There is never a shortage of skilled labour, not in any field whatsoever.
If a company cannot find the labour, they are not paying enough.
Why is it that we talk so much about the capitalistic economy where goods and services settle down, or up, to a market value and yet labour seems to be exempt from this tenet?
For years employers have had the luxury of being able to hire straight out the unemployment pool. This has ocurred because of a shrinking manufacturing sector.
Smaller employers have always exploited the training provided by larger employers who often fund apprenticeships and the like - the smaller employer simply hires these folk as the companies downsize etc.
Why is it that CEO must be paid very large salaries becuse ‘its the market rate’ and yet this does not seem to apply to skilled trades? Seems to me that if the rate for CEO is maybe a few million a year, there would not be much problem in locating similarly talented individuals who are still on their way up the heap.
If a company were offering half a million dollars p.a for a welder, they would have a line outside their premises of individuals prepared to do whatever it took to get that work.
How can any competant business look at a lost opportunity cost of millions of dollars and then not hire the people to make it happen?
As far as I am concerned, you could probably fire the boards of directors and CEOs of pretty much every company and replace them with the next rung down - the management level that actually works for a living. They are the ones that deal with running the factories, marketing the products, working with the workers.
How many absolutely insane corporate policies have you seen put into place by people who haven’t worked a real job a single day in their life, how many insane engineered goods have you seen designed by someone who has never worked a manual job in their life? What made that jackass who torpedoed the world economy any better at running the con job he called a financial institution than any working accountant? Why are we paying these morons tens of millions of dollars [or whatever currency they are getting] for pulling bullshit out of their asses?
The savviest CEO I ever met founded his own company back in the mid 30s, ran it as owner and president until the 50s and his kids got old enough to have finished college and start working in the company, was CEO of the board of directors until his death in the early 80s. He drew a reasonable salary [not millions a year, though it was one of the biggest chemical repackagers in the US] and lived in a modest house, on a regular street in a small town in western NY. If you met him, you would think he was a rather avuncular businessman, perhaps owner of a small local business. The business was family owned and most of the money got plowed back into the business. He employed around 10 000 people around the country, and they in turn supported local business in the communities they lived in. If he had been greedy and outsourced everything except for the corporate HQ, that would have put well over 9000 people out of work, closed down almost 30 factories and offices, and left a gaping economic hole in the US.
Wait, you mean just like those jackasses getting paid millions and millions of dollars are …
this is the other thing that irritates me. What the hell is it with the notion that everyone must aspire towards management?I sure as hell don’t; I spent 6 months in a job where I was managing a small department and I got the hell out of it at the first opportunity and went back to being an engineer.
that leads into another of my corporate peeves. Salary “grades” or “bands.” The notion that salary ranges must be neatly contained within certain job descriptions can be counterproductive. If you have some guy who is an incredibly skilled engineer and can’t give him a raise commensurate to his value without “kicking him upstairs,” then both parties are being screwed.
While this isn’t completely true - you can’t just manufacture more skilled workers like widgets, so there can certainly be temporary shortages of skilled workers with a particular skill set - it’s certainly true once you get past the short term.
Damn straight.
Take the businessman quoted in the OP. He needs three - count 'em, three - skilled sheet-metal set-up operators, and if he had them, he could bring in another $5,000,000 to $7,000,000.
What’s he willing to pay for them? $240,000 base salary and overtime, plus benefits. Say $400,000 if the bennies are really good. That’s for all three of them, combined.
Anyone see a mismatch here?
At any rate, the “structural unemployment” canard has been dismissed time and time again. If a skills mismatch was a significant component of our economic woes, then salaries and wages would be skyrocketing in those professions where skills were in short supply. Nobody’s able to identify any such job categories.
The problem isn’t that we have tons of jobs going unfilled - it’s that we have 4.6 unemployed people for every job opening.
Of course, there are other costs to that revenue than $400,000 in labor costs. You have the cost of raw materials. You might need to buy new machinery if you are at capacity. You might not have space for that machinery, so you might need to add on to your facility. $5M in revenue probably means another sales person, maybe two. I don’t know the Marlin Steel Wire Products business, but I’m going to bet this is not a case where other than the labor costs, the owner is going to pocket the rest of the revenue as profits. If it is, I and a few of my friends really need to become skilled labor in that industry and open our own shop.
Here is what I don’t get. The best business successes in the past quarter century are people like Jobs (I disliked him, for the record), Gates and Buffet and some others. Their salaries were all low compared to CEOs at lesser performing companies. Much lower. Jobs famously was paid $1 during bad times. These guys were primarily compensated by the value of their stock and stock options increasing because their companies did very well. I do not see the benefit of paying the CEO of a big oil company $400 million dollars. All the capital, financial, social and physical is already in place. While the top people do have contacts and prestige that get them more contacts, they are not that valuable. Privately held companies do not pay their CEO/Owners those kinds of salaries/bonuses.
Well, if you can’t turn a profit, then fuck you. You’ve got a fucked business model, and you deserve to go bankrupt. Insert the rest of Alec Baldwin’s GGGR rant here.
He means $10 an hour for the first 40 hours, then time and half for the next 40 hours a week of OVERTIME he wants his slaves to do…No Breaks No Lunch No Benefits… ( I know how these people think)
:mad:
I’ve done metal work for years including Metal Fab, Welding and Machining…from Min wage to $20 hr…all SHIT SLAVE JOBS.
I had this exact conversation with a friend about a year ago when he and I were discussing his first year as a middle school teacher. Were you eavesdropping?
Yeah, it just makes sense. If you’ve got a smart kid who is going to succeed at pretty much whatever he does, do you steer him to the cushier job in a safe, climate-controlled office, where he’s not on his feet all day and has a salary and telecommuting benefits, or do you steer him toward the machinist job which may require a company-specific set of skills, is not held in as high esteem, and is much more physically demanding?
It’s like anything; if you want to attract the most talented young people to a field, it has to have advantages. Since machine work has almost no “soft” advantages (prestige, working environment, career advancement), it has to compensate with cash if the companies want talented people who could do other things to choose them instead.
This is an excellent point. My wife is incredibly valuable to her company. She’s one of perhaps a half dozen analysts (out of hundreds) that can handle the technical side of their industry and deal with clients directly. She’s one of a different half dozen that always works as late as necessary to finish projects (or finish the projects of other people who have ignored their deadlines and gone home).
Because of this, she is constantly getting raises, and she’s been “raised” out of her existing pay band eight times in three years. That means she’s had to be promoted four times in three years, and because her new responsibilities are identical to her old roles but require her to report to different people (and report different data) she’s constantly having to relearn things.
Lest you think I’m bragging, I’m quite happy to admit that I walk in to my job at 8:59 and walk out at 5:00 and I’m posting from work right now - although I do go to school three hours a night.
I prefer to think of it as her being promoted due to everyone else’s incompetence. That said, this phenomenon is paying for our house, so I’m not going to complain loudly.
Just as long as the pay increases keep comming, definitely no cause for loud complaints!
On a somewhat-similar topic - how do strict hierarchies like the military ever manage to get top generals who are both good and reasonably young? I’d have thought they would be breeding-grounds for the Peter Principle.
They give them a full ride at some of thetop institutions of higher learningin the country, where they are indoctrinated into a life of service to their country. Pretty sneaky.
Attrition. Seriously. You only ever see young generals in wars with high casualty rates. That’s why the US Army (for example) doesn’t have any young generals- the youngest are in their fifties- because relatively few officers get killed.
