"Not enough young workers" - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15118767
This was a post I found on another forum -
...

I keep reading over and over again in various places the claim that we do not have enough young people, and that we need to bring in more immigrants.

But did these geniuses ever stop to consider WHY people are not having "enough" children?!?

Could it possibly be because families simply cannot afford to have more children and maintain a decent standard of living?? Could it be because parents know that any children they have will be living with them well into adulthood because of the unaffordable cost of housing? Could it be because parents know that their children will face dismal job prospects and low wages?

So perhaps the only responsible thing for any sensible family to do is NOT to have more than 1 or 2 children. And yet the government wants to bring in waves of immigrants who will keep having babies over and over again, whether they can afford it or not ?!?
What exactly will be the effects of such policies?

Widespread poverty, soaring youth unemployment, families that need government assistance because they do not earn enough to take care of themselves.
I think we are already seeing these effects.

The most insane argument I hear is the ridiculous assertion that more young people are needed to take care of the aging population. So what about the huge numbers of unemployed young adults, including many stuck in low wage jobs? Rather than bring in cheap immigrant care takers who will live in poverty, it seems to me that it would make far more sense for the government to simply help subsidize all these unemployed young adults to help take care of our old.

Our cities are already overcrowded. There is a shortage of affordable housing. Young adults cannot afford to move out of their parents house and start life. There are not enough jobs for all the people we already have. The few job opportunities that are left are low wage, for the most part. The last thing we need are more people.

-

Don't you see? There was never a real shortage of young workers. It was all about creating an excuse to bring in huge numbers of immigrants and irreversibly alter the social composition. The Conservatives were just too cheap for their own good.

In many ways, the education system was a big pyramid scheme. The supposed economic answer - a crazy one in retrospect - was to just give everyone university degrees so they would all earn more. So more people at the bottom would only help create more job positions higher up, so the thinking went.

-

many American farms that grow labor-intensive crops (things that need to be picked) are having trouble competing with the low-cost agricultural labor in Mexico and Chile. Another victim of free trade.
These farms don't have trouble finding workers, they just have trouble finding people willing to do intense exhausting farm work long hours of the day for minimum wage and no benefits.

-
discussing the connection between higher wages and possibility of price-inflation...

wages are only one component of consumer prices. The other component is land rent. In fact, in many cities the workers have to be paid much more to afford housing. And the housing is expensive because there is limited space and the land had to be purchased from the previous owner.

It is really too complex to describe in a single post, but the point is that, while prices may rise, they will not rise in proportion to the rise of wages.

-

the situation in Japan
There is a huge number of Japanese trapped in low paying jobs who barely earn enough to afford housing (the cost of living is high in Japan, especially in the cities). Unemployment is also rather high, although the official government statistics downplay this. Despite the serious employment problems, there are still politicians claiming that Japan does not have enough nurses to take care of its aging population. Even The Economist has echoed this absurd claim, and one wonders if they just have some ulterior motive, resenting the fact that Japan is one of the few industrialized countries still ethnically homogenous. (This magazine has become fond of subtly pushing progressive agendas in recent years)


"Bringing Foreign Workers Ruins Japan", written by Goro Ono, honorary professor at Saitama University.

Goro Ono wrote, "If industries where labor is in high demand pay adequate salaries, people will work there." Ono used nursing as a good example. "Japan is actively bringing in Indonesians and other foreigners to cover a shortage because nurses in Japan are woefully underpaid. While on the other hand, public entities never have trouble finding garbage collectors because they get decent salaries."

Ono also brought up the lack of discussion about the cost of building infrastructure to accept more immigrants.

Japan is an interesting situation because many garbage collectors get paid more than nurses. So for the Japanese, it is clear to see that there is no shortage of labor. It is just that certain politicians want a supply of cheap labor, even though these foreign workers will scarcely have enough to live on. What Japanese person in their right mind would go through all that training for a job that does not even pay decently?

Same thing is happening in many American and European cities with high costs of living. The hospitals pay poorly and then wonder why they can not find any nurses.
Because potential workers do not want to go through all the training of becoming a nurse, only to get a low salary and have to live in an expensive city where the hospital is.

Peter Capelli, professor at the prestigious Wharton school of business, wrote: "Indeed, some of the most puzzling stories to come out of the Great Recession are the many claims by employers that they cannot find qualified applicants to fill their jobs, despite the millions of unemployed who are seeking work. Beyond the anecdotes themselves is survey evidence, most recently from Manpower, which finds roughly half of employers reporting trouble filling their vacancies. The first thing that makes me wonder about the supposed 'skill gap' is that, when pressed for more evidence, roughly 10% of employers admit that the problem is really that the candidates they want won't accept the positions at the wage level being offered. That's not a skill shortage, it's simply being unwilling to pay the going price."
#15122283
Puffer Fish wrote:It's a rebuttal to the statement/argument made on the second line.


That explains nothing.

Just rewrite your argument in one or two short and clear sentences.
#15122290
Joe Biden is a major career criminal politician that has accomplished little for America's taxpaying legal citizens. It costs so much to live in America Luckily President Trump got rid of the illegal mandates and tax penalties that were killing the middle class. Leftist Democrats are morons. The government growing communists, like Biden, believe that if you are willing to live in HUD housing and get a WIC stipend for a Blue vote every election, all is well. America has been sold out by the Democrat party for Decades. The Greedy Republicans got fooled by Paul "RINO" Ryan and accomplished nothing for America when all was Republican. The deep state has been exposed. RINO's and the leftist Democrats will be be eliminated at the polls. President Trump's agenda to put America's tax paying legal citizens first and foremost is Awesome. Young American workers should always be offered job opportunities before any foreigners(illegals or not). Why do waiters and waitresses still get paid (low) almost slave, garbage wages and have to report and "share"(tips) what they have earned. Leftist Politicians Suck. The Democrats have lied to America's workers for decades. Democrat policies for low income Americans (Middle class and below) are horrible. They want to grow government and control every aspect of every taxpayers life. Corn pop says, "Now that Ruth is gone, the flying monkeys will probably hang around Pelosi or AOC." Biden Sucks.
#15122297
Rancid wrote:I've never heard the complaint "not enough young workers", what I have heard is "not enough qualified" workers, which is total bullshit.


It is not bullshit from personal exprience..... American kids are spoiled bitches, and do not want to work.
Too many participation trophies not enough kick in the ass.
#15122298
Oxymoron wrote:
It is not bullshit from personal exprience..... American kids are spoiled bitches, and do not want to work.
Too many participation trophies not enough kick in the ass.



My experience say's there are plenty of qualified people in my industry. Companies just don't want to invest the time in raising up new talent.
#15122301
Rancid wrote:My experience say's there are plenty of qualified people in my industry. Companies just don't want to invest the time in raising up new talent.


That is kind of true in IT, but most other industries it is hard to find qualified people.
#15122303
Oxymoron wrote:That is kind of true in IT, but most other industries it is hard to find qualified people.


Yea, different industries will have different issues of course. The serverity of those issues will vary too.

Aside from that, how much of this is just due to the fact that companies just simply don't care about employees at all. They are treated as disposable, in which case, why should any worker be motivated to be "qualified" in the eyes of the employer? The fear/threat of not getting hired or losing your job isn't good enough motivation.
Last edited by Rancid on 23 Sep 2020 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15122306
@Rancid

Rancid wrote:My experience say's there are plenty of qualified people in my industry. Companies just don't want to invest the time in raising up new talent.


Yes, which is why IT workers shouldn't be loyal to companies and should drop a company just as fast as a company would drop them for a better paying job. We are mercenaries in the IT field and our loyalty only goes as far as our paychecks only. Companies should be treated in the same way as they treat us: as disposable when something better comes along.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 23 Sep 2020 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15122307
Rancid wrote:Yea, different industries will have different issues of course. The serverity of those issues will vary too.

Aside from that, how much of this is just due to the fact that companies just simply don't care about employees at all. They are treated as disposable, in which case, why should any worker be motivated to be "qualified" in the eyes of the employer? The fear/thread of not getting hired or losing your job isn't good enough to motivate people.


The case in some companies, but this is a minority. Successful companies value their workers... thinking of them as disposable is not smart.
#15122308
@Oxymoron

You are an expendable commodity if you are an IT worker or really any worker in my opinion. But this is especially true in the IT industry. Companies only care about the money and that's it. See, this is the unregulated capitalism you want, don't you see Oxy? This is unregulated capitalism with no unions and no rules that companies have to follow or responsibilities or commitments that companies must uphold. See, this is the kind of capitalism you are advocating for.
#15122310
Politics_Observer wrote:@Oxymoron

You are an expendable commodity if you are an IT worker or really any worker in my opinion. But this is especially true in the IT industry. Companies only care about the money and that's it. See, this is the unregulated capitalism you want, don't you see Oxy? This is unregulated capitalism with no unions and no rules that companies have to follow or responsibilities or commitments that companies must uphold.



:lol: what ever you say.... companies do not only care about money, they care about making money for the foreseeable future. Now obviously the bigger the company the bigger the hierarchy the bigger the bureaucracy , and yes there will be inefficiencies (bad managers, redundancies, and slow change to bad policy).
I have nothing against workers having a right to organize, but Unions hurt workers in the long term. Now to your point, who said anything about no rules?
Capitalism cannot function without rules, because it then becomes a Monopolistic oligarchy. Capitalism relies on a level playing field for true market forces to be effective, thus regulation is a must.... How much regulation and what kind is the question.
#15122311
Oxymoron wrote:It is not bullshit from personal experience..... American kids are spoiled bitches, and do not want to work.
Too many participation trophies not enough kick in the ass.

I think decadence has harmed our society. It's hard to even "blame" younger generations, or the parents. I think when every generation has more and more, decadence becomes almost inevitable, expectations for standard of living are raised, and responsibilities are lowered.

That doesn't mean it can't change, or that parents can't do better jobs, I just think what has happened is natural and entirely predictable due to material and social conditions. Comparing the generation that grew up during the depression and then fought in WWII to the last few generations who have had little hardships is, in a way, not fair. Obviously the former generation will be tougher, more resilient and responsible, less entitled.

The only thing I can think of that can reverse this generational trend is more hardship. What doesn't kill you (or permanently harm you) only makes you stronger. When you work hard you're tired and sore, but your cardio improves, your muscles grow, calluses form on your hand and feet, and the next day you're able to work even harder.

But let's also not forget, that the wealthy and powerful stack the deck. Businesses don't care about giving young people jobs or providing cheap housing, they care about profits. You'd think this could make younger people "tougher", but not if their parents let them keep living with them instead of young people moving into less ideal housing etc.
#15122326
Unthinking Majority wrote:I think decadence has harmed our society. It's hard to even "blame" younger generations, or the parents. I think when every generation has more and more, decadence becomes almost inevitable, expectations for standard of living are raised, and responsibilities are lowered.

That doesn't mean it can't change, or that parents can't do better jobs, I just think what has happened is natural and entirely predictable due to material and social conditions. Comparing the generation that grew up during the depression and then fought in WWII to the last few generations who have had little hardships is, in a way, not fair. Obviously the former generation will be tougher, more resilient and responsible, less entitled.

The only thing I can think of that can reverse this generational trend is more hardship. What doesn't kill you (or permanently harm you) only makes you stronger. When you work hard you're tired and sore, but your cardio improves, your muscles grow, calluses form on your hand and feet, and the next day you're able to work even harder.


First of all, you will never get all (or even most) parents to agree to give their kids as many hardships as they went through. While it is true that challenges can be useful for developing the self, many hardships are simply negative. A classic example of negative hardship is child abuse. So most parents will want to protect their own kids from those hardships that were solely or mostly negative.

Secondly, I am not sure that young people today have less responsibility than we do, or our parents did. They have to, for example, solve climate change; a problem that we created and that will affect them much more. They also have much higher costs in terms of buying a home and getting a quality education. There is also more competition for fewer jobs, and a radical shift from lifetime careers to a gig economy.

But let's also not forget, that the wealthy and powerful stack the deck. Businesses don't care about giving young people jobs or providing cheap housing, they care about profits. You'd think this could make younger people "tougher", but not if their parents let them keep living with them instead of young people moving into less ideal housing etc.


Mortgage payments (or even rent payments, for that matter) should be about a third of your income. As soon as my kids are actually making that money, then it becomes feasible.

The average mortgage rate in Edmonton, where I live, is slightly over $1500. This means my kid must have a job that brings in $4500 after taxes. That means a gross salary of about $80,000 a year. My young adult kids with no PSE are not going to get a job like that.
#15122329
@Rancid @Oxymoron

Oxymoron wrote:The case in some companies, but this is a minority. Successful companies value their workers... thinking of them as disposable is not smart


Rancid wrote:Agree, it's not smart.


Yeah, I can agree with Oxy specifically here on this very specific and narrow point, that it is not smart to treat your workers as disposable. UNFOOORRTUNATELY THOUGH, IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT OXY UNDERSTANDS that MOST companies treat their workers as a disposable commodity AND ONLY CARE about making money in the VERY SHORT TERM while NOT thinking about the long term or making money in the long term.

It's the "gimme my money now mentality, let's not worry or think about tomorrow or a few years down the line." The mentality that says "gimme my money now and fuck everybody and everything else" or the "fuck you I got mine" mentality and that's the kind of capitalism that is prevalent in America today. The kind of capitalism that Oxy has in the past advocated for (but has all the sudden changed positions on here just a now a little bit by now saying that unions are OK).

It's why we have a this gap between the rich and poor and why we no longer have the richest middle class in the world like we used to have at one time. I don't know about Oxy, but I like to have not just the strongest and richest economy in the world, but also the strongest and richest middle class in the world. We can have all these things. But not under the current unregulated capitalism and far less taxed (if it all) top 1% of the wealthy that we have today.

This is also why we don't have enough young workers today, because people can't afford to reproduce under this economy that doesn't value workers enough. It's one of the reasons why my wife and I don't have children. Kids cost a lot of money but if the economy doesn't value workers and treats them as disposable then you might as well not reproduce.

It's costs too much to reproduce and you wouldn't be doing kids any favor by raising them in a financially insecure environment nor would you be doing the taxpayers any favors by throwing the cost of your choice to have kids onto the taxpayers. So, it's a wise and fair decision not to have kids and reproduce.

And that's the choice that many couples are making under today's kind of capitalism. And it's the wise choice. This is also why republicans seek to get rid of abortion rights, because they want more young workers even if that means those young workers live under poverty or unstable, insecure and seriously dysfunctional and emotionally and unstable conditions. Anti-abortion is really about power and control over working people and women and not about any sort of REAL morality.
#15122358
Pants-of-dog wrote:First of all, you will never get all (or even most) parents to agree to give their kids as many hardships as they went through. While it is true that challenges can be useful for developing the self, many hardships are simply negative. A classic example of negative hardship is child abuse. So most parents will want to protect their own kids from those hardships that were solely or mostly negative.

Well yes obviously you don't want them to go through things that can cause permanent damage as I said, or cruelty and other human rights abuses and serious crimes committed against them, like child abuse.

Secondly, I am not sure that young people today have less responsibility than we do, or our parents did. They have to, for example, solve climate change; a problem that we created and that will affect them much more. They also have much higher costs in terms of buying a home and getting a quality education. There is also more competition for fewer jobs, and a radical shift from lifetime careers to a gig economy.

As adults in their 20's and 30's yes there are some new hardships for young people as you point to.

Growing up (from birth through end of schooling) younger generations have less responsibility because their parents are better off, life is easier, some don't have to work and live of the parents, there are less chores to do (technology helps like dishwashers, laundry machines, microwaves), smaller properties to take care of, less siblings to help take care of etc.

Mortgage payments (or even rent payments, for that matter) should be about a third of your income. As soon as my kids are actually making that money, then it becomes feasible.

The average mortgage rate in Edmonton, where I live, is slightly over $1500. This means my kid must have a job that brings in $4500 after taxes. That means a gross salary of about $80,000 a year. My young adult kids with no PSE are not going to get a job like that.
[/quote]
Typically young people buy a house when they get married. Single people often rent and might have roommates, maybe buy a condo with possible help of parents. Dual income families mean $1500 mortgage isn't too hard among 2 people. Unfortunately it means single parents have a tough time competing to buy/afford houses on a single income, unless they make really good money. 40 or 50 years ago you could raise a family on one income. Dual incomes have caused a lot of inflation in the housing market, along with other factors.

Condos are more popular than ever, typically these are homes for single unmarried people as people are getting married much later in life.
#15122361
@Unthinking Majority

So in order to buy a house, a person must already have a good job and a spouse with a good job.

In this day and age, that means both need some sort of PSE, whether a degree or two or vocational training.

So now you also need to add in the cost of that education.

A max speed of 400 km/h - A Chinese train maker r[…]

Election 2020

@colliric , right now, give Trump all the states […]

@blackjack21 , and @Potemkin , what's an oddba[…]

Joe Biden

@Julian658 Trump is orange because he paints his[…]