General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI saw something in a response in a thread about job ...
that seemed to imply that the President Obama Administration's recovery has only benefited the wealthy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024459758
I responded to that comment with some very anecdotal evidence, that I would like to flesh out and share here.
I just completed a review of our recruitment efforts for my employer (covering the last 2 quarter). As part of that study, I looked at the number of vacancies, the classifications and wages of those vacancies, the number of job offers extended on those vacancies, the number of acceptances, and the reason(s) for the rejection of the job offer.
What I found was interesting and encouraging. To summarize:
1) We have had a job vacancy rate of between 10-13%
2) The vacancies are distributed throughout the range of our job classification and heavily concentrated in our entry/mid-level classifications - paying between $25,000 to $60,000/year (with median salary for vacancies, $32,000/year)
3) Between 2-5 job offers had been extended per day
4) 30% of the job offers were refused
5) 70% of respondent cited "Accepted another offer" as the reason for the rejection
6) 42% rejecting respondent reported a higher starting wage (for comparable position) as a reason for rejection.
I found this interesting, encouraging and forecasting some long days in the near future, as my next assignment is to adjust our wages to reduce our "self-selected out" rejection rate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)those people rejected your company's job offer because they had a better-paying offer elsewhere? Perhaps the company should be offering more money.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The study was prompted by the (sudden) rise in "aged" vacancies. I guess as the second largest employer in the region and having been the wage leader, made us lazy.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)under Democrats...including the rich! Under the Republicans ONLY the rich....
My grandmother was a very wise woman...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)would have no place on DU, as the it appears the objective is not so much for everyone doing well (better) under Democrats; but for the rich to do worse.
(Ooops ... I've betrayed my 1%er proclivities.}
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I wonder what results would be found if similar studies were done in companies in other industries and compared with yours.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but I did have lunch with my counter-part at the #1 employer (in size) ... though its a different industry and sector, she is experiencing increases in vacancy ages; though we do not compete for many classifications of employees.
cali
(114,904 posts)the middle classes and the poor, but it hasn't ONLY benefited the wealthy.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)so long as you get, too?
cali
(114,904 posts)secondly, that's so not the point. I care because a sound middle class is vital. I care because it's totally destructive to any form of democracy.
I have NEVER seen a more republican comment here at DU then your "question":
"Why do you care what someone else gets"?
Shame, shame, shame on you.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)retribution, certainly!
Please understand .... I am all for the wealthy paying significantly more in taxes ... this is something that government can legitimately do that will/might help the poor and to a lesser degree the lower middleclass, in the form of safety net payments/subsidies.
But the truth is, there is very little the government can legitimately do to significantly narrow the income inequity gap. Taxation, won't do it because the vast majority of the wealthy's wealth is not in the form of income and a wealth tax is unlikely to become law. Confiscation of wealth won't work because that is not a legitimate function of government. On the other hand, direct transfer payments to the poor and middle classes (Bringing us up the income ladder) would be equally in effective and be full of its own problem.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Replace all instances of "40 hours" with "32 hours", and "One and one-half times" with "two times".
Presto, the value of labor goes up, the employment rate goes up, and you would need to add 50% to the "approprate wage" calculation your employers have asked you to perform.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)would somehow significantly close the income inequity gap?
That's ill-informed because:
1) paying wage-earners time and a half on 8 hours per week will do nothing to close the income equity gap ... Hell, increasing the pay of wage earners 10-fold wouldn't make a dent;
2) the wealthy's income that causes the disparate does not come from wages;
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The wealthy's income does come from wages. Specifically, the profit they make on your wages. If prices are inelastic, increased cost of labor reduces profit margin.
Increased economic efficiency ($ per unit of labor) hasn't yielded benefit to workers, it's ALL gone to capital - because labor is plentiful. Constrain the supply of labor and wages go up and profits go down.
Presto.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)even though price are inelastic and, though I agree that the benefits of productivity have not eschewed to labor; not rather, have been retained by capital, reducing corporate profits, either through taxation or by increasing labor costs, would do little to reduce income inequity ... at best it would be like claiming to reduce the national debt by slowing the growth in deficit spending.
Oh wait ...
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)need to 'pay' capital anything. The robots will work 24/7! Same (actually lower) cost per unit of work at the 32nd hour per week vs. the 150th.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Automation is not likely to effect labor at my company anytime in the near future ... They haven't thought up the computer that can build minds and grow knowledge.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)Thanks for posting.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)your posts, MM. You have a dry wit that makes me die laughing sometimes.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The point of my post was to indicate: 1) my employer is finding increased competition for labor (i.e., other companies are hiring and hiring at a higher rate of pay than we are); 2) my employer will have to raise its wages in order to continue being a regional wage leader (i.e., local wages are on the rise).
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)Separate conversation. Sorry. Your information about hiring and wages is important and valuable. It was a side issue.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The post seems to have upset some folks.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's getting better and I'm not so worried that I just have to take the first offer.
I have an open offer with another company as soon as I finish my licensing requirements fir life and health producer and it's a company that I want to work for.
I have also gotten calls from people who just found my resume online and decided to try to see if I was interested.
Last year nobody called me back, not even once.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last year, the average period between job offer and acceptance was about 2 days ... Now, it's the maximum that we allow (14 days). Last year, we experienced very little negotiations over wages; now, with the exception of the entry level classifications, everyone (seemingly) has a higher ask. (and I ain't mad.)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)You said yourself that your lowball offers are the reason that employees are going elsewhere. You would have "adjusted your wages" long ago if there was any reason to do so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/opinion/krugman-rich-mans-recovery.html?_r=0
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)our employees ... we were a regional pay leader until last year, when we last conducted a wage survey. If anything, our pay structure forces up wages for other businesses that wish to compete with us for talent.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the labor market has improved to the point where other companies have caught up to our pay scale ... a continuation of the War on the Poor?
I would have thought that would be an encouraging and positive development. 
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)It is a relevant video with respect to the way the corporate structure of the system works though.
Peace.
Warpy
(111,129 posts)who will be eager to take the jobs.
Funny how that works.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I would hope you are PMing them to apply since you/your company always have job vacancies... Are you a headhunter or just in HR?
They really need some help.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I would be happy to guide folks to possible employment ... I have done it several times before (typically, with no follow through).
But they would have to want to move to Arizona!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)
I'd probably take you up on the offer if I hadn't just signed a yearlong contract 2 weeks ago. I love the Catalinas.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Every winter they give me a snowy VISUAL without having to deal with snow. Most winter weekend mornings, I just get my coffee, walk out onto my patio and peer off my patio ... then, put on my shorts and head off for my Tee-time. I love it.