I typed out a longer post earlier, but didn't post because I didn't like the way it would have sounded, but one point from it was that the advocates of cutting the budget/small government have done a remarkable job over the last 30-40 (maybe longer?) years of making the general public dislike those of us that use gov't assistance and welfare programs. And they have done it effectively by creating concepts like "welfare queens," "lazy millenials," people that have iPhones or Nike sneakers but don't work or people that buy things that they shouldn't with food stamps. Easily identifiable stereotypes that make middle and lower-middle class people resent poor people for having things that they have to work for to obtain.

Getting middle and lower-middle class folks on board with that concept has made the strange bedfellows of aligning them with 'job creators' over improving their own wages and standards of living. It seems like most people are starting to realize that trickle-down economics may grow the economy but does not benefit the majority of the public and that it is more effective to get money into the hands of the poor and middle class, because they will spend it. At this point, there are two or three generations of Americans that no longer trust that government can be effective or useful and would rather see it cut down to bare bones than to see a well functioning government (whether small or large, or federal or state oriented).

Somehow, Chick-fil-a seems to hire competent employees, tend to over-staff shifts instead of under-staff, and serves good food at a reasonable price. It must be magic.

Seems relevant:

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...pen-roles.html

Biden Admin is supporting the waiving of IP rights for COVID vaccines

These extraordinary times and circumstances of call for extraordinary measures.

The US supports the waiver of IP protections on COVID-19 vaccines to help end the pandemic and we’ll actively participate in @WTO negotiations to make that happen. pic.twitter.com/96ERlboZS8

— Ambassador Katherine Tai (@AmbassadorTai) May 5, 2021

Can Biden do that himself or would that have to go through congress?

I agree. If you can't compete with temporary unemployment benefits, your job offer sucks. People want stable jobs. The idea that people won't work if they don't have to is a myth.

There are lots and lots of millionaires who don't need the money but continue to work. Pretty much every Fortune 500 CEO and member of Congress could live extremely comfortable lives without ever lifting a finger again by simply putting their current wealth into an index fund.

But they don't. Because people work for a sense of self-worth. And to get more money than they need to buy things they want, etc.

So when these politicians and business leaders get up and say that people need the threat of starvation to keep them working, what they are really saying is that poor people are morally inferior to them. Because good rich people have a work ethic.

dola

If you advertise a job that pays well and does not look like a shit show, you will get employees.

I just don't have much sympathy for companies that haven't raised wages since the great recession and are now acting like it someone else's fault that they can't keep their business open.

It's not a new book, but I'm finishing up Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich, and there are some good examples of how low-wage workers get squeezed and are set up for failure. Too much to quote adequately here, but it's a short, worthwhile read.

It has been one of the greatest cons pulled off in history.

This book is fantastic. The woman eating hot dog buns for her lunch, ugh...

And the Walmart employee who couldn't afford to buy a clearance polo at Walmart (because she needed one to wear at her job at Walmart).

Or the union stuff with Walmart.

I worked at Wal-mart in the 90s. I was able to travel with my club rugby team, live in St. Louis proper and drink lots of beer, plus I had good insurance.

Im not sure why people cannot afford to live off a wal-mart pay check

Come on. You need an explanation for why comparisons to St Louis 25+ years ago aren't particularly relevant?


Edit: I guess it could be, depending on the age of the book you all are referencin.g

What was your rent? That is a key part of the equation in the book. If you can't find an affordable apartment, or don't have enough for a security deposit, you are probably going to spend more (there are many people living at motels because of the shortage of affordable housing). In one of the writer's jobs she was making $7/hr while paying $50 a day for a room. The math there...doesn't exactly work. And Walmart apparently withholds the first week of pay (as did The Maids). So unless you have, essentially, "startup" money, you're in a bit of a bind. And even if you do you may still be.

Considering minimum wage hasn't gone up since the mid 90s it isn't that hard to believe.

It's that Boomer mindset I don't get.

The reality is "Back when I was your age, I worked at what was considered a low wage job, and I could afford to pay for college and save up a house payment on that."

So they could say "That was nice, and it really helped me get a leg up. So we should make sure that wages are high enough that even low wage workers can afford what I could afford. It is both fair and good for the country overall."

Instead, they say "Well, if these kids can't make $20,000/yr. pay for college and a house and basic living expenses, I guess they are just lazy and entitled."

Leave aside the lack of logic. The lack of empathy is chilling.

American empathy: I have mine. F* you..

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

It's the same reason why I hate the "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" phrasing for elections. That shouldn't be the standard. My life was way better in 2020 than it was in 2016, but the country as a whole was worse off. The question should be, "Is the country better off?"

A local business which I frequent has been complaining vocally on Facebook that they can’t get employees because no one wants to work and they have even stopped serving dinner Mon-Fri opting to close down instead. Today they I see them post a job opening.
EVENING SHIFT LINE COOK - $9/HR

I'm not sure what to do with a country where people are willing to lose their business for the sake of owning the libs.

I hope that the invisible hand does its thing and businesses run by people who care more about making money that making a political statement take their place.

Heard on the news today Atlantic City had a job fair, 9 casinos with 1800 openings. 20 people showed up.

Inflation is a bitch.

Places need to do a better job of clearly stating salary/benefits when they advertise jobs.

Did also add: "Must pay for in uniform and provide own hair net."

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I think a lot are just failing businesses and they're grasping for excuses instead of admitting their business is a failure.

France is experiencing the exact same problem right now under very different circumstances. I think the pandemic is more of a reason for labor shortages than we might have expected.

But I expect by the Fall things will find an equilibrium.

That's another anecdote in the book. Interviews at Menard's, where they say at the interview that the job is going to pay $10/hr, but don't actually formalize it. Later they are like "Wait what? Someone said that? It's more like $7.50 -- and 11 hour shifts."

And yeah, also you had to buy their tape measure and utility knife. But that's nothing new -- at BK I had my (awful polyester) pants, polo, and hat taken out of my first paycheck.

I don't get why small businesses are lionized compared to workers. Yes, it's a legit way of making a living. But...didn't you get into it because you didn't want to be a worker for someone else? Essentially, "fuck this, this sucks -- imma start my own business!" I mean, good for you, but it's not on the rest of us to support you just because.

I feel like we've been at a tipping point, and it's only become that much worse due to the pandemic, where many available jobs just aren't worth what people want in order to achieve the standard of living we all expect. Supply and demand isn't just relevant on the worker/employee side, it also matters on the consumer side. You don't just raise wages in a vacuum - someone's going to pay for that in the end. If restaurants jack their wages 50%, are we all going to run out to pay $15-20 for scrambled eggs?

Didn't we go through something very similar 20+ years ago, the small local grocer vs Wal-Mart thing? We should willingly pay more for less convenience to preserve and support our small communities. How did that work out?

So what you're saying is that the middle class probably doesn't have the resources to support everybody below them...so we need to look somewhere else? ;)

We should just force people into lower wage jobs they don't want to keep the price of "food" that is terrible for us as low as possible. Maybe we can just use inmates. Isn't like we don't have way too many of them.

It usually is the case. As I've mentioned, a lot of the companies I'm talking about don't have ridiculous executive packages.

I don't disagree with you that businesses that are run incompetently can fail. That's just the marketplace, though I do find it absurd that this same logic is not applied to people. We go out of our way to protect people from the consequences of their bad decisions. Why are companies different? I don't think we should be overly protecting anyone.

The fact that people keep bringing up the $8/hr. price point etc. shows that there's a big disconnect here. I'm not talking about businesses hiring at the minimum wage. If it was only the cheapskates getting hit, I would say 'pay up or get out'. Those companies have *always* had trouble finding enough workers, even in a great economy with no other issues.


I don't know how many there are, but these people *do* exist. They are not a myth. All I can verify is my own anecdotal experience from two decades in the food service industry, where I would peg the number of people who take this approach when it's available to them as being between a third and a half of the relevant group of employees. This is hard issue to study accurately on the larger scale one way or another, but it's rather amusing to hear people on this forum constantly tell me what I observed daily for years doesn't exist.


This is from somebody I worked with a couple of years ago, on my Facebook feed. It's a common attitude and didn't surprise me in the least. This is not someone who was working at anything close to minimium wage. I know for a fact they made at least $12 an hour, and I think it was more because wages for what they did (line cook) were rising in our area. An area which has lower cost of living than much of the country, I'm in the midwest. $12-$13 an hour here is more purchasing power than the oft-suggested $15/hour minimum wage in a lot of places. Many others are tipped employees who make quite a bit more than that.

These are the kinds of people who are choosing to stay on unemployment as long as it's available instead of work. They are largely not looking for other jobs, partly out of choice but partly because there's little out for them. They don't have other marketable skills. Most live paycheck-to-paycheck, and it makes a lot more sense to theme to just keep their money rather than use it to try to improve their value to an employer.

The retail business I don't know nearly as much about, but I know more than most do and I'm not hearing anything substantively different there other than there are fewer of the long-term employees choosing not to work. That's probably because they weren't shut down as much in the pandemic. They aren;'t having any more luck on the hiring front though.

Point is, this simply isn't a 'they're all just paying crap wages' problem.


I don't know enough about Chick-fil-a to comment intelligently much here. I do know their average wage for entry level is about $9.50, quite a bit less than what I mentioned above. But let's assume they are doing something super-smart that allows them to escape any labor crunch. Let's assume most of the rest of the business, and retail, and whatever other sector of the economy are all a bunch of incompetent morons. We still have a problem, because a whole heck of a lot of people work in and depend on those sectors.

Getting back to the question asked about what my solution is, I'll just repeat that some of the businesses should just go away and that's fine. I think we'd be better off if there were fewer fast-food establishments for example.

Some of this is tied up into how we train, educate, what I've said before about blue-collar work vs. college etc. If we were better at getting people into vocations that fit their talents and abilities, we'd have a better fit between labor and those sectors of the economy that require it. I also think any temporary increase in unemployment should have a corresponding temporary increase in the minimum wage, so that it is *never* financially incentivized to not work. Some still wouldn't because of working, conditions, pandemic, whatever but it wouldn't be nearly the issue we have now. Something on the order of 20% higher pay at least for working the most crap job compared to not working is appropriate IMO. In times of sufficient hardship, I think it's appropriate for government to foot that bill.

I also think we need to jettison this anti-business mindset. There are good and bad businesses, just like there are good and bad people. And as I've said earlier in the discussion, have a more nuanced view of the economy. There is a range that people are willing to pay for certain products, whether it's a vehicle, a household appliance, a game or console, or whatever it is. While automation has minimized the effect and will continue to do so, this also means there's a range of how much value can be extracted from a specific product, and a limit on the value of labor in any particular field. This is not something that can be hand-waved away. There will always be relatively low-paid people no matter if you raise the minimum wage to $1000/hour or whatever obscene amount you may imagine. Some sectors of the economy will always be more profitable than others. . We need to not have a governmental policy that encourages people not to work - and people who live paycheck-to-paycheck are going to choose the short-term cash almost every time. Their financial status isn't stable enough to give them the confidence that they can afford to think long-term, and a lot of them are in the position they are in because they aren't inclined to do so by nature.

One thing to keep in mind is that people are more important than businesses. In general, we need to do things that are life affirming and that work towards the greater good, rather than focusing solely on maximizing profit. Capitalism is fine, but it shouldn’t be our only priority. We don’t need to help the rich; they’re doing fine. We need to help people who aren’t doing fine.

If people are choosing not to work due to unemployment benefits at a level that is detrimental to the economy as a whole, we should have plenty of evidence of that. If nothing else, there should be a flood of people saying that's what they are doing.

I'm sure this is happening anecdotally, but where's the evidence it is happening in large scale?

Keisha Lance Bottoms sudden announcement that she not seek re-election as mayor of Atlanta is causing quite a stir. She had already turned down a cabinet position, and now this. You can't help but wonder why.

It isn't happening on a large scale.

Some business owners are speculating, and the media is running with it as "THIS IS VERY TRUE AND NOT AT ALL SPECULATION AND IT IS A BIG PROBLEM"

Recovery from a pandemic is unprecedented, and there's a lot of complexity involved.

But we don't do complexity well here.

Skeletons in the closet?

This is from the just-released AP article on the lower job growth this month and rise in unemployment:


On what planet is it sane to characterize money saved by people who are out of work as "extra cash" and to normalize spending that money on things that are luxuries?!

Still waiting on our $1400 checks. IRS is completely useless.

Never mind that we're talking about $1400. Sure, that's a nice check - I certainly didn't turn ours down. But if you're making $12 an hour and need to pay rent, that just staves off the landlord another month or two.

SI

Running for Governor? She sure got/still getting a lot of airtime on CNN to keep her in the public eye.

Wyoming stands up for coal with threat to sue states that refuse to buy it | Coal | The Guardian

I know literal socialists who have more respect for the free market than the current GOP does.

That's certainly a new plan. You don't want to buy my stuff because it is harmful to the environment? I'm suing you!

Can't wait for big Tobacco to jump on this bandwagon

I think this more a possibility than this:
There is zero chance she runs for governor if Abrams is. So, the only way this is what is going on is if Stacey told Bottoms she is not running.

Why not? They already fight fires.

(This post was not meant to be take seriously)

Sounds like we need to go back peasantry and feudal lords.