moosemac, I'd like to read the article. Could you direct me to it?

I had a brief conversation with a relative of a relative of a relative. She is 63 and having no luck getting hired at entry level jobs. It sounds like she has always worked part-time in such positions while raising children, first her own, and then a couple fosters. I told her that I'd heard of others not getting contacted back for jobs despite the jobs remaining open. She was kind of relieved to hear that because she thought there might be some age discrimination going on.

Edit: Nevermind-- I found some articles.

“It’s not that nobody wants to work. It’s that nobody wants to work for slave wages anymore," said Holz."

How can that even be allowed in the media anymore? I mean...we are all so "woke" now.

*headsmack*

Dh has several positions open. Not one applicant. It's quite some time now. Oh, yes, there was one applicant, but applicant kept missing the interview, thus has been disqualified. He's been short staffed and on a skeleton crew for over a year. It's putting a huge strain on those few who he does have, himself included.

Flip side of coin: we have a friend who moved to another state. Had been highly qualified mid-level finance mgmt for several years. He couldn't get an interview to save his life in the new state (TX). He finally (many months later) did get an interview and subsequent job, but for a much lower level position in like field which he accepted because it was better than being unemployed. He will basically have to climb the ladder all over again. He couldn't understand why he couldn't get a call back for an interview for the hundereds of jobs he applied for, except for this one.

Here's a link to the Business Insider story:

https://www.businessinsider.com/worker-applied-to-60-jobs-got-one-interview-labor-shortage-2021-10

Our accountant has been without office help for months. He's found only three people to interview, and he said that the only qualified person was a fail after, "She told me I'm running my business all wrong." (He's been highly successful for decades.)

JMO but I think there is a widening disconnect between employer expectations and the realities of potential employees. Employers are still looking for applicants who will fit into their corporate culture and are opting to function short staffed rather than have a bad fit.

On the flip side, applicants today come in with a list of demands. They cannot comprehend the fact they will be judged on their work performance and rewarded accordingly. Bottom line is if an employee directly or indirectly does not positively contribute to a company's success then they have no value to the company. Company profit is not a dirty word; greed is.

Elmer you hit the nail on the head, having limited skillsets limits economic opportunity. A company can only pay wages equal to the value of the work done. As an employee gains skillsets, their value to the company increases so should their wages. The willingness to show value and gain skillsets is what is lacking for many.

I struggle with this often as many do not have the background to comprehend how they fit into the economics of running a business. Nor do they understand the concept of earning rewards. It takes a significant amount of time to provide mentoring and the success rate can be discouraging at times. The successes make it all worth it but it is exhausting.

But the 'Florida Man' has a job. Perhaps the potential employers did a quick check of his social media and realized they were being trolled.

I could not even get a plumber to call me back in Cathedral City. I guess I am going to have to do my own plumbing, but I'm not sure how much I trust myself. I did install our new garbage disposal, but now the other sink/drain appears to be leaking.

I'm going to try to contact my previous contractor when I get back, and maybe he will be able to help me. We want to do some renovations in our kitchen, and that might be difficult to book as well.

I applied to about 200 jobs over since February. Almost all were for part time work because nobody wants to hire full time. I've had five interviews. I took three of the jobs knowing I would not be staying but needed something in the meantime. (due to lack of hours and minimum wage) I start another job today which will be 40 hours a week for now, but will be cut back to 32 hours a week in the New Year. Still considered full time, but I'll have to find a part time job to make up the lost wages. I will keep this job as it's what I enjoy doing but will need to supplement my income when hours are cut.

This is a local story I read not that long ago. It seems that some are interpreting it to support a very subjective narrative.

Who else read this from the linked article?

"...Over the next several months, the 37-year-old watched as a growing chorus of businesses said they couldn't find anyone to hire because of government stimulus money. It was so ubiquitous that he joined a "No one wants to work" Facebook group, where users made memes deriding frustrated employers....

...So Holz, a former food-service worker and charter-boat crewman, decided to run an experiment.

On September 1, he sent job applications to a pair of restaurants that had been particularly public about their staffing challenges.

Then, he widened the test and spent the remainder of the month applying to jobs — mostly at employers vocal about a lack of workers — and tracking his journey in a spreadsheet....

...Holz said he wasn't applying for any roles he didn't qualify for.

Some jobs "wanted a high-school diploma," he said. "Some wanted retail experience," he added. "Most of them either said 'willing to train' or 'minimum experience,' and none of them were over $12 an hour."

He said: "I didn't apply for anything that required a degree. I didn't apply for anything that said 'must have six months experience in this thing.'"...

...Holz acknowledged that his results may not be representative of the larger labor challenges in the country, since his search was local and targeted the most vocal critics of stimulus spending.

He added that despite the claims of some businesses struggling to hire, his boss had no staffing issues during the pandemic...."

bored, I'm very glad that you've been successful in your job search. But it sounds like either where you live or the jobs you've been applying for aren't within the market segments that are booming right now.

carolb, I did miss that the "job quest" was an experiment and not the actual experiences of someone looking for work. All the same, it does say that none of the jobs paid more than $12/hour and with that I'll revert to an earlier comment - people who for whatever reason can't qualify for work other than in restaurants or at minimum wage levels need to step up their games and try to do more with themselves, however that may be possible and no matter what that may involve. Those who can but don't have unfortunately chosen life paths that will be difficult.

There seems to be a lot of that kind of supercilious attitude going around...

Insightful article...

https://www.vox.com/recode/22673353/unemployment-job-search-linkedin-indeed-algorithm

Good article, Rob - and consistent with reporting I've been hearing. Thanks for sharing that ☺

I hear that ad for a shipping company all these people with their special requests on hours, amount of work, pay they'll accept and I think "YOU DON'T NEED A JOB" ! Hungry people take what there is and are GRATEFUL. Sorry working stacking boxes all day is not worth the same as a person who has some training or education a SKILL to market. Things are upside down and I fear what it takes to right it.

“Hungry people take what there is and are GRATEFUL.”

I would prefer to live in a society where my fellow human beings are not forced by hunger to accept bad working conditions. The ungrateful poor ..... Dickens would have been very familiar the concept.

Which country in Europe is it: Sweden? Norway? Denmark? I cannot remember offhand and don't feel like looking it up, but in that particular country ALL employees whether you're a doctor, garbage man, teacher, shelf stocker: they ALL earn the exact same rate of pay per hour because in that country, they believe ALL jobs are equal. Seeing someone say "Sorry working stacking boxes all day is not worth the same as a person who has some training or education a SKILL to market." is hurtful. If someone wasn't stacking those boxes, you would not need your job to buy what is in those boxes because there would be nobody to stack them to ship to the retailer. EVERY job out there is important. They all have a purpose. It's a chain reaction. And all jobs are equally important. Just because someone flips burgers for a living doesn't mean their job is less important than a CEO's. If someone didn't flip that burger, the CEO wouldn't have their job. Yet the CEO lives in the lap of luxury while the burger flippers is sweating like a pig because some Joe and his family are too lazy to make their own dinner and the burger flipper is at work rather than being home with their family enjoying a home cooked meal. Say what you like, ALL jobs are important and everyone deserves a decent living wage.

"I hear that ad for a shipping company all these people with their special requests on hours, amount of work, pay they'll accept and I think "YOU DON'T NEED A JOB" ! Hungry people take what there is and are GRATEFUL."

Ah, I see........you're in favour of exploiting people and their misfortunes. Good to know.

Why should anyone support a boss (let alone be grateful to a boss) who think it's good to exploit people and not treat them well?

"EVERY job out there is important. They all have a purpose. It's a chain reaction. And all jobs are equally important."

No, they're not, and pretending that they are won't solve the problem. But I'm not making that distinction based on whether they're blue collar or white collar, but based on their actual contribution on a functioning society. I'm not saying any job is useless, just that things are not equally important. Teaching is far more important than flipping burgers in a fast food restaurant, because becoming educated is more important than going out to eat a fast food burger. Being a physician is far more important than being an ad exec, because health care is more important than creating desire for consumer products.

Edited to add, I think your premise is wrong, and there is no country where that is true (except perhaps for one of the 4 remaining Communist countries in the world, and definitely not all the of them).

There is no need to waste time look up that supposed European country where everyone is on the same rate of pay because it does not exist. I have no idea where that bit of nonsense came from. Being entitled to a minimum living wage, which does exist in many countries, is not the same as everyone being on the same rate.

The presumption that everyone working a service industry/menial job because they're not qualified for anything better is completely, demonstrably false anyway.

Always a treat to see/hear such attitudes from people who would very likely never take such jobs, yet are all too quick to deride imaginary 'lesser' people for being so ungrateful and arrogant 🙄

All jobs are the same and of equal value?? OMG. Where on earth does stuff like this come from?

All jobs are the same and of equal value?? The USSR did it in the mid century, now it's called Russia again so this is one place it came from.

Supply and demand. If employers aren't finding good employees, they aren't paying enough. They all *think* they are paying competitively but it's not enough if qualified people aren't applying. It means they found a better offer somewhere else.

This was way, way overdue. Wages have stagnated far behind cost of living for decades now while the people at the top make billions upon billions. Covid relief allowed people to get better jobs, better education, better fields and now employers need to adjust again to attract and retain talent.

Keep in mind that the largest number of people who fell out of the workforce over this past year and 7 months are women. Also, the childcare industry has been diminished significantly, along with home care services for disabled and elderly family members.

Now guess who has the lion's share of those responsibilities?

Women had made up the largest portion of service sector jobs, I believe.

Labor & economic experts have said that the years of gains made by women in the labor sector have been virtually wiped out now.

This was not way overdue. This was COVID.

Perhaps 'way overdue' is not completely appropriate, but many of the issues sectors of our economy are facing right now were emerging before the pandemic, which certainly exacerbated them.

"This was not way overdue."

I think if a market hasn't raised their minimum wage in over 5 years (to keep up with market changes), then it's way overdue.

The pandemic just illustrated the many faults and weakness of systems - problems that could be hidden before.

It was absolutely way overdue. I was making $10 an hour in high school in 1996, and teenagers are making the same amount 25 years later.

Back then my friend rented an apartment for $700 and now it's going for $2100. Wages didn't increase 3x like the cost of renting an apartment did.

"Labor & economic experts have said that the years of gains made by women in the labor sector have been virtually wiped out now."

Source?

I know two middle-aged, two career working hetero couples where the female has a higher salary than the male partner. For both couples, this has been true for a dozen years or more. In the past year, both have become one wage-earner families because each male by choice stopped working.

"I think if a market hasn't raised their minimum wage in over 5 years (to keep up with market changes), then it's way overdue."

The cause of having so many below any defined poverty line in part is how many people have personal skills that are so limited as to only qualify them for minimum wage work. With no plans or goals to improve themselves for better employment. The cause is the predicament, not the minimum wage level, because minimum wage levels in most places will never be high enough to provide adequate means for even bare bones necessities of adult life nor support for a family.

"The pandemic just illustrated the many faults and weakness of systems - problems that could be hidden before."

No "systems" here or in any country abroad had contingency plans and resources in place to adequately deal with a global pandemic with the consequences and magnitude that have been faced in the last 18 months. That includes public health resources and medical care/hospital/medical equipment and pharmaceutical resources. All were overwhelmed. People in the public health biz have been saying that since the start. Nothing was uncovered or illustrated that the experts weren't fully aware of. If you're saying the public wasn't aware, fine. The "public" isn't aware of a lot of things, contingency possibilities and the adequacy or not of plans for same included, and also has little interest in same.

"because minimum wage levels in most places will never be high enough to provide adequate means for even bare bones necessities of adult life nor support for a family."

If the minimum wage level is not enough to keep a person above the poverty line (at full time), then it has no business being considered a minimum wage, in my opinion. That's what the minimum should be - if you're able to work, have reasonably low expenses (i.e. share an apartment, not renting a 1200 sq ft apartment in a hot area), and put in reasonable hours at work (40-45) then you shouldn't be in poverty.......that should be the minimum a society offers its members.

Whether or not that person improves in education or skills shouldn't matter, nor should whether they ever earn above minimum wage in their lifetime. The minimum wage should allow a full time employee to support themselves at least a bit above the poverty line. Otherwise, why have a minimum wage at all?

How accurate is assessing the state of an entire nation's economy by 1, or even several, of one's personal acquaintances???

Such faulty reasoning is sprinkled throughout this discussion by various members, BTW.

And anyone can search the internet to find out just about anything nowadays...just saying

"If the minimum wage level is not enough to keep a person above the poverty line (at full time), then it has no business being considered a minimum wage, in my opinion."

Good, thanks for the qualification. There's a difference between a "minimum wage" and a "living wage". I think you're mixing the two together.

In the US, at least during my lifetime, the minimum wage has never been anywhere near the derived "living wage" level in most metro areas. Depending on household size, - children, partners, etc, the living wage level can be 2X, 3X or more times greater than the minimum wage.

What happens when the legal minimum wage is increased is that employment levels of workers at this payrate decrease (it's too expensive to maintain staffing in the numbers that were affordable at the lower cost) and the prices of goods and services of the businesses the minimum wage level staff work for go up. These effects are presented and demonstrated in most entry-level economics classes, it's basic supply and demand dynamics of price theory.

A principle in another corner of econ theory is that in most cases, more is preferred to less. So, perhaps perversely to you, a way to increase a society's welfare at lower levels is to NOT increase the minimum wage. Because to the extent working at that rate does not provide a living wage, it motivates people to qualify themselves for jobs that pay more that DO provide a better living standard. In other words, the worse the consequences of choosing work at minimum wage levels, the fewer people will make it.

"How accurate is assessing the state of an entire nation's economy by 1, or even several, of one's personal acquaintances?"

Oh my, hold back the vitriol. It was an anecdote and nothing more.

Speaking of sources, I asked you for a source of a pretty broad generalization you made that I think is incorrect. It's quoted in that same comment of mine. Still looking?

I agree with Toronto Vet. I've always believed that anyone doing honest, full time work, no matter what it is, should be able to live comfortably. By that I mean reasonable shelter, enough food, healthcare, etc.

Minimum wage is and never has been intended to be a "living wage". I'm not sure where this idea got started. I had to work two jobs and share an apartment in order to support myself, for many years. I knew plenty of friends that shared in threes. Unless you are very lucky, or very smart, that is how folks get by until they reach that point in their career that they can support themselves. Some people never do get to that point, so they work 2 jobs or whatever they have to do. There is no guaranteed "easy street" and I don't think that there should be either.

"I've always believed that anyone doing honest, full time work, no matter what it is, should be able to live comfortably."

Of course, I agree with this, it's hard not to. Raising the minimum wage has the opposite effect and further penalizes people just above this income level with higher prices.

A different approach, what's done in many European countries. From our starting point today, raise taxes in a meaningful enough amount to better fund technical training and vocational education, to make it easier and cheaper for young adults and those lacking employment to gain new higher level job skills. More importantly, raise taxes to provide tax credits and incentives to employers who will be required to hire those who have completed such programs (a quota of so many per existing employee count or per existing revenue levels) and to conduct apprenticeship programs to train others.

These programs work. In fact, teenagers who aren't happy or excelling with college prep academic subjects are able to start their vocational educations at a high school level, so as to be able to complete years of practical meaningful studies to prepare for good jobs.

Simply raising minimum wages doesn't work.

"Good, thanks for the qualification. There's a difference between a "minimum wage" and a "living wage". I think you're mixing the two together."

No, I'm not mixing the two up, I'm saying I believe they should be the same thing - regardless of whether they've been the same thing in the past or not.

If it "was never intended" to be a living wage (for one person), then why have a minimum wage at all?

"There is no guaranteed "easy street" and I don't think that there should be either."

Working a full time job and living frugally to stay out of poverty isn't an "easy street". Please explain why you think it is, because to me, that's hard work with few if any extras.

"Working a full time job and living frugally to stay out of poverty isn't an "easy street". Please explain why you think it is, because to me, that's hard work with few if any extras."

A guarantee of a self-supporting income, no matter what the job, is absolutely easy street. Honestly - you believe that someone (let's use my first job since that was min wage) wrapping Christmas presents? You think they should be paid a wage that would afford them housing and food and health care and transportation?? I can't even wrap my head around that.

If they work 40 hours a week? Absolutely they should be able to afford shelter and to feed themselves.

Not everyone can gain the skills to get out of minimum wage jobs. There literally aren't enough higher paying jobs available for everyone in the workforce. People will be stuck with minimum wage jobs. And I can't wrap my mind around the mentality of thinking that someone can work full time and still shouldn't be able to keep themselves fed and housed.

I was making minimum wage as a teacher a few years ago. Should we be forcing teachers to work 2 jobs to feed themselves?

It's sad that a lot of people even earning way above minimum wage cannot afford to pay rent and utilities because rent alone is so expensive. Most places here are $1300 a month for a main floor of a. If you earn minimum wage, that's over 75% of your take home pay. Then add up the gas and electric bill. Boom! There goes the rest of your pay. To buy food and pay for transportation you need a second job. So you live your life to work so you can pay bills. Rather than work so you can live a life. It's why we have so many children being raised by daycares and not their parents. Some couples have to work two jobs each to get by. My father always said "it's not how much money you make, it's how you spend that money". Back in the 60's that may have been true. But these days everyone wants your money. EVERYONE. It's almost impossible to save anything for a rainy day. I'm seeing more and more people on FB neighbors pages requesting food because they can't afford to buy a meal. Their pay doesn't last from cheque to cheque anymore. People are struggling and corporations are cutting hours to make larger profits. The little guy who does all the work is the one who is working his tail off and suffering.

"Honestly - you believe that someone (let's use my first job since that was min wage) wrapping Christmas presents? You think they should be paid a wage that would afford them housing and food and health care and transportation??"

If that's a full time job, then yes. If the store thinks that the job isn't worth paying a living wage (i.e. the minimum wage, because to me they should be the same thing), then either they shouldn't offer that job or they should pay someone else overtime to do it (which is probably less than paying someone minimum wage). Someone working full time should at least be able to support themselves and stay out of poverty unless tragedy strikes - not support a family, but at least themselves. I think that's a minimally acceptable standard for human dignity in a rich, developed country.

When I worked minimum ($2 per hour) with rent expenses split with a room mate and a $60/mo loan payment I was left with $20 a week for food and beer. This was enough motivation for me to job hunt. Got a job at an iron foundry at $3.81/hr (very hard job) but I felt rich.

Now when I hear people complain about job pay, benefits or working conditions I always ask how many other jobs they've applied for in the last few months and never had one say they even applied for one. Lacking ambition and motivation is enough alone to keep one in a low paying job including my neighbor. But after 13 yrs of bitching and me telling him to apply for other jobs he finally did last month and now makes $5 more an hour with better benefits and work hours at 62 yrs of age doing the same work.

I'm not sure what minimum wage is but a MC D' here is hiring at $16.50/hr, Arby's $14/hr, and I can drive 3 miles and find 10 "hiring" signs up by good companies. Small towns are different but my saying is "you snooze you lose" and some times it's best to get up and beat the weeds for better jobs or move where they can be found.

"If that's a full time job, then yes. If the store thinks that the job isn't worth paying a living wage (i.e. the minimum wage, because to me they should be the same thing), then either they shouldn't offer that job or they should pay someone else overtime to do it"

Well we simply disagree on this. Completely.

I'm with chessie. We live in the real world, not a world of wishes and hopes.

In this particular case, stores and other employers are businesses, not social welfare agencies. I think the comment shows some naivete - in the real world, wage levels for particular jobs are set at the lowest level necessary to attract job applicants and workers with suitable skills. As mentioned earlier, paying higher wages directly leads to higher prices. Customers make buying choices largely based on prices. Businesses that pay more and charge higher prices than competitors tend to be unsuccessful. Unsuccessful businesses fail and employ no one.