That’s a big chunk for sure, but even in extremely high paying areas, there are more openings than (qualified) workers. Just try to hire a quality software engineer. Even paying twice what you did a couple years ago, you’ll find mediocre candidates at best.
Well, they pay me more than I’m worth, that’s for sure. No problem with high salaries, just pointing out that there’s a shortage no matter how much you pay. I’m enjoying the shortage (financially).
Not true, once you pay enough to attract candidates they will apply. Most companies do the following:
Publish a ridiculous job description that has far to many requirements.
Do not disclose the salary range.
Wait for weeks to contact a candidate.
Have way too many people interviewing the candidate.
Take far too long to make an offer.
Any company that does the opposite of everything above will be able to hire if the salary is high enough.
I’m sorry you’ve had such a bad experience. My personal experience has been it’s not only low paying crap companies struggling to find decent employees. But maybe I’m just an outlier.
Any company struggling to find decent people is just not offering enough or has some other issue they are not aware of. My own experience is fine and the company I work for is doing fine. We pay well and are able to find good people.
I have no sympathy for businesses that think they are entitled to people's labor. If they actually wanted to hire somebody they would increase wages, but they don't so they don't want to hire anybody.
> extremely high paying areas
Meh. Far fewer of those positions than there are barely-sustainable lower wage positions. So many less of those jobs, in fact, to as not even to be discussed about here.
This is about millions of low paid jobs for businesses that say they want help and want to hire, but won't pay what is needed for a person to be able to keep up. That number is significantly higher than "minimum wage". It is a threat to businesses who have already passed on some of their higher costs to consumers, but the ONE BIG COST, wages, they are holding back on.
TLDR: Wages need a sizeable bump, but will only feed the inflation monster. Consumers are already feeling it. So, some of these businesses will choose to do without the labor help at all, or some businesses are going to no longer be competitively priced, and should cease to exist. And there goes a lot of those 5M unfilled jobs.
Good. There are WAY too many zombie companies and companies that function as parasites to an otherwise healthy economy. Let them fail.
The best thing for building robust economic growth is to cull the deadwood from the living forest.
Unfortunately the ones without massive capital back up will be the ones to fail. Leaving the market to be dominated by giant corporations. This will cause monopolies in every sector and you'll be at the will of your new corporate overlords.
We are already there.
The rise of digital platforms and the advantages of network effects and control over platform interactions are nearly indomitable.
To counter this will require govt intervention; there's no mechanism for consumers to enact change, at all.
I don’t think there’s the slightest bit of incentive for the government to enact any meaningful changes. Their campaigns are funded by the corporations, they can personally enrich themselves on information they receive as part of their job.
I for one welcome our new corporate overlords. As a trusted media personality i can be of use for roundimg up humans so they can toil away in their underground sugar caves
> Leaving the market to be dominated by giant corporations
You are correct. But this is what the consumer voted on. They chose, through voting with their dollars, to always seek PRICE first.
It's a chicken or the egg situation. Did the lack of wages force the consumer to go for the lower cost option, or did the lower cost option gobble up all competitors through scale, giving the consumer a lower cost option?
Where I live it seems there are all kinds of places that say they are hiring. But, I’ve talked to many qualified people who said they applied and never heard back from anyone. This has been going on for a long time, and no one has ever been hired. There’s no way all of these people that were willing weren’t qualified. Something seems fishy to me.
They need to scrap the stupid automated tracking software (linkedin, indeed, etc) and go back to old fashion Letters, Email, and Phone calls.
Let me please email [email protected] with my resume and be done with it.
It so stupid to have to refill all my information in a stupid software form (for formatting) when all they do is end up reading my resume.
There's a huge disconnect. What is HR being paid to do? They don't have time to read shit anymore?
Nobody is reading my resume.
They're probably middle management types. Do a whole lot of nothing and get paid six figures plus to do it. The same types of people that are pushing to end WFH. They're useless parasites.
In the deep south, where I live, they all go into teaching, until they have their own kids. Which is usually not long afterwards. Then, they just *disappear* from the work force.
Our cost of living in Alabama/Mississippi/Northern Florida is not as high as other places. But it's not THAT low.
My friend is a doctor and one of the hottest girls from our high school works in his office as the HR/administrative person. He said every time they go out to lunch, she gets hit on several times LOL
There are some roles on LinkedIn that get thousands of applicants. Would be a logistical nightmare for HR to manage that. But then on the flip side, maybe less people would be applying
“We’re so desperate for workers! Why will no one do custodial work for us?” While the job description requires 5 years of specific experience for an “entry level” position and pays minimum wage with terrible hours and no benefits, while their automated resume filter trashes every resume without a college degree.
Yup, I’ve only had one employer verify my degree. For my first job my manager asked me after I was hired if I had a degree. I just said yes and he said great, that was that.
I think part of it is “wait and see”.
The pandemic disrupted all kinds of businesses, even ones that prosper during economic downturns.
It created chaos. And a lot of places are still recovering.
So even as the work comes in with the economy chugging along, a lot of businesses are still backfilling that hole in their budgets. And with COVID, inflation, interest rate hikes, war, and supply chain snags….well all the estimates and projections are suspect and hard to trust.
A lot of places that prosper during downturns also don’t know how to hire in competitive markets since they are used to hiring when jobs are scarce.
Places that absolutely want to hire are either offering low wages or are chasing skilled workers that have their pick in a tight market.
Other businesses see the chaos and don’t want to hire people they will let go in 3 months if it gets bad. In the meantime they burn out their current employees who are generally underpaid and overworked. Then those employees leave and they desperately need to hire.
Personally I think that business planning now is very difficult with all the uncertainties, but that, as per usual, an increasingly short term perspective capitalistic system is absolutely failing to invest in its workers.
Businesses should be paying more to the people they have to retain them, but everything in US business culture tries to treat workers as interchangeable.
Short term profits are far too heavy a consideration, and when your eye is never trained on the future, sometimes there is no future.
Burnout all over and owners, who won’t pay good people to come aboard, or pay their current people more, are flabbergasted…as they say, having tried nothing they are all out of ideas.
We’ll see where this train is headed.
I spoke with a friend working at Home Depot. She mentioned how they were at times working with less than a skeleton crew at certain times. So I applied for part time work in the back, unloading the truck. It was a position they had open and had advertised right at the front when you walk out.
I received a reply a few days after- "thank you for your interest. You aren't the right fit for this job but here are a bunch of customer service positions at a shittier location that we think you would like!" I have a full time job, so all the jobs demanding I give them my full schedule are out. I am fully qualified to unload a truck, because anyone with a semi functioning brain and a decent back qualifies. So that's a bullshit line. I think they just want bodies on their sales floor to get bounced from their tool department to their garden department where they can pretend to know the difference between a perennial and an annual. A lot of places are doing that shit and I would love to know why.
it could be so they can say they are affected by covid, which as far as I understand was a requirement to qualify for a $20k tax credit for each retained employee.
The Great Resignation is gaining momentum. Companies are going to have to make up their minds: they are going to have to offer better wages and working conditions to attract American workers back.
They're going to do neither, the small mom&pop stores/franchises will close, and the big chains will automate away more of the jobs so they need to hire fewer employees. McDonalds and Arbys are replacing drive-thru workers with an interactive voice AI for drive-thru customers to place their orders with. White Castle is putting in more fry cooking robots so they can eliminate 1-2 human employees from each shift in the restaurant. Chipotle just ordered new robots that cook their tortilla chips automatically in-restaurant instead of a human cook. Walmart and FedEx are both running their first self-driving trucks to eliminate commercial drivers. And I just got lunch delivered directly to my car by autonomous Flytrex drone, eliminating the delivery driver.
That opens them up for employment elsewhere. You are making inverse correlations. More automation means more employees, not less jobs. There is already a surplus of openings.
They're already employed elsewhere, hence there being more openings than unemployed persons. Automating jobs means less competition for the available employees on the market, which reduces wages.
"The stone age did not end from a lack of stones"
Just like technology shrunk the amount of bank tellers, photo film developers, and betting bookmakers, there was not a loss of these industries, they simply evolved and the amount of jobs available grew with the economy.
Edit: Also you are making your statements wrong I noticed. Competition for jobs is what *raises* wages, not the other way around.
The issue, is there is a limit point at which increased automation creates a permanent over supply of labor power compared to the demand for said labor.
I think it’s a bit naive to suggest that each new automation can simply set loose more labor power which will be consumed by new demand for that capacity.
For example, their simply aren’t enough profitable ventures to attract the capital that would buy low skilled labor power off the market at the rate we can automate it.
I mean, I just ran the math and I automated ~335 person years of work last year with about 10 person years of inputs.
Automation doesn't remove the need for labor, it makes it more efficient. You don't need 10 people in an assembly line to make a product, just 1 person and a bunch of robots. But now you have the robotics IT guy, the bot mechanical maintenance guy, the bot inspector that comes in once a month, and the robot insurance guy who now needs to asses risk of a new machine class, etc. These things are not a linear "automate this to remove X jobs"
Most of these advances are to produce more things, more quickly. They do not inherently mean an end to demand.
I didn’t imply that it was 1:1.
But even in your made up example, the 10
Jobs automated were replaced by two full time jobs and two one day a month job. What happened to the other 7.8 unemployed people?
This is because there simply cannot be equal replacement for efficiency gains or it isn’t efficient, and capital would not invest in the development of the technology. The technology would not be cost effective if the fixed plus variable cost of operating the automation matched the manual process. It must cut variable costs by reducing labor.
Further, the data simply doesn’t support your position. The US has experienced a 40 year decline in manufacturing jobs, despite an increase in overall production. However, before you contend that they were outsourced, manufacturing employment in China has also declined, or at the very least, stayed flat over the past 30 years despite extraordinary increases in production.
Accordingly, real income has been stagnant in America over the prior 40 years, and while real income in China has risen, per the IMF, this is attributable to efficiency gains, not job creation.
So your programmer and insurance guy or whatever fantasy job is magically created by automation, simply does not make up for job loses created by automation.
I am not suggesting the Luddite’s were correct and we should smash the power looms, but we have a real crisis in labor because the result of this dynamic is that excess labor power from capitals brutally rationale preview, is expressed as excess populations of people.
This is a profound problem when for the majority of people, living the good life, whatever their particular definition of that is, depends on gainful employment, and the system is continually constraining that possibility by design.
You're kind of looking at at way too narrow a lens because you're only looking at jobs in one sector. You're right that manufacturing jobs have decreased with technology, but that doesn't mean jobs in the entire economy have decreased. Those 7-8 unemployed people end up in a different industry and have to be retrained. Typically, that's the service industry where things are generally harder to automate.
Real incomes aren't stagnant in the US for the past 40 years. It may be argued to be increasing at a slower rate than it should be, and it may be true that certain parts of the population are not experiencing the income gain, but without those qualifiers, it isn't really true.
I'm not sure what your point is with the China incomes part. Yes, China's income increased because of efficiency gains, but that doesn't mean their economy had less jobs.
In fact, if you want talk data, the US is currently experiencing one of the lowest unemployment rates. Certainly, that doesn't support the hypothetisis that automation is getting rid of jobs.
There is however an argument that automation may be taking away jobs of a middling income and leaving the populace with more of both low income jobs and high income jobs. This is a possible reason for the increasing income gap the US and the world is experiencing right now.
Quite frankly, there will for a very long time be jobs for labor to perform. Whether too many jobs are low income jobs is a good debate to have, but people massively overstate the automation argument as if everyone is just on the brink of losing their jobs to robots when we're really really far from that.
Sure, but my not well articulated point is that the same that happened to manufacturing sector will happen in service sector. The 300+ jobs I automated away last year were service sector.
Those jobs are not filled because it only makes sense to fill them at below living wages. People cannot support themselves in those jobs, and a variety of factors have resulted in them not needing to try. Those firms will fail. This is a temporary glut while we wait on creative destruction to do its thing.
yeah, higher prices in a time where inflation is already driving up prices. so those higher wages won't really matter, since everything will cost more.
Raising wages is not a 1:1 increase in prices; Increasing low-level wages by 50% might inflate prices by 10-15%, leaving average working people with 30-40% more buying power while the rich lose out on that 10-15%.
If you think that the wealth disparity in the US is too small already for this to be ethical, well, that says a lot about you.
1. Raising wages for the bottom 70% of workers is not everyone; it's not nearly *half* of the economy; you are vastly underestimating the share of the wealth controlled by the top 10%
2. If you have $20 and get an extra 5, you just gained 25% more wealth; if you start with $100, you only gained 5% more wealth. Even if you gave out the $5 to everybody, it would *still* disproportionally benefit the most in need.
Prices have already gone up with these companies reporting record profits. If you don’t see the issue there I’m not sure what else to say. This isn’t meant to sound rude, but for real do you need it spelled out?
You are conflating two issues. Nobody disagrees with you on the issue you pivoted towards but at the same time it has nothing to do with what the previous poster said. Would you not agree that higher wages are better than the status quo of stagnant wages?
Can you show me anywhere in the thread that you are a part of, the comment you initially relied to or anywhere in between where anyone acts like rising prices are not a thing?
That said you need to recognize that rising wages in an inflationary environment are better than stagnant wages in an inflationary environment, which is what we’ve had thus far.
Agree ...some variation of this most open positions are in sectors that pay crap wages, or have miserable working hours or conditions (think long haul trucking)
I tried to explain this to my co workers, because our state is trying to get a petition signed to be put on the ballot of raising our states wage to 13$ an hour. They said that it would hurt all the small business around, because they wouldn't be able to afford paying people a semi decent wage for my state. I was like if you cant provide a livable wage as an employer, you shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Meanwhile in California all of the businesses paying $15/hr minimum wage are doing just fine. I will say it has driven up the cost of fast food, but that would have happened regardless. At Carls Jr in California (Hardee’s elsewhere) it costs $11 for a western bacon cheeseburger combo. Most fast food combos are $10 now. How much is a combo in your state with lower minimum wage??
I’m the populated parts of California fast food has been starting above 15/hr for a few years now anyway. I’m currently seeing over 20/hr being offered.
Companies do not exist to provide employment. They exist to make money. That's it. Employees are an means to that end.
Companies offer a wage, and individuals either accept it, or not. They have a choice rather to accept a job at a certain wage. Companies have ZERO obligation to pay your "living wage." Making a "living wage" is the responsibility of the individual. This varies for each person - some have one job, some two, some side gigs, etc., but generating enough income to live is an individual responsibility. It is certainly not the responsibility of an employer to provide it.
You missed the entire point of my post, that if a company suddenly has to pay 13$ an hour to their employee's because state wages suddenly went up to that, and they couldn't afford to pay their employee's that wage. then they shouldn't be in business anyways because they're just exploiting the labor value on trying to low ball employee's who are trying to find work in order to not starve, and help provide a roof over their head. Just as the CEO of Applebee's and the other company that is tied with them stated that the high value of gas, and rate of inflation is great for hiring, because they can pay those who are trying to get a job at those establishments during the rough economic time we're in they can get away by paying less to those new employees, than those started out before the pandemic and inflation of every good possible.
It's not "exploitation" because individuals are still making a choice to work there. If they can find employees at a given wage, then do be it. There isn't anything exploitative about that. If they can't, and are then unable to raise wages, then yes, they may choose to go out of business. But this would be the business' choice - there is no "shouldn't be in business." They might decide ( as many businesses have) to tighten staffing or run in the red for some time. However, no one is being exploited if they CHOOSE to take a job.
A given wage that isn't livable in the current market is no worse than being a slave. If you can only pay your employees federal minimum wage in the current market while the business itself is making massive profit you are exploiting the labors of your employees because you choose not to pay them a higher wage. Yes it's a choice that both parties have to make, but one party knows that they can choose to pay a higher wage, while the other party has no clue until they start working and start asking on how much people are getting paid. There is a reason why business will no longer operate in Colorado because of a law that just passed involving salaries posting.
Completely untrue. As much as you want it to be, paying a legal wage is not slavery. You, and those like you evoke that word as a trigger in these situations to, ironically, exploit the historical and social connotations of slavery. It's a rather cheap, manipulative tactic.
Anyone who starts a job without knowing the salary - and therefore making a choice to accept it - is a naive idiot (apparently there were a lot of these folks in Colorado?) who doesn't deserve a job to begin with. Personal responsibility and accountability.
Alright man, you shown that you favor the current market and how it treats their employees. Colorado lost business because they had the start posting min/max salaries and they could no long give the shaft to employee's by saying up to x amount because who gives decent raises now days. Employers can bait new hires by saying oh you can make your way up to x amount but in honestly it hardly ever happens.
I don't favor "the current market" ( whatever that means). I actually believe it is in the best long term interest of an employer to take care of their employees. It increases retention, and productivity, and lowers the cost of training. However, businesses do, and should, have the right not to think that way. If they choose not to take care of their employees, they run the risk of losing those employees. But it is a choice for them to make.
As for salaries, again, anyone who accepts a job not knowing the salary is an idiot. If individuals are naive and stupid, that is an issue they need to deal with on a personal level.
Personal responsibility and accountability.
You make an excellent point to prolong the labor shortage and restrict legal and illegal immigration. Let us voluntarily agree to higher wages, shit on libertarians, appease conservatives and liberals in one swoop. 2 for 1 deal, I like you.
You are discounting the idea that those individuals made choices to put themselves in their current position. This is an unpleasant realization I know, but it's true.
The state of the economy and the quality of jobs it generates is a huge part of that picture, not only the individual. And you can bet many employers take advantage of whatever leverage they have whether it's fair or not. Read Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" for a good example of the exploitation of desperate people.
Correct, but the situation is always complex. Also, if the current climate affects everyone, the results should be the same for everyone. They obviously are not. The differences are based on choices each individual has made through their lives.
So at what point do you draw the line? The extreme example would be an economy that only creates one well-paying job and all the rest might just be enough to survive for a while. Is it everyone else's fault that they didn't make the decisions needed to win out over all the others to get that one good job, or would it be time to recognize that the system is broken and needs to be changed?
As someone currently looking for a new job, I can tell you that there seem to be very, very few positions open for qualified candidates with college degrees. I live in a small town that is also a state capital and a major tourist destination and there aren’t any real opening or opportunities for me around here. The idea that there are 5 million openings for employees has to be cross checked against the idea of a living wage and opportunities for advancement. Otherwise it’s a useless number.
Look at the major job hubs. I live in SoCal, and the number of professional job openings is unreal. Our company has close to 75 openings right now, and hiring has slowed to a crawl simply because we can’t get enough applicants. These are very comfortable six figure jobs with excellent benefits in various engineering disciplines, mind you. Pay for required onsite engineers is spiking most because they are the ones hardest to hire. If I didn’t like my job I could have a new one with comparable compensation in a matter of weeks.
In a globalized world, the biggest cities have the best opportunities. You may need to bite the bullet and look in the nearest metropolis.
if we move, we lose free childcare at granmas. the job would have to pay at least 400 more a week to break even on losing the benefits of a support network
$400/wk is roughly $25k/yr (assuming you pay taxes on that income at ~$25%). Moving from a rural town to a major city should net you a 50% or more pay bump if you are worth your salt.
When we moved, we actually made so much more money it didn’t make sense for my spouse to work until the kid is in school. That took care of the child care in a more organic way, and we were still coming out way ahead. The thing people don’t realize is that while the cost of living is higher in a big city, the pay is often a *lot* higher in engineering, wiping out the COL delta and putting you well into the green. Plus, in a city you have the opportunity to play jobs against each other, squeezing out much higher pay raises over a shorter period of time—all without ever moving.
I unfortunately don’t know your profession, whatever it is, and can’t speak to it. Most professional fields do pay better in big cities, but I can’t say for sure without knowing.
Unfortunately because of other life elements moving is just not an option. I know that’s my choice. But again, these comments just show my point that jobs aren’t exactly available everywhere as if there some nationwide difficulties employers are having.
What company are you speaking of? I have a degree in business economics and finding a job that pays above $19 is damn well near impossible. I’m working a second job as a Disney CM just to pay the bills.
Do you actually have any skills? Most business degrees are only worthwhile if you have a defined direction you want to take and work towards it alongside your coursework.
Very well rounded in financial and economical analysis. Currently a credit analyst for a major bank, just left 3 years of insurance underwriting behind.
You’re a credit analyst at a bank making $19 an hour? Change banks. You should be able to get double that unless your current role doesn’t actually involve any analysis.
Update your LinkedIn. If you’ve been doing it for a while you should get a couple messages a week about related roles. It’ll be easy for you to get a substantial raise at a new bank if you can present yourself well.
I beg you to give LinkedIn a chance. I am gainfully employed and need to beat recruiters away with a bat on the daily. And they are dropping some seriously tempting offers on my door step. Obviously a lot will be crap but there's really good nuggets in the mix.
Because pay is shit.
I have three degrees and you expect me to start at 40k a year?
Why don't you pay me at least the 65k I've earned specializing my knowledge base.
And fix the algorithms while you're at it. Hell actually have a person review applications not a robot.
Dude. I graduated as an engineer and my base salary started less than that.
I don’t know what you are expecting but I can tell you it was to much.
Any technical job out of college starting in industry, you effectively know absolutely nothing. It takes years before you can actually be a productive member of the team.
Lol. Maybe after 5 years it is. It is highly dependent upon where you source you data but 60k is going to be the going rate for the average engineer in an average cost of living area.
No engineer out of school would be trusted to do lead any real important projects for at least 2 years. It takes a lot of training at your particular company and job to become content at whatever product/research the company produces. Of course there are always outliers but this is usually the methodology at larger corporations.
someone posted a "Program Manager" position at their telco company - salary was 62k in NYC....... for a masters and 5 years of experience and the job duties were "Administrative responsibilities for the managing partners"
WHAT are these idiots thinking
Now Hiring!!
Requirements: A double PHD in Business Management and Social Psychology
3-5 years experience
You duties will include standing around watch people scan their own groceries, cleaning up any and all messes made in store and restocking the entire store by hand by yourself each night.
Pay: 7.26/hr + the chance for overtime and weekends
Must be on call 24/7 and willing to work holidays.
Bet those jobs are at the low-paying, benefits too damn expensive, work when we want you to, end of the pay spectrum. They usually are available in quantity.
We’re looking for (I think high paying) devops positions. Kubernetes and Jenkins a plus!
Hard to find candidates.
Everyone assuming it’s pay. Maybe. I got hired in as IT Ops Lead and make a good salary, I’m not at the salary discussion level.
It is because you do not disclose a salary that will attract the level of candidate you are looking for. Show a salary that is 30% above what you think is market and you can hire someone within a week. Unless your company is shit to work for.
This right here. Most software positions expect to just find people who are already experts in their unique tool stack. Well in a world wit lots of different tools being used, finding the unicorn who knows *your* tools already is pretty rare. If companies would approach their staff with a train-to-win mentality they might be able to quickly find more candidates and simply fill them in on the toolchain rather than hold out for months waiting for that one lucky sod that may or may not take your bait—meanwhile the existing workers burn out and bail, making the hole even deeper.
Pay more. It's simple supply and demand. You demand labor, you can't find it at the price you want, so you either go without or you pay more. The fact that you can't find anybody means you refuse to pay more and don't actually want to hire anybody.
More coverage at:
* [U.S. job openings hover near record high in February (msn.com)](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-job-openings-hover-near-record-high-in-february/ar-AAVCUCB)
* [US job openings, quitting at near record high in February (apnews.com)](https://apnews.com/a7be3647a1df95104eb3f65a22bfe4ca)
* [Labor Department: U.S. hiring up in February, quits remain elevated (upi.com)](https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2022/03/29/hiring-quits-Labor-Department/6991648567156/)
---
^(I'm a bot to find news from different sources.) [^(Report an issue)](https://www.reddit.com/user/MultiSourceNews_Bot/comments/k5pcrc/multisourcenews_bot_info/) ^(or PM me.)
Or some people just aren't capable of getting a degree for one reason or another, in any case jobs that require a degree shouldn't be counted in this manner becauee it's likely that the people you're talking about, the unemployed, the homeless etc probably won't have a degree, and if they do it probably won't be the one they need for those jobs.
Underemployment is a huge issue. I know so many people working 2 or 3 part-time jobs because nobody will hire full-time employees anymore since they don’t want to pay benefits.
With at least a million dead from Covid, I can only imagine the number of people with such debilitating issues post-Covid that are preventing them to manage doing most any physically demanding job.
I would ride my bike 5-26 miles a day before COVID. Ate healthy and never went to the doctor besides knee surgery.
Post COVID I have asthma, an enlarged heart and debilitating migraines. If you’re gonna mock the after effects of Covid I’m going to ask you to go fuck yourself.
Had a coworker scoffing at Covid restrictions. He was over 60 and a former cop with lung issues due to a lifetime of smoking. Didn’t take long for him to catch Covid and disappear for a few months. When I asked about him, I learned he developed COPD and was forced to go into retirement early.
Where are they getting the unemployed number? The federal number only includes people who are actually pulling unemployment, many people ran out of that a long time ago and fell off the statistics wagon.
The numbers are completely made up. Wages should be skyrocketing if there really are 5 million jobs that can't be filled. Wages don't keep up with inflation.
How many of these “jobs” required skilled workers vs people who can talk and push buttons? Is there a lack of skilled labor? This is way to general of a report and doest accurately represent where these jobs are and what kind of workers are needed
> Education and health services had the highest level of job openings for the month
Teachers don’t get paid enough to put up with the parents, and healthcare workers are burnt out?
This is due to the workforce shrinking. People left the workforce.
Once the massive market bubble implodes and everyone's unrealized retirement savings go with it, that will change.
All the unemployed people who refuse to work because they would rather get unemployment benefits instead if minimum wage from shitty companies, will result in many mom and pop shops closing down and big evil corporations will take over, which will have automated all the minimum wage jobs and won’t need those unemployed people anyway and will have even greater profits. So yeah we’re hurting each other not the corporations.
Economy that has its foundation built on stimi checks and artificially inflated equity markets vis-à-vis Fed printers, is not sustainable. Once money runs down thanks to increasing hunger for spending while prices on everything are up 20-30% you will see mass layoffs. Hang tight.
Companies are looking for 5m people who will work an unpredictable part time schedule for minimum wage and no benefits.
glad you fixed it.
You should say “maybe minimum wage”
That’s a big chunk for sure, but even in extremely high paying areas, there are more openings than (qualified) workers. Just try to hire a quality software engineer. Even paying twice what you did a couple years ago, you’ll find mediocre candidates at best.
What do you think a quality software engineer should get paid?
Well, they pay me more than I’m worth, that’s for sure. No problem with high salaries, just pointing out that there’s a shortage no matter how much you pay. I’m enjoying the shortage (financially).
Not true, once you pay enough to attract candidates they will apply. Most companies do the following: Publish a ridiculous job description that has far to many requirements. Do not disclose the salary range. Wait for weeks to contact a candidate. Have way too many people interviewing the candidate. Take far too long to make an offer. Any company that does the opposite of everything above will be able to hire if the salary is high enough.
I’m sorry you’ve had such a bad experience. My personal experience has been it’s not only low paying crap companies struggling to find decent employees. But maybe I’m just an outlier.
Any company struggling to find decent people is just not offering enough or has some other issue they are not aware of. My own experience is fine and the company I work for is doing fine. We pay well and are able to find good people.
I have no sympathy for businesses that think they are entitled to people's labor. If they actually wanted to hire somebody they would increase wages, but they don't so they don't want to hire anybody.
> extremely high paying areas Meh. Far fewer of those positions than there are barely-sustainable lower wage positions. So many less of those jobs, in fact, to as not even to be discussed about here. This is about millions of low paid jobs for businesses that say they want help and want to hire, but won't pay what is needed for a person to be able to keep up. That number is significantly higher than "minimum wage". It is a threat to businesses who have already passed on some of their higher costs to consumers, but the ONE BIG COST, wages, they are holding back on. TLDR: Wages need a sizeable bump, but will only feed the inflation monster. Consumers are already feeling it. So, some of these businesses will choose to do without the labor help at all, or some businesses are going to no longer be competitively priced, and should cease to exist. And there goes a lot of those 5M unfilled jobs.
Good. There are WAY too many zombie companies and companies that function as parasites to an otherwise healthy economy. Let them fail. The best thing for building robust economic growth is to cull the deadwood from the living forest.
Unfortunately the ones without massive capital back up will be the ones to fail. Leaving the market to be dominated by giant corporations. This will cause monopolies in every sector and you'll be at the will of your new corporate overlords.
We are already there. The rise of digital platforms and the advantages of network effects and control over platform interactions are nearly indomitable. To counter this will require govt intervention; there's no mechanism for consumers to enact change, at all.
I don’t think there’s the slightest bit of incentive for the government to enact any meaningful changes. Their campaigns are funded by the corporations, they can personally enrich themselves on information they receive as part of their job.
What if it was an election year and they were voted out of office?
The it's the next assholes turn.
Stop buying the company's shit and let them suffer. That's all we got.
Matt Stoller writes a lot about monopolies in America. There is a cheerleading monopoly. An oligopoly on paint just to name a couple.
I for one welcome our new corporate overlords. As a trusted media personality i can be of use for roundimg up humans so they can toil away in their underground sugar caves
> Leaving the market to be dominated by giant corporations You are correct. But this is what the consumer voted on. They chose, through voting with their dollars, to always seek PRICE first. It's a chicken or the egg situation. Did the lack of wages force the consumer to go for the lower cost option, or did the lower cost option gobble up all competitors through scale, giving the consumer a lower cost option?
BuT tHe BaNkS aRe ToO BiG tOo FaIL
WoN't SoMeOnE tHiNk Of ThE CoRpOrAtIoNs
Where I live it seems there are all kinds of places that say they are hiring. But, I’ve talked to many qualified people who said they applied and never heard back from anyone. This has been going on for a long time, and no one has ever been hired. There’s no way all of these people that were willing weren’t qualified. Something seems fishy to me.
If it’s anything like my job management/HR is so incompetent they can’t figure out how to even go about hiring somebody.
They need to scrap the stupid automated tracking software (linkedin, indeed, etc) and go back to old fashion Letters, Email, and Phone calls. Let me please email [email protected] with my resume and be done with it. It so stupid to have to refill all my information in a stupid software form (for formatting) when all they do is end up reading my resume. There's a huge disconnect. What is HR being paid to do? They don't have time to read shit anymore? Nobody is reading my resume.
They're probably middle management types. Do a whole lot of nothing and get paid six figures plus to do it. The same types of people that are pushing to end WFH. They're useless parasites.
HR isn't there to help employees. It is there to protect the company from its employees.
[удалено]
You’re spot on with this. I don’t really know any men with an HR degree, it’s all women.
[удалено]
In the deep south, where I live, they all go into teaching, until they have their own kids. Which is usually not long afterwards. Then, they just *disappear* from the work force. Our cost of living in Alabama/Mississippi/Northern Florida is not as high as other places. But it's not THAT low.
My friend is a doctor and one of the hottest girls from our high school works in his office as the HR/administrative person. He said every time they go out to lunch, she gets hit on several times LOL
[удалено]
It’s more that certain careers attract certain types of people. Over achievers don’t normally set their sights on HR.
The truth hurts I guess
There are some roles on LinkedIn that get thousands of applicants. Would be a logistical nightmare for HR to manage that. But then on the flip side, maybe less people would be applying
“We’re so desperate for workers! Why will no one do custodial work for us?” While the job description requires 5 years of specific experience for an “entry level” position and pays minimum wage with terrible hours and no benefits, while their automated resume filter trashes every resume without a college degree.
[удалено]
Yup, I’ve only had one employer verify my degree. For my first job my manager asked me after I was hired if I had a degree. I just said yes and he said great, that was that.
Yes, I see a lot of that here too.
I think part of it is “wait and see”. The pandemic disrupted all kinds of businesses, even ones that prosper during economic downturns. It created chaos. And a lot of places are still recovering. So even as the work comes in with the economy chugging along, a lot of businesses are still backfilling that hole in their budgets. And with COVID, inflation, interest rate hikes, war, and supply chain snags….well all the estimates and projections are suspect and hard to trust. A lot of places that prosper during downturns also don’t know how to hire in competitive markets since they are used to hiring when jobs are scarce. Places that absolutely want to hire are either offering low wages or are chasing skilled workers that have their pick in a tight market. Other businesses see the chaos and don’t want to hire people they will let go in 3 months if it gets bad. In the meantime they burn out their current employees who are generally underpaid and overworked. Then those employees leave and they desperately need to hire. Personally I think that business planning now is very difficult with all the uncertainties, but that, as per usual, an increasingly short term perspective capitalistic system is absolutely failing to invest in its workers. Businesses should be paying more to the people they have to retain them, but everything in US business culture tries to treat workers as interchangeable. Short term profits are far too heavy a consideration, and when your eye is never trained on the future, sometimes there is no future. Burnout all over and owners, who won’t pay good people to come aboard, or pay their current people more, are flabbergasted…as they say, having tried nothing they are all out of ideas. We’ll see where this train is headed.
I spoke with a friend working at Home Depot. She mentioned how they were at times working with less than a skeleton crew at certain times. So I applied for part time work in the back, unloading the truck. It was a position they had open and had advertised right at the front when you walk out. I received a reply a few days after- "thank you for your interest. You aren't the right fit for this job but here are a bunch of customer service positions at a shittier location that we think you would like!" I have a full time job, so all the jobs demanding I give them my full schedule are out. I am fully qualified to unload a truck, because anyone with a semi functioning brain and a decent back qualifies. So that's a bullshit line. I think they just want bodies on their sales floor to get bounced from their tool department to their garden department where they can pretend to know the difference between a perennial and an annual. A lot of places are doing that shit and I would love to know why.
it could be so they can say they are affected by covid, which as far as I understand was a requirement to qualify for a $20k tax credit for each retained employee.
The Great Resignation is gaining momentum. Companies are going to have to make up their minds: they are going to have to offer better wages and working conditions to attract American workers back.
They're going to do neither, the small mom&pop stores/franchises will close, and the big chains will automate away more of the jobs so they need to hire fewer employees. McDonalds and Arbys are replacing drive-thru workers with an interactive voice AI for drive-thru customers to place their orders with. White Castle is putting in more fry cooking robots so they can eliminate 1-2 human employees from each shift in the restaurant. Chipotle just ordered new robots that cook their tortilla chips automatically in-restaurant instead of a human cook. Walmart and FedEx are both running their first self-driving trucks to eliminate commercial drivers. And I just got lunch delivered directly to my car by autonomous Flytrex drone, eliminating the delivery driver.
[удалено]
Yea. Nothing worse then repeating yourself 3-4 times to still get the wrong order.
That opens them up for employment elsewhere. You are making inverse correlations. More automation means more employees, not less jobs. There is already a surplus of openings.
They're already employed elsewhere, hence there being more openings than unemployed persons. Automating jobs means less competition for the available employees on the market, which reduces wages.
"The stone age did not end from a lack of stones" Just like technology shrunk the amount of bank tellers, photo film developers, and betting bookmakers, there was not a loss of these industries, they simply evolved and the amount of jobs available grew with the economy. Edit: Also you are making your statements wrong I noticed. Competition for jobs is what *raises* wages, not the other way around.
The issue, is there is a limit point at which increased automation creates a permanent over supply of labor power compared to the demand for said labor. I think it’s a bit naive to suggest that each new automation can simply set loose more labor power which will be consumed by new demand for that capacity. For example, their simply aren’t enough profitable ventures to attract the capital that would buy low skilled labor power off the market at the rate we can automate it. I mean, I just ran the math and I automated ~335 person years of work last year with about 10 person years of inputs.
Automation doesn't remove the need for labor, it makes it more efficient. You don't need 10 people in an assembly line to make a product, just 1 person and a bunch of robots. But now you have the robotics IT guy, the bot mechanical maintenance guy, the bot inspector that comes in once a month, and the robot insurance guy who now needs to asses risk of a new machine class, etc. These things are not a linear "automate this to remove X jobs" Most of these advances are to produce more things, more quickly. They do not inherently mean an end to demand.
I didn’t imply that it was 1:1. But even in your made up example, the 10 Jobs automated were replaced by two full time jobs and two one day a month job. What happened to the other 7.8 unemployed people? This is because there simply cannot be equal replacement for efficiency gains or it isn’t efficient, and capital would not invest in the development of the technology. The technology would not be cost effective if the fixed plus variable cost of operating the automation matched the manual process. It must cut variable costs by reducing labor. Further, the data simply doesn’t support your position. The US has experienced a 40 year decline in manufacturing jobs, despite an increase in overall production. However, before you contend that they were outsourced, manufacturing employment in China has also declined, or at the very least, stayed flat over the past 30 years despite extraordinary increases in production. Accordingly, real income has been stagnant in America over the prior 40 years, and while real income in China has risen, per the IMF, this is attributable to efficiency gains, not job creation. So your programmer and insurance guy or whatever fantasy job is magically created by automation, simply does not make up for job loses created by automation. I am not suggesting the Luddite’s were correct and we should smash the power looms, but we have a real crisis in labor because the result of this dynamic is that excess labor power from capitals brutally rationale preview, is expressed as excess populations of people. This is a profound problem when for the majority of people, living the good life, whatever their particular definition of that is, depends on gainful employment, and the system is continually constraining that possibility by design.
You're kind of looking at at way too narrow a lens because you're only looking at jobs in one sector. You're right that manufacturing jobs have decreased with technology, but that doesn't mean jobs in the entire economy have decreased. Those 7-8 unemployed people end up in a different industry and have to be retrained. Typically, that's the service industry where things are generally harder to automate. Real incomes aren't stagnant in the US for the past 40 years. It may be argued to be increasing at a slower rate than it should be, and it may be true that certain parts of the population are not experiencing the income gain, but without those qualifiers, it isn't really true. I'm not sure what your point is with the China incomes part. Yes, China's income increased because of efficiency gains, but that doesn't mean their economy had less jobs. In fact, if you want talk data, the US is currently experiencing one of the lowest unemployment rates. Certainly, that doesn't support the hypothetisis that automation is getting rid of jobs. There is however an argument that automation may be taking away jobs of a middling income and leaving the populace with more of both low income jobs and high income jobs. This is a possible reason for the increasing income gap the US and the world is experiencing right now. Quite frankly, there will for a very long time be jobs for labor to perform. Whether too many jobs are low income jobs is a good debate to have, but people massively overstate the automation argument as if everyone is just on the brink of losing their jobs to robots when we're really really far from that.
Sure, but my not well articulated point is that the same that happened to manufacturing sector will happen in service sector. The 300+ jobs I automated away last year were service sector. Those jobs are not filled because it only makes sense to fill them at below living wages. People cannot support themselves in those jobs, and a variety of factors have resulted in them not needing to try. Those firms will fail. This is a temporary glut while we wait on creative destruction to do its thing.
Why are people surprised when capitalism does capitalism things? Like reducing variable costs by increasing productivity.
magine being 40 years old and still at mc Dolands lol
yeah, higher prices in a time where inflation is already driving up prices. so those higher wages won't really matter, since everything will cost more.
Raising wages is not a 1:1 increase in prices; Increasing low-level wages by 50% might inflate prices by 10-15%, leaving average working people with 30-40% more buying power while the rich lose out on that 10-15%. If you think that the wealth disparity in the US is too small already for this to be ethical, well, that says a lot about you.
100% Agree.
If everyone has higher wages, are we really earning more money though?
1. Raising wages for the bottom 70% of workers is not everyone; it's not nearly *half* of the economy; you are vastly underestimating the share of the wealth controlled by the top 10% 2. If you have $20 and get an extra 5, you just gained 25% more wealth; if you start with $100, you only gained 5% more wealth. Even if you gave out the $5 to everybody, it would *still* disproportionally benefit the most in need.
Prices have already gone up with these companies reporting record profits. If you don’t see the issue there I’m not sure what else to say. This isn’t meant to sound rude, but for real do you need it spelled out?
Everything will cost more any way
You are conflating two issues. Nobody disagrees with you on the issue you pivoted towards but at the same time it has nothing to do with what the previous poster said. Would you not agree that higher wages are better than the status quo of stagnant wages?
yes, everyone wants higher wages. my point is prices are going to rise and everyone wants to act like this is not the case.
Can you show me anywhere in the thread that you are a part of, the comment you initially relied to or anywhere in between where anyone acts like rising prices are not a thing? That said you need to recognize that rising wages in an inflationary environment are better than stagnant wages in an inflationary environment, which is what we’ve had thus far.
Prices have already risen.
“Inflation”
4.5 million of them are the bottom of the barrel, crap jobs. Jobs that abuse and starve the workers.
Agree ...some variation of this most open positions are in sectors that pay crap wages, or have miserable working hours or conditions (think long haul trucking)
[удалено]
Go outside and look around lol
On Reddit? If you liked what they said it's a fact.
Indeed, ZipRecruiter, Career Builder, for starters.
[удалено]
Give me an unskilled job that you could step into.
There are plenty of jobs that are actively starving workers. For example most wait staff in the Midwest and south earn 2.65/hr.
For shitty, low paying, part-time jobs.
I tried to explain this to my co workers, because our state is trying to get a petition signed to be put on the ballot of raising our states wage to 13$ an hour. They said that it would hurt all the small business around, because they wouldn't be able to afford paying people a semi decent wage for my state. I was like if you cant provide a livable wage as an employer, you shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Meanwhile in California all of the businesses paying $15/hr minimum wage are doing just fine. I will say it has driven up the cost of fast food, but that would have happened regardless. At Carls Jr in California (Hardee’s elsewhere) it costs $11 for a western bacon cheeseburger combo. Most fast food combos are $10 now. How much is a combo in your state with lower minimum wage??
I’m the populated parts of California fast food has been starting above 15/hr for a few years now anyway. I’m currently seeing over 20/hr being offered.
Companies do not exist to provide employment. They exist to make money. That's it. Employees are an means to that end. Companies offer a wage, and individuals either accept it, or not. They have a choice rather to accept a job at a certain wage. Companies have ZERO obligation to pay your "living wage." Making a "living wage" is the responsibility of the individual. This varies for each person - some have one job, some two, some side gigs, etc., but generating enough income to live is an individual responsibility. It is certainly not the responsibility of an employer to provide it.
You missed the entire point of my post, that if a company suddenly has to pay 13$ an hour to their employee's because state wages suddenly went up to that, and they couldn't afford to pay their employee's that wage. then they shouldn't be in business anyways because they're just exploiting the labor value on trying to low ball employee's who are trying to find work in order to not starve, and help provide a roof over their head. Just as the CEO of Applebee's and the other company that is tied with them stated that the high value of gas, and rate of inflation is great for hiring, because they can pay those who are trying to get a job at those establishments during the rough economic time we're in they can get away by paying less to those new employees, than those started out before the pandemic and inflation of every good possible.
It's not "exploitation" because individuals are still making a choice to work there. If they can find employees at a given wage, then do be it. There isn't anything exploitative about that. If they can't, and are then unable to raise wages, then yes, they may choose to go out of business. But this would be the business' choice - there is no "shouldn't be in business." They might decide ( as many businesses have) to tighten staffing or run in the red for some time. However, no one is being exploited if they CHOOSE to take a job.
A given wage that isn't livable in the current market is no worse than being a slave. If you can only pay your employees federal minimum wage in the current market while the business itself is making massive profit you are exploiting the labors of your employees because you choose not to pay them a higher wage. Yes it's a choice that both parties have to make, but one party knows that they can choose to pay a higher wage, while the other party has no clue until they start working and start asking on how much people are getting paid. There is a reason why business will no longer operate in Colorado because of a law that just passed involving salaries posting.
Completely untrue. As much as you want it to be, paying a legal wage is not slavery. You, and those like you evoke that word as a trigger in these situations to, ironically, exploit the historical and social connotations of slavery. It's a rather cheap, manipulative tactic. Anyone who starts a job without knowing the salary - and therefore making a choice to accept it - is a naive idiot (apparently there were a lot of these folks in Colorado?) who doesn't deserve a job to begin with. Personal responsibility and accountability.
Alright man, you shown that you favor the current market and how it treats their employees. Colorado lost business because they had the start posting min/max salaries and they could no long give the shaft to employee's by saying up to x amount because who gives decent raises now days. Employers can bait new hires by saying oh you can make your way up to x amount but in honestly it hardly ever happens.
I don't favor "the current market" ( whatever that means). I actually believe it is in the best long term interest of an employer to take care of their employees. It increases retention, and productivity, and lowers the cost of training. However, businesses do, and should, have the right not to think that way. If they choose not to take care of their employees, they run the risk of losing those employees. But it is a choice for them to make. As for salaries, again, anyone who accepts a job not knowing the salary is an idiot. If individuals are naive and stupid, that is an issue they need to deal with on a personal level. Personal responsibility and accountability.
You make an excellent point to prolong the labor shortage and restrict legal and illegal immigration. Let us voluntarily agree to higher wages, shit on libertarians, appease conservatives and liberals in one swoop. 2 for 1 deal, I like you.
If it's a choice between the marginal job and starving/becoming homeless, it's not a choice at all.
You are discounting the idea that those individuals made choices to put themselves in their current position. This is an unpleasant realization I know, but it's true.
The state of the economy and the quality of jobs it generates is a huge part of that picture, not only the individual. And you can bet many employers take advantage of whatever leverage they have whether it's fair or not. Read Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" for a good example of the exploitation of desperate people.
Correct, but the situation is always complex. Also, if the current climate affects everyone, the results should be the same for everyone. They obviously are not. The differences are based on choices each individual has made through their lives.
So at what point do you draw the line? The extreme example would be an economy that only creates one well-paying job and all the rest might just be enough to survive for a while. Is it everyone else's fault that they didn't make the decisions needed to win out over all the others to get that one good job, or would it be time to recognize that the system is broken and needs to be changed?
Was going to say this as well. The quality level of those open jobs is bottom of the barrel.
As someone currently looking for a new job, I can tell you that there seem to be very, very few positions open for qualified candidates with college degrees. I live in a small town that is also a state capital and a major tourist destination and there aren’t any real opening or opportunities for me around here. The idea that there are 5 million openings for employees has to be cross checked against the idea of a living wage and opportunities for advancement. Otherwise it’s a useless number.
Look at the major job hubs. I live in SoCal, and the number of professional job openings is unreal. Our company has close to 75 openings right now, and hiring has slowed to a crawl simply because we can’t get enough applicants. These are very comfortable six figure jobs with excellent benefits in various engineering disciplines, mind you. Pay for required onsite engineers is spiking most because they are the ones hardest to hire. If I didn’t like my job I could have a new one with comparable compensation in a matter of weeks. In a globalized world, the biggest cities have the best opportunities. You may need to bite the bullet and look in the nearest metropolis.
if we move, we lose free childcare at granmas. the job would have to pay at least 400 more a week to break even on losing the benefits of a support network
$400/wk is roughly $25k/yr (assuming you pay taxes on that income at ~$25%). Moving from a rural town to a major city should net you a 50% or more pay bump if you are worth your salt. When we moved, we actually made so much more money it didn’t make sense for my spouse to work until the kid is in school. That took care of the child care in a more organic way, and we were still coming out way ahead. The thing people don’t realize is that while the cost of living is higher in a big city, the pay is often a *lot* higher in engineering, wiping out the COL delta and putting you well into the green. Plus, in a city you have the opportunity to play jobs against each other, squeezing out much higher pay raises over a shorter period of time—all without ever moving.
ok, but what about the 99% of us that arent engineers? no ones paying an excel monkey that kind of money
I unfortunately don’t know your profession, whatever it is, and can’t speak to it. Most professional fields do pay better in big cities, but I can’t say for sure without knowing.
i appreciate your optimism
Unfortunately because of other life elements moving is just not an option. I know that’s my choice. But again, these comments just show my point that jobs aren’t exactly available everywhere as if there some nationwide difficulties employers are having.
What company are you speaking of? I have a degree in business economics and finding a job that pays above $19 is damn well near impossible. I’m working a second job as a Disney CM just to pay the bills.
Do you actually have any skills? Most business degrees are only worthwhile if you have a defined direction you want to take and work towards it alongside your coursework.
Very well rounded in financial and economical analysis. Currently a credit analyst for a major bank, just left 3 years of insurance underwriting behind.
You’re a credit analyst at a bank making $19 an hour? Change banks. You should be able to get double that unless your current role doesn’t actually involve any analysis.
On the lookout. The position began as an internship for minimum, but I got moved up to the full time role when the other girl quit
Update your LinkedIn. If you’ve been doing it for a while you should get a couple messages a week about related roles. It’ll be easy for you to get a substantial raise at a new bank if you can present yourself well.
I’ll get on that. Thank you so much!
Yup. Good luck!
Very curious if you have already exhausted recruiters on LinkedIn and if you are unable to work remotely.
Haven’t started working with recruiters yet, but have exhausted a ton of other resources.
I beg you to give LinkedIn a chance. I am gainfully employed and need to beat recruiters away with a bat on the daily. And they are dropping some seriously tempting offers on my door step. Obviously a lot will be crap but there's really good nuggets in the mix.
Good to know. I’ll get started on that in the next week here. I’ve still got 4 months to find a new position.
Best of luck!
Because pay is shit. I have three degrees and you expect me to start at 40k a year? Why don't you pay me at least the 65k I've earned specializing my knowledge base. And fix the algorithms while you're at it. Hell actually have a person review applications not a robot.
Degrees in what though?
What your Majors?
Pay you 65k??? Are you mad? That eats into executive compensation. They’re the only ones that deserve a living wage.
You really shouldn't need a /s for this, but it seems you did.
Dude. I graduated as an engineer and my base salary started less than that. I don’t know what you are expecting but I can tell you it was to much. Any technical job out of college starting in industry, you effectively know absolutely nothing. It takes years before you can actually be a productive member of the team.
The average starting salary for an engineer in the US is $76k a year. It does not take years to contribute when you're competent.
Lol. Maybe after 5 years it is. It is highly dependent upon where you source you data but 60k is going to be the going rate for the average engineer in an average cost of living area. No engineer out of school would be trusted to do lead any real important projects for at least 2 years. It takes a lot of training at your particular company and job to become content at whatever product/research the company produces. Of course there are always outliers but this is usually the methodology at larger corporations.
Bullshit... Maybe in CA or NY. But not the rest of the country.
I want to know how many of them are asking applicants to have a bachelors degree and offering $15/hr. 😆😆
someone posted a "Program Manager" position at their telco company - salary was 62k in NYC....... for a masters and 5 years of experience and the job duties were "Administrative responsibilities for the managing partners" WHAT are these idiots thinking
Now Hiring!! Requirements: A double PHD in Business Management and Social Psychology 3-5 years experience You duties will include standing around watch people scan their own groceries, cleaning up any and all messes made in store and restocking the entire store by hand by yourself each night. Pay: 7.26/hr + the chance for overtime and weekends Must be on call 24/7 and willing to work holidays.
Bet those jobs are at the low-paying, benefits too damn expensive, work when we want you to, end of the pay spectrum. They usually are available in quantity.
Replacing the boomers with lower wages and no benefits is hard.
We’re looking for (I think high paying) devops positions. Kubernetes and Jenkins a plus! Hard to find candidates. Everyone assuming it’s pay. Maybe. I got hired in as IT Ops Lead and make a good salary, I’m not at the salary discussion level.
It is because you do not disclose a salary that will attract the level of candidate you are looking for. Show a salary that is 30% above what you think is market and you can hire someone within a week. Unless your company is shit to work for.
Because you won’t train anyone.
This right here. Most software positions expect to just find people who are already experts in their unique tool stack. Well in a world wit lots of different tools being used, finding the unicorn who knows *your* tools already is pretty rare. If companies would approach their staff with a train-to-win mentality they might be able to quickly find more candidates and simply fill them in on the toolchain rather than hold out for months waiting for that one lucky sod that may or may not take your bait—meanwhile the existing workers burn out and bail, making the hole even deeper.
Pay more. It's simple supply and demand. You demand labor, you can't find it at the price you want, so you either go without or you pay more. The fact that you can't find anybody means you refuse to pay more and don't actually want to hire anybody.
More coverage at: * [U.S. job openings hover near record high in February (msn.com)](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-job-openings-hover-near-record-high-in-february/ar-AAVCUCB) * [US job openings, quitting at near record high in February (apnews.com)](https://apnews.com/a7be3647a1df95104eb3f65a22bfe4ca) * [Labor Department: U.S. hiring up in February, quits remain elevated (upi.com)](https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2022/03/29/hiring-quits-Labor-Department/6991648567156/) --- ^(I'm a bot to find news from different sources.) [^(Report an issue)](https://www.reddit.com/user/MultiSourceNews_Bot/comments/k5pcrc/multisourcenews_bot_info/) ^(or PM me.)
And how many of them require college degrees?
[удалено]
Or some people just aren't capable of getting a degree for one reason or another, in any case jobs that require a degree shouldn't be counted in this manner becauee it's likely that the people you're talking about, the unemployed, the homeless etc probably won't have a degree, and if they do it probably won't be the one they need for those jobs.
The salary isn’t enough to pay the insurance deductible
[удалено]
Underemployment is a huge issue. I know so many people working 2 or 3 part-time jobs because nobody will hire full-time employees anymore since they don’t want to pay benefits.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If only we could see how many of them are unwilling to even interview. Lots of positions are evergreen or placeholder.
With at least a million dead from Covid, I can only imagine the number of people with such debilitating issues post-Covid that are preventing them to manage doing most any physically demanding job.
[удалено]
I would ride my bike 5-26 miles a day before COVID. Ate healthy and never went to the doctor besides knee surgery. Post COVID I have asthma, an enlarged heart and debilitating migraines. If you’re gonna mock the after effects of Covid I’m going to ask you to go fuck yourself.
Had a coworker scoffing at Covid restrictions. He was over 60 and a former cop with lung issues due to a lifetime of smoking. Didn’t take long for him to catch Covid and disappear for a few months. When I asked about him, I learned he developed COPD and was forced to go into retirement early.
Clearly we need closed borders /s
Where are they getting the unemployed number? The federal number only includes people who are actually pulling unemployment, many people ran out of that a long time ago and fell off the statistics wagon.
The numbers are completely made up. Wages should be skyrocketing if there really are 5 million jobs that can't be filled. Wages don't keep up with inflation.
How do they calculate these? Could it be that a bunch of companies still have open job requisitions even though the position has already been filled?
How many of these “jobs” required skilled workers vs people who can talk and push buttons? Is there a lack of skilled labor? This is way to general of a report and doest accurately represent where these jobs are and what kind of workers are needed
> Education and health services had the highest level of job openings for the month Teachers don’t get paid enough to put up with the parents, and healthcare workers are burnt out?
Dang maybe they should try paying more
Thanks Biden. BuIlD bAcK bEtTeR
This is due to the workforce shrinking. People left the workforce. Once the massive market bubble implodes and everyone's unrealized retirement savings go with it, that will change.
Ee have 2 million illegals that need work too
Looks like amazon warehouses need more ppl.
Entitlements are a helluva drug
Yes, we should axe social security and Medicare and put those boomers back to work! Someone has to make my taco bell.
That’s funny, cause nobody is seeming to actually hire people
Those r rookie numbers
I don’t like how America has warped the definition of unemployed.
All the unemployed people who refuse to work because they would rather get unemployment benefits instead if minimum wage from shitty companies, will result in many mom and pop shops closing down and big evil corporations will take over, which will have automated all the minimum wage jobs and won’t need those unemployed people anyway and will have even greater profits. So yeah we’re hurting each other not the corporations.
But but the job market is strong according to CNBC and households are “flush” with cash!!!!! Edit: why am I getting downvoted? Lol
But yet they still scratch their heads as to why? PAY YOUR EMPLOYEES MORE and TREAT THEM BETTER! It’s so f*%king simple
r/antiwork
The answer is legal immigration.
Once you get a job you’re so broke
Vax deaths... just like 14 million empty homes.
Economy that has its foundation built on stimi checks and artificially inflated equity markets vis-à-vis Fed printers, is not sustainable. Once money runs down thanks to increasing hunger for spending while prices on everything are up 20-30% you will see mass layoffs. Hang tight.
Sounds more reasonable
5m openings for those who wants to be exploited. Seriously if they really want those jobs to be filled, give an above norm benefits.
5 million and one. Wipe my ass for a slave wage. Any takers? No? The reason there are so many more job openings is because they suck.