I call this a big win for American workers! The " shortage " of workers will lead to rising wages. There is no other way to produce a rising wage with today's corporate environment. The hell with those who want to import " cheap " labor by opening the borders. American creativity will lead to increased productivity through technology and other innovations. Keep the labor force tight and those borders closed except to meritorious talent.
4
Meanwhile, having full time workers relying on food stamps to supplement their low income, does not seem to bother our nation. Sad...
7
Most of your managers are a bit dim. They are chosen more for their loyalty than their capabilities. You know who demands loyalty? Donald Trump. Most managers are chosen by someone like Donald Trump. I have often said that Donald Trump is a common type in America. A childish man who by virtue of privilege thinks he is actually special while always actually being inept. It is very common. Managers are generally good at making someone like Donald Trump think they are special.
4
I don't know the source of your information, but not one single blue-collar worker has gotten any increase in wages or salary.
The only increases are seen in corporations at the manager and higher levels.
To claim wages/salaries have increased is just more republican fake news that they're trying to disseminate widely enough to make everyone believe it. Except of course, most Democrats won't believe it because they are so used to having repubs force-feeding them fake news. Fake news originates from Trump's mouth.
7
Isnt it obvious that the labor participation rate has fallen since an increasing amount of workers are now gaining wealth from their "unearned" income from capital holdings... which america treats with favor relative to good 'ol regular labor.
Why do archaic manual work when you can sit back and cash in your stocks, carried interest and dividends, and pay less taxes thru your S-corp or LLC.
Isnt America wonderful! until we cant find any more workers.
2
A shortage of labor should not be problem, since all that the employers need to do is hire all those oppressed Amazon workers that Lina Khan is so worried about as reported elsewhere in today's Times.
NYT: "The Economy Needs More Workers. Last Month, It Got Fewer."
Sailer: "Workers Need More Money. Last Month, They Finally Got Some."
1
When employers become willing to invest in training and pay and hire former convicts, then the economy is booming. Black unemployment is still high.
2
It’s time to bring our troops home! The 158,000 US troops stationed overseas and discharge them from military service.
2
Neil, thanks for your "cool" behind the numbers analysis. One point missing, however, is the impact of immigration on the available labor force and hence growth in the economy. I posted my analysis of the impact of one immigrant on the Social Security system -- long term -- "the four million dollar immigrant" and would appreciate your take and/or replication. Thanks! https://www.thedemographics.com/tge-demographics-blog/2018/6/7/the-four-... ...
If you read a NYT article about FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early), there are many Millennials planning to check out of the 9 to 5 workforce early by spending less and saving and investing more. While the short term exodus of Baby boomers is already creating gaps, the FIRE movement could crimp certain job categories over the long term as well.
3
You'll understand this only if you've been there: HR is the elephant in the room - and C-level officers should acknowledge it. Skills are values built throughout a career. Behaviors, a math test, psychometrics, social media investigations, cultural affinity evals, economic worth, hair color - are all leading indicators of who will be hired today. The electronic health record is next. So is artificial intelligence also choosing the workforce.
2
I think this is the first MSM article on the economy I've read since Trump became president that discusses labor force participation rate.
Now, when will we start getting economic articles on the effects of Trump era trillion dollar deficits?
4
The issue I see is tgat employer's have delayed increasing pay for so long that when the economic crash comes, 90% of Americans will not have gained anything before the layoffs, pay cuts and market losses occur.
It's telling that even households in the top 10% only gained 2% after inflation since 2000. Yes, that's an official federal statistic.
At that point, the only parties that gained from the boom are in the top 5%.
2
It’s pretty stereotypical pointyhead economics to insinuate that a work force in which the standard of living is rising is a sign of a problematic labor shortage, especially given the way in which unemployment is counted. There are lots of lucid, able-bodied American adults who are not counted in the work force who could easily be mobilized back in if welfare disincentives were diminished or companies raised wages to the point where the drive to work is worthwhile. If there’s a labor shortage it’s the offspring of an unholy alliance between American government and corporate America.
But also, we will need higher interest rates to fund the pensions of all the boomers headed to retirement, and to disincentivize malinvestment and excess debt leveraging, especially in real estate in ridiculously-priced large metro areas which further erodes middle-class standards of living.
4
The numbers would be more meaningful if paired with the birth rate. Are young women - and some men - leaving the work force to care for children at home? Are they finding the cost of child care, combined with stagnant wages, makes it more economical to save the money and stay home? The emotional aspects of parental child care also incline to make the workplace less than inviting.
If that is the case, employers will need to cope with a long-term trend.
2
The prime working age ends at age 54 according to Mr. Irwin. That is also the age at which if you were laid off you will never get a similar job again. We should not be talking about raising retirement ages, we should be lowering the retirement age to age 54.
9
After the crisis is over, and in America where GDP per capita is the highest of any large country, it is time to stop paying people not to work. Social security disability status has exploded, along with the cost to taxpayers, but it also will cost the economy production potential--a double hit. A job is more than money. A job is an opportunity for growth, learning, and purpose. GET A JOB!
2
@Tim Nolen
I would LOVE a job. Tell employers to start hiring women over 50!
4
So in a country where people retire in their late 60s, journalists put the cut-off point for 'prime years' at 54, while companies (or their keyword-based headhunting contractors) routinely disregard any application from people over 48... and from applicants who do not exactly fit the job description keywords. Wages, meanwhile, are still below 1970s leveals and the wage differential continues to grow. Shape up, corporate America.
12
The point of capitalism is to produce returns to capitalism. The point isn't to provide decent jobs. Quite the contrary. If businesses can make bigger profits by crushing worker, they will. It's juvenile to pretend otherwise.
2
It looks like the horror of rising wages is the next terrible result of the Obama/trump economy. What's next? Jobs for the longterm unemployed? Increased benefits? Will this nightmare never end? As usual, the implied democratic answer is to throw open the borders and flood the country with cheap, easily exploited labor. Yeah, that's what we really need.
5
There are thousands of over 54 out-of-work individuals who were laid off or fired simply because of their age and experience. Experience costs money, and many employers would rather hire new, young workers, even if production suffers. This is not to say that younger workers aren't hardworking or innovative, but there is something to be said for institutional and personal expertise or history.
If companies need workers, they should pay more, and advertise that they encourage older workers, part-schedules, etc.
14
@Kathleen Great point, but experience does not always cost more, sometimes it just requires a flexible employer. Many of them would work for a little less than they did so they have a job and benefits. Some like me would work cheap for part time and focused on my desires and capabilities.
7
@Kathleen Employers want to dictate. They think of themselves as dictators. They are not particularly good with real communication or being honest for that matter.
3
Ask the Hotel industry about these new immigration policies- we consistently have to decrease our occupancy numbers because lack the lack of personnel in our Housekeeping department. Also the Linen company we have used for years can not keep up with the cleaning of linens , also due to the availability of personnel to fill open jobs.
No one even shows up for scheduled job fairs.
Granted these are low paying entry level positions, but they are a start for someone to learn a skill and advance within a department to a supervisor or management position.
From where I sit I do not see us displacing an "American" citizen of these jobs.
1
@BF "Granted these are low paying entry level positions, but they are a start for someone to learn a skill and advance within a department to a supervisor or management position."
Regardless of how great you think this job may be the fact is that people come to work for the cash. By your own admission you do not pay enough to pull in talent off either state benefits rolls or other companies’ job rolls. Then you blame the attitudes of American workers for your troubles and use it as a justification to want to import a new labor force which will accept the Third World standard of living your wages provide.
6
Low birth rate; plus aging population; plus a significant portion of the adult work force lacking relevant education and skills and/or willingness, physical ability and stamina to perform work in construction, manufacturing, farming, etc.; plus ‘strong borders’ and unduly restrictive immigration quotas; plus crumbling infrastructure; plus declining tax revenues for programs to remedy these structural flaws as a result of enormous tax cuts; equals stagnation, or worse.
Folks in Japan can likely give us a good idea how all of that works out. Hint: not extremely well.
6
The amount of inefficiency and wasted effort caused by this labor supply conundrum must be astronomical. We need an effective worker placement scheme that coordinates education/training with employers needs. The military ASVAB would be a good model. The Army never has too many lawyers and not enough truck drivers (a problem recently outlined several times in these pages). Add the financial waste in allowing baristas to consume the resources to obtain a college degree or a retail sticker to graduate with a public high school diploma when one isn’t required for their jobs is a waste of limited resources.
5
"The economic output of the United States is ultimately limited by ...the capabilities of the machines and other types of capital they can work with." This is more important than any alleged labor shortage.
Output is also limited by demand - there is no point in making things or offering services that people don't have the money to buy. Thanks to endless tax cuts and other giveaways (running trade deficits increases investment capital) there is a superabundance of capital in the US, but it is not being invested in very useful ways in general. Productivity growth has been very low, which is a sign that investment in automation has been low.
The main limit to the economy has been the reliance on supply-side economics - tax cuts and reducing interest rates. It has clearly not worked - the economy during the current up-cycle has been much more sluggish than in historic cycles. Wages and salaries must rise to provide the demand that would spur useful investment. With current policy capitalists and upper managers can make all the money they want without increasing production.
5
Companies were even whining about a lack of qualified workers at the height of the recession. Even at 3.9% unemployment, you still see entry level job openings that require years of prior experience. Most companies still demand you gain experience at a competitor firm, since they don’t want to train anyone. Even those with related college degrees are deemed unqualified. They want specific skills and knowledge you can only obtain in that particular job.
This has been happening for at least the past two decades. It contributes to frustrated job seekers, labor force dropout, and permanently depressed labor participation rates. If employers hired intelligent people regardless of age, race, and gender, and trained them for the roles, people would be drawn into the workforce. But that’s really not happening.
So we could care less about the incessant whining coming from businesses about qualified workers. They’re the reason this purported shortage exists and should suffer the consequences.
48
@Chen Great points and that means they only want employees, not really need them. If they did training a good potential employee would be happening, and entry level would require no experience.
4
Employees are less loyal today than they ever were. Taking the time, effort and cost to train people is like that insurance commercial where the guy ties his wallet into NY Harbor.
1
Your argument that workers are less loyal today is not supported by the labor turnover data. Workers over the past decade have been staying in their positions longer than normal. Historically, younger workers and low wage workers have always cycled more frequently through jobs. It’s actually employers who’ve become less loyal, turning to outsourcing, temps, unpaid overtime, and layoffs to reduce costs. Your concept of loyalty seems one-sided.
When employers industrywide refuse to train workers, it becomes a collective action dilemma. Your experienced workers gradually retire or leave and an empty pipeline causes productivity problems years into the future. In the past, companies trained workers, focused on retention, and dealt with departures by adequately hiring. It’s not like workers have never changed careers, switched companies, moved states, or retired early.
8
It's a tough decision for the greedy few who thrive on exploiting the employed:
1) pay employees a competitive wage and risk the horror of slightly more income equality
or
2) bring in immigrants to keep wages low and risk the horror of having to associate with them.
26
Immigration restrictions are merely a disguise for an insidious form of protectionism. It’s wrong whether it protects steel mills, factory farms or labor.
5
@Old Yeller Or three pay and train as you actually need employees. Horror of associating with immigrants, many hire them as nanny's. And income inequality is a result, not something that elists horror.
Employers have no choice but to raise wages because they can’t bring in immigrants any more. In case you haven’t noticed.
1
I would note that the black unemployment rate is stated to be 6.3%. That means a lot of people are still looking for jobs.
22
Simple solution lay off a lot of unneeded federal workers and allow them to go to the private sector. I don't see recruiters calling me to go back to work, so the shortage is not in "workers" but in some very specific skills. Business must train the unemployed to meet their real needs, not just their desires. I understand the too long process of getting clearances is keeping people from taking jobs in Orlando.
4
@vulcanalex,
What "unneeded Federal workers"?
The total number of Federal workers is less than the 1960's (replaced by private industry "contractors" who's allegiance is to private profit, not the American public).
The military bases are closed except for a Coast Guard station, and now they're closing Post Offices!
By the buildings stamped "built by the W.P.A., 1939" there's archeological evidence that there once was a Federal government, I want it back!
5
Given the drop in the US job participation rate from 68% a decade ago to 62% now there are approximately 9-10 million people not working but who would have been working/have jobs , ie. working age people.
So what does a 3.9% unemployment rate mean ? The American oligarchy continue to increase their wealth while the 95% sink lower in wealth. Oh to be a Hedge Fund manager & reap wealth without contributing anything to the economy and getting a huge tax cut through their paid employees in Congress.
20
Population growth is slowing. LFPR is slowing as a result. Committing disability fraud also has led to a faster fall and lower wages as they are still looking for work, but don't get counted.
it isn't fraud if no employer will hire a worker due to health problems like age infirmity, or accumulated job injuries, or lack of health care coverage to provide medication needed to prevent fainting on the job while operating dangerous equipment like forklifts, school buses, etc. Kentucky disability claims fell after Gov Beshair expanded Medicaid to the working poor under ACA.
4
@Duncan Lennox Sir, Fact; the baby boomer demographic is aging and many are no longer able or have a need to work full time.
As long as there is no significant raise in wages and work conditions, the employees can't be that desperate.
15
While everyone will want to claim credit for the jobs, the fact is that it is American consumers who are responsible for all these jobs. Employers only hire more workers when there are not enough to satisfy the demand of the consumers. The person to thank is the consumer, not the elected and appointed officials who want to claim credit for all that is good and blame somebody else for whatever is not good.
Of course, there are jobs going begging and they are generally classified as Dirty-Dull-Dangerous and generally these 3-D jobs have been filled by immigrants (both documented and not) but with the crackdown on people migrating for jobs from other nations, these jobs are vacant. In addition we do have stagnant potential workers inside the USA but they either have problems with health or substance abuse as well as the resistance to moving where the jobs are. Many also lack the requisite skills or simply don’t want a 3-D job.
Unfortunately, Trump will crow about what “he accomplished” and blame the Democrats for all the unfilled jobs. Congress will try to use this to further cut taxes on the wealthy making the specious argument that since the prior cut worked so well…
7
@George N. Wells Or just moving some jobs that our demand supports back to the US, instead of some other country.
3
Per the DOL's employer survey: the 201,000 jobs created in August, 2018 were part of a total of 149,279,000 individuals employed in the US non-farm economy. In a tip of the iceberg type of calculation: the 201,000 jobs created in August represented only about 0.00135 as a proportion or 0.135% of the total jobs in the economy. [(201,000/149,279,000) x 100 = 0.135%]. Whereas information on the labor force participation rate comes from the household survey which shows 155,542,000 individuals employed. And, the 201,000 new jobs from the August employer survey represent only about 0.00129 or 0.129% of this total number employed of 155,542,000 employed. But, the household survey shows a decline of -423,000 in the total number employed; for August, instead of the job gain from the employer survey. Simply put, comparing the range of estimates between the two surveys and very small monthly marginal gains or losses in jobs as a proportion of the total jobs, it would seem that not much credence can be placed in one month's data from these two surveys.
Also, the CPI gained 2.9% year-over-year ending in August, which matches the yearly gain in wages of 2.9%; year-over-year. So, real wages were actually flat year-over-year.
[JJL 9/7/2018 F 12:00pm Greenville NC]
16
@John Joseph Laffiteau MS in Econ: I was also thinking there must be some discrepancy in the data. If we added jobs and the unemployment rate was unchanged, then the labor force must've grown, not shrunk. So something in the employer survey doesn't add up.
Also: it would take only around 80,000 or 90,000 new jobs a month to absorb growth in the working-age population. Yet month after month, the economy keeps finding 150,000 to 200,000+ new workers, while the unemployment rate remains essentially flat. Where are these new workers coming from? This implies many people long deemed "out of the labor force" (thus not counted in the unemployment rate) have actually been willing to work all along.
The reality check remains wage growth. As long as wages are approximately flat with inflation, the labor market can't really be all that tight. Which means the Fed's plan to raise interest rates is bad for most ordinary Americans.
Which, in turn, shows we need a President of a different party appointing members of the Fed.
5
@Michel Phillips The data collection system is very poor, nobody should actually rely on it. The fed must raise rates, those of us who rely upon interest income require it.
@Michel Phillips: To help provide perspective and interrelate Mr Irwin's data points of emphasis, Ms Phillips, and mine, consider:
The upper limit to draw from for workers would be the adult population in the US. Mr Irwin states that the percentage employed declined by -0.2 percent in August. And, per the DOL household survey, the percentage of the adult population employed did decline from 60.5% in July to 60.3% in August. So, to try to estimate the total size of the potential adult labor force per the DOL, then, again for July: with 155,965,000 employed overall, the total adult population can be estimated as follows:
0.605X = 155,965,000; where X = the total adult population. And,
X = 155,965,000/0.605; so
X = 257,793,388 people. For August:
X = 155,542,000/0.603; or X = 257,946,932.
So, with a total US adult population per the DOL of about 257,900,000 people, at least an upper limit for the total supply of adult workers can be estimated; and now adjustments made to it.
[JJL Sat 9/08/2018 11:48am Greenville NC]
How about ageism in the workplace? Plenty of baby boomers being kicked out of jobs for their high cost or want to work and can't find a decent job... The US and the world has to refine "seniors"... With all the medical advances and such, to age out individuals at 55, label them "seniors" is just outright discrimination! My mother started a whole new career at 60, seems you can't do that today!
26
Government polcy and BLS statistics reinforce ageism because the prime working age classification is artificially truncated at 54. This a 70-year old polcy that has nothing to do with the purpose for which it was originally created. The working age for the OECD countries is 25-64 so this is not a universal standard.
There are good incentives for the range to be terminated at a minimum of 65 because of retirement age. However, the administration would have to report larger unemployment numbers.
2
@Louise You got it. I doubt they will even print my comment, but it's true. They think we are all crack addicts, disabled, or stupid with computers when time and again, I am the only one who ever knows what to do when someone is stuck (or some weird setting is causing problems).
I have applied over and over and over and cannot even get to "also ran" status even though I would like to meet these A holes who got the job because they are a "better fit." I know for a fact, I would be a better worker than 90% of the people who get hired ahead of me because most jobs are not rocket science and only require superior organizational abilities. That is something I know for a fact that most people don't have.
So I don't care what anyone says, this economy stinks (and of course with the retirement age being 67 years old, why is nobody over 54 counted as "prime age?")
4
There are plenty of people who are not counted as part of the labor force, who should be! Let wages rise and let employers abandon their age-sex-race discriminations and petty rigidity, and there are plenty of capable, quality workers and professionals around. When every job posting still gets dozens if not hundreds of applicants, the job market is not "tight" - employers are!
25
How many of those not counted as part of the labor force are working but under the radar due to being in cash businesses? How many pool guys, landscapers, pizza places, hair salons, car washes, etc report all or even any of their income?
3
@mdieri, I think you have argued persuasively for the opposite of your conclusion. Age-sex-race discriminations produce a pool of capable but unemployed workers, not reduce them. The "petty rigidity" of employers is a sign that many of these employers are not yet hurting that badly and casts doubt on your categorical claim that "every job posting still gets dozens if not hundreds of applicants".
I think one of the problems is that the job market is a process of matching available jobs to qualified job seekers. If there is a mismatch between the skill set of the unemployed and the skill needs of the available jobs, there can still be simultaneous pools of unemployed people and unfilled jobs. Fixing this would require investments in our educational system, but the GOP is currently quite unenthusiastic about any such measures.
Seems like increasing immigration would solve the problem. Oh, wait...
2
@Commentress Increasing automation of simple things would be even better, allowing humans to be trained for more valuable jobs.
3
Promises Made. Promises Kept. Thank you President Trump!!
5
Here's a suggestion to get more workers...let hard-working people looking for a better life into our freedom-loving country!
4
@Mikeyz
OR ... hire people, especially women, who over 50. Plenty of us with excellent skills, education, and experience who have been looking for work for a LONG time now.
14
The economy at its capacity is a problem? Too much winning is apparently the cause. That Trump is at it again. Not enough workers for all of the jobs. Can you imagine anything worse?
1
Please, NYT, do not continue to repeat the canard that "prime working years" end at 54. You are condoning age discrimination. When "full retirement age" is 67, Medicare instead of employer health care only at 65, and with many professors, judges, politicians, executives, etc continuing to work into their 70's and 80's, 55 is FAR from the end of "prime." That is a holdover from the era of manual labor.
51
Labor force participation figures beg to differ.
1
Keep the economy going and let employers fight for workers.
13
@Keith. The democratic solution is increased immigration. Supply and demand, according to them, doesn't apply to workers and wages.
If companies, businesses, corporations paid livable wages and salaries, hired people over the age of 40, and stopped expecting a master's degree and 10 years of experience for an entry-level position they would have droves of prospective employees. In fact, I think they have droves of resumes that they just toss. This is a manufactured crisis created as an excuse to reduce pay and benefits even further, or keep them stagnant, and claim falsely that they need to import workers from third worlds. Try hiring Americans and paying them living wages first.
35
@Humble Beast
I have a masters (from an Ivy League university) and 10 years experience. I can't even get an interview.
1
Trump's tariffs and immigration policies are not helpful. They both work to increase inflation and interest rates thereby hastening the next recession.
1
Capitalism and Democracy are symbiotic and Competition is the lynch pin of both. A healthy economy requires that workers can afford to purchase the fruits of their labor. Unfortunately, since 1972, through administrations of every stripe, we have allowed competition to be strangled by monopolization. As a result, wages have fallen from 50% to 43% of GDP which corresponds to a current shortfall of $10,000/yr for every full time worker.
During the period 1948-1972 we enforced anti-trust laws which resulted in a win-win economy where working family economics and corporate sales and profits grew together. There was plenty of automation taking place during this period, but competition ensured that labor savings were reflected in lowered price of goods, thus preserving total wage purchasing power.
Now the worker/consumer sees rapid price gouging by monopolies such as pharmaceuticals, health insurance, cable, power and fossil fuel industries. This loss of competition has allowed corporations to increase their profit margins from 5% to 12% of GDP (sales) since 1972, at the cost of greatly reduced working family purchasing power.
Finally, economically squeezed workers are becoming ever more fearful which drives tribalism, clearing the way for demagogues to rule.
Will we come to our senses in time to take corrective action or will it take economic collapse, war and persecution to induce us to once again ensure that the minimum wage a living wage and competition is restored.
11
If an investor's portfolio value remained flat for over twenty years it would not be an economic conundrum that investor would be reluctant to commit new capital to the portfolio on a one to three year appreciation of 2.5% to 3.0%.
Labor is an economic investment as much as capital. The U.S. economy continues to be an unattractive market for new commitments of labor. Employers will need to substantially increase the inflation-adjusted return to labor to provide sufficient incentives to increase its supply.
21
You know one way to increase labor force participation? Immigration. We should try increasing that because it has always proven good for the economy, especially in situations like we are in, with an aging population and tight working age population.
Oh wait.
26
Republicans practices reverse immigration by ejecting not only millions of illegal immigrants, but also hundreds of thousands of highly trained workers who came to the US as refugees decades ago. Employers are traumatized by having to find and train replacements.
Now the GOP is casting out naturalized American citizens who have any minor administrative flaw in their application form.
GOP used to be the increase business party. This current crop does not understand workers are necessary. Nor do they seek to improve business in general: even the GOP headed Chamber of Commerce is horrified by many Trump and Congress actions.
The current crop want to squeeze as much money out of the US taxpayers and companies and give a ginormous present to their 1% masters hoping to get another term in Congress as a reward. Terrifying!
1
@Jeff
How about hiring those in the over 50 under 65 age group? Plenty of us with excellent skills, education, and experience who would love to work. No one will even talk to us, especially if we are female.
16
@Jeff. Sorry, but supply and demand works for labor and wages as well. At a time when wages are finally rising after decades of stagnation under mass immigration it is not the time to go down that road again. A country of 325 million plus people with millions still un/underemployed does not need even more people. That Ponzi scheme has been shown to be a loser in the long run.
1
In 1978 I was making $17 a hour as a airline aircraft mechanic. Today I get offers of $25 a hour by contractors. You really think I would abandon my retirement for 1982 wages?
56
If the Feds raise rates and slow demand this will be a tragedy. After too many years of income inequality it is good to see it narrowing by a tiny bit. However, our labor force participation rates are steady or declining. This factor ought to play a huge role in how the Feds set interest rates.
7
Yet, as a female over 50, I cannot even get an interview much less a job.
66
@StrangeDaysIndeed
In yet another article that discusses the job gains of August, a point was made that it's harder to get a clerical job than it is to get into Harvard University. Some jobs have lots of applicants, and some jobs don't have enough applicants. The point is to find the career where they really need you - could be in the health care field, or maybe think of some other service work. Also, geography plays a role, you'd probably get 3 job offers a day in San Francisco.
2
@davidr
So tell me, how can someone live in San Fran on a clerical wage???
2
At 60, I can’t tell you how many conversations I have with peers who are in very tough job situations but are terrified to leave for fear of being in your position. It’s shameful. All the talk of diversity and inclusion never reaches to ageism. I wish you luck - hang in there.
1
I am very pleased to see that finally wages are moving up. I hope that will apply to the workers at firms like Amazon and Walmart whose miserly owners have relied on public funds to supplement the meager wages they pay.
When will the workers unite once again in unions to counter the power of the large corporations?
43
@Joan Farber
"I am very pleased to see that finally wages are moving up. "
Wages are not increasing when inflation is considered. Have you bought gasoline , bread or something that Trump`s tariffs on steel , aluminum and now another $200 billion in Chinese goods, effects ?
The $800 billion tax cut that the Trump crime family and their GOP abettors passed was for the 1% and their patrons.
The American oligarchy , just like their Russian equivalents , are and have been doing extremely well financially speaking by writing laws that benefit them. Did anyone go to jail when Wall St crashed the economy and billionaire hedge fund crooks walked away without so much as a scratch ?
9
@Duncan Lennox: if you dig into the data, you find wages are beating inflation (slightly) at the low end of the labor market, where many Walmart and Amazon workers are; and trailing inflation (slightly) in the middle and higher parts. So AVERAGE wage growth equals inflation.
Note: wages do not = income, as investment returns are not wages. So growing inequality remains a real problem.
1
@Duncan Lennox. Right. It's all DJTs fault. Oh wait, wages have been stagnant for 40 years except for the top. Trumps tax cut for the top was a bad idea, but it's typical left wing myopia that this all started with him. Neither party had done anything for the disappearing middle class or working class in this country in decades. Things are a little better now because the economy is hot and were not flooding the country with cheap labor. Lots more to be done.