http://motherjones.c...e-jobs-no-workers

I'm trying to make sense out of today's New York Times piece about factories having difficulty hiring the right kind of workers, but I'm having trouble. The basic story we've been hearing for the past few years makes sense: broad sectoral shifts in hiring mean that you can't always find the right kind of workers even if you have plenty of job openings. Lots of construction workers have lost their jobs over the past couple of years, but that doesn't do you much good if you're looking for experienced lathe operators.

But that's not quite the story the Times is telling.

[...]

This is, however, not a sectoral shift problem. It's a claim that they can't find entry level workers who can do — what? Algebra? Simple percentages? I'm not sure what counts as ninth-grade math here. But something doesn't sound quite right. If Ben Venue is struggling to find people to fill these positions now, they must have really been struggling to fill them before the recession, when workers had a lot more choices than they do now. Their requirements can't have changed too much just in the past couple of years.

(See the original for embedded links.)

Bingo.

Finally, someone who spends a little bit of time looking beyond the easy explanation.

We've discussed some of this before - yes there are a few cases when it really is impossible to find the right person at any price that the company can afford to pay. But it seems apparent in this case that the company was trying to low-ball wages (offering $13-$15/hr when experienced workers were getting $15-$20) and then complaining when people who were willing to accept those low wages didn't have the skills they wanted.

"The problem appears to be that manufacturers don't want to pay the market wage for the skills that they need," says Dean Baker. "This is like someone who wants to buy a 4-bedroom home with a yard in a good neighborhood in Washington for $200,000, and then complains that there is a shortage of good homes.

Dean's great for pithy quotes like this. He's exactly right, too.

The magic of the marketplace is supposed to follow Supply and Demand - if you can't get the right person at the price you're offering, you need to pay more. Too many business people seem to think that employees are just interchangeable cogs that are really little more than expenses to be minimized. And yet they wonder why qualified people don't want to work for them. Supply and Demand is expected to work for them when it comes to selling stuff, but (apparently) not when it comes to making stuff... :-/

Trouble is, with the unemployment rate so high, there is going to be continued pressure on wages for a long time to come. :-(

Cheers,
Scott.

http://motherjones.c...orkers-note-field

I read the issue a bit differently than you are. The 9th grade reading and math test, which a "significant" proportion failed (is that 25%, 50%, more, less???) is a floor. It is likely the company is looking for much more than that, a point that is alluded to by the disappointment with local training programs. Moreover, per the article, the company is paying 60-67% of the going rate for skilled workers. Workers who were living check to check before the recession will be reluctant to take a 30-40% pay cut. Also, many with professional backgrounds forget that factory work pay scales are pretty rigid. A worker who accepts a position 40% less that what they were making will likely never make up the difference. That is a tough nut to swallow.

Here is where the right wingers have a partial point. Unemployment insurance (UI) is a cushion that has a tendency to delay that point at which such a worker as described above gets desperate enough to take anything. For my part, I don't think this is bad. When the economy rebounds, underemployment is a drag on growth. Fitting people to the best employment for which they are qualified is the optimal solution. To the extent that UI helps this, it is a good thing.

Yup. Also, shrinking salaries have a contractionary effect on the greater economy that too many on the Right don't seem to recognize.

Some good reader comments, too.

Cheers,
Scott.