"can't find skilled workers" turns out to be bull

[safeinOhio]

Truth is they can't find skilled workers at minimum wage.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Economy/2014/02/16/Does-a-skills-gap-really-exist-1.htm


some academics have found strong evidence that the skills gap is not nearly as wide as many have claimed — if it exists at all.
In a paper published last summer, researchers from the University of Illinois School of Labor and Employment Relations called the skills gap a “manufactured myth.”

“You tend to hear these arguments that I can’t find workers,” Mr. Tasci said. “It’s always a function of what wages you’re offering. You might not be able to find a worker at a certain wage, but I’m sure if the objective is to find someone, you can find someone at a different wage rate.”

[MrScorpio]

1. Thoroughly qualified applicants are asking to be paid at rate commensurate with their skill-set

That's the American way, isn't it? That you earn what you're worth…

However, too many employers refuse to honor that axiom and try to undercut the skilled with the unskilled at woefully pitiful wages.

I blame the business schools for imposing that mindset. There's nothing more useless that an MBA in this world.

[fasttense]

7. NO ONE working for a capitalist is ever paid what they are really worth.

A business man hires you to work and expects to make a profit from your work. If he paid you what you are really worth he would never make a profit.

A true capitalist is always looking to lower your wages.

[Travis_0004]

27. I don't agree with yhis comment at all

"A business man hires you to work and expects to make a profit from your work. If he paid you what you are really worth he would never make a profit. "

You are assuming the business has no value. I'm an accountant, and I work for a law firm. They charge a customer x dollars per hour, and pay me my hourly rate, and their goal is to turn a profit. You may assume that since they are taking a profit, they are not paying me my worth. I disagree with that. They pay for benefits such as workers comp, etc. They have liability insurance worth several million dollars. They advertise, they bring clients to me. If I need legal advise, I can go a coworker, and get his input (they are not billing me for that).

If we were to simply it a bit, and just talk about fast food employees, its still possible to pay somebody what they are worth, and turn a profit, as there are other tangibles and intangibles that contribute to that profit.

[fasttense]

31. I'm afraid capitalism just doesn't work that way.

If you are paid what you are worth, and every worker in the firm is paid what they are worth (including all benefits), there is NO Profit.

For simplicity consider a 3 man shop. One man, the capitalist, buys the equipment, the building and everything else the other 2 need to provide the service. He does none of the labor nor provides any service. He then turns around and charges the client the cost of the service. If it costs him $50 a week for benefits, facilities, supplies, insurance and advertising and he paid each of the other 2 men $20 a week and charges $90 a week to his client he has no profit. So he made $90 but it cost him $40 in labor and $50 in facilities and supplies etc. He has to charge the client that $50 it costs for him in supplies and facilities. That is a fixed cost and has to be recouped or he will go out of business. What is flexible is the labor. The less he pays those 2 employees the more he makes in profit. If he were to charge the client $100 instead of $90, he has made a $10 profit.

BUT, and here is the kicker people refuse to consider, if the client is willing to pay $100 a week then the service they are providing is actually worth more. The market is saying there is a demand for the service at $100 a week. If the capitalists fixed costs for supplies etc is $50, then the value of the 2 workers labor is actually $25 a week for each of the workers. The market is saying the value of the service is more but the capitalist can't pay the employees what they are worth at $25 a week because then he makes NO profit.

It's simple on the surface. Anyone who works for another person, business or corporation is getting less for their work than what the market is willing to pay them for their work.

Now there are nonprofits and I suppose they can pay a person what they are worth but most nonprofits tend pad the executives' salaries to hide the profit.

[Blanks]

32. In your 3 man shop...

Someone keeps track of the hours, does the billing, finds the work, communicates deadlines (and missed deadlines) with the clients. Essentially does all the hard work - takes all the risks.

Most people aren't capable of that kind of work. If there isn't enough work to go around - the employer has to either carry the employees or risk losing them.

I don't know of any industry that magically provides you with the exact amount of work that you need to keep exactly the number of employees working exactly as many hours as the employer needs to optimally exploit his/her workforce.

What industry is your business model based on. I want in.

[fasttense]

35. You are confusing the capitalist with the administrative assistant.

I didn't bing up an administrative assistants to keep it simple. But what the capitalist charges the client would also have to include the cost of labor for the administrative assistant. I use to work in an administrative job and I kept tally of even more complicated numbers than what you describe.

Every capitalist business works the exact same way. What you pay out for supplies, administrative assistants, labor costs has to be LESS than what you bring in or there is NO PROFIT.

Find me a business that pays out exactly what it brings in AND still makes a profit, and I will join up today.

And you are correct in one instance, most industries do not have the exact amount of work to keep exactly the number of employees working exactly as many hours at the employer needs. Most job require a whole hell of a lot MORE WORK or labor from their employee than what the employer needs to keep the business running or even to break even. Most jobs overwork their employees. That is why productivity and profits are so high. The employees surplus labor is being pocketed by the capitalist.

By the way this BIG risk the capitalist is taking is really quite overblown. First, many capitalist are using money they have accumulated from inheritance or other methods that they did not work for. It's money they are looking to invest NOT money they need to survive.

Second isn't the employee taking a bigger risk? He is betting the employer wont go out of business. He is betting the employer will either pay him enough, or keep him employed long enough, so that when he is older he can still survive. He is betting that the work will be transferable that if he does lose his job, another business could use the same service. He frequently spends money for relocation, communication device, transportation and clothing to meet the job demands. He reorganizes his life around the job's work hours and is held to account if his personal life interferes with his job. He has to spend all day doing exactly what someone else tels him to and if he complains, is likely to be rebuked. And he is giving away his surplus labor so that a rich capitalist can make a profit.

[Travis_0004]

44. I still don't agree with you.

Lets say I'm a one man operation, and I own the company 100%.

I build a product (1 a week) and sell it for 200.00, and I don't spend anything on supplies.

You would argue I'm worth 200 a week.

Let say I buy a machine for several thousand dollars. Because of this machine, I can now sell my product for 300.00, because the product is higher quality.

Did I suddenly become worth more? I don't think so. I didn't learn any new skills. If you take away my machine, I will have to go back to selling my product for 200. because the product quality will go back down.

Lets assume that I can not afford the machine, but somebody else will buy it for me if I pay them 50 a week. Without the machine, I make 200. With the machine I make 250. I would argue that machine is providing extra value (100 a week, how that value is shared is up to me and the person who owns it)

[fasttense]

45. You are not describing capitalism

If you are the investor, the one providing the capital through say a loan AND you are working at the company in order to make a living, you are NOT a capitalist. (The person who gave you the loan is probably a capitalist.) People often confuse capitalism with free enterprise and traditional business. It is NOT the same thing. You can have free enterprise and run businesses and NOT be a capitalist.

A capitalist merely uses his money to make money. He does NOT work at the business in any traditional sense. In fact most capitalists are absentee owners. A capitalist is usually a board member or board president (sometimes the CEO as well). A capitalist usually only decides what to do with the corporation and the profits, he does NOT do the real work of the business (including organizing labor and equipment needs).

I totally agree with your scenario but you are NOT describing capitalism.

[FreeJoe]

33. It works both ways

An employee is always looking to raise his wages.

When an employer hires someone, there is a maximum that he can pay that person and still earn a profit. When someone is considering a job, there is a minimum that he is willing to accept. If the two overlap, then the employer makes the job offer and the person accepts it. They are both making a profit on the deal. Who makes the largest profit depends on circumstances. When the employee is unionized, he can use the negotiating power of the union to capture more of the profit.

[fasttense]

39. Yes, in order to make the job bearable, the employee looks to raise his wages.

because most people get NO satisfaction from their jobs and have to find it in consumerism. Shopping is our reward for working like serfs in a mind numbing job. Remember what W told us to do when he started the war with Iraq - shop. The poster Travis is an exception, he is a professional and seems to find reward in his job.

The problem with your scenario is that employers frequently get together to fix and minimize labor costs. They are very rich and organized unlike workers. Capitalist organize and buy up politicians through the Chamber of Commerce, ALEX and lobbyists to ensure that workers don't demand too much in wages or benefits. They crash the economy and ensure unemployment is so high that workers are willing to take any crappy job at any crappy wage. Do you really think Wal-Mart or McDonald's workers are making a "profit" from their low-low wages supplemented by food stamps and health care subsidies?

No, the employee never, ever makes a "profit" on the "deal" unless he is an executive, doctor or professional. When productivity goes up it means workers are working harder. Productivity has steadily improved during the last 10 year but wages have NOT. We are working harder, faster and better but our average wage is dropping. It is dropping because capitalist are putting pressure on our political system to bring wages down and Unions are NOT strong enough to fight back.

[badtoworse]

38. "If he paid you what you are really worth he would never make a profit. "

What are you actually worth? The answer is that you're worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for your services. If want to put up the capital, take on the risk and headaches of starting your own business, do all the marketing and accounting, etc., you are free to do so. In that situation, should expect to make a profit and receive more for your services. If someone else is doing those things, you shouldn't expect to receive the value of the marketing, accounting, risk taking and opportunity costs assocated with running a business. Your reasoning assumes those things have no value which is ridiculous.

[fasttense]

40. The market determines the "worth" of your service or labor

It is NOT related to your wages. If someone is willing to pay your employer X dollars for what you do, then your "worth" or the "worth" of your labor is X dollars. Your employer pays you less than X dollars in order to make a profit. The employer never, ever pays for the real "worth" of the labor. If he did, he could NOT make a profit.

The risk the capitalist takes is minimal compared to the risk the worker is taking. The worker has to procure transportation to and from the job, he has to buy communication devices, clothing and rearrange his entire life to meet the demands of the job. In fact, if his personal life interferes with the job, the worker is frequently fired. The worker is risking his best working years in the hopes that the employer will pay him enough to survive his older years. The worker is betting that the job will not be replaced by machines or become antiquated forcing him to find new employment.

The risk the capitalist takes is minimal compared to the life long risks a worker takes.

But what you are describing is NOT capitalism. I am not assuming those organizing skills are worthless. I am assuming that someone else will be hired to do them. But in truth you are describing a small business or traditional form of work. Where the investor, owner and the employer are all the same person. A person starts a business, usually with a loan, and runs that business to make a living. A capitalist merely invests money to make more money off the money he already has. The capitalist would invest in that business for shares or part of the profits.

But even many small businessmen do NOT pay their workers what they are truly worth. I'm think of the independent contractor who hires illegal immigrant labor to build the homes he contracts for. Or the farmer who hires illegal immigrants to pick his vegetables. They rarely pay those immigrants what they are worth. If they were going to pay for the true value of the work, they would NOT need to resort to hiring illegal labor.

I'm talking about capitalists and they normal hire others to do all the work in a business.

[badtoworse]

43. Sorry, but worth is not absolute, it's relative...

...and it can be very different depending on who is valuing it. A contractor might charge out his time at $100 per hour, but that doesn't mean it's worth $100 to me. I might prefer to do the job myself, in which case his time is worthless as far as I'm concerned. Alternatively, I might prefer or need to do something else, in which case, the $100 might be a bargain.

Your characterization of the worker's risk is laughable. Those aren't risks, that's life and all of us, including capitalists, are exposed to those things and numerous other aspects of living. In the context of business, risk is a consideration in making an investment and it's a given that you have the option to take the risk or not take it.

I get the impression your perceptions about business are not based on much exposure to the actual business world. Capitalists frequently borrow money to start new businesses or expand existing ones. The risks of starting or investing in a business are very similar whether the business is small or large. You need to spend some time managing a business at some level to get perspective.

[fasttense]

46. You are confusing capitalism with free enterprise

and running a business.

A capitalist usually does NOT do any of the real work of the business. A capitalist merely invests, he does NOT do any of the real work of the business. Based on how much he invests and how many stocks he owns, he may also be a board member or president of the board. Sometimes he is also the CEO. Usually a capitalist is an absentee owner and he only makes decisions on the corporation and how to spend the profits.

The fact that you can NOT see the burdens placed on workers and the risks most workers take shows how much propaganda you have been fed. You even label the word "risk" as if it something only an investor has. The word risk has been around for a long time and it means more than placing a bet on an investment. Open your eyes. Why do you have to eat, live and breath your job to be successful? Why do you have to reorganize and wrap your life around a job. Why do most people find their jobs absolutely mind numbing? Workers take on huge risks when they take a job but capitalist would rather you NOT notice that.

PS. I run my own successful business with 5 employees and have for the last 6 years. I am NOT a capitalist and I know it.

[badtoworse]

47. Arguably, both of our definitions are correct, but I still can't agree with you

Merriam Webster gives two definitions:

Full Definition of CAPITALIST
1: a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat
2: a person who favors capitalism

You favor the first definition and I favor the second

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalist
If you look up the definition of Capitalism, Merriam-Webster provides the following which I agree with:

Full Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

I still can't agree with you about workers taking risk by taking a job. If they started their own business or participated in some cooperative venture, they would still have the "risks" you describe, plus the added risk that the venture would fail.

[fasttense]

48. OK, your explanations of the definitions make sense.

I was using Marx's definition of capitalism.

"Capitalism is a mode of production based on private ownership of the means of production. Capitalists produce commodities for the exchange market and to stay competitive must extract as much labor from the workers as possible at the lowest possible cost. The economic interest of the capitalist is to pay the worker as little as possible, in fact just enough to keep him alive and productive. The workers, in turn, come to understand that their economic interest lies in preventing the capitalist from exploiting them in this way."

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/marx/themes.html

Some workers take more risk than others.

A college kid taking a regular summer job is NOT taking as much risk as an intern who gets no pay in the hopes of learning something about the business. Or (a man I met at the farmer's market) an organic mushroom grower trainee, who has to take half pay for a year while he trains in the hopes that the corporation will hire him full time after that year.

True starting your own business involves more risk than taking a job from someone else, but then it is infinitely more rewarding.

[badtoworse]

49. I'm glad we cleared that one up.

I agree with your two examples of risk at the end of your post. Taking half or no pay presumably foregoes the opportunity to earn more elsewhere. They are putting that at risk hoping to do better.

[exboyfil]

2. Link is dead

[safeinOhio]

4. Sorry try this

link to Toledo Blade and click on story.

Lots of good stuff in article

[pa28]

16. Link

http://www.toledoblade.com/Economy/2014/02/16/Does-a-skills-gap-really-exist-1.html

[raccoon]

3. Who don't know that? Recd. nt

[exboyfil]

5. Here is one problem

"It’s do they really want to work, are they prepared to work full time, are they prepared to work 50 to 60 hours a week, can they handle the physical requirements of the manufacturing job?”
Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Economy/2014/02/16/Does-a-skills-gap-really-exist-1.html#85fes93D515EgrJm.99

Why not hire more workers instead of making your employees work 50-60 hours per week? Seems like that solves the problem for everyone. Can't some jobs be redesigned to be less physically demanding (hoists are your friend).

[Igel]

10. Depends on the job.

They're good questions, but without the answers little more can be said.

50-60 hours a week? Sure, hire somebody full-time at 40 and somebody at 10-20 hours. That second person gets no benefits. Unless there's some union requirement, in which case that second person is very expensive if there are benefits involved. Even if there aren't benefits, there's still going to be insurance of some kind and scheduling problems if there's only one work location for that job in the plant.

But that's a cynical interpretation. I've had jobs where I worked 40 hours a week most of the time. During rushes I'd have to work more. When people were on vacation I had to work more. Or when somebody quit and wasn't replaced immediately. (In fact the main job I had in college was vacation relief--they'd hire me when school let out for the summer and as the summer went on one person after the other would take vacation and I'd fill in various places. They were happy when I asked if I could return during winter break because then people could schedule vacations then without hardship to the small business. Most businesses wouldn't do something like that, to be honest, not with mechanized production lines or those required skilled work.)

So it solves the problem for everyone. Except the employer, who has some sort of additional overhead or complication. Then it's a trade-off--do they accept the additional complication or overhead or do they put up with being short an employee or three?

BTW, even with hoists, there can still be a lot of physical labor, a lot of hand-eye coordination. And if you add hoists, you add overhead.

[socialist_n_TN]

11. The Trotskyist way would be to split that 60 hours a week........

into two 30 hour shifts AT NO LOSS OF PAY OR BENEFITS. AND raise the pay for BOTH shifts to a living wage for the area the job is in. I'm tired of arguing about a "minimum" wage. I'm ready to talk about a LIVING wage for every job.

Yeah, I know. It would cut into "profits". So fucking what? As the poster above said, if the owner paid you the full value of your labor, there wouldn't BE any profit anyway.

[Nikia]

19. Usually these companies in question have many more than 2 workers

It is more like hiring 40 people at 50 hours per week or 50 people at 40 hours per week.

[safeinOhio]

20. I always thought that

if you can pay time and a half for overtime and still make money, you could still make money paying the same for straight time.

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. That is the employer's job. Dealing with employees is, and rightly should be the primary headache for

the employer. And here's a secret, when you're not constantly trying to steal as much from your employees as you can, it isn't that much of a headache at all.

[Diremoon]

6. This would probably be news to the Fox viewers

Anyone else should have realized this long ago. Republican businessmen or politicians are always being quoted about there being a shortage of people with the necessary skills. The skill they are referring to is willing to work for nothing.

[calimary]

8. Welcome to DU, Diremoon!

Glad you're here! Somehow they just don't understand that you get what you pay for. AND if you pay your workers decently, they might be more motivated to work harder, not call in sick as much, not turn over as much, not slack off as much, and MAYBE care about their work a little more. I've been in workplaces where the ongoing tendency to lay people off and pile their workload onto those remaining carries a pretty big long-range price tag. You start to see disgruntlement among the staff. You start seeing people slack off and stop caring so much, figuring out what minimums they need to put in, simply to get by til their eight hours are up and they can go home. The level of dedication declines. The resilience declines. The disinterest starts to rise. Resentment over being taken advantage of and not appreciated increases. Then you start getting half-assed efforts. Corner-cutting, arriving late and leaving early, calling in sick - and, more often than not, on Mondays. Sometimes even stealing. I saw so many cases of that while I was still working. People who'd start out eager and dedicated and giving 200% on the job, and then over time, as they get shat upon more and more, that motivation starts to fade. And those really good people who still care and still are motivated and still want to do a good job usually wind up so frustrated that they quit and take their goods somewhere else.

And of course, management won't notice because management really doesn't give a damn. All management ever seems to care about is getting by, too: mainly making it, short-term and worrying mainly about the immediate future and the quick-fix. And where there IS longterm thinking and planning, more often than not it's just another version of investing less, cutting more, and making do with fewer employees. "Fungible assets," as donald rumsfeld used to reduce it in his executive high-handedness. Um… those "fungible assets" are otherwise known as PEOPLE.

Management never quite gets it. When you chisel your employees, you shouldn't be surprised that they often find ways to chisel you back.

[Igel]

14. Yes and no.

If the workload starts off that way there's no problem. If it is easy and gets harder, there's a problem. Doesn't really matter if there was a lot of work, got easy, and then the work went back to the previous amount. It's the increase, but even that's not really the problem. It's how the workers are finessed. (And by "worker" that can be everybody from a burger-flipper to CFO.)

It's not the workload, in most cases (can be if it's really excessive). It's the perceived treatment of employees by managers, by their boss. The CEO is fairly irrelevant. It's really the next level up from the worker in question.

Change the manager to one whose indifferent or even mildly abusive but don't alter the workload one bit and people will perceive the workload as increasing and the place as having gone downhill a lot. Increase the workload and show the right sympathy and understanding, treat workers fairly and with respect, and it's usually okay--if not immediately, then within weeks or months.

[laundry_queen]

17. You are so right

It seems a lot of business schools don't teach this stuff but mine does - there is a HUGE cost to treating your employees like shit but they are mostly hidden costs. There's also a theory, forget what it's called, where the amount of short cuts and slacking and stealing that happens in a workplace happens in the same amount that employees feel they are getting shorted. So if employees are getting $17/hr but understand other people at other companies get $20/hr (or they themselves used to make $20/hr) then $3 an hour will be wasted in HR expenses from terminating and hiring new employees (less loyalty when you pay less), slacking, stealing, loss of innovation etc Treating employees like shit is almost never the right way to expand a business and is usually seen in struggling businesses - or large monopolies where employees have no other options.

[calimary]

21. I keep thinking about the testimonials I see regarding Costco.

The CEO makes, I think, 20 times what the guy at the loading dock makes. The CEO says he thinks that's appropriate. There's a generous benefits package as far as I've heard, and employees generally feel as though they're well-treated. People who shop there talk about how cheerful and friendly and helpful Costco employees are.

Well, they're out there inter-acting with the public and essentially being walking billboards for their company. You treat your employees badly, you'll get apathetic, secretly hostile (isn't that passive-aggressive behavior?) attitudes around the workplace, and that's the face your employees are going to be presenting to the world, with your/your company's name all over it. That starts taking its toll. Pretty soon the rate of absenteeism starts to rise. People start calling in sick more frequently. Little stuff slowly starts disappearing around the office. Sometimes it's evident in how much more often people are at the printer or the xerox machine or whatever. They're all using company supplies to update their resumes and send inquiries around for something better. On the other hand, I've also worked at places where the boss - and sometimes it was only one level up from me (the program director), and sometimes it was all the way up at the top (the general manager) - treated people really nicely. I swear, it made you want to work all night for that guy and twice on weekends.

It's so completely and obscenely penny-wise and pound-foolish to shortchange or otherwise disrespect your employees. It's so much smarter to treat people well and let them know they're appreciated. It pays so many dividends, tangible AND intangible. Your whole business thrives that way.

[laundry_queen]

30. Exactly. I agree with every word. nt

[MadrasT]

9. Yep. I see it all the time in my industry.

Executives whining about the lack of suitable employees.

It's not a lack of suitable employees.

It's a lack of people willing to work for the crap wages they want to pay.

[socialist_n_TN]

12. Under capitalism, yep the skills that are "lacking"......

are the ones where the employee can work for crap wages. That's the ONLY "skill" that they can't find.

[jsr]

13. CEOs always want to do a continuous reset on the pay scale for workers

while their own salaries skyrocket.

[madville]

15. We could find plenty of skilled workers

And usually paid between $15 and $25 an hour and averaged 50-60 hours a week, about $45-75k a year with a take home company vehicle. Our problem was always keeping them straight, and by that I mean not doing the following:

Misusing company vehicles
Alcohol abuse
Failed drug tests
Stealing company property
Stealing gas off company fuel cards
Porn on company equipment
Absenteeism

We felt lucky if you found maybe one out three that didn't fall under one or multiple categories above and those were the ones with clean backgrounds.

[Adrahil]

36. I am in a different business, but we have had similar problems....

.... though our success rate is higher. Still, we have had to let go maybe half out techs due to drug or alcohol problems. Drugs and/or alcohol problems are a serious no-no in a machine shop.

[Populist_Prole]

18. Raise pay. Problem solved. Pure supply/demand cons are always lecturing us about

Of course we know they're using a blatant double standard, but at least now it's obvious and out in the open. There's no way, with a straight face, that management can claim their own demand for "talent" ( cough cough ) sets their ever rising pay; Yet: When the demand for employees should dictate higher wages, management tries to change the rules of the game via lobbying and other forms of intervention.

Years ago, some stupid fluff piece in the WSJ quoted some muckety-muck from a trucking firm and the guy said basically "We're really really short of drivers and we're trying to find other ways of attracting them because we can't afford to pay more". Then he shouldn't be in business.

[butterfly77]

22. The right keeps on saying it...

and then the left wing politicians say it too.

These people run from show to show with their talking points and the media goes along and keeps on saying it over and over.

The people on the ground who are living it know its bull.

[Egalitarian Thug]

23. Always has been. The exceptions are as rare as they are ridiculous, but that doesn't stop

the parasite's lies.

[theHandpuppet]

25. Translated: We can't find workers who will labor for 50cents/hr and no benefits

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)

That excuse about a lack of skilled workers has always been a line of bull.

[Purveyor]

26. Thank you so much for posting this. +1 eom

[ladywnch]

28. and now, our latest, "no shit Sherlock" moment. n/t

[Adrahil]

29. Maybe it's true overall....

... but my small company currently has 18 job openings, and my company pays well has good benefits. They are technical positions, but run the gamut from technicians up to experienced engineers.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

34. For issue for us is geographic,

We have positions that have been unfilled for several years, the talent is concentrated on the East coast, specifically New York and Washington area and even under-employed people out there aren't willing to leave that bubble for the West coast.

And when we do have someone on the hook they invariably they have a boyfriend/girlfriend unwilling to relocate.

When we hire people with the technical background and try to train them on the administrative side of the job they tend to quit.

[Adrahil]

37. We're on the east coast....

nearish to Washington DC, but a but off the beaten path. A lot of younger people don't want to relocate to the "sticks" even if it means they stick with a crappy job.

[jwirr]

41. The business world pushes this myth because they want to import workers who will work cheaper.

[CK_John]

42. This still doesn't take into consideration the 3 people applying for each job.

This is an apple/oranges study. Wage rate has always been a consideration in hiring someone. This is just trying to shift the problem from productivity not producing jobs.