Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not denying that the job market is decent right now- a huge improvement since the Recession began 10 years ago.
However, one of the major factors that has attributed to the low unemployment rate and high employer demand, is the fact that the labor force participation rate has gone down over the last decade- especially among college graduates.
The primary reason behind this of course is that the baby boomers are retiring. That was going to happen regardless of who was President.
The problem around here is lack of qualified applicants, in my company, roughly 70% of applicants cannot pass a background or drug test, staffing has become a real problem for us, they are considering lowering the hiring standards now though
Sounds like the problem is stupid policies. Most hiring managers are complete idiots.
I know of many employers running scared now, including mine, btw.
It's a known fact that in good economies, employees will quit their jobs to seek others, because they believe jobs are readily available in their profession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treasurefinder
Given the record number of folk quitting their jobs, why aren’t we seeing wages increase ? I think it’s awful since employers got a huge tax cut.
Why would you see wage increases?
There are more than 800 Skill-sets recognized by government (see DOL), which is double the number in 1970 and far more than the 100 or so that existed in 1930.
Wages only rise when there is a shortage of a specific Skill-set in a given Labor Market, and there are more than 1,500+ Labor Markets in the US.
In the Cincinnati Labor Market, there's a shortage of workers in the fast-food skill-set, so they start at $11.50/hour, but there's a surplus of warehouse workers, so they start at $8.50/hour.
The situation is different in the other 1,499+ Labor Markets.
And, yes, the situation is "allowed" to be different, because the Market says so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glamatomic
The primary reason behind this of course is that the baby boomers are retiring. That was going to happen regardless of who was President.
In the future jobs projection for 2008, BLS stated that 2/3 of all "new" jobs would be "created" by retiring Boomers, so it's been well-known for a long time.
Of course, if one has a job that they are satisfied with, and enjoy sufficient seniority, then it may not be totally wise to depart that job for another, where one would be on the bottom of the totem poll should employers start laying off workers.
We have a good, strong economy. However, I have experienced several in my life, always followed by, at the least, a recession in which jobs are shed. The current economy will not be an exception.
Of course, what the future may hold when the next recession gets here depends on how many people we allow to immigrate while the economy is hot.
Yes, employers are going to stomp their feet, hold their breath, scream and cry because they can't import enough workers to drive wages back down to starvation levels, but we should remember that these new workers will still be here when jobs are not nearly as plentiful.
There is a real shortage of folks who can research, develop work with robotics, automation. My son is a human machine interaction researcher with experience with designing and implementing solutions involving simulation, cybersecurity, manufacturing, teaching/learning, interaction with big data analytics/algorithms, and passenger interactions--including elevators, helicopters and jet engines-- among other problem areas.The companies he has worked for have always struggled to find employees to fill positions...for at least five years. This market is no different. Huge bonuses for him if he can recruit some of his peers for his company.
This is why linking departments of education and labor makes sense...
That and I would argue it would be a good thing to make an incentive for employers to train/educate non experienced new hires, through more aggressive tax cuts.
I've worked for places where they would not send staff for training unless absolutely necessary. Nah. F that.
Me. I have no problems training or working directly with my employees and show them how to do something/dumb it down for them, simplify it for them. It benefits both them and me. If they say F You I quit. Adios. They'll at least have skills to apply elsewhere. The benefit for them. The benefit for me, is while they work for me they're more productive and things get done quicker so we can move on to more.
If I ran a big corporation. That's exactly what I would do.
I'd say... Mr President. I want more of a tax break. I want to have 0 taxes. Purely tax exempt. I'm taking the burden of educating hiring training and providing careers (not jobs) because schools and colleges fail to deliver what is needed and properly prepared for the real world.
What I propose is this.
I cover half of their health insurance and any out of pocket expense they incur.
I provide them with skills necessary and relevant.
I pay them a sustainable wage. Meaning no more need for welfare programs.
In exchange. Total tax exemption for the company including local level and property tax.
I think Trump could make it happen.
0 taxes on the company.
People are hired trained groomed and given a hand up.
They leave? They leave. Just means I fill their position.
I'd do that if I ran GM. Boeing. Etc.
I'd need engineers. I'd need fabricators. I'd need programmers. Advertisement/graphics artists. Machinists. Maintenance. You name it. And if folks lack the skills? Just means I place them with someone to train them. If they can't perform... rotate them into another area that they can perform in.
I'd go to every area where there are high numbers of unemployment and do that.
I'm not denying that the job market is decent right now- a huge improvement since the Recession began 10 years ago.
However, one of the major factors that has attributed to the low unemployment rate and high employer demand, is the fact that the labor force participation rate has gone down over the last decade- especially among college graduates.
The primary reason behind this of course is that the baby boomers are retiring. That was going to happen regardless of who was President.
Actually the big worry which is finally beginning to get some attention is the continued decline of male (in particular white male) labor participation rates.
There simply is a continuing number of males in prime labor demographics (30 to 60 years old) that simply have "vanished" far as employment numbers are concerned.
In an interesting twist of fate, female labor participation rates while going up and down still on whole have steadily increased, and continue to do so. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002
Because now is a good time to sell off assets while value remains high (like real estate or stocks) and you can get a higher profit
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
