and a liveable wage. I’m fine with the govt. providing wage supports for small businesses and gradually tapering off as the employer reaches benchmark revenues and income and number of employees. Walmart and Amazon and other behemoths can start paying taxes at a fair level and help subsidize rather than canabolize small businesses.

Two people where my wife works have come down with covid. One idiot actually came to work knowing she had it. She told her boss and the boss sent her home immediately. They are already short staffed because they can go down the street and find another job paying a good bit better.

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Oh dear, another ironic “crybaby economics” OP that presupposes a simple magic wand approach to an economic issue.

What's "magic" about job-seekers at point A being allowed to take jobs at point B? Is it "magic" to combine a job with someone who wants to work?

Was it "magic" more than 100 years ago when America took in millions of immigrants to get needed work done? Was all that benefit to the U.S. economy, like getting the railroads done quicker, a "magic wand" approach to an economic issue?

If so, this is "magic" which has worked well historically. And when the opposite is done and immigrant labor is curtailed, like Trump tried to do, and like what's happening in England right now where there's a labor shortage, and like America did 100 years ago to appease the xenophobes, the net result has been damaging to the economy.

And who are the ones who throw a tantrum when immigrant labor increases? Isn't it the uncompetitive workers who are afraid it threatens their job? or someone pandering to them?

So, what's wrong with calling them crybabies, when their clamor is only to make themselves better off at the expense of everyone else who has to pay for it? when the result is to prevent needed work from getting done which would benefit the entire population? and when the only benefit is to this minority of whining uncompetitive wage-earners who instead of throwing a tantrum could choose to improve themselves and become better producers?

What's wrong with calling someone a "crybaby" when their whining is only to make themselves personally better off at the cost of net damage imposed onto everyone else?
The crybabies affecting the economy are the anti-vaxxers who are anchoring the US economy. Had people not been whiny crybabies, we'd be dealing with a bit more in shortages, but working on catching up. Instead, we are stuck in 2020 right now because people are afraid of needles and masks.

Keith&Co.

Contributor
The crybabies affecting the economy are the anti-vaxxers who are anchoring the US economy. Had people not been whiny crybabies, we'd be dealing with a bit more in shortages, but working on catching up. Instead, we are stuck in 2020 right now because people are afraid of needles and masks.
Can't find the link, now, but someone experimented with job availability. He targeted businesses whose owners were online bitching about labor shortages, and no one wants to work anymore. Submitted 2 applications a day for a month, so about 60 applications.
Got 16 return emails.
One phone call.
The phone call was disappointing.
"Yeah, it starts at $8.65 an hour." "Your ad said$15."
"It'll go up with the minimum wage goes up. You start at 20 hours a week."
"We can change you to full-time after 2 months."

So he concludes no one's actually experiencing a shortage of workers, they're nostalgic about an abundance of slave labor.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Do Progressives secretly hate immigrants as a threat to the working class?

Is there an UNHOLY ALLIANCE between left-wing and right-wing immigrant-bashers?

Are you a secret "progressive" immigrant-hater who's getting nervous about too many immigrants "stealing" jobs from red-blooded American workers?

What other reason could there be for not taking in enough migrants to fill the vacant jobs?
because the only thing that Americans hate more than the concept of every white person living in this country being able to live a decent and dignified lifestyle consistent with being a member of the richest and most advanced civilization in the history of our species is the idea of any not-white person in this country being able to live a decent and dignified lifestyle consistent with being a member of the richest and most advanced civilization in the history of our species.

translation: Left-wingers, Bernie Sanders, labor unions, AOC etc., in their heart really hate immigrants as a threat to the working class, and they really wish they could eliminate ALL immigration, and many labor-union/working-class crusaders secretly voted for Donald Trump (and would vote for him again) because he is so anti-immigrant.

The current crisis, which calls for increasing immigrant workers as a practical response to a problem, is causing some immigrant-hating liberals to show their true colors.

It's free-market competition which produces higher lifestyle, not employer-bashing.

. . . the idea of any [American] being able to live a decent and dignified lifestyle consistent with being a member of the richest and most advanced civilization in the history of our species.

These words reflect the false ideology that artificially driving up the wage level to force all employers to pay higher labor cost somehow will result in all Americans acquiring a high living standard. There's no reason to believe this dogma.

The facts of history vs. pro-labor fanaticism

This phony high-wage dogma was refuted in Samoa, where the minimum wage was driven up abruptly and crushed the Samoan economy, and President Obama (who as Senator Obama had voted in favor of this minimum wage increase) reluctantly had to sign the bill to rescind it, as the reality was too obvious, so that truth had to prevail over Obama's false left-wing pro-labor ideology.

This case proves that driving up the wage level does not benefit the economy, but makes it worse. Even the leftist ideologues themselves had to admit in this case that their ideology was contradicted by the facts.

The pro-labor Crybaby Economics ideology is not based on facts, but on the emotional impulse to give those who scream the loudest whatever gives them instant gratification, regardless of the actual harm it inflicts onto those who have to pay the cost, which is the entire population, i.e., all the consumers, who are made worse off by artificially-higher cost, including artificially-higher labor cost.

It's really the competitive free market which produces the highest possible lifestyle to the poor, not artificially-imposed higher wages, because the key to higher living standard for all is higher production of wealth at minimum cost, which requires competition, not suppression of competition. More competition among ALL producers (including wage-earners) always benefits the economy.

It's not true that driving up the costs produces wealth. This false ideology was pushed to the extreme during the 1930s when FDR imposed artificially higher prices, even trying to force businesses to charge higher prices than the competitive market level. Even to the point of forcing farmers to destroy their product as a means to drive up prices. This insanity made the economy worse off, not better. This economic dogma of higher cost being good for the economy is a form of mental illness, and we are still suffering from it.

There are indications that refugees and other foreigners actually are taking some of the vacant jobs we're hearing about in the news, because the automatic free market and natural competition (which cannot be totally suppressed by leftist ideologues) is happening partly on its own today, in the labor market, and some leftist crybabies (and crybaby-panderers) are beginning to notice it and getting nervous, complaining that the crybaby "prevailing wage" rules are being flouted in some cases.

It's possible the Biden administration is consciously allowing some of this (though denying it), because of the obvious practical benefit to the economy, though it's happening very quietly, under the radar, so as not to arouse the Leftist immigrant-haters who will have trouble suppressing their true feelings if beneficial increased immigration gets out of hand.

We will hear a lot of "I'm in favor of immigration, BUT . . ." language from these leftist crusaders, as the current economic crisis and labor shortage continues.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Have these migrants been vaccinated? Or will the vaccine mandate not apply to them?

Obviously vaccinations must be mandated for all of them. And obviously there would be no resistance to this by the migrants who want to enter and want employment.

Excellent news, they can fill in for all the people that were fired from their jobs due to failing to comply with the vaccine mandates.

Some of the mandates are probably a net benefit. If some employees refuse to comply, there's no other recourse but to replace them, if we care for the overall net good to the whole country. Which is more important -- the instant gratification of those few replaced workers or the net benefit to the whole population which is served by the needed production?

There's nothing new about workers being replaced in order to make the production better. The whole point of the production is to serve all the people, not to provide/preserve jobs for crybabies because it's their entitlement.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
economic reality vs. fantasy

In a normal functioning economy, long-term growth is the population increase. A population increase of young adults out of school, starting to work, getting married and setting up households, buying cars, buying homes, etc. We have seen this many times in the US economy in the past; the post WWII boom of returning GIs, the Reagan boom caused by the baby boomers becoming independent, the mini-boom twenty-five years later of the baby-boomers children.

Yes, but don't exclude immigration as a normal part of the population increase. And this contributes to an increase also in employers, not only wage-earners, if the government does not over-regulate and effectively make it impossible for new startup businesses.

This is what we see when we study economics by looking at what really happens in the economy instead of trying to force the economy into fulfilling a fantasy theory of how the economy should run.

Like the fantasy that the wage level (or whatever category of income) has to always increase, even for those who become less competitive and get replaced by someone or something which does the same production at lower cost.

Likewise the fantasy that the wage level always has to increase with increase in "worker productivity" -- which is not true because "worker productivity" (in today's economy) is usually not due to improvement in worker performance, but to an improvement in the technology, or in the machines the worker operates. The economic rewards in a competitive economy must go to those who produce the progress or improvement, which in this case is not the one who operates the machine, but those who produced the new technology, which usually are the scientists and engineers and technologists and wise investors, not the wage-earners given better machines to operate.

In the real world these fantasies that wage-earners are automatically entitled to the rewards is irrelevant, because the actual progress of the economy depends upon a competitive market where the less productive/competitive do less well and might even get replaced, while the more competitive/productive are rewarded with higher income gain. So in the competition there's no guarantee of success, and some expectations/fantasies are frustrated because of someone's poor performance, such as the fantasy that all wage-earners (or all those of whatever class) are entitled to "The American Dream" just because they happen to be in America.

And yet at the same time, in a productive competitive economy even the less competitive end up much better off than their counterparts in a less productive and less competitive economy.

Any source of lower-cost production, including increased cheap labor, is always a benefit to the economy (including increase in immigration = more competition), as long as competition is allowed to do its part in separating the more competitive from the less competitive and rewarding those who perform better, without the sentimentalist impulse to reward high-profile players only out of pity for them, such as high-profile steel workers and auto workers etc., e.g., out of their glamorization in the media and popularity polls and speeches by Trump and other demagogues.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
layoffs, mandates, compliance and voluntarism

Anyway, the current U.S. malaise is not caused by a shortage of consumers or workers.

Unless you believe the mainline media news is propaganda foisted by some communist or capitalist elite clique, there is today a labor shortage causing the current crisis.

One big reason why Europe is booming now but not America is that European governments discouraged pandemic-related layoffs.

If it's true that there are fewer pandemic-related layoffs in Europe, it's probably because of higher compliance with mandates. There may be differing degrees of mandates and enforcement from one country to another, with possibly the U.S. being tougher in some enforcement or requirements, but that's minor compared to the level of voluntary compliance differences, and it's certain that pure VOLUNTARY compliance in Europe is higher.

The solution for the U.S. is simply to replace those who don't comply, so that the greater number of layoffs in the U.S. is offset by whatever replacement of the non-compliant workers is needed to drive production back up. Which is why the U.S. should take advantage of the high number of immigrants/refugees/asylum-seekers etc.

Voluntarism is mostly good, but when the results are negative, then more voluntarism is necessary to fix it, which in this case means voluntary REPLACEMENT of the ones laid off, for the benefit of the whole nation.

none

Banned
I remember when flying united, American airlines, delta wasn't a way to be dehumanized.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Self-interest. Ayn Rand called it "Virtue of Selfishness"

Rabid libertarians: "Why don't you just quit your low wage job and better yourself?"

Workers today: "Okay. Fuck my current employer. The business down the street is offering more money, better benefits, and better working conditions. I quit!"

Rabid libertarians: "Not like that! Why don't you want to work for us?! You ungrateful lazy bastards!!!"

People must realize when they have the power. These instances are few. The last was the collapse of the housing market. Fewer realized the power they had to screw over the banks by forcing them to reappraise their property and obtain a lower mortgage in the face of so many foreclosures on the bank’s books.

For today’s workers, it’s more evident. Don’t want to pay me more? Duck you. I’ll move on down the road. It’s only people’s naive sense of fair play in our capitalism run amok system holding them back.

If only they'd follow their self interest they'd be better off, and so would the whole economy.

Adam Smith said it all when he described the "Invisible Hand" of the free market: everyone does what's in his/her personal self-interest, rather than worrying about what's good for someone else. Just find the best deal for yourself, whatever brings you more income/profit, and by doing that you also do the best for the whole economy or the whole society, because you've become more competitive and more productive. And don't waste time shedding tears for the uncompetitive losers who accuse you of not caring for their welfare.

So everyone -- job-seekers and employers and buyers and sellers -- should just shop around for a better deal and not worry about being more patriotic and getting caught up in the "buy local" or "buy American" and China-bashing and spend-more-money-to-stimulate-the-economy rhetoric. No, just work or hire or buy or sell for your own individual self-interest and let the economy take care of itself.

That's the true competitive free market, more of which would help to fix what's wrong today.

And that includes hiring immigrant labor, or hiring whoever will do the job at lower cost, so the needed work gets done. But which Biden and Trump can't figure out because they only want to pander to the crybaby immigrant-haters and employer-bashers who think cheap labor is bad for the economy.

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
A true free market becomes heavily restricted pretty quickly. We saw it with Standard Oil, then AT&T, and again AT&T (well, SBC) where economic options disappear. Money is like bad cholesterol. It attracts itself and then get lodged into places and no longer providing capital to the system. The first successful companies become bigger, and bigger companies have more capital, so they can starve off or buy off the competition. And then there is no one left. Facebook managed via going public, to get free cash to buy off any competition.

The free market is like a Physics 101 book, where, ignoring the effects of wind resistance, friction, etc... what will the distance travelled be. It is an ideal economic state that is not attainable.

laughing dog

Contributor
Rabid libertarians: "Why don't you just quit your low wage job and better yourself?"

Workers today: "Okay. Fuck my current employer. The business down the street is offering more money, better benefits, and better working conditions. I quit!"

Rabid libertarians: "Not like that! Why don't you want to work for us?! You ungrateful lazy bastards!!!"

People must realize when they have the power. These instances are few. The last was the collapse of the housing market. Fewer realized the power they had to screw over the banks by forcing them to reappraise their property and obtain a lower mortgage in the face of so many foreclosures on the bank’s books.

For today’s workers, it’s more evident. Don’t want to pay me more? Duck you. I’ll move on down the road. It’s only people’s naive sense of fair play in our capitalism run amok system holding them back.

If only they'd follow their self interest they'd be better off, and so would the whole economy.

Adam Smith said it all when he described the "Invisible Hand" of the free market: everyone does what's in his/her personal self-interest, rather than worrying about what's good for someone else. Just find the best deal for yourself, whatever brings you more income/profit, and by doing that you also do the best for the whole economy or the whole society, because you've become more competitive and more productive. And don't waste time shedding tears for the uncompetitive losers who accuse you of not caring for their welfare.

So everyone -- job-seekers and employers and buyers and sellers -- should just shop around for a better deal and not worry about being more patriotic and getting caught up in the "buy local" or "buy American" and China-bashing and spend-more-money-to-stimulate-the-economy rhetoric. No, just work or hire or buy or sell for your own individual self-interest and let the economy take care of itself.

That's the true competitive free market, more of which would help to fix what's wrong today.

And that includes hiring immigrant labor, or hiring whoever will do the job at lower cost, so the needed work gets done. But which Biden and Trump can't figure out because they only want to pander to the crybaby immigrant-haters and employer-bashers who think cheap labor is bad for the economy.
Why not let the invisible hand of the bond markets determine how much debt is too much debt? After all, no one is forced to purchase gov't bonds - not even the Federal Reserve.

It is interesting to watch the purveyors of chicken-little economics tout the virtues of the free market when it means lowering wages but not when it means more borrowing.

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
A true free market becomes heavily restricted pretty quickly. We saw it with Standard Oil, then AT&T, and again AT&T (well, SBC) where economic options disappear. Money is like bad cholesterol. It attracts itself and then get lodged into places and no longer providing capital to the system. The first successful companies become bigger, and bigger companies have more capital, so they can starve off or buy off the competition. And then there is no one left. Facebook managed via going public, to get free cash to buy off any competition.

The free market is like a Physics 101 book, where, ignoring the effects of wind resistance, friction, etc... what will the distance travelled be. It is an ideal economic state that is not attainable.

Yeah. The free market would work pretty well in an environment where all businesses were small compared to the market. That will almost certainly never happen.

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
If only they'd follow their self interest they'd be better off, and so would the whole economy.

Adam Smith said it all when he described the "Invisible Hand" of the free market: everyone does what's in his/her personal self-interest, rather than worrying about what's good for someone else. Just find the best deal for yourself, whatever brings you more income/profit, and by doing that you also do the best for the whole economy or the whole society, because you've become more competitive and more productive. And don't waste time shedding tears for the uncompetitive losers who accuse you of not caring for their welfare.

So everyone -- job-seekers and employers and buyers and sellers -- should just shop around for a better deal and not worry about being more patriotic and getting caught up in the "buy local" or "buy American" and China-bashing and spend-more-money-to-stimulate-the-economy rhetoric. No, just work or hire or buy or sell for your own individual self-interest and let the economy take care of itself.

That's the true competitive free market, more of which would help to fix what's wrong today.

And that includes hiring immigrant labor, or hiring whoever will do the job at lower cost, so the needed work gets done. But which Biden and Trump can't figure out because they only want to pander to the crybaby immigrant-haters and employer-bashers who think cheap labor is bad for the economy.
Why not let the invisible hand of the bond markets determine how much debt is too much debt? After all, no one is forced to purchase gov't bonds - not even the Federal Reserve.

It is interesting to watch the purveyors of chicken-little economics tout the virtues of the free market when it means lowering wages but not when it means more borrowing.

They teach Chicken Little Economics at the Praeger Institute?

lpetrich

Contributor
Adam Smith said it all when he described the "Invisible Hand" of the free market: everyone does what's in his/her personal self-interest, rather than worrying about what's good for someone else. Just find the best deal for yourself, whatever brings you more income/profit, and by doing that you also do the best for the whole economy or the whole society, because you've become more competitive and more productive. And don't waste time shedding tears for the uncompetitive losers who accuse you of not caring for their welfare.
A lot of criminals will agree with you, Lumpenproletariat.

A thief might say "Why should I weep for people who are too lazy to try to hold on to their property? If they are negligent about that, then they should forfeit it."

lpetrich

Contributor
Lumpenproletariat talks about "consumers" as if they are some privileged class that is entitled to get everything for free, a class of people who never have to work for their living, a class of people who get all their money from picking money trees in their yards.

But a lot of people are dropping out of the workforce, and sometimes for very good reason.

FAQ: Why are people quitting and how will I know if it's time to leave my job? - The Washington Post
Whatever the cause, the rush of resignations is accelerating: A record 4.3 million people — about 2.9 percent of the nation’s workforce — quit in August, according to Labor Department data released Tuesday. In September, the nation’s jobless rate fell to a pandemic low of 4.8 percent, but the decline was largely driven by people leaving the labor force. What’s more, Gallup data shows, nearly half of American workers are actively searching for new opportunities.

Companies Are Finally Fighting Burnout During the Pandemic | Time
So far, 2021 quit levels are about 10% to 15% higher than they were in record-setting 2019, by Klotz’s calculations.

Companies are clearly taking notice, particularly given the staffing shortages that are hamstringing many customer-facing industries and slowing the supply chain. “Just keeping people from quitting is not necessarily a good business strategy,” Klotz says. Increasingly, businesses are trying something more ambitious: actually making their workers happy.

For many, that means targeting burnout, a cocktail of work-related stress, exhaustion, cynicism and negativity that is surging during the pandemic. ...

For a long time, burnout was seen as the worker’s problem—something they needed to fix with self-care and yoga and sleep if they were going to make it in the rat race of life. ... But according to Christina Maslach, a social psychologist who is the U.S.’ preeminent burnout expert and co-creator of the most commonly used tool for assessing worker burnout, none of these strategies will ever be successful if they place all the onus on the worker. “Nobody is really pointing to the problem, which is that chronic job stresses have not been well managed” by employers, she says.

Now, with so many people turning in resignation letters, businesses are starting to get with the program. “There’s mass attrition and it’s very expensive for employers to keep up with the amount of people who are leaving,” says workplace well-being expert Jennifer Moss, author of the recent book The Burnout Epidemic. “Because it’s now a bottom-line issue, more organizations are jumping on board.”

...
There’s no one-size-fits-all burnout cure, but Maslach’s research suggests there are six key areas on which businesses should focus:
• giving employees control over their jobs, to the extent possible
• rewarding and acknowledging good work, either financially or verbally
• fostering community
• treating workers fairly and equitably
• helping workers find value in their work

lpetrich

Contributor
On TheHill's "Rising", it was mentioned that some of these quitters have taken up gig work. Not the most stable kind of employment, but it can be a good alternative to low-wage work.

There is also some good old-fashioned labor activism.

100,000 workers take action as 'Striketober' hits the US - BBC News
On Thursday, 10,000 workers at farm equipment maker John Deere walked out over pay and conditions.

Some 60,000 TV and film crew workers are set to strike on Monday, while 24,000 nurses could also protest.

...
Thousands of other workers were already on strike in October, including 700 nurses in Massachusetts, 2,000 New York hospital workers and 1,400 Kellogg factory workers in Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Some 6,500 lecturers in California are also on the brink of a walkout.
Jonah Furman on Twitter: "John Deere strikers in Ottumwa, UAW Local 74, successfully convince a freight driver not to cross the picket line (vid link)" / Twitter
and
Jonah Furman on Twitter: "Similar stories coming out of Davenport Local 281 and Dubuque Local 94. Videos and photos to come." / Twitter

lpetrich

Contributor
AOC shows which side she is on:
#Striketober coming in hot

After years of being underserved and taken for granted - & doubly so during the pandemic - workers are starting to authorize strikes across the country: from @IATSE production workers to @UAW John Deere & @BCTGM Kellogg workers,& many more.

Good.

How can you help?

1. Follow the example of this truck driver: if your work would ordinarily have you cross where a picket line has started, don’t! Solidarity is a virtue.

2. Support a strike fund

3. Amplify the strike and the workers’ message to their company or industry🗣

To expand on my first tweet: the @IATSE strike also includes post-production workers as well.

Shout out to @MPEG700
Conor Guy on Twitter: "@AOC @IATSE @UAW @BCTGM We love your support @aoc! It may seem like a small distinction but the @iatse strike includes post-production workers as well. 90% of the members of @MPEG700 voted with our union kin to authorize a strike. #IASolidarity" / Twitter

lpetrich

Contributor
Tim Burchett on Twitter: "4.3 million workers quit their jobs. We need to quit paying folks not to work." / Twitter
then
Y’all already did over a month ago despite everyone having data that ending UI doesn’t push people back to work.

Conservatives love to act like they’re “fiscally savvy” yet remain puzzled as to why people can’t work a job whose pay won’t even cover the childcare costs to work

Quitting being UI ineligible aside, the idea that laziness is why ppl stay home contradicts the “free market ideals” these folks pretend to champion.

Markets apply to labor, too. If supply is low & demand high, price goes up. People seem to accept that for everything but wages.

And by the way, free time is VALUABLE. People pay for time routinely, whether it’s in delivery, services, etc. It’s not lazy to stay home w family- it can lower costs.

700k+ people in the US have died of COVID so far. Do people think that has no impact on labor supply/ capacity?

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
4.8% unemployment. If conditions persist, a lowering Unemployment Rate should be viewed negatively by Wall St. Isn’t (wasn’t) it said that anything under 5.2% unemployment is considered “full employment”? Ha. I reckon we can toss that benchmark out the window.
They should concern themselves more with the Labor Participation Rate.

I have to wonder about this grand plan of Biden’s to keep ports open 24/7 in an attempt to move goods. I’ve only got the highlights but I have to wonder where they are going to get all these extra truck drivers from. Moreover, it was mentioned expanding the hours truckers can stay on the roads. What if they don’t wanna stay on the roads? Either way you slice it, truckers and longshoremen are likely to demand pay premium for night/Sunday work hours and that means inflation and/or cutting profits. This with US oil and gas producers refusing to pump more and it can be a rough 2022 for the party in power.
We must face the facts that higher prices are permanent. There is no way we can solve it quickly. But if we all cooperate, and make modest sacrifices, if we learn to live thriftily and remember the importance of helping our neighbors, then we can find ways to adjust, and to make our society more efficient and our own lives more enjoyable and productive.

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
4.8% unemployment. If conditions persist, a lowering Unemployment Rate should be viewed negatively by Wall St. Isn’t (wasn’t) it said that anything under 5.2% unemployment is considered “full employment”? Ha. I reckon we can toss that benchmark out the window.
They should concern themselves more with the Labor Participation Rate.

For years I have felt the unemployment rate has actually been higher than the official number--the labor market has not been reacting like would be expected--I have figured it's the effect of the gig economy, people are considered employed because they are doing gig jobs, but it's not what they want. Now, however, things are the other way around, the market is acting as if the official numbers are too high. It's already been shown this isn't an effect of the extra unemployment coverage so I'm left puzzled.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
It's about getting needed work done --

-- not about protecting/providing jobs for crybabies who don't want to compete.

Oh dear, another ironic “crybaby economics” OP that presupposes a simple magic wand approach to an economic issue.

What's "magic" about job-seekers at point A being allowed to take jobs at point B? Is it "magic" to combine a job with someone who wants to work?

Was it "magic" more than 100 years ago when America took in millions of immigrants to get needed work done? Was all that benefit to the U.S. economy, like getting the railroads done quicker, a "magic wand" approach to an economic issue?

If so, this is "magic" which has worked well historically. And when the opposite is done and immigrant labor is curtailed, like Trump tried to do, and like what's happening in England right now where there's a labor shortage, and like America did 100 years ago to appease the xenophobes, the net result has been damaging to the economy.

And who are the ones who throw a tantrum when immigrant labor increases? Isn't it the uncompetitive workers who are afraid it threatens their job? or someone pandering to them?

So, what's wrong with calling them crybabies, when their clamor is only to make themselves better off at the expense of everyone else who has to pay for it? when the result is to prevent needed work from getting done which would benefit the entire population? and when the only benefit is to this minority of whining uncompetitive wage-earners who instead of throwing a tantrum could choose to improve themselves and become better producers?

What's wrong with calling someone a "crybaby" when their whining is only to make themselves personally better off at the cost of net damage imposed onto everyone else?

The current situation in the US is a short-run labor shortage at best.

We don't know that. Economists are mostly baffled about the labor shortage and the cause of it. Even if it's true that labor supply will increase within a year or two, that's no reason to exclude needed workers who are available for work needing to be done now.

Why should all this work not get done? Why should shelves remain empty and cargo ships not be unloaded and products not be delivered when there are easily a million immigrant workers who can perform that needed work? Why should needed work not get done based on theoretical speculation that the labor shortage might decrease over 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 years? Why not instead let the current needed work get done?

Why does immigrant-bashing take priority over the welfare of U.S. consumers? i.e., over the whole population?

The non-crybaby market solution is for those labor markets where there is a shortage to raise wages in order to . . .

No, higher labor cost might mean less profit, in which case it won't happen, but instead companies will just let the production remain low until they find the needed labor. How can you expect companies to reduce their profit in order to fill high-cost jobs? You mean they're supposed to hire workers out of pity for them? and pay workers not for the work but only because they feel sorry for the needy workers?

How is it bad for the economy if immigrant workers are allowed in to do those jobs? How is that any different than if the work is automated so that it's done by machines rather than by humans? Isn't it good if lower-cost machines are introduced to do the work instead of high-cost labor? So, if we agree that automation is good for the economy, to get the work done at lower cost, why then isn't it also good to get the work done at lower labor cost, if the workers are available?

. . . raise wages in order to induce more qualified people into the labor market.

Employers already know that and do increase wages in some cases, but in other cases that labor cost increase is so much that the company would lose profit rather than gain at that higher cost level. The company knows best what is the right wage level in order maximize its profit, which every company tries to do.

The company's function is to serve consumers with more and better production, not provide jobs or incomes to needy workers. If it can better serve consumers (and thus increase profit) by increasing the wage level, it's already doing so. But in many cases the company is barely making a profit at the current lower wage level. So increasing the labor supply is also a way to get production back up.

Or also, installing machines to do the work is a solution. Increased immigration is one way historically that companies improved production and served consumers better. When there's a need for the extra labor, increased immigration is one solution. There's no reason why it should not be increased now when it's needed. To arbitrarily rule it out at this time can only be explained as another example of xenophobia.

We are better off long-term even if the current labor shortage turns out to be temporary. There is both the short-term benefit of taking in more immigrant workers now, but also the long-term benefit of increased competition. More competition is always good for the economy, never bad. So even if this is short-term, which we don't know, it's still good because there is no long-term harm or cost in having these extra workers or this higher labor supply in the following years. That increased competition in the labor market is good for the economy, as ALL competition is good.

When we know there is a short-term gain, and there is no long-term loss, then how is it not a net gain to do it even if it does turn out to be a short-term problem? Why take the risk of the harm that would happen a year or 2 from now if it turns out later to be a long-term labor shortage rather than only short-term? It's better to fix what we know needs fixing now, and not worry about the longer-term speculation over the future conditions, which you cannot predict.

When did this country ever suffer a labor glut because of too much immigration? No one except an overpaid crybaby uncompetitive wage-earner would ever make that complaint; or maybe also an immigrant-hater.

It is magical thinking to opine that these immigrants will have the necessary language, labor and cultural abilities and skills to seamlessly do the productive work and . . .

So immigrants are too stupid to drive a truck or unload cargo at the docks?

. . . do the productive work and magically get to the areas where there are those shortages.

source: Imperial Grand Dragon David Duke's White Paper on Why Immigrants are a Threat to Red-Blooded American Workers

Moreover, that those communities where they settle will seamlessly welcome and help those immigrants and their children integrate into society.

source: David Duke's White Paper on Why Immigrants are a Threat to our Red-Blooded American Families and Communities

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
-- not about protecting/providing jobs for crybabies who don't want to compete.

The current situation in the US is a short-run labor shortage at best.

We don't know that. Economists are mostly baffled about the labor shortage and the cause of it. Even if it's true that labor supply will increase within a year or two, that's no reason to exclude needed workers who are available for work needing to be done now.

Why should all this work not get done? Why should shelves remain empty and cargo ships not be unloaded and products not be delivered when there are easily a million immigrant workers who can perform that needed work? Why should needed work not get done based on theoretical speculation that the labor shortage might decrease over 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 years? Why not instead let the current needed work get done?

Why does immigrant-bashing take priority over the welfare of U.S. consumers? i.e., over the whole population?

“Needed”? We need people to fulfill our wants.

"Your ad said $15." "It'll go up with the minimum wage goes up. You start at 20 hours a week." "The ad said full-time." "We can change you to full-time after 2 months." A few other details in contradiction to the ad. So he concludes no one's actually experiencing a shortage of workers, they're nostalgic about an abundance of slave labor. Here you go, just bumped into it, you pretty much nailed the description: https://news.yahoo.com/worker-florida-applied-60-entry-193423909.html laughing dog Contributor We don't know that. Economists are mostly baffled about the labor shortage and the cause of it... No, they are not. It is a labor shortage. Hell, even you know it, otherwise there would be no reason for your proposal. Why should all this work not get done? Why should shelves remain empty and cargo ships not be unloaded and products not be delivered when there are easily a million immigrant workers who can perform that needed work? Why should needed work not get done based on theoretical speculation that the labor shortage might decrease over 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 years? Why not instead let the current needed work get done? You have no idea whether there are sufficient number of sufficient skilled immigrants clammering to come here. None whatsoever. Why does immigrant-bashing take priority over the welfare of U.S. consumers? i.e., over the whole population? It doesn't. No, higher labor cost might mean less profit, in which case it won't happen, but instead companies will just let the production remain low until they find the needed labor. How can you expect companies to reduce their profit in order to fill high-cost jobs? You mean they're supposed to hire workers out of pity for them? and pay workers not for the work but only because they feel sorry for the needy workers? Ah, I cannot distinguish between your crybaby economics or babbling economics. If employers want more people to work for them, they have to offer better compensation - that is market economics in action. If they don't or won't, then they need to STFU with their crybaby economics. Employers already know that and do increase wages in some cases, but in other cases that labor cost increase is so much that the company would lose profit rather than gain at that higher cost level. The company knows best what is the right wage level in order maximize its profit, which every company tries to do. First, your assumption that all employers know best is insane. Second, employers do not necessarily increase wages. Sometimes they engage in crybaby economics to get their dupes up in arms. Third, companies do not have to necessarily maximize profit in the short-run or even in the long-run. Fourth, if raising wages means inadequate returns to the company for the additional work, then the work is not worth it to the economy. So immigrants are too stupid to drive a truck or unload cargo at the docks? Driving semis is skilled work. Frankly, I think it is nuts to have drivers who don't read or understand the language. Unloading cargo at docks and onto trucks is skilled labor. Most of it is done with high-end machinery. Now I understand some of the source of your disdain for labor - you have no clue what work entails. source: Imperial Grand Dragon David Duke's White Paper on Why Immigrants are a Threat to Red-Blooded American Workers ....source: David Duke's White Paper on Why Immigrants are a Threat to our Red-Blooded American Families and Communities Your libel is pretty ironic coming from someone who has defended slavery. I have nothing against immigration. Your proposal is utopian - it ignores all the real issues and problems. One does not have to be a racist to know that there are racist communities in the USA. So you can shove that KKK implication back up from where you pulled it. I get it. You have a long history of wanting immigration to drive down wages on the theory that everyone is better off from the alleged benefits from lower prices. In an economy where no firms have market power and where unit labor costs are identical in all industries, you'd have a real point. But that world is an illusion and your proposal ignores the potential REAL problems. I also realize that your ideology prevents reality based discussions. TSwizzle Contributor Can't find the link, now, but someone experimented with job availability. He targeted businesses whose owners were online bitching about labor shortages, and no one wants to work anymore. Submitted 2 applications a day for a month, so about 60 applications. Got 16 return emails. One phone call. The phone call was disappointing. "Yeah, it starts at$8.65 an hour."
"It'll go up with the minimum wage goes up. You start at 20 hours a week."
"We can change you to full-time after 2 months."

So he concludes no one's actually experiencing a shortage of workers, they're nostalgic about an abundance of slave labor.

The company I work for cannot get enough people and retain them. We are currently at least 60 people short. We have offered all sorts of incentives and bonuses. In the area where we operate there are "Now Hiring" signs everywhere.

RVonse

Veteran Member
Rabid libertarians: "Why don't you just quit your low wage job and better yourself?"

Workers today: "Okay. Fuck my current employer. The business down the street is offering more money, better benefits, and better working conditions. I quit!"

Rabid libertarians: "Not like that! Why don't you want to work for us?! You ungrateful lazy bastards!!!"

Almost correct. Rabid libertarians: "Not like that! Why don't you want to work for us?! You ungrateful lazy bastards!!!

Now we have to find some scab labor to exploit from the poorer countries on our southern border!!!"

RVonse

Veteran Member
Rabid libertarians: "Why don't you just quit your low wage job and better yourself?"

Workers today: "Okay. Fuck my current employer. The business down the street is offering more money, better benefits, and better working conditions. I quit!"

Rabid libertarians: "Not like that! Why don't you want to work for us?! You ungrateful lazy bastards!!!"

People must realize when they have the power. These instances are few. The last was the collapse of the housing market. Fewer realized the power they had to screw over the banks by forcing them to reappraise their property and obtain a lower mortgage in the face of so many foreclosures on the bank’s books.
For today’s workers, it’s more evident. Don’t want to pay me more? Duck you. I’ll move on down the road. It’s only people’s naive sense of fair play in our capitalism run amok system holding them back.

Exactly. It is the same free market capitalism that Lumpenproletariat is scared to death of .

RVonse

Veteran Member
Oh dear, another ironic “crybaby economics” OP that presupposes a simple magic wand approach to an economic issue.

What's "magic" about job-seekers at point A being allowed to take jobs at point B? Is it "magic" to combine a job with someone who wants to work?

Was it "magic" more than 100 years ago when America took in millions of immigrants to get needed work done? Was all that benefit to the U.S. economy, like getting the railroads done quicker, a "magic wand" approach to an economic issue?

If so, this is "magic" which has worked well historically. And when the opposite is done and immigrant labor is curtailed, like Trump tried to do, and like what's happening in England right now where there's a labor shortage, and like America did 100 years ago to appease the xenophobes, the net result has been damaging to the economy.

And who are the ones who throw a tantrum when immigrant labor increases? Isn't it the uncompetitive workers who are afraid it threatens their job? or someone pandering to them?

So, what's wrong with calling them crybabies, when their clamor is only to make themselves better off at the expense of everyone else who has to pay for it? when the result is to prevent needed work from getting done which would benefit the entire population? and when the only benefit is to this minority of whining uncompetitive wage-earners who instead of throwing a tantrum could choose to improve themselves and become better producers?

What's wrong with calling someone a "crybaby" when their whining is only to make themselves personally better off at the cost of net damage imposed onto everyone else?

It would be fine to exploit cheap labor if the producers paid all of the costs...but they don't. The biggest cost they don't pay is health care but there are many other costs that do not get paid for when poor immigrants are exploited.

A far better way for producers to get the cheaper labor is to automate their production. Automation is a win win for just about everyone. It is even a long term win for the labor who wants higher wages. Higher productivity benefits everyone. But unfortunately, people like yourself can not grasp that concept.