These states cut unemployment aid early to supercharge hiring. It isn't working.

[PureX]

For a long time, I've heard the mantra from the arch-conservative, low-wage employers who kept saying "Well, if they don't like working here, they can always leave. Nobody is forced to work here." But now that it's actually happening, they're wondering why no one wants to work for them. They're being hoisted by their own petard.

And of course, now their looking for the (republican) government to force those people to come back to work for them, for peanuts.

I think we're at a point where this country might have to seriously rethink and reconsider its general philosophy regarding management and labor.

Long past. But those who are being currently advantaged have no intention of letting anyone rethink anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah, that explains it. The elites often assume their experience is the same for everyone. Often it is not.

I also worked as a machinist, dog census taker, furniture mover, laborer, pizza cook. Even in these less than elite jobs, I knew in
advance when the job would end or I ended it with notice.
It must be a partly cultural thing, & partly that I never felt or acted
like a victim.

 

[fantome profane]

I also worked as a machinist, dog census taker, furniture mover, laborer, pizza cook. Even in these less than elite jobs, I knew in
advance when the job would end or I ended it with notice.
It must be a partly cultural thing, & partly that I never felt or acted
like a victim.

Or it may also be the size of the business and number of employees. I know that I have read several news stories coming from the U.S. over many decades about automotive plants, food processing plants, steel mills, and even coal mines where workers showed up for work and were laid off immediately when they got to the gate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or it may also be the size of the business and number of employees. I know that I have read several news stories coming from the U.S. over many decades about automotive plants, food processing plants, steel mills, and even coal mines where workers showed up for work and were laid off immediately when they got to the gate.

No doubt it happens.
But some people (particularly the anti-capitalists here)
wrongly assume universality of the worst.

 

[fantome profane]

No doubt it happens.
But some people (particularly the anti-capitalists here)
wrongly assume universality of the worst.

Think about it. Imagine you were running a factory making car parts. You knew that you had business enough to last another three months and then there would be massive layoffs.

What would you do? Would to freely disseminate that information?

If this got out half your work force would find other employment. You would not fill your orders on time, perhaps not ever. You would cost the company several million dollars. Then you would be looking for a new job yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Think about it. Imagine you were running a factory making car parts. You knew that you had business enough to last another three months and then there would be massive layoffs.

What would you do? Would to freely disseminate that information?

I would give as much advance notice as I could.

If this got out half your work force would find other employment. You would not fill your orders on time, perhaps not ever. You would cost the company several million dollars. Then you would be looking for a new job yourself.

You posit a scenario wherein the company would fold
if it gave proper notice. Then, it's a matter of picking
the lesser of 2 evils....yeah, I'd hold off on informing them.
I doubt that scenario is common enuf to base public policy on.
In my experience, one works with others for mutual benefit.

 

[fantome profane]

I would give as much advance notice as I could.

You posit a scenario wherein the company would fold
if it gave proper notice. Then, it's a matter of picking
the lesser of 2 evils....yeah, I'd hold off on informing them.
I doubt that scenario is common enuf to base public policy on.
In my experience, one works with others for mutual benefit.

The scenario I have given is one I have experienced three times myself, and read about it happening dozens of times in my country and in yours. I think it is common enough.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, they thought that it was the "excessive" unemployment benefits which were a disincentive to staying out of the workforce, but this would indicate otherwise.

I read some words from a young man recently that I can't find again to link you to, but he was speculating that a lot of the reason the pool of potential employees is dwindling is that unemployment during the pandemic forced many such as him and some of his friends to find ways to make money from home, which frequently was doing what they liked doing such as a craft that could generate income.

Even if they made a little less than their old job paid them, they simply liked being their own bosses and being home doing what they liked, so, if they could make ends meet rather than going to a mind-numbing, soul-crushing job that they dreaded and left them fairly broke anyway, they aren't going back to work.

How much of the labor shortage does this phenomenon account for? I can't say.

No they don't. What they search for is a way to get as much labor value as possible from the employee, while giving as little compensation as possible to the employee, in return. And thus maximizing the profits to themselves. NO ONE is looking for any balance. What they're looking for is the point of maximum exploitation.

I think the balance @Revoltingest was referring to is related to the employer maximizing profit. It's not about a consideration of the employee's interests. He's referring to the wage that generates the maximal profit for the employer, which can be too low to attract enough quality workers and higher than it needs to be to do this, which cuts into profits without any return for the extra wage expenditure.

Consider restauranteurs that can't get enough staff to sell as many meals as his customers would buy if he could get those meals out to them. He needs to choose a wage that attracts the staff he needs without making the business unprofitable if possible even if he gets them, that is, the lowest wage they will work for. That's the balance.

It's analogous to the problem of setting prices to maximize sales profits. Suppose a widget costs $5 to make, and at a sales price of $9, one can sell six units, at $10 five, and at $11 four. The optimum profit is at $10 (5 items at $5 profit each =$25, whereas 4 at $6 profit and 6 at $4 profit only generates $24 in profit). It a balance between charging too much and too little.

Notice that neither of these analyses is considering the employee's or the customer's preference, which are highest wages and lowest prices. The balance isn't between these entrepreneurs and the employee/customer. It doesn't consider them at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Employees don't have to give 2 weeks notice.
That's just a commonly accepted time frame.
But employers in my vast experience give more
notice for layoffs...ranging from 2 weeks to 2 months.
Of course, I've terminated some immediately for cause,
eg, theft, threatening co-workers.

Too bad I couldn't have you as a supervisor. One I had didn't tell me I was laid off until I got a phone call to notify me, a phone call I didn't get until I was putting on my shoes to leave to go to work.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I read some words from a young man recently that I can't find again to link you to, but he was speculating that a lot of the reason the pool of potential employees is dwindling is that unemployment during the pandemic forced many such as him and some of his friends to find ways to make money from home, which frequently was doing what they liked doing such as a craft that could generate income.

Even if they made a little less than their old job paid them, they simply liked being their own bosses and being home doing what they liked, so, if they could make ends meet rather than going to a mind-numbing, soul-crushing job that they dreaded and left them fairly broke anyway, they aren't going back to work.

How much of the labor shortage does this phenomenon account for? I can't say.

I think I read the same thing. And it's right. Why go back to schedules, uniforms, uncomfortable work environments, and the abuse when you can have so much better even if the income is less?

 

[Revoltingest]

The scenario I have given is one I have experienced three times myself, and read about it happening dozens of times in my country and in yours. I think it is common enough.

Would you argue that government should require such
immediate notification even if it meant the company
would go under?
I'm not seeing any good result either way.
My gawd, man....what do you do for whom?
It sounds awful for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I read some words from a young man recently that I can't find again to link you to, but he was speculating that a lot of the reason the pool of potential employees is dwindling is that unemployment during the pandemic forced many such as him and some of his friends to find ways to make money from home, which frequently was doing what they liked doing such as a craft that could generate income.

Even if they made a little less than their old job paid them, they simply liked being their own bosses and being home doing what they liked, so, if they could make ends meet rather than going to a mind-numbing, soul-crushing job that they dreaded and left them fairly broke anyway, they aren't going back to work.

How much of the labor shortage does this phenomenon account for? I can't say.

Aye, it's certainly a significant factor.

I think the balance @Revoltingest was referring to is related to the employer maximizing profit. It's not about a consideration of the employee's interests. He's referring to the wage that generates the maximal profit for the employer, which can be too low to attract enough quality workers and higher than it needs to be to do this, which cuts into profits without any return for the extra wage expenditure.

Maximizing profit isn't a singular goal for people in business.
Some other factors that might or might not apply in a particular
company...
- Running a company according to one's values.
- Long term security / survival.
- Making a steady profit over short & long term.
- Covering cash flow.
- Asset growth.
- Enjoyment.
- Retaining employees.
All these things relate to making profit.

Business is never as simple or evil as anti-capitalists portray it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too bad I couldn't have you as a supervisor. One I had didn't tell me I was laid off until I got a phone call to notify me, a phone call I didn't get until I was putting on my shoes to leave to go to work.

I'm just full of virtue.

 

[fantome profane]

Would you argue that government should require such
immediate notification even if it meant the company
would go under?
I'm not seeing any good result either way.
My gawd, man....what do you do for whom?
It sounds awful for you.

No, I would not want the government that involved in private industry. But I am glad that I live in a civilized country with a social safety net for situations like this.

I personally never had to use it till Covid, but it was nice knowing it was there.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I would not want the government that involved in private industry. But I am glad that I live in a civilized country with a social safety net for situations like this.

I personally never had to use it till Covid, but it was nice knowing it was there.

On this we agree, ie, that government does best to provide
social benefits rather than controlling the providers.
It's the most efficient, direct, & comprehensive approach I see.

 

[fantome profane]

On this we agree, ie, that government does best to provide
social benefits rather than controlling the providers.
It's the most efficient, direct, & comprehensive approach I see.

Oh that is good to hear. At first I thought you were telling us that workers can rely on the loving kindness of corporations. And that is just silly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh that is good to hear. At first I thought you were telling us that workers can rely on the loving kindness of corporations. And that is just silly.

I've always said that the only real job
security is one's ability to get the next job.
It's not true....just a useful attitude.

People often think I've told them something
that I never said. A common problem it is.

 

[Stevicus]

The arch-liberal mantra of "no one wants to work for them"
is an absurd mischaracterization. There is a labor shortage,
ie, wages are rising because the demand for labor isn't being
met. But many people are working....everyone I know IRL
who isn't retired is employed.
The unemployment rate is 5.9% per....
What Is the Current US Unemployment Rate?

Well, that's the whole point. People have other choices now, other than taking low-wage, thankless, stressful jobs from ungrateful employers.

The link about the unemployment rate indicated that there were 9.5 million unemployed as of June 2021. Although it didn't specify the total costs of the benefits they're getting. But as you suggested earlier, some of those listed as unemployed may still be working under the table.

 

[PureX]

I think the balance @Revoltingest was referring to is related to the employer maximizing profit. It's not about a consideration of the employee's interests. He's referring to the wage that generates the maximal profit for the employer, which can be too low to attract enough quality workers and higher than it needs to be to do this, which cuts into profits without any return for the extra wage expenditure.

Consider restauranteurs that can't get enough staff to sell as many meals as his customers would buy if he could get those meals out to them. He needs to choose a wage that attracts the staff he needs without making the business unprofitable if possible even if he gets them, that is, the lowest wage they will work for. That's the balance.

It's analogous to the problem of setting prices to maximize sales profits. Suppose a widget costs $5 to make, and at a sales price of $9, one can sell six units, at $10 five, and at $11 four. The optimum profit is at $10 (5 items at $5 profit each =$25, whereas 4 at $6 profit and 6 at $4 profit only generates $24 in profit). It a balance between charging too much and too little.

Notice that neither of these analyses is considering the employee's or the customer's preference, which are highest wages and lowest prices. The balance isn't between these entrepreneurs and the employee/customer. It doesn't consider them at all.

Sure, it's finding the 'balance' between screwing the customers with over-priced food, or screwing the employees with underpaid wages. Because the owner's not going to screw himself. And SOMEONE has to get screwed, here, or it's not capitalism!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Maximizing profit isn't a singular goal for people in business.

I hope I didn't imply that I thought profit maximization was an entrepreneurs sole objective. It wasn't mine.

I was explaining what I thought you meant by balance, which was different than what @PureX thought you meant.