When news media whine about 'labor shortages' it simply means employers don't want to pay existing workers as much
useful...@yahoo.com
Rod Speed
and you dont even get any applicants at all for a particular well paid job.
useful...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Story at http://Muvy.org
ro...@telus.net
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mindless stuff. Its also seen when the unemployment rate is very low
>and you dont even get any applicants at all for a particular well paid job.
LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the job
opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen. The actual
meaning of "labor shortage" is "wages not declining fast enough
relative to asset prices to suit the rich."
-- Roy L
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Mindless stuff. Its also seen when the unemployment rate is very low
>> and you dont even get any applicants at all for a particular well paid job.
> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
> The actual meaning of "labor shortage" is "wages not
> declining fast enough relative to asset prices to suit the rich."
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that stupid claim.
Mark M.
Any job can be filled if you're willing to pay enough. When employers say lower
wages are better what they really mean is they want to pay lower wages relative to
other employers. Low wages and high unemployment are indicators of a poor economy
with high social service costs and high crime. When wages are higher economy wide,
workers can afford to consume more products, which translates into greater overall
prosperity, lower social service costs, and lower crime.
Mark M.
John A. Weeks III
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
> > job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>
> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
If you are not getting applicants in this market, then you
are doing something very wrong. You either are not putting
the ads in the right place, you are putting in requirements
that are not needed, you are paying far under market, or your
company has such a bad reputation that people don't want to
work there. Which is it?
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Rod Speed
>>>> Mindless stuff. Its also seen when the unemployment rate is very low and you dont even get any applicants at all
>>>> for a particular well paid job.
>>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
>>> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
>> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
>> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
>>> The actual meaning of "labor shortage" is "wages not
>>> declining fast enough relative to asset prices to suit the rich."
>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that stupid claim.
> Any job can be filled if you're willing to pay enough.
Irrelevant to the mindlessly silly crap in the subject line.
> When employers say lower wages are better what they really mean is they want to pay lower wages relative to other
> employers.
Irrelevant to the mindlessly silly crap in the subject line.
> Low wages and high unemployment are indicators of a poor economy with high social service costs and high crime. When
> wages are higher economy wide, workers can afford to consume more products, which translates into greater overall
> prosperity, lower social service costs, and lower crime.
Irrelevant to the mindlessly silly crap in the subject line.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
>>> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
>> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
>> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
> If you are not getting applicants in this market,
> then you are doing something very wrong.
Or the economy is booming.
> You either are not putting the ads in the right place, you
> are putting in requirements that are not needed, you are
> paying far under market, or your company has such a bad
> reputation that people don't want to work there. Which is it?
Usual mindlessly silly binary drivel.
The real reason is that some of our areas have an unemployment
rate of 1.x% and a desperate shortage of adequate accomodation
and plenty arent interested in 'living' in tents and trailers for long.
Too_Many_Tools
> In article <5kgch9F3jkg...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
> > > job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>
> > Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
> > qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
> > to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
>
> If you are not getting applicants in this market, then you
> are doing something very wrong. You either are not putting
> the ads in the right place, you are putting in requirements
> that are not needed, you are paying far under market, or your
> company has such a bad reputation that people don't want to
> work there. Which is it?
>
> -john-
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ======================================================================
All of the above.
Employers have a surprise coming.
TMT
John A. Weeks III
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
> >>> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>
> >> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
> >> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
> >> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
>
> > If you are not getting applicants in this market,
> > then you are doing something very wrong.
>
> Or the economy is booming.
At least maybe where you are located. Here in the Twin Cities,
things are starting to look like the dust bowl years. We have
lost 50% of our high tech jobs since the year 2000, with entire
segments such as contract manufacturing evaporating, and
information technology jobs being moved overseas.
> > You either are not putting the ads in the right place, you
> > are putting in requirements that are not needed, you are
> > paying far under market, or your company has such a bad
> > reputation that people don't want to work there. Which is it?
>
> Usual mindlessly silly binary drivel.
>
> The real reason is that some of our areas have an unemployment
> rate of 1.x% and a desperate shortage of adequate accomodation
> and plenty arent interested in 'living' in tents and trailers for long.
Why not post where you are located? I'd live in an RV if I could
have my 1999 and year 2000 level income again. In fact, I'd live
in an RV to get half of what I was earning back then. Or why
doesn't your company recruit in places where there are so many
excess workers like Minneapolis and Detroit? Or even better,
given that over 60% of office space is vacant in downtown St. Paul,
why not move some of your operations to the twin cities. You can
get cheap class A and class B office space, workers standing in
line waiting for jobs, and the government will toss in incentives
in both cash and tax avoidance to help you move.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
>>>>> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>>>> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
>>>> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
>>>> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
>>> If you are not getting applicants in this market,
>>> then you are doing something very wrong.
>> Or the economy is booming.
> At least maybe where you are located.
No maybe about it.
> Here in the Twin Cities, things are starting to look like the dust
> bowl years. We have lost 50% of our high tech jobs since the
> year 2000, with entire segments such as contract manufacturing
> evaporating, and information technology jobs being moved overseas.
Irrelevant to particular fields like truck driving etc etc etc.
>>> You either are not putting the ads in the right place, you
>>> are putting in requirements that are not needed, you are
>>> paying far under market, or your company has such a bad
>>> reputation that people don't want to work there. Which is it?
>> Usual mindlessly silly binary drivel.
>> The real reason is that some of our areas have an unemployment
>> rate of 1.x% and a desperate shortage of adequate accomodation
>> and plenty arent interested in 'living' in tents and trailers for long.
> Why not post where you are located?
Irrelevant to that stupid claim in the subject line that is being discussed.
> I'd live in an RV if I could have my 1999 and year 2000 level income again.
That isnt necessarily that viable if you have kids.
> In fact, I'd live in an RV to get half of what I was earning back then.
Yep, some do just that, and plenty dont, which is what produces the
dearth of applicants for particular jobs being advertised at times.
> Or why doesn't your company recruit in places where there
> are so many excess workers like Minneapolis and Detroit?
I never said a word about my company and that is precisely
what is done, in places which have many more excess
workers than those places too, outside the country.
They're so desperate for applicant they they are happy to pay their air fares etc.
> Or even better, given that over 60% of office space is vacant in downtown
> St. Paul, why not move some of your operations to the twin cities.
Because these are usually operations that cant move.
> You can get cheap class A and class B office space, workers
> standing in line waiting for jobs, and the government will toss in
> incentives in both cash and tax avoidance to help you move.
Useless if you're a mining operation that needs apes to drive haulpaks etc.
In spades when you need apes to drive by far
the biggest iron ore trains in the entire world.
You've got your parochial blinkers on, again.
onionhead
> In article <5kgch9F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the job
>> > opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>>
>> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get qualified
>> staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response to their
>> national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
The trucking companies have only themselves to blame for that. They got
themselves a big fat exemption from the labor laws years ago and never
miss a chance to use it to screw their drivers. As a result, working
conditions are right out of the slave-labor factories of the late 18th
century. The only difference is that truckers can quit when they get fed
up: 95% of would-be truckers see the writing on the wall and quit in
their first 30 days.
> If you are not getting applicants in this market, then you are doing
> something very wrong. You either are not putting the ads in the right
> place, you are putting in requirements that are not needed, you are paying
> far under market, or your company has such a bad reputation that people
> don't want to work there. Which is it?
Or the applicants keep finding out that Rod works there.
Rod Speed
> John A. Weeks III wrote
>>>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or
>>>> the job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>>> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
>>> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
>>> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
> The trucking companies have only themselves to blame for that.
> They got themselves a big fat exemption from the labor laws
> years ago and never miss a chance to use it to screw their drivers.
> As a result, working conditions are right out of the slave-labor
> factories of the late 18th century. The only difference is that
> truckers can quit when they get fed up: 95% of would-be truckers
> see the writing on the wall and quit in their first 30 days.
Different country.
>> If you are not getting applicants in this market, then you are doing
>> something very wrong. You either are not putting the ads in the
>> right place, you are putting in requirements that are not needed,
>> you are paying far under market, or your company has such a bad
>> reputation that people don't want to work there. Which is it?
> Or the applicants keep finding out that Rod works there.
I dont.
William Souden
Phred
>John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>> Or even better, given that over 60% of office space is vacant in downtown
>> St. Paul, why not move some of your operations to the twin cities.
>
>Because these are usually operations that cant move.
>
>> You can get cheap class A and class B office space, workers
>> standing in line waiting for jobs, and the government will toss in
>> incentives in both cash and tax avoidance to help you move.
>
>Useless if you're a mining operation that needs apes to drive haulpaks etc.
They say you get monkeys if you pay peanuts. As these guys are
earning >$80,000 p.a. I guess that's why you get those big apes. ;-)
Incidentally, mate of mine was looking for a carpenter recently for a
job in PNG. No one around here was interested unless it was at least
$10,000/month cash in hand after tax. As he said, that was a bit
rich; they were hoping to get one for about $8,000/month after tax. :)
[For the record: at the present time AUD10,000 is about USD8,300.]
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
professorchaos
Once again Roy shows he does not understand economics. Wages and asset
prices are not related on the market. Differences between rental rates
(the opportunity cost of capital) and wages affect demand for labor not
the quantity demanded. Rental rates on capital and the amount of capital
are fixed when deriving a short run labor supply curve.
A shortage is defined as when Quantity demanded exceeds Quantity
supplied. This MEANS WAGES ARE TOO LOW!! Not too high. A shortage occurs
in the labor market when employers want to hire more workers than are
available. Market prices must rise to clear the shortage. Given enough
time they will rise.
professorchaos
> Rod Speed wrote:
> Low wages and high
> unemployment are indicators of a poor economy with high social service
> costs and high crime.
Low wages and high unemployment are indicative of that labor demand has
increased and the market has yet to adjust. There has been something
that has happened that makes employers want to hire more but the wages
have yet to adjust.
professorchaos
> If you are not getting applicants in this market, then you
> are doing something very wrong. You either are not putting
> the ads in the right place, you are putting in requirements
> that are not needed, you are paying far under market, or your
> company has such a bad reputation that people don't want to
> work there. Which is it?
>
> -john-
>
There is another possibility that the market simply has not adjusted.
Economic analysis will tell you wages will rise when labor demands rise.
This does not mean immediately. There are some workers who will take the
new jobs advertised at lower rates when labor demand rises but it may
take a period of time for employers to realize they can not get enough
employees at the current wage.
It takes time to adjust. Businesses do not instantly know labor demand
has shifted and the new market wage will rise. They advertise at what
they think is the going rate. If they can not find workers then they
must raise the rate. As the rate goes up they want to hire less than
they would given the new demand and the old price until labor supply
equals labor demand.
clams casino
Firstly, you need to ignore Rod - he's not really up to speed, being
nearly always wrong and / or makes a profession about trolling the
opposite side of any issue just to be annoying.
Secondly, isn't that statement backwards? Should it not read "Low
wages and high unemployment are indicative of that labor demand has
decreased"? When there is an over supply of workers and/or a reduced
demand for labor (less jobs), the employer can hold back on wages & take
on those willing to work for less. Furthermore, employers don't hire
because wages are lower, but rather because they need workers. When
there is an excess number applying for that job, they can usually find
qualified workers at a lower wage.
professorchaos
> professorchaos wrote:
>
>> Mark M. wrote:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Low wages and high unemployment are indicators of a poor economy with
>>> high social service costs and high crime.
>>
>>
>> Low wages and high unemployment are indicative of that labor demand
>> has increased and the market has yet to adjust. There has been
>> something that has happened that makes employers want to hire more but
>> the wages have yet to adjust.
>
>
> Firstly, you need to ignore Rod - he's not really up to speed, being
> nearly always wrong and / or makes a profession about trolling the
> opposite side of any issue just to be annoying.
>
> Secondly, isn't that statement backwards? Should it not read "Low
> wages and high unemployment are indicative of that labor demand has
> decreased"?
I admit I committed a bonehead rookie mistake in assuming low employment
meant high unemployment. Unemployment is actually not the opposite of
employment. Unemployment is the percentage of the labor force looking
for work and not finding it. So if the labor market is in equilibrium
the unemployment rate will be low, near the natural rate. This is
because labor supply = labor demand.
I admit I committed a fallacy by confusing low employment with high
unemployment. They are not the same thing. Quantity supplied > Quantity
demanded is a shortage. So I am not sure what I was thinking when I
wrote this. Because an increase in labor supply employment is lower than
it should be. But as you correctly point out this does not mean
unemployment is high.
Your statement is almost correct. However, the wages would still be too
high if unemployment was high. So the decrease in wages would take care
of unemployment. The wages would be too high at this point.
The bonehead mistake is equating unemployment with employment. The
simple example I have shown my students many time should have made sure
I didn't make that mistake. The example is this. Assume the labor force
is 10 people and 90 people are out of the labor force. 9 people are
employed. 1 is unemployed. The unemployment rate is 10%.
Now that lets assume that economic conditions improve and wages rise.
Now there are 20 jobs available but 40 people now enter the labor force.
The unemployment rate is 30/50 > 10%. Unemployment rises as new jobs are
created. Therefore unemployment rates tell us nothing of employment.
My bone head mistake was assuming employment said something about
unemployment. It does not.
Unemployment is a result of a surplus in the labor market. In the
situation I described unemployment would be non-existance.
So the statement low wages and unemployment does not really make sense
in a market environment. Not if you define low wages as compared to the
going rate. Obviously the term low wages here refers to a normative
statement that wages are low not low as compared to market wages.
So it is impossible to have wages lower than market rates and high
unemployment. It is possible to have wages higher than market rates and
unemployment be high and still have low wages if you use some subjective
standard to market wages.
The real confusion here is the thread talks about shortages then claims
unemployment is high. If a shortage in labor exist then unemployment is
low. You can't have a shortage in labor and have unemployment by
definition. Unemployment means there are more people looking for work
than jobs available. A short means more jobs available than people
looking for work.
> When there is an over supply of workers and/or a reduced
> demand for labor (less jobs), the employer can hold back on wages & take
> on those willing to work for less.
This does not cause unemployment. It would decrease unemployment if they
were dropping the wage rate to hire more people.
> Furthermore, employers don't hire
> because wages are lower, but rather because they need workers.
Ah but when wages are lower hiring more workers is profitable. The cost
of production decreases so the profit optimizing output increases. In
order to get the new profit maximizing output they need more workers. So
they need more workers because wages dropped.
Note this is not the only reason they may need more workers. The price
of the final good could have risen, raw materials could have risen in
price, new technologies could be in place. All of these would cause
firms to want more workers and increase labor demand.
> When
> there is an excess number applying for that job, they can usually find
> qualified workers at a lower wage.
In other words you are making the classical assumption that there is no
friction in labor markets. Firms simply lower wages when unemployment
exist. So the market clears at lower wages because LS = LD. Keynesians
certainly do not see it this way because there are efficiency wages,
implicit contracts, or workers will resist a decrease in wages,
unemployment persist because the wage stays too high. That is the
backbone of the Keynesian, and New Keynesian, argument.
Rod Speed
>>> Or even better, given that over 60% of office space is vacant in downtown
>>> St. Paul, why not move some of your operations to the twin cities.
>> Because these are usually operations that cant move.
>>> You can get cheap class A and class B office space, workers
>>> standing in line waiting for jobs, and the government will toss in
>>> incentives in both cash and tax avoidance to help you move.
>> Useless if you're a mining operation that needs apes to drive haulpaks etc.
> They say you get monkeys if you pay peanuts. As these guys are
> earning >$80,000 p.a. I guess that's why you get those big apes. ;-)
True. In spades with those proof of Darwin's theory, footballers.
> Incidentally, mate of mine was looking for a carpenter recently for a
> job in PNG. No one around here was interested unless it was at least
> $10,000/month cash in hand after tax. As he said, that was a bit
> rich; they were hoping to get one for about $8,000/month after tax. :)
> [For the record: at the present time AUD10,000 is about USD8,300.]
And then there's getting them to work in Iraq.
jo...@phred.org
while waiting for a ferry -- a man complaining that they'd tried to hire
only legal labor for picking a short-season harvest, but even at
$18/hour (plus overtime) they had not been able to get field labor
willing to work hard 7 days a week for three weeks to get it out of the
fields while it was still good.
They gave up and called a crew boss who was known to hire illegal
workers, and had the field full in no time.
He figured that by subcontracting, the workers couldn't be getting more
than $12 of that $18, and probably weren't getting overtime pay, but he
needed to get the broccoli in before it bolted. But he couldn't find
legal workers for a thousand a week, and couldn't afford to pay more
than that for harvest labor.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
Don Klipstein
>Overheard an interesting conversation on labor shortages this morning
>while waiting for a ferry -- a man complaining that they'd tried to hire
>only legal labor for picking a short-season harvest, but even at
>$18/hour (plus overtime) they had not been able to get field labor
>willing to work hard 7 days a week for three weeks to get it out of the
>fields while it was still good.
>
>They gave up and called a crew boss who was known to hire illegal
>workers, and had the field full in no time.
>
>He figured that by subcontracting, the workers couldn't be getting more
>than $12 of that $18, and probably weren't getting overtime pay, but he
>needed to get the broccoli in before it bolted. But he couldn't find
>legal workers for a thousand a week, and couldn't afford to pay more
>than that for harvest labor.
What time of the year was that? If this happens between second week of
May and the week before Labor Day, try advertising the job in the
University City section of Philadelphia. I suspect there are at least a
dozen or two similar areas elsewhere in the USA.
For that matter, one of the universities in Philadelphia's "University
City" has its fall quarter starting after Labor Day, since its summer
quarter is finishing up finals on the Saturday of Labor Day weekend - a
couple thousand incoming freshmen free to pick brocolli into the first
full week of September to get some badly needed money if that's when it
has to be picked.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Phred
>Phred <ppnerkDE...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>
>>>> Or even better, given that over 60% of office space is vacant in downtown
>>>> St. Paul, why not move some of your operations to the twin cities.
>
>>> Because these are usually operations that cant move.
>
>>>> You can get cheap class A and class B office space, workers
>>>> standing in line waiting for jobs, and the government will toss in
>>>> incentives in both cash and tax avoidance to help you move.
>
>>> Useless if you're a mining operation that needs apes to drive haulpaks etc.
>
>> They say you get monkeys if you pay peanuts. As these guys are
>> earning >$80,000 p.a. I guess that's why you get those big apes. ;-)
>
>True. In spades with those proof of Darwin's theory, footballers.
Interesting you should point that out. There's a pic in the back page
bottom LH corner of today's edition of the tabloid from the tourist
ghetto of Cairns [_The Cairns Post_ 10 Sep 2007, p.72] that would
convince even the most skeptical of man's close relationship with the
great apes. And the guy's only a *coach* of an AFL team! Quite
possibly his players *are* apes. ;-)
>> Incidentally, mate of mine was looking for a carpenter recently for a
>> job in PNG. No one around here was interested unless it was at least
>> $10,000/month cash in hand after tax. As he said, that was a bit
>> rich; they were hoping to get one for about $8,000/month after tax. :)
>> [For the record: at the present time AUD10,000 is about USD8,300.]
>
>And then there's getting them to work in Iraq.
Yeah. At least in PNG it's only a short hop for retreat. (Actually,
parts of the place probably aren't too bad. I know a couple of
blokes who've spent fairly long stints in mines in the highlands
for example [one's still there]. Just keep out of Moresby!)
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Phred <ppnerkDE...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>>>>> Or even better, given that over 60% of office space is vacant in downtown
>>>>> St. Paul, why not move some of your operations to the twin cities.
>>>> Because these are usually operations that cant move.
>>>>> You can get cheap class A and class B office space, workers
>>>>> standing in line waiting for jobs, and the government will toss in
>>>>> incentives in both cash and tax avoidance to help you move.
>>>> Useless if you're a mining operation that needs apes to drive haulpaks etc.
>>> They say you get monkeys if you pay peanuts. As these guys are
>>> earning >$80,000 p.a. I guess that's why you get those big apes. ;-)
>> True. In spades with those proof of Darwin's theory, footballers.
> Interesting you should point that out. There's a pic in the back page
> bottom LH corner of today's edition of the tabloid from the tourist
> ghetto of Cairns [_The Cairns Post_ 10 Sep 2007, p.72] that would
> convince even the most skeptical of man's close relationship with the
> great apes. And the guy's only a *coach* of an AFL team! Quite
> possibly his players *are* apes. ;-)
Its even worse with League rather than AFL and soccer |-)
>>> Incidentally, mate of mine was looking for a carpenter recently for
>>> a job in PNG. No one around here was interested unless it was at
>>> least $10,000/month cash in hand after tax. As he said, that was a
>>> bit rich; they were hoping to get one for about $8,000/month after tax. :)
>>> [For the record: at the present time AUD10,000 is about USD8,300.]
>> And then there's getting them to work in Iraq.
> Yeah. At least in PNG it's only a short hop for retreat. (Actually,
> parts of the place probably aren't too bad. I know a couple of
> blokes who've spent fairly long stints in mines in the highlands
> for example [one's still there]. Just keep out of Moresby!)
Some of the highlands have got so bad that even the cops have given up on
them as being too dangerous with the apes now with AKs etc. Things have
got a lot more gung ho now, nothing like Joe Lahey's Neighbours anymore.
The mines arent so bad, it isnt that hard to keep the locals down, until
the shit hits the fan very spectacularly indeed like with Panguna etc.
It isnt hard to see why many prefer the Pilbara etc where the worst
that can happen is a decent cyclone or two and living in a tent etc.
ro...@telus.net
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> Mindless stuff. Its also seen when the unemployment rate is very low
>>> and you dont even get any applicants at all for a particular well paid job.
>
>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
>> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>
>Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
>qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
>to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
Hehe. Truck driving for a private contractor in Iraq, perhaps....?
-- Roy L
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> ro...@telus.net wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Mindless stuff. Its also seen when the unemployment rate is very low
>>>> and you dont even get any applicants at all for a particular well paid job.
>>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
>>> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
>> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
>> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
> Hehe. Truck driving for a private contractor in Iraq, perhaps....?
Nope, in a country thats never had a civil war, or even
riots that have needed the troops to be called out either.
ulti...@hotmail.com
> >Mindless stuff. Its also seen when the unemployment rate is very low
> >and you dont even get any applicants at all for a particular well paid job.
>
> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the job
> opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen. The actual
> meaning of "labor shortage" is "wages not declining fast enough
> relative to asset prices to suit the rich."
>
Big media is in bed with their corporate johns, so I would take
anything they say with the entire shaker of salt, and go look for the
other parts of the story they left out.
BeaForoni
> Overheard an interesting conversation on labor shortages this morning
> while waiting for a ferry -- a man complaining that they'd tried to hire
> only legal labor for picking a short-season harvest, but even at
> $18/hour (plus overtime) they had not been able to get field labor
> willing to work hard 7 days a week for three weeks to get it out of the
> fields while it was still good.
>
> They gave up and called a crew boss who was known to hire illegal
> workers, and had the field full in no time.
>
> He figured that by subcontracting, the workers couldn't be getting more
> than $12 of that $18, and probably weren't getting overtime pay, but he
> needed to get the broccoli in before it bolted. But he couldn't find
> legal workers for a thousand a week, and couldn't afford to pay more
> than that for harvest labor.
>
> --
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
> Braze your own bicycle frames. See
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
A thousand dollars a week? Wow!!! That's more than $50K a year. Wait,
what kind of benifits? None, eh? Transportaion? No. Workmens' comp,
disability or OSHA?
So this 'farmer' is unable to find enough unemployed Americans
willing to work temp and at a rate that is comprable to regular about
$9.00 an hour and that is in the middle of nowhere so the worker needs
a car and insurance and yet has no assurances of job safety. Might
want to consider most Americans never have picked food nor even know
anyone who has and so can't picture himself doing it.
The 'farmer' might want to become involved with the community. There
he would be able to find a population who wouldn't mind making extra
money. He may have to adjust his crops around school schedules. I can
imagine a church group pooling their labor for a cause. The food was
picked before without so much illegal labor, and if it can't be now
without labor costing too much I am sure so smart person will design a
machine to do the work.
I say 'farmer' because he is more like a plantation owner who can
make a living only by using slave labor.
The Trucker
> professorchaos wrote:
>
>> Mark M. wrote:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Low wages and high unemployment are indicators of a poor economy with
>>> high social service costs and high crime.
>>
>>
>> Low wages and high unemployment are indicative of that labor demand
>> has increased and the market has yet to adjust. There has been
>> something that has happened that makes employers want to hire more but
>> the wages have yet to adjust.
>
>
> Firstly, you need to ignore Rod - he's not really up to speed, being
> nearly always wrong and / or makes a profession about trolling the
> opposite side of any issue just to be annoying.
You will probably find that these two birds (Rod the Robot and Prof Chaos)
make a pretty good team if you are after total irrationality.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
The Trucker
> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
>>>>>> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>
>>>>> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
>>>>> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
>>>>> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
>
>>>> If you are not getting applicants in this market,
>>>> then you are doing something very wrong.
>
>>> Or the economy is booming.
>
>> At least maybe where you are located.
>
> No maybe about it.
>
>> Here in the Twin Cities, things are starting to look like the dust
>> bowl years. We have lost 50% of our high tech jobs since the
>> year 2000, with entire segments such as contract manufacturing
>> evaporating, and information technology jobs being moved overseas.
>
> Irrelevant to particular fields like truck driving etc etc etc.
Bush just took care of this "problem". Ya can't outsource the jobs and
the immigration quotas are full and no H2B or "guest worker" program so he
has decided to just use Mexican nationals to operate all the OTR trucks in
the US. Nothing left but short haul monkey shit for the millions of US
drivers. We gotta keep that oil use up and the only way we can do it is
by screwing the drivers out of their wages. I am retired. But I really
feel for the guys that aren't. I did everything I could do in 2004 to tell
these guys that Bush was gonna stick in em just like he's doing. But the
air was full of Swift Boat shit paid for by the oil people, and the
country was at *"WAR"*.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
>>>>>>> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>>>>>> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
>>>>>> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
>>>>>> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
>>>>> If you are not getting applicants in this market,
>>>>> then you are doing something very wrong.
>>>> Or the economy is booming.
>>> At least maybe where you are located.
>> No maybe about it.
>>> Here in the Twin Cities, things are starting to look like the dust
>>> bowl years. We have lost 50% of our high tech jobs since the
>>> year 2000, with entire segments such as contract manufacturing
>>> evaporating, and information technology jobs being moved overseas.
>> Irrelevant to particular fields like truck driving etc etc etc.
> Bush just took care of this "problem".
Nope.
> Ya can't outsource the jobs and the immigration quotas are full
> and no H2B or "guest worker" program so he has decided to just
> use Mexican nationals to operate all the OTR trucks in the US.
Not even possible.
> Nothing left but short haul monkey shit for the millions of US drivers.
Pure fantasy.
> We gotta keep that oil use up and the only way we
> can do it is by screwing the drivers out of their wages.
Mindless conspiracy theory.
> I am retired.
No surprise that you got the bums rush.
> But I really feel for the guys that aren't.
More fool you.
> I did everything I could do in 2004 to tell these guys
> that Bush was gonna stick in em just like he's doing.
No one was silly enough to believe you, just like they
arent with your silly claims about smaller districts either.
> But the air was full of Swift Boat shit paid for by
> the oil people, and the country was at *"WAR"*.
If you didnt actually notice what happened on 9/11....
Rod Speed
Doesnt work here. They have to use illegals anyway.
> There he would be able to find a population who wouldn't mind making extra money.
You actually tried doing that sort of work when the temperature is over 100F for 10 days in a row ?
> He may have to adjust his crops around school schedules.
Not even possible.
> I can imagine a church group pooling their labor for a cause.
You've got a very vivid imagination. Pity about the real world.
> The food was picked before without so much illegal labor,
And then the world moved on an hardly anyone is prepared to do that
sort of work any more in all modern first world countrys except the
illegals. Essentially because there is much easier work available.
> and if it can't be now without labor costing too much I am
> sure so smart person will design a machine to do the work.
There are none of those that dont need any monkeys to drive them and the trucks etc etc etc.
> I say 'farmer' because he is more like a plantation owner
> who can make a living only by using slave labor.
You wouldnt know what a real slave was if one bit you on your lard arse.
professorchaos
> money. He may have to adjust his crops around school schedules.
Sorry I had to see this in print again. It is a riot. Lets see, I will
just change the weather so the temperature is right so I can plant
broccoli a month earlier so school kids can pick it.
BeaForoni
wrote:
See Professor you are ignorant as to modern farming. Many crops have
large windows of time for planting and subsequent harvesting.
ro...@telus.net
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your claims continue to lack any evidence.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No they dont. There's been enough comments made for anyone with
>a clue to work out where I am talking about and check the claims out
>for themselves on the desperate shortage of labor that blows that
>stupid claim in the subject line completely out of the water.
Wrong again. Until you provide some evidence, your claims continue to
be more of the same old trash.
-- Roy L
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> ro...@telus.net wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> ro...@telus.net wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> ro...@telus.net wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Mindless stuff. Its also seen when the unemployment rate is very low
>>>>>>>> and you dont even get any applicants at all for a particular well paid job.
>>>>>>> LOL! Unless the qualifications are EXTREMELY narrow or the
>>>>>>> job opening not publicized, that simply does not ever happen.
>>>>>> Corse it does, we have seen some employers desperate to get
>>>>>> qualified staff, who dont get even a single applicant in response
>>>>>> to their national ads, jobs as basic as truck driving etc.
>>>>> Hehe. Truck driving for a private contractor in Iraq, perhaps....?
>>>> Nope, in a country thats never had a civil war, or even
>>>> riots that have needed the troops to be called out either.
>>> Your claims continue to lack any evidence.
>> No they dont. There's been enough comments made for anyone with
>> a clue to work out where I am talking about and check the claims out
>> for themselves on the desperate shortage of labor that blows that
>> stupid claim in the subject line completely out of the water.
> Wrong again.
Right again, actually.
> Until you provide some evidence,
There's been enough comments made for anyone with a clue
jo...@phred.org
BeaF...@msn.com says...
> On Sep 9, 4:58 pm, <j...@phred.org> wrote:
> > Overheard an interesting conversation on labor shortages this morning
> > while waiting for a ferry -- a man complaining that they'd tried to hire
> > only legal labor for picking a short-season harvest, but even at
> > $18/hour (plus overtime) they had not been able to get field labor
> > willing to work hard 7 days a week for three weeks to get it out of the
> > fields while it was still good.
> >
> > They gave up and called a crew boss who was known to hire illegal
> > workers, and had the field full in no time.
> >
> > He figured that by subcontracting, the workers couldn't be getting more
> > than $12 of that $18, and probably weren't getting overtime pay, but he
> > needed to get the broccoli in before it bolted. But he couldn't find
> > legal workers for a thousand a week, and couldn't afford to pay more
> > than that for harvest labor.
> >
> > --
> > j...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
> > <http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
> > Braze your own bicycle frames. See
> > <http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
>
> A thousand dollars a week? Wow!!! That's more than $50K a year. Wait,
> what kind of benifits? None, eh? Transportaion? No. Workmens' comp,
> disability or OSHA?
No benefits, true, but OSHA does cover farmworkers, as do Washington
State ergonomics rules and Labor & Industries regulations; and yes,
transportation, they have a bus; and yes, all farmworkers in Washington
must be covered by worker's comp.
> The food was
> picked before without so much illegal labor,
Was it?
Must have been before my time, there were plenty of illegals working the
fields with me when I was picking berries in the '70s. The difference
is that back then, there didn't seem to be much popular support for
driving up the cost of food or deporting hard-working members of the
community.
Or are you thinking back to when they weren't illegals because we had a
national agricultural guest worker program that brought in the same
people to do the same work, only legally?
> I say 'farmer' because he is more like a plantation owner who can
> make a living only by using slave labor.
Pity the poor slaves at $1000/week with worker's comp and the right to
quit. I really feel for them.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
ro...@telus.net
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for admitting that you have simply been lying again.
-- Roy L
Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
Dennis
>In article <1189478253.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>BeaF...@msn.com says...
>> The food was
>> picked before without so much illegal labor,
>
>Was it?
>
>Must have been before my time, there were plenty of illegals working the
>fields with me when I was picking berries in the '70s. The difference
>is that back then, there didn't seem to be much popular support for
>driving up the cost of food or deporting hard-working members of the
>community.
Maybe that was back before there were 20 million illegals in the US
and over a million more joining them each year.
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
ro...@telus.net
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
More proof that you are a habitual, pathological liar.
-- Roy L
Rod Speed
Its complete trivial for anyone with a clue to check if its true or not.
Then there's fools like you that cant even manage to turn
the longest iron ore trains in the entire world into a location.
ro...@telus.net
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is you, lying garbage, who cannot turn your claims into one iota of
actual evidence.
-- Roy L
Rod Speed
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to try
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=longest+iron+ore+trains
and check the first hit, fuckwit.
ro...@telus.net
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Still no evidence for your claims. Inevitably.
-- Roy L
Rod Speed
Completely trivial for anyone to check whether those claims are true or not
once they have their nose rubbed in which area that problem occurs in, fuckwit.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work out what they pay and
that that blows that stupid claim in the subject line completely out of the water.
Terry Lomax
> Mindless stuff. Its also seen when the unemployment rate is very low
> and you dont even get any applicants at all for a particular well paid job.
Typical nonsense by Rod Speed. In reality, the typical job ad
receives an OVERWHELMING amount of applicants, many of them perfectly
qualified for the job. This is the case in all types of jobs, from
computer programming to groundskeeping. Often companies make the job
openings as secret as possible in an attempt to prevent Americans from
learning about the jobs, as their goal is to hire foreigners.
Fact: there's a huge glut of jobless and underemployed Americans. The
latest job news is terrible and it's an understatement. The number of
jobs has gone way down while huge numbers of foreigners have entered
the USA, large numbers of people are becoming old enough to work, and
just about nobody is retiring.
When the mininum wage goes up in the USA, the number of jobless
Americans will increase even more.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> TOP-POSTED
Like that or lump it.
>> Mindless stuff. Its also seen when the unemployment rate is very low
>> and you dont even get any applicants at all for a particular well paid job.
> Typical nonsense by Rod Speed.
We'll see...
> In reality, the typical job ad receives an OVERWHELMING
> amount of applicants, many of them perfectly qualified for the job.
Typical is completely irrelevant to that stupid absolute claim made in the subject line.
And you dont get an OVERWHELMING amount of applicants when the
unemployment rate is very low. We've got some areas where its now down
to 1.x% and you certainly dont get an OVERWHELMING amount of applicants
in that situation, and fuck all of them are perfectly qualified for the job too.
> This is the case in all types of jobs, from computer programming to groundskeeping.
No it aint. There have been times when computer programmers were
so scarse that those with no qualifications at all had to be accepted.
> Often companies make the job openings as secret as possible in an attempt to
> prevent Americans from learning about the jobs, as their goal is to hire foreigners.
It isnt that often at all in reality.
> Fact: there's a huge glut of jobless and underemployed Americans.
Just claiming its a fact doesnt make it a fact.
> The latest job news is terrible and it's an understatement.
Just claiming its terrible doesnt make it a fact.
> The number of jobs has gone way down while huge numbers of
> foreigners have entered the USA, large numbers of people are
> becoming old enough to work, and just about nobody is retiring.
Have fun explaining the unemployment rate of 4.x%
And dont try claiming that those figures are lies, the official
OECD standardised rate is within 0.1% or so of that too.
You're completely unemployable ? Your problem.
> When the mininum wage goes up in the USA, the
> number of jobless Americans will increase even more.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
William Souden
ro...@telus.net
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for admitting that your claim was a flat-out lie from the
outset, and that you were and are fully aware of that fact.
>Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work out what they pay and
>that that blows that stupid claim in the subject line completely out of the water.
As above.
-- Roy L
Rod Speed
No thanks for that pathetic excuse for bullshit/lies.
>> Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work out what they pay and
>> that that blows that stupid claim in the subject line completely out of the water.
> As above.
As above.
Phred
[snip]
>And you dont get an OVERWHELMING amount of applicants when the
>unemployment rate is very low. We've got some areas where its now down
>to 1.x% and you certainly dont get an OVERWHELMING amount of applicants
>in that situation, and fuck all of them are perfectly qualified for the job
> too.
The local tabloid from the tourist ghetto of Cairns ("The Cairns
Post") recently ran an article about a bloke looking for a job who
simply stood at the roadside with a sandwich board saying "Work
wanted".
By the evening he'd had around 30 job offers to sift through. He
ended up taking the one as a deckie on one of the Cairns-based cruise
boats that roam around the Great Barrier Reef here. ISTR him saying
in the interview that he didn't actually have any experience as a
deckie, but was happy to give it a go.
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> And you dont get an OVERWHELMING amount of applicants when
>> the unemployment rate is very low. We've got some areas where its
>> now down to 1.x% and you certainly dont get an OVERWHELMING
>> amount of applicants in that situation, and fuck all of them are
>> perfectly qualified for the job too.
> The local tabloid from the tourist ghetto of Cairns ("The Cairns Post")
> recently ran an article about a bloke looking for a job who simply stood
> at the roadside with a sandwich board saying "Work wanted".
Interesting approach.
> By the evening he'd had around 30 job offers to sift through. He
> ended up taking the one as a deckie on one of the Cairns-based
> cruise boats that roam around the Great Barrier Reef here.
> ISTR him saying in the interview that he didn't actually have
> any experience as a deckie, but was happy to give it a go.
Yeah, it isnt actually rocket scientist material needed.