I am sure there are some like this but to paint all of the unemployed with that brush is hardly fair. There are numerous reasons as everyone here have pointed out. Also as someone pointed out the benefits early on were to keep people home. They were cut in half in the last extension. So they would not be replacing income even with the federal boost, based on state formulas.
6 Likes
Oddlly, I keep seeing the same people here making these two arguments:
-
People need to stop getting unemployment and get back to these lowpaying jobs
-
people need to not work these low paying jobs–it’s their fault if they’re still in them.
I’m just going to say, if everyone but teens, or VERY new workers, are not supposed to be in minimum or close to minimum wage jobs–the very businesses you are supposedly defending are going to be in big, big trouble. Especially if you also want to crack down on undocumented folk, who often take up the slack. Who exactly is supposed to stay in these low wage jobs, or do you think the constant turn over of part-time teens and soon-to-be-moving-uppers is enough?
19 Likes
I don’t think people in the “they should get a better job” camp understand that even if all the low wage workers were motivated and skilled enough to do so, there are not enough jobs that pay subsistence wages to make that possible.
Maybe this will help: there are 53 million adults working in poverty wage jobs. There are 7 1/2 million jobs open right now and most of those are poverty wage jobs.
So my question stands: If John Doe, who is working at a $10/hr job, and relying on government subsidies for housing and food, gets a better paying job, another person will take his job, right? How long are taxpayers supposed to perpetually subsidize wages for that position?
And, where are the other 50 million adults in his same position supposed to find jobs?
You can’t give an answer that sounds good in theory, but which, in practice, is not possible.
12 Likes
If a worker was offered their job back, they cannot stay on unemployment. This happened to my niece. Her restaurant reopened and if she didn’t go back, even with the reduced capacity and thus lower pay, she would not have been able to stay on unemployment. Thus, if these businesses are trying to rehire workers they had pre-pandemic, unemployment is not the reason the workers are not returning.
People get stuck in low wage jobs. Sometimes they are not capable of more demanding jobs or becoming managers, but often things happen. Their cheap car breaks down and there is no way to get to work and so they have to quit. Their kid gets sick one too many times and they get fired. They make so little that they fall behind on rent (pre-pandemic) and have to move which means they can’t get to their old job. I had a friend who lost her job at an engineering firm (she was a draftsperson) due to a downturn in the market. She ended up working retail, where they paid low and were very careful to only give her just few enough hours to keep her from being full time and thus eligible for benefits. Her hours were not set so she couldn’t work another job. She was not a teenage, but was in her 40s. She did not have kids, but was always living on the edge.
It is very hard for those with decent jobs to understand or experience what poverty means and how having no safety net impacts one’s ability to get ahead. One statistic is that 70% of those that start out in the bottom fifth stay there. Poor education is another factor in keeping people in poverty.
That is not to say that some people are not willing to work hard or that some make decisions that derail their lives. Others have substance abuse issues, mental health challenges or learning disabilities that limit their ability to get a good job.
Yes, some may be not returning to work due to getting unemployment, but the low job growth is not that simple. Childcare is a huge issue. The number of women that left the workplace during covid is very high and many can’t go back because schools are not fully open. There are also supply issues - auto makers have cut shifts because they can’t get parts along with other industries. Covid cases were still high in early April in many parts of the country and people were not fully vaccinated, so people were afraid to work.
16 Likes
I don’t see people defending businesses here. If a given business is able to get the number and quality of employees that it needs at minimum wage levels, why would they pay more? Should they pay more if they can afford to do it? Should they pay their suppliers above market rates for products/services if they can afford to do so? Guess its tough to understand what people want to see here other than companies pay more. Presumably for everything on some type of basis that all companies can afford to pay more and if they can’t, they should go out of business.
Ultimately, if they are not able to find sufficient numbers/quality of workers at the wages they are offering (even if its above minimums or more than they have previously paid), companies need to increase wages/compensation to get the number/quality of workers that they need (or find a way to do without them). We are seeing that a lot now. That will lead to inflation though (for everyone – not just people getting paid more – putting negative pressure on real income).
This cuts both ways. People who want higher minimum wages need to say what they want minimum wage to be. Saying “more” isn’t enough. But once people start talking about 40 hours meaning no government subsidies, or living wages, etc. and given the number of single parents who need to be able to support their kids, the number would seem to be much higher (at least in many parts of the country) than is contemplated by many.
3 Likes
Minimum wage needs to be a subsistence level wage that allows a person to live without relying on welfare.That is going to be a different amount in different states. New York needs a different minimum wage than Oklahoma.
1 Like
Yes, inflation is certainly on the way, big time. Prices are set to soar.
Companies would have to raise wages to compete for workers if the government were not subsidizing workers pay. The extra for unemployment just exacerbates that.
Many states already pay a higher minimum. Maryland currently says $11 an hour is the minimum. There are still job openings needed filling everywhere.
I agree there should be a minimum but it should certainly vary by locality not be completely national. In the end right now the minimum is a false minimum because of government money subsidizing it.
You’re correct that businesses aren’t obligated to pay more for supplies, etc. Ultimately the business pays what is required to obtain it’s inputs and that includes labor. If cheap labor is available to do the work they’ll take it. If it’s not they’ll have to pay more. If the government is subsidizing they’ll be more people willing to work for less.
I’m not sure what others don’t see about that. Unless we are going to a UBI and then what? Where does that funding come from? Do those that work pay even more of their money towards taxes so others can sit back? How sustainable is that?
Yes, there should be a safety net but we are actually encouraging more to remain there.
1 Like
I do not remember where I read this, but it was very recently, and it said only about 20 something states had added this requirement back (where you can’t say no to a job offer and/or you need to be actively need to be looking for a job).
I run a small business in a metro area. Until recently, we were starting part timers at $12/hr and are now starting at $13.25.
With a recent discussion of minimum wage going to $15, the 19 year old making $14.25 told me that if the minimum is raised to $15, he expects to go above that since he’s currently well above $7.25.
He works for us because we are willing to work his hours around his academic schedule. He has already informed me of his expected schedule for his fall classes. He has indicated he will stay with us through the next holiday season.
We had another employee (age 24, some community college, currently taking a break, no kids, lives with GF) who came to us in January from the Amazon world where he was paid more. For one reason or another, he missed a day or two of work in every pay period. He kept asking for additional hours, but he wouldn’t stay later when work was heavy. We had a downturn and needed to cut staff/reduce staff hours. We cut him, but I was bemused because we cut someone we weren’t fully paying. Others have had their hours cut as we work through this.
Historically, we have not had full time positions. Then Covid hit and we scheduled staff in teams working on alternate days. But we needed more people. A month or two ago, in a staff meeting, I explained that if we shut down the teams and returned to regular staffing, we had too much staff. Right now, I think we still have one person too many. I’m trying to get everyone to give me their summer time off requests — perhaps with enough time off requests, we won’t need to release one more person.
2 Likes
I am positive that I won’t persuade anyone but here is an article from the Washington Post about the job shortage.
One thing that really jumped out to me among other things is that all of the April job gains are male. Job gains among women fell by 64,000. This isn’t an easy answer but incredibly complex.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/07/jobs-report-labor-shortage-analysis/
3 Likes
@taverngirl, I was talking about workers being called back to the job they had pre-pandemic, which would be the employer contributing to their unemployment benefits. Workers have to accept those jobs for the most part (see below). There is an exception for those that can’t work due to pandemic-related issues such as no childcare due to shutdowns or caring for someone with Covid. A general fear of catching covid is not enough, assuming the employer is meeting federal and state guidelines for worker safey.
From CNBC
Employers who follow federal, state and local safety measures and call employees back to their former jobs will likely be recognized as providing “suitable work.” Workers cannot refuse suitable work and get any kind of unemployment benefits, says Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst with the National Employment Law Project.
Thanks for sharing that article. Very informative and interesting. Looks like so many changes in the job market given pandemic and how it’s impacted people recognizing they need/want different jobs than what they had preCovid.
1 Like
You still haven’t suggested a number. For NY, Oklahoma or any state. What level would you set?
For reference, the MIT calculator that I linked to earlier indicates that a living wage for someone in Oklahoma without kids is $13.53. With 2 kids its $34.90. With the number of single parents, should minimum wages be set with single adult household and one or more kids?
For NY, the calculator shows $18.62 as a living wage for someone without kids. With 2 kids its $45.44.
Not picking on you because no one else is tossing out a $$ amount either. Just more.
If states increase minimum wage to a livable wage for their state for an individual with no kids, what about single parents? They will remain on government subsidies. Should companies be able to exist that pay single parents amounts that still require government subsidies to live?
A friend of mine was able to work part time (up to a certain number of hours per week) and still collect unemployment plus the extra given for the pandemic. She didn’t like it at all when her regular job resumed.
The federal money.being paid for unemployment, $300 a week, alone equates to $7.50 an hour if someone is a full time employee. That’s on top of unemployment benefits paid by the state. Absolutely someone that generally was making up to $15 an hour could be making more, or a comparable amount, on unemployment. That’s a real incentive to not work right now.
Maybe off topic, maybe not. From what I’m hearing from high school teachers, distance learning has been a disaster for students. A lot of high school seniors have just basically dropped out and are on track to fail and not graduate. In class school is back in session but those kids have not come back.
So look for more unskilled young people with no high school diploma to fill these jobs.
At least at our school, these weren’t our college prep students to begin with. Their high school diploma would have been just a piece of paper saying they did their time with as much as school has to bend over backward for the almighty graduation rate. It’s probably why many jobs need a college (or other) degree now. No one can tell if the high school grad has skills or just put in their time.
The good news is many of these like construction, truck driving, hair dressing, retail, and basic factory jobs so if those are available all over, there will be more to help fill the slots.
I’m actually of the belief that we don’t do these kids any favors insisting they complete high school. Let them go get on the job they want.
1 Like
When I was growing up in a rural area, you could choose college prep or go vocational tech route at the local high schools, it seems that should return.
6 Likes
There is still a vocational path at the rural H.S. I attended. There are also options here in the suburban area high schools. It do see an issue in that while some of the vocational paths (especially those involving skills such as plumbing, auto mechanics, technology, etc) can lead to very well paying jobs with benefits there are others (child care and nurses aide training) which are also very essential but are typically command very low pay and few/no benefits. It is not lost on me that most of the better paying career paths are those which attract males and the ones which attract females are at the lower paying end.
I spent all day calling plumbers the other day (all men), finally got one to come for less than an hour to tighten a drain - $200. I think I got off easy, and good for him. Maybe more girls should start successful plumbing businesses…
6 Likes