Poll of the Day > Geee... I wonder why there's a labour shortage...

(+) Yeah! (+)

PeterPumpknhead posted...

in a way you do

You do, but not to nearly the same extent as people working front-of-house.

---

Entity13 posted...

There's no such thing as being paid enough for customer service. If there was, we'd make more than our corporate overlords.

It wouldn't be so bad if America didn't have an obsession with 'the customer is always right'.

Unbridled9 posted...

It wouldn't be so bad if America didn't have an obsession with 'the customer is always right'.

Gods, eliminating that idea would be a substantial relief; that and the right to tell lousy customers to fuck off.

---

Also: look at how Sunny chooses not to provide evidence or answers, but rather call everyone else incorrect. This gives me deja vu.

---

Entity13 posted...

Also: look at how Sunny chooses not to provide evidence or answers, but rather call everyone else incorrect. This gives me deja vu.

Is it really deja vu if you can conclusively remember that this is just exactly what's happened every other time he's disagreed with people?

---

adjl posted...

Is it really deja vu if you can conclusively remember that this is just exactly what's happened every other time he's disagreed with people?

Deja vu is just remembering the repetition in your mundane life.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Entry level with training. 20+ an hour. People still don't show up for scheduled interviews.

Entry leveI what though? And is it like a good schedule or s*** that people dont want to work?


---

adjl posted...

You do, but not to nearly the same extent as people working front-of-house.

yeah thats true

---

rexcrk posted...

Entry leveI what though? And is it like a good schedule or s*** that people dont want to work?

Sooo, you got nothin, huh?

---

Sulugnaz posted...

He didn't go begin with, why would it change?

I know, but sometimes its fun to mess with the trolls.

---

rexcrk posted...

Entry leveI what though? And is it like a good schedule or s*** that people dont want to work?

I really feel no need to respond to your disingenuous question. You want to know how I know it's disingenuous because you quoted yourself then posted this gem.

rexcrk posted...

I know, but sometimes its fun to mess with the trolls.

But since you like being proven wrong, if you aren't working and someone offers you a $20/hour entry level position with training, you take it. Imagine if early Americans had your work ethic. Philadelphia, Boston and New York would never have been built.

It's in food manufacturing, all daytime shifts. But if that work is too difficult for you, the job is to good for you.

---

^He got called out and didnt like it

---

The exact response a troll would post.

---

I like loafing around as much as the next guy but I'm not privlaged enough to be able not to work

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's in food manufacturing, all daytime shifts. But if that work is too difficult for you, the job is to good for you.

Perhaps I missed it, but did you ever explain why Wal-mart is having an easier time finding staff than your friends? I would think that wouldn't be the case at all if the job were in fact "to [sic] good."

SunWuKung420 posted...

Imagine if early Americans had your work ethic. Philadelphia, Boston and New York would never have been built.

"You should all be ashamed of yourselves for wanting a better quality of life than 17th-18th century pioneers in 2021."

---

Americans dont work for free Sunny

---

Its no labour shortage TC. Its a wage shortage. Not only that. But I dont blame these people who left all these shitty jobs for shitty pay, and just no benefits at all... you cant call that a life. You also cant call it a life when you get that one place that requires you to work nearly 60 hours a week. On holidays, etc. Theres a lot of stuff wrong there when you have no amount of time to live, but spend all that time working...

TaKun782 posted...

Its no labour shortage TC. Its a wage shortage. Not only that. But I dont blame these people who left all these shitty jobs for shitty pay, and just no benefits at all... you cant call that a life. You also cant call it a life when you get that one place that requires you to work nearly 60 hours a week. On holidays, etc. Theres a lot of stuff wrong there when you have no amount of time to live, but spend all that time working...

I don't think it's a wage shortage so much as it's a VALUE shortage. Back in, like, 1950 getting $15 an hour would have been REALLY good but things were so much cheaper back then. Even in the 2000's $15 an hour would have still been very nice. Yet we're hitting a point where goods and services (especially housing) are spiraling out of control and 15 an hour just doesn't go that far at all. Most people try to live in cities where rates are stupidly high and many have no choice if they want to work (though this will likely change due to remote work). Supply of goods is extremely limited now meaning that those who have money are finding that the same amount from a year or two ago simply goes a lot less. I don't know how anyone believed that inflation would go away cause I can't think of a single instance ever where that's happened. Simply put, thanks to a multitude of factors, we're looking at the start of a hyper-inflation spiral and it's not going to be fixed any time soon. The only hope is that an increase in supply and accessibility will cause a drop in prices, but that's very unlikely. Especially with the upcoming trucker shortage meaning that, even if supply does increase, transporting it will be next to impossible.

It's basically like a person bleeding out through massive blood loss and starvation due to a medical condition that prevents them from getting nutrition. Even if you can staunch the blood loss they will still struggle to survive simply because no matter how much they eat they don't get the nutrients they need. The only hope for survival is to find a work-around to get the nutrients into the body to, hopefully, get them into a state in which the actual problem can be addressed.

Unbridled9 posted...

Most people try to live in cities where rates are stupidly high and many have no choice if they want to work (though this will likely change due to remote work).

It'll change, but not for the better. The people that are struggling to make ends meet generally aren't the ones in jobs where working remotely is an option. Those in remote jobs can move somewhere else and save the money, but living in the city generally offers enough luxuries that there will always be enough demand to keep rents fairly high. If anything, the relatively well-off people leaving more expensive cities are going to end up driving up rents/housing prices in areas that used to be cheaper, making things worse for those in minimum wage positions.

---

adjl posted...

It'll change, but not for the better. The people that are struggling to make ends meet generally aren't the ones in jobs where working remotely is an option. Those in remote jobs can move somewhere else and save the money, but living in the city generally offers enough luxuries that there will always be enough demand to keep rents fairly high. If anything, the relatively well-off people leaving more expensive cities are going to end up driving up rents/housing prices in areas that used to be cheaper, making things worse for those in minimum wage positions.

While I don't disagree with where you're coming from or your conclusion; I feel the wealthy will opt to live in 'luxury' locations. Places that are sea-side, maybe on mountains, or at least tropical areas. You won't see Jeff Bezos relocating his residence to Nebraska.

papercup posted...

Americans dont work for free Sunny

They don't get paid for not working.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

While I don't disagree with where you're coming from or your conclusion; I feel the wealthy will opt to live in 'luxury' locations. Places that are sea-side, maybe on mountains, or at least tropical areas. You won't see Jeff Bezos relocating his residence to Nebraska.

I'm not so much thinking of the ultra-wealthy (they'll continue to live wherever they want; remote work becoming more common has no impact on them because they could already decide to do it whenever they wanted to) as I am the upper-middle class/lower end of rich: Those that are comfortably able to afford high prices for decent housing in cities, but could still see some improvements to their quality of life by moving somewhere where they could get the same sort of home for cheaper. They're going to be inclined to move to places where housing costs have been relatively low because of a lack of high-paying local jobs, if they can continue to work in their high-paying job remotely. That, in turn, drives those housing prices up (not necessarily as high as the cities these people are leaving, since that would kill the demand, but still higher than they were), which is a problem for locals for whom there simply aren't local jobs that pay well enough to afford that housing.

You're not generally going to see people moving to the middle of nowhere (though small coastal towns may see some of it) or anywhere that's otherwise undesirable to live in, but nice places that just don't have the kind of high-paying jobs moderately wealthy people are occupying will attract those that are no longer limited by that.

---

America_Dude posted...

Ahhh yes. The old idea that a person should just accept what little is offered.

Never said that but just because one needs to work hard to get paid well doesn't mean slackers should make a hard workers wage.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

one needs to work hard to get paid well

Ah yes, all people who are rich are rich because they are hard workers

---

adjl posted...

I'm not so much thinking of the ultra-wealthy (they'll continue to live wherever they want; remote work becoming more common has no impact on them because they could already decide to do it whenever they wanted to) as I am the upper-middle class/lower end of rich: Those that are comfortably able to afford high prices for decent housing in cities, but could still see some improvements to their quality of life by moving somewhere where they could get the same sort of home for cheaper. They're going to be inclined to move to places where housing costs have been relatively low because of a lack of high-paying local jobs, if they can continue to work in their high-paying job remotely. That, in turn, drives those housing prices up (not necessarily as high as the cities these people are leaving, since that would kill the demand, but still higher than they were), which is a problem for locals for whom there simply aren't local jobs that pay well enough to afford that housing.

You're not generally going to see people moving to the middle of nowhere (though small coastal towns may see some of it) or anywhere that's otherwise undesirable to live in, but nice places that just don't have the kind of high-paying jobs moderately wealthy people are occupying will attract those that are no longer limited by that.

Unfortunately I think that is true. The sad reality is that most people won't even consider trying to move to the fly-over states even if their job is 100% remote and they can get housing for cheap and such. On the plus side this won't disrupt the local 'ecology' of people, but on the down side all it really means is that we'll see the problems of places like San Fran and LA move out to other towns.

America_Dude posted...

Work harder slaves if you want to be able to have a basic living wage!

Statements like this always scratch my head. I think it's because I have lived in 3 different social classes in my life.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Unfortunately I think that is true. The sad reality is that most people won't even consider trying to move to the fly-over states even if their job is 100% remote and they can get housing for cheap and such. On the plus side this won't disrupt the local 'ecology' of people, but on the down side all it really means is that we'll see the problems of places like San Fran and LA move out to other towns.

Pretty much. It's what's happening here (Halifax, NS): We've got a major housing crisis brought on by overwhelming demand due to people moving here from Toronto and the like because they want to live somewhere cheaper and now have the option. Emergency rent control was put in place for Covid, and ultimately extended until the crisis is resolved despite the premier insisting that it shouldn't be, and many tenants have been explicitly told by their landlords that that rent cap is the only reason their rent isn't doubling on their anniversary date. Homeless camps have become common, as have police raids on them despite a general lack of public support for such extreme measures and a complete absence of anywhere else for them to go.

Left unchecked, I see the endgame of this being that everyone that isn't working in a high-paying job is just going to leave the province, at which point the local economy is going to collapse because minimum wage jobs are the basis for so many essential industries (note that the vast majority of "essential" workers also happen to be workers that everyone insists don't deserve a livable wage. Go figure). It's very much a problem, one which greedy slumlords and developers are ignoring because of the potential to realize short-term gains at the expense of a functional city.

---

adjl posted...

Pretty much. It's what's happening here (Halifax, NS): We've got a major housing crisis brought on by overwhelming demand due to people moving here from Toronto and the like because they want to live somewhere cheaper and now have the option. Emergency rent control was put in place for Covid, and ultimately extended until the crisis is resolved despite the premier insisting that it shouldn't be, and many tenants have been explicitly told by their landlords that that rent cap is the only reason their rent isn't doubling on their anniversary date. Homeless camps have become common, as have police raids on them despite a general lack of public support for such extreme measures and a complete absence of anywhere else for them to go.

Left unchecked, I see the endgame of this being that everyone that isn't working in a high-paying job is just going to leave the province, at which point the local economy is going to collapse because minimum wage jobs are the basis for so many essential industries (note that the vast majority of "essential" workers also happen to be workers that everyone insists don't deserve a livable wage. Go figure). It's very much a problem, one which greedy slumlords and developers are ignoring because of the potential to realize short-term gains at the expense of a functional city.

I visited Halifax last month and was shocked by the amount of homeless camps I saw.

The fact that the housing/wage crisis has been ignored for so long and continues to be ignored is fucking unreal. When people start burning shit down, I can't say I'll blame them.

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

I visited Halifax last month and was shocked by the amount of homeless camps I saw.

The fact that the housing/wage crisis has been ignored for so long and continues to be ignored is fucking unreal. When people start burning shit down, I can't say I'll blame them.

Well, it's not that easy TO fix.

Let's say you want to build affordable housing. We'll ignore the question of what 'affordable' actually is and if this means mini-houses, apartment complexes, or something else. Where are you going to build it? You can't just throw people out of their homes. You'd need to get viable land in order to do so. Maybe you're lucky and in a city with a decent chunk of land that's abandoned and under city control but for most cities this means they'd need to buy the property from their current owners, tear up things like parks, or acquire new land on the outskirts of the city. This can get STUPIDLY expensive especially if the current owner, for whatever reason, doesn't want to move. It would suck to plop down several million dollars to buy the land to build a new apartment only to be stopped because the Jenkins decide that they wanna keep Grandpappy's house ruining your whole plan.

Then it needs to be zoned properly and that can easily take several months and potentially involve things like public hearings. Worse, a lot of people, while they may champion affordable housing, don't want said housing actually built in their neighborhood. They don't mind it being built in some other neighborhood where it's not going to affect their property value and whatnot, but in THEIR neighborhood? Nope. So expect a LOT of unhappy residents voicing their complaints, voting against, threatening to not re-elect any politician who supports it, and whatever else you can think of. Politicians will basically get brownie points for championing affordable housing but also striking it down until it's built in some garbage part of the city no one cares about (and even then expect massive pushback from the people who live/work there, just fewer people able to push back than elsewhere).

Once that's all done you need to get things like contractors to build said housing and, well, the homeless ain't gonna pay for it. They don't have money in the first place. That means it's all going on the City's bill with little to no chance of any return investment on the cash. Maybe some people will be able to constantly pay rent but it's unlikely the majority will be able to.

And, once it's all done, you then still have the problem of KEEPING it affordable which is a lot harder than it sounds. It's going to take careful management and may even mean restricting the entire area from increasing in value just so that the people who live there can continue to live there.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I fully believe everyone should be able to afford a home of their own in at least some manner instead of having to rent or go homeless. I'm saying that, if you think it's as easy as the city going 'put in affordable houses at this spot and here's a sack of money that will cover the cost' then you're wrong.

Blightzkrieg posted...

I visited Halifax last month and was shocked by the amount of homeless camps I saw.

And that's after a massive police raid (which cost enough to fully fund one shelter's annual operating expenses five times over, raising some serious questions about priorities) that involved forcibly evicting people from their tents and destroying the temporary shelter that had been erected over the last year, pepper spraying two minors in the process.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Well, it's not that easy TO fix.

Let's say you want to build affordable housing. We'll ignore the question of what 'affordable' actually is and if this means mini-houses, apartment complexes, or something else. Where are you going to build it? You can't just throw people out of their homes. You'd need to get viable land in order to do so. Maybe you're lucky and in a city with a decent chunk of land that's abandoned and under city control but for most cities this means they'd need to buy the property from their current owners, tear up things like parks, or acquire new land on the outskirts of the city. This can get STUPIDLY expensive especially if the current owner, for whatever reason, doesn't want to move. It would suck to plop down several million dollars to buy the land to build a new apartment only to be stopped because the Jenkins decide that they wanna keep Grandpappy's house ruining your whole plan.

Then it needs to be zoned properly and that can easily take several months and potentially involve things like public hearings. Worse, a lot of people, while they may champion affordable housing, don't want said housing actually built in their neighborhood. They don't mind it being built in some other neighborhood where it's not going to affect their property value and whatnot, but in THEIR neighborhood? Nope. So expect a LOT of unhappy residents voicing their complaints, voting against, threatening to not re-elect any politician who supports it, and whatever else you can think of. Politicians will basically get brownie points for championing affordable housing but also striking it down until it's built in some garbage part of the city no one cares about (and even then expect massive pushback from the people who live/work there, just fewer people able to push back than elsewhere).

Once that's all done you need to get things like contractors to build said housing and, well, the homeless ain't gonna pay for it. They don't have money in the first place. That means it's all going on the City's bill with little to no chance of any return investment on the cash. Maybe some people will be able to constantly pay rent but it's unlikely the majority will be able to.

And, once it's all done, you then still have the problem of KEEPING it affordable which is a lot harder than it sounds. It's going to take careful management and may even mean restricting the entire area from increasing in value just so that the people who live there can continue to live there.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I fully believe everyone should be able to afford a home of their own in at least some manner instead of having to rent or go homeless. I'm saying that, if you think it's as easy as the city going 'put in affordable houses at this spot and here's a sack of money that will cover the cost' then you're wrong.

no one thinks it is easy stop posting manifestos to a strawman minority twitter mob

its gonna be hard and complicated as fuck but whats right is right. Stop pushing back on fucking everything

---

UnMead posted...

no one thinks it is easy stop posting manifestos to a strawman minority twitter mob

its gonna be hard and complicated as fuck but whats right is right. Stop pushing back on fucking everything

I'm sorry. Have YOU spent over a decade of sitting in on planning & zoning meetings having to record down every little detail? Have YOU had to sit down and watch a hospital get denied the ability to have a sign posted because one old man struggles to sleep at night because his blinds can't keep the light out? Have you watched an application to build a charity kitchen almost get denied because a commissioner saw a U-haul truck parked outside and didn't want them to build in the abandoned building? THAT'S JUST BEEN THE PAST TWO MONTHS FOR ME! And that's not even everything! I seriously had a City Council Member, in a city that has a problem with housing, poverty, and the like, campaign against allowing people to modify their houses/back yards to allow for additional housing units. So if you had a finished basement and wanted to rent it out, too bad. I think her reasoning was because she didn't want it devaluing the neighborhood and something about parking, but I was too furious at her to really care.

The simple fact is that, no matter how good something like 'affordable housing' sounds, it's going to get gunked up to hell in City Hall, it's going to go through almost at least half a year of zoning applications and possibly several appeals, a public hearing in which pretty much every resident of the neighborhood will come out against it and insist it be built elsewhere, and all for a fiscal loss to the city. It might see it pay back in the long term and an overall improvement of the quality of life and a bunch of positives, but you're going to have to rip through a crap-ton of government red-tape, political grand-standing, and the realization that no one wants it built in their back-yard.

This isn't a 'what's right is right' this is a 'Okay. It's right. How do you want to get past hurdle 1? Actually getting the city on board with building it?'

Edit: Near verb-atem snippet of text from that meeting. Only change is removing the city name.

'The greatest concern I believe I've seen, although I'm not 100% accurate, is that pretty much every single one family home in XXXXXXX is going to be allowed to create a second unit of housing on the existing lot by either creating one in the existing home, including adding basement apartments or build a cottage in the backyard, which also would, in my would be affected in huge swaths of my district, and prohibiting someone for purchasing a lot in mixed multi use residential zones.'

Yes I have obviously done all of those things

I am a titan of industry, Roth IRA, LLC

---

We dont need city hall to be good to each other and crowdfund some structures and implement UBI

---

UnMead posted...

We dont need city hall to be good to each other and crowdfund some structures and implement UBI

You can't do that without getting through zoning regulations and applications or without government oversight and management respectively. If you're telling me that we should ignore government for things that have no choice but to go through government then you're going to fail hard.

Unbridled9 posted...

You can't do that without getting through zoning regulations and applications or without government oversight and management respectively. If you're telling me that we should ignore government for things that have no choice but to go through government then you're going to fail hard.

not even the government can stop the will of the people

and when that will is unified and benevolent, thats a good thing

---

UnMead posted...

not even the government can stop the will of the people

and when that will is unified and benevolent, thats a good thing

While I agree with u in theory, getting everybody on the same page is no small task. We aren't even reading from the same book.

Unbridled9 posted...

It's not that simple. You tax the rich too much and they'll just leave for another nation that doesn't have as high taxes. Tax their companies too much and they'll pull out. You can only go so far with taxes.

Every country other than the U.S. taxes the rich way more than we do. They wouldn't leave because there is nowhere else to go. I suppose they could try living in space, but that would drain the rich people of all of their money before they got a working space colony.