Lack of low-wage workers... where have they gone?

In My Humble Opinion
181

I think you’ve made your point. Your point is that the DOL has certain qualifications for what it calls, “Skilled labor”.

You have repeated this point ad nauseum, even though no one has objected to it.

What is being objected to is that those jobs that the DOL calls “unskilled labor” do not require any skill, training, or talent, and that the workers in those jobs are fungible and easily replaced.

If you want to engage on that point, then we can have a discussion. If you simply want to keep repeating what we’ve already agreed upon, then have fun with that.

182

I’m glad you used that word fungible because that’s the ultimate point I’m making here–the reason we classify jobs as skilled and unskilled in the first place is because of how some jobs intersect with the broader economy. A job that basically has no educational or pre-existing experience in order to be hired, is tremendously fungible, right?

Like it has nothing to do with what happens when someone works at that job or etc, at least not really.

If a job requires no education (not even a High School diploma) and no prior experience, then in economic terms it has significant fungibility with all other jobs that are similar. If such a job at a lumber mill pays $15/hr, and there’s some jobs at a mill where for example you literally do nothing but stack wood all day, that job is fungible with other jobs that do not have any educational or training requirements for being hired. Let’s say one of those jobs is working at McDonald’s, which pays $10/hr. This exact comparison is worth noting because there’s an article that the Washington Post put out recently talking about a McDonald’s in Bradford PA where the owner/management refused to give the staff a raise, so they all walked out. Many of them found their replacement job earning more money doing that exact job at the lumber mill (most of them actually said they liked their McDonald’s job more–it was more social, more varied in tasks, more comfortable, and was not as physically demanding, the job in the mill was described as basically standing at a station all day and maneuvering wood up and down in a repetitive motion.)

183

Nope. I’m saying that the percentage of people who are so hired is relatively small on a work crew of any size, and that whatever the size of the work crew people with no prior experience are close to useless and sometimes worse than useless until they’ve been on the job for a while.

Nope. The ads are required by the process; but if somebody shows up who has no experience but actually meets the qualifications they’ve listed, they’ll hire them. That doesn’t mean those people will be useful the first day they show up; nor does it mean that they’ll all last even the first week; and it most certainly doesn’t mean that they’ll make up most of the work force so that the employer would have to have a “a 1:1 manager/picker ratio” in order to train them.

Nope. There are actually lots of training programs, both at colleges and through farm internships (“apprentice” is also a technical term and only a few areas of work are allowed to use it.) They’re generally training people who expect to eventually wind up running a farm, not to continue indefinitely as as hired fieldworkers. Hired fieldworkers, if not already trained before they get there, are indeed trained by the farm; which is why most farmers try to hire as high a percentage of trained people as possible, because such training is timeconsuming and has a high percentage of dropouts.

And many of the people working in agriculture received training through their families on farms, but the farms did not belong to their families. People whose families own farms tend to work on those farms, though some will work on other places to pick up different sorts of experience.

184

Many fast food restaurant owners will also gravitate towards hiring people with previous fast food experience for similar reasons, that doesn’t change the fact the baseline requirements for hire do not require education or prior experience.

185

No, it is not. It may be treated that way by shitty employers, and considered that way by people who haven’t done those jobs. It may even be thought of that way by customers who wonder why no one can ever get their order right.

I mean, there is no educational or pre-existing experience in order to go to college, so all jobs that require a college degree are fungible, right? And there’s no educational or pre-existing experience needed to get an apprenticeship as a plumber, electrician, or car mechanic, so those are all fungible?

And the person that actually feeds the wood in, takes the wood out, or operates the saw is fungible? The person that operates the heavy machinery to lift logs weighing several tons? Those only require a high school diploma.

I take it saw mill is another job that you’ve never had? (Admittedly, neither have I, but in my landscaping/treework days, I worked closely with some sawmills)

186

And that doesn’t change the fact that what you are saying doesn’t even come close to address what I am saying.

Apparently bailing piles of straw is an entry level position.

187

And that, for about the nineteenth time, doesn’t change the fact that many such jobs do require considerable skills.

Being expected to learn those skills on the job doesn’t mean that the skills don’t exist.

And I have to go get some actual work done now.

188

The job is either fully fungible or it isn’t, right? To say it isn’t fungible you would need to show evidence that a person with no education and no experience couldn’t be hired to do the job? Saying the jobs are fungible is not the same thing as saying the employees have no value, or that they cannot acquire “value add” the longer they are in a given role. In fact basically every business of scale has usually calculated the exact “cost” of turnover, and part of that cost is understanding that there is some acquisition of value over time. The higher that cost is, generally, the more you should consider paying someone all other things being equal. Understanding fungibility is actually core to that. The reason that McDonald’s in Bradford lost almost all of its employees on a single day is precisely because those jobs were fungible, that means jobs with similarly low barriers to entry that pay higher, are attractive options for those employees.

Compensastion markets for various fully fungible entry level jobs should be of great interest to many employers, because if you employ people who make less than that market rate you’re at risk of losing them. If your employees generate a lot of cost for you when they turnover because the job requires a long time to get to full value, it actually means you need to think about that in making business decisions.

Also getting back to the OP, a good portion of the question “where have the low wage workers gone” cannot be answered without understanding the fungibility of the jobs in that wage range.

Some of those jobs may not be entry level at the mill–the workers in the article were literally hired from a McDonald’s with zero mill experience. It is likely if they stay at that mill for the rest of their lives, they may end up doing jobs that only go to people with prior mill experience, at which point their job would be less fungible than the job they are doing now.

189

It might be useful to classify certain jobs as just requiring basic dexterity, mobility, and ability to follow directions. Many of the jobs we are discussing as fungible or unskilled fall into this category. As long as you can follow basic instructions and perform basic movements, you can do the job. As you do the job you will get faster and more efficient, but the basic skills to do the job are simply “be a human”. Making burgers, packing boxes, stacking lumber, picking produce, stacking tires, etc. are similar in that sense. The differentiation between employees comes from personal attributes about the person like punctuality, attention to detail, ability to work with others, etc. A fast-food worker can often switch to these other kinds jobs without any issue. A fast-food worker who has had the same job for years is going to be more desirable since it shows they performed well for a long time. It shows they will be a better employee even though their fast-food experience may not be applicable in a different field.

190

That’s not it at all. It’s more that being a bang-up dishwasher doesn’t get you more money if you switch from Chili’s to TGI Friday’s after a year. Nor do you become a “Senior Busboy”. You get the same measly wage regardless, because being a busboy doesn’t require any special skills or experience to get hired. In that sense, the people who work the jobs are fungible- one person is much like another, and they pay accordingly.

There’s definitely skill involved with working as a busboy, but it’s not the sort of skill that transfers forward into your long and distinguished career in the busing arts. It doesn’t get you a promotion, it doesn’t generally get you more pay, and it doesn’t avail you of much when you switch restaurants.

That’s why the people who work those jobs are fungible; those jobs are generally not considered ones that require specialized training or expertise to do, unlike plumbing, electrical work, carpentry, etc…

There’s no real advantage to an employer to hire someone with 5 years experience in busing tables for more money, because they can train virtually any able-bodied person to do it in like a week.

It’s all about the starting requirements and who can meet those requirements, not about skill in the job.

The flip side of the fungibility and interchangeability is that these workers are able to switch around in those unskilled labor jobs without any penalty. It’s not a black mark if you spent a couple years working as a busboy, and then go work at Target stocking shelves. This isn’t necessarily the case in the skilled trades and white collar jobs- it can be a question mark on your career if you’re just out of your lane a little bit, not even in a different industry.

191

Here’s another anecdote about another type of agriculture work–cannabis trimmer. I can teach anyone with eyesight and the ability to use scissors the basics of trimming in just a few minutes. That being said, there’s a reason why nobody sane pays trimmers by the hour and instead pays by production–because at $125/lb (that’s a pretty normal amount, give or take a few bucks) a novice trimmer will be paying themselves about five bucks an hour if they’re lucky. An experienced, fast trimmer will be paying themself more like 20+ hour, depending on the quality of the product. And being a trimmer is a job that has a built in limit on how long you can do it, because carpal tunnel and shoulder issues are very common, along with back troubles from sitting very still for long periods of time. It is absolutely a job that favors experience, but talent also plays a part–some people just take to it and others will always struggle.

192

Sure, but how do you hire people for that job? That’s really the question. Do you only hire people with proven experience, or some kind of training? Or is it more open than that?

193

Depends, really. Sometimes a friend really needs money so even though they’re inexperienced they’ll come work for some folding cash. Sometimes a trimmer I’ve worked with before will offer to bring another friend along. The nice thing about production pay is that it doesn’t matter a bit to the employer whether or not the trimmers are fast because it all gets paid for the same. Only difference is how much per hour the trimmer pays themself by improving their speed.

194

I think the core of the communication problem here may be that you’re using “hired to do the job” as synonymous with “immediately able to do the job competently”.

There are very few jobs for which those phrases are really entirely synonymous. Usually some nonzero amount of time is required to develop necessary skills for the job.

195

Because from an employer / econ perspective if you’re asking “where the workers are” it’s intrinsically a hiring question. The reality that a worker on Day 1 isn’t as valuable as they (typically) are on day 14 is virtually universal across most entry level jobs and is basically baked into the conversation innately, the people pointing it out are akin to the people who point out the sky is blue and think they’re being profound.

196

I think that goes to the root of it actually. Nobody in ANY job is as good on day one as they are at some later point in their employment. Doesn’t matter if you’re sweeping floors or working as an engineer at JPL.

But the reason for the divide is wholly dependent on that ramp-up time. For “unskilled labor”, that amount of time is minimal- a couple of weeks, maybe a couple of months for someone to get good at it, and it’s mostly on-the-job training. Skilled labor and most white collar jobs would require a LONG time just to get the requisite base of knowledge necessary just to START doing that job as a noob (to use my children’s favorite term). So they’re requiring that “skill” just to show up, so they don’t have to teach it to you.

I mean, a plumbing company could hire some schmoe off the street and train him up to be a Master plumber. But it would take years. They’d rather hire someone with that credential- that’s something you have to have just to be considered. Same thing for say… being an accountant.

The whole divide isn’t about skill AT the job, it’s about the skills you need to be hired to do a job.

197

Yes. The best term is “barrier to entry”. Some jobs have no barrier to entry, some have a low barrier, and some have a high barrier.

198

Right, exactly. I have a relative who is a software engineer, he’s nearing the end of his career and has spent the last 10-15 years in management. He said that while they only really hire experienced people, everywhere he’s worked and every team he’s been on, the ramp-up time is probably 6 months before he feels like that person is as valuable as a “full” team member. They come in with a base of knowledge and they can start doing things right away, but complicated software projects, even for an experienced developer, take time to understand in terms of architecture, team processes etc. You just don’t walk in off the street with that knowledge regardless of experience.

But that’s different from the “baseline” that you’re expected to have to get hired (in that case typically an undergraduate degree in a technical field like CS or engineering, and x number of years of work experience.) Software teams also tend to be specialized into specific “stacks”, someone who has spent 25 years working in Java development isn’t going to roll into a Microsoft dev shop and be nearly as able to hit the ground running as someone who has been working in Microsoft technologies for 25 years. I have to imagine many technical professions are similar, the various engineering specialties all have industry-specific specialization within their fields, that likely don’t just translate from one job to another. But that’s not the same as the “baseline”, a company might be willing to hire a Chemical Engineer who has mostly spent his career in a different sub-field, knowing it means he will have a longer ramp up time. But they aren’t going to hire someone with an accounting degree or only a High School diploma to work as a ChemE no matter what.

199

A co-worker of mine simply dismisses the lack of workers with “They’re getting paid more to sit at home.” I could argue and try to change her mind, but should I? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

200

The UK has withdrawn from the European Union and the free mobility of labour that went with it: Brexit. Businesses had grown quite used to being able to hire labour from the less developed parts of Europe. Suddenly this has become much more difficult.

The UK government answer to this is to maintain a Shortage Occupation List in which attempts to classify jobs that may be granted a work visa.

The aim of the policy is to attract only ‘the brightest and the best to come work in the UK’. So they are mainly professional jobs with certificates, diplomas and qualifications. What goes on this list seems to be a matter for the civil service who has supposed to take account of industry and professional organisations.

Suddenly organisations that depend on what are regarded as ‘unskilled’ labour cannot find UK based workers to fill their roles as the economy picks up. This is leading to whole set of problems reaching the news. A shortage of truck drivers, slaughter house workers, harvest pickers, many building trades, care workers, just about every role in restaurants and hospitality…there is a long list.

The governments response is that business have relied for too long on low-wage workers from other countries and train the UK workforce to do these jobs and pay higher wages.

Sadly the employers are finding it very difficult to find UK nationals willing to do these jobs. When they do manage to recruit someone, they do not stay for long if there are jobs with better pay and conditions nearby. On a couple of occasions, the government has been forced to make available work visa to EU nationals to deal with some crisis. One example is the ‘great truck driver shortage’. Because truck drivers are not regarded as skilled workers.

That seems to be the issue. The classification of work into skilled (good) and unskillked (bad) does not make much sense when you look at it in detail. They take no account of experience, but rely on some kind of qualification awarding body to evaluate someones status in an area of employment. Many of these are less than the appear.

In the IT business, just about every company of any size selling products or services has a ‘certification scheme’. Few of these have relevance to the job to be done in practice, they tend to be multiple choice Q/A tests. They also double up as a useful way of obtaining advocates withing a customer for buying more of the sellers product. They are not impartial assessments of skill, they are more of an extension of a companies marketing strategy.

They want to see either endorsements by academic institutions or professional organisations. These too, don’t seem to be a good indication of skill. The beards and sandals who design university course are a long long way from the current job market.

For some jobs they specify minimum salaries so immigrant workers are not hired to undercut the local hires.

Hiring someone on a work visa is also out of the reach of smaller companies. You need an agency and or HR department that knows the rules. So small businesses are now cut off from this labour pool.

Add to this Covid and the lockdowns. Many of the workers returned to their home countries when there is no work in the UK. Few seem tempted to return because there are plenty of opportunities in other EU countries where hiring someone from ‘over the border’ is straightforward.

So instant labour shortage.

This is made worse by the fact that there has been a policy of getting as many young people into education as possible. After years of study and debt, the offer of a low skilled job is not an attractive prospect.

So there is no clear way of assessing skills on paper; a government policy based on the assumption that this can be done easily to make up a list that fits in with a recently contrived immigration points system (thank you Australia!). A workforce that has been educated to aspire to university/college grade jobs. Then an newly introduced barrier to immigration to keep out those workers from other countries that do have the endurance of poor conditions and skills levels to do all those ‘unskilled’ jobs. What else? Ah yes, a demographic change, the population is getting older.

There are simply not enough young, poorly educated people willing to do undesirable jobs. Those that we had, are prevented from working here and many have gone back to their home countries. Not that that is very far away.

So it seems like a perfect storm.

I wonder if we can look forward to a huge training program by labour intensive businesses, some big pay hikes and some big improvements in working conditions? That would require some very different management priorities.

The whole way in which we value work and skills seems very inadequate. Much of it is rooted in the past hierarchies that date from the industrial age when working life was dominated by machines and rigid systems designed by professional and technical elites.

Maybe big labour shortages will provide the shock that employers need to value and invest in their employees. I live in hope but I am not seeing the signs.