Some firms struggling to hire despite the high unemployment rate! This is so not shocking:
From the article link:
Just a thought here, and this is likely related to regional wage differences, $13/hour is extremely low pay for that type of position. My younger son attended a technical high school. In their senior year, students would go to school 1/2 day and go to work in their field for the rest of the day. My son is a plumber, and he started at $12.50/hour at age 17 (summer of 2005 before senior year and through senior year). The technical school had machinist, welding, electrician programs too. My son was teased about his low $12.50/hour by one of the other 17-year-olds who was a machinist. The 17-year-old was getting $14/hour with a promise of $17/hour when he graduated high school at age 18 in 2006. Perhaps the $13/hour for skilled labor is low pay in that area. Perhaps the employer could see clear to pay its skilled labor at least what a 17-year-old at the lowest levels of training attainment made back in 2005. And, depending upon "geography," there simply may be very few machinists locally. Who would move to a new area for a $13/hour job (paying so lowly)? Who would even undertake a significant (of time and money) commute for such a low paying job?
At that rate of pay, perhaps the employer could make arrangements with the local high schools for young people (trained in machine shop) who are just starting out at 17 and willing to work at rock-bottom wages.
The reason I suggest these things is because my late brother was a machinist. He worked for 42 years for the same company in a very small town in Michigan. Admittedly he had worked his way up to a shop supervisor level, but with only a 2-year technical school background, he was earning around $80K/year plus had terrific benefits. I don't know how much he (his company) paid their newbie machinists, but I think it was in the $17+benefits/hour range.
I wonder if some of these firms that are struggling to hire are located in major metropolitan areas where there are plenty of qualified candidates. I also wonder if they're willing to pay a reasonable wage. I wonder if some might just be holding off hiring by suggesting unrealistic wages in the hopes that continuing unemployment nationwide will drive down wages across the board.
So I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here with this article.
It seems there is a specific criticism of extended benefits creating a hiring problem.
Oh I agree. I'd much rather look to help the person who didn't feel it was beneath them to do whatever it took to earn their living--except nothing. It's those who chose to do "nothing" I would have the greatest concerns about.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But the U.S. ARMED FORCES don't have that problem." ........Ronald Reagan
So you feel a parent leaving the workforce for two years to care for a young child is "beneath them"?
This is a debate raging at my work.
I think you're probably asking all the right questions. One thing that I think is happening is that in the skilled trades (requiring certification and licensing) is that there has been a long decline in the numbers of those needed in such trades as our manufacturing has moved off-shore. Young people stopped going into the trades in any large numbers over the last 15 years or so. The trades were filled with older people who had made a decent living. Now, this recession has dumped those older, well-paid tradespersons into the unemployment lines. Some are old enough that they're just dropping out of the employment market altogether. They're using up/drying out their meager unemployment (in my state the MAX is $400/week) and then dipping into their pensions/401K's/SS and becoming essentially "retired." Those who are still too young (in their 40's and 50's) are stuck. They aren't as flexible about moving (if a spouse still has a job and they own an "underwater" home), and they've earned pretty good money for many years. Their choice is to seek employment in their field or go back to school for more training and compete with 20-year-olds who still live with their parents and can accept low wages. Those still in their 20's and 30's can be more flexible as they don't have that 20+ years working in a field that is/was (possibly temporarily)not in demand.
Now, there are these companies (like in the WSJ article) that do have plenty of jobs in what should be a skilled trade area, but they want to pay those people far below what those same people would have been paid just 18 months ago. This is a conundrum, because IMHO, it further makes such jobs as machinist undesirable due to the low pay. It isn't as if one can hope to own a home and support (1/2 support) a family on $13/hour. So, the employer complains that nobody want the job. The (potential) employee complains that s/he spent a bundle for trade school and there is no way on earth s/he can justify working at rock-bottom wages. The country is stuck, because we need to produce products and sell products that are made in this country in order to dig ourselves out of this terrible recession.
Where will this all end? I rather suspect that there will be a downward pressure of skilled labor wages and young people simply won't ever want to go into those fields. Lack of a workforce will send employers overseas. Jobs gone forever.
Agree, I get so many applications/resumes for the 'good jobs' from people who did not do anything (on paper) in their time of unemployment.
A stay at home mom is not the same thing as someone who decided to collect multiple weeks of unemployment because the jobs they could find were beneath them.
As far as a stay-at-home dad was concerned: I'd have to look at the whole picture.