Excellent presentation - very informative. Mentally I am envisioning AI coming in to fill a lot of the openings. Not that I am in favor of that, it is just the technology is right around the corner and this problem exists.
I am trying to reconcile that as well. There was a Frontline episode about 2 years ago and one of the featured commentators was an author of a book called AI Superpowers. His projection was that automation will be coming for the white collar jobs within a decade or so, negating something like 30 to 50% of those jobs. This is on top of the significant amount of automation that has already reduced blue collar work.
@@gregoryknapen9133 AI right now is very brittle. Plenty of smart people working on many algos. Right now all I see is recommendations, search engines and advertising. All the chatbots I've had the misfortune of "using" are as helpful as a scummy self help guru. Insurance behemoths are investing big money but I've yet to see a killer app. The hype is real but tangible progress imho is still 5 years in the future.
For the past 20 years all of these companies, especially the telecom sector, embraced the idea of laying off at least 5% of the workforce every single year. They created a very toxic internal work environment that required management to constantly rate and rank employees, and at least yearly remind employees that they could be laid off. I finally volunteered to be laid off so that I could get my severance and leave. That mind set appears to still be in most major corporations.
Extreeeme Capitalizm in practice. Unchecked and moronic greed. When you run out of workers and whine to the government for more bailouts while the managers get out with golden parachutes.
@@azmodanpc They laid off the US citizens then they whine to government and give them lobbyist dollars to increase the number of H1B Visas to get more technical immigrants. And because the congressmen are getting their re-election coffers filled with dollars, they simply add to the H1B total. Biden tried to get 1,000,000 more H1Bs with his Build Back Better plan. Thank goodness it was blocked.
"Dont raise waiges, go get workers from your local prison, so that you as a business owner don't need to pay your workers, the population will do it for you as the gouvernment subsidizes prisons"
hm, i just realized that if that actually happens police brutality and the over-arresting of people for minor things will skyrocket to fuel the slave-prisoner market... i could use that idea for the book i'm writing
For a moment, I thought he was just talking about offering training programs... and then he started talking about working in prisoners before they were released.
@@amyfox3877 SO the take home message if you are a parent in the US and can't afford to pay for a college degree. Tell your children they will always be assured of a steady employment, All they have to do is go to jail! Presumably the longer the sentence the better...🤔
You have these companies that have requirements two pages long for a job that pays $11.00/hr. Then expect these employees to work 60 or 70 hours a week. People just finally said no… Raise the pay, make the jobs family friendly. Stop making low wage people feel abused just to be at work.
Yes. The way job descriptions are written I couldn't even recognize the ones for the positions I already held! They shoot themselves in the foot by writing job descriptions so ridiculous that people figure they may as well apply even if they have none of the qualifications. In the early days of the internet I saw job descriptions expecting 5 years of experience for positions that didn't exist 2 years before that. Who writes these things? Corporations are now reaping what they've sown. Give no respect or loyalty to your people and you get none in return.
I agree 100%. One thing that needs to be understood is that in some ways, US manufacturers are FORCED to act this way, in a low tariff, free trade environment. Even in only moderately labor intensive industries, it is impossible to compete with $2/hr Chinese or Pakistani labor without being "stingy" on the factory floor. The root of the problem is low-tariff free trade. If Americans want higher wages and more family friendly hours, they have to give up cheap imported products, and buy fewer (but better made) but more expensive products made by their countrymen.
@@brunopadovani7347 I agree! People that want high wages but want to use it to buy cheap foreign products, are essentially saying they believe themselves to be the only one that deserves a good job. We need to scale back our personal spending too. Like you say, buy quality instead of quantity. This will take a complete reset of our thinking.
@@brunopadovani7347 Few people realize we would be better off if we did buy more expensive products that are better made because they last a long time. Appliances from the 1950s-1970s are still working today. Meanwhile, people regularly replace their cheap appliances every few years. Well-made western boots worn daily for hard work last 2 years. Cheap ones last 3 months. Personally, I always buy quality over cheap price because I don't want to have to keep buying something repeatedly. I want it to last as long as possible.
How on earth can you have a presentation about workforce participation without talking about the availability, costs and structure of child care? Totally shocking that people are “coasting” and “don’t want to work” when the cost/benefit analysis of raising their kid[s] themselves comparing to securing child care has never been more favorable to staying home.
The presenter appears to live in a bubble. Employment for most people sucks. And whatever stimulus government provided to keep the Covid scam going has long since disappeared servicing the fraudulent debt-as-money system's interest payments.
The problem is "affordable" child care can never be made truly affordable. It will never, for example, be affordable enough for a low/minimum wage worker since those are the very people that provide labor for child care for others. It's a farce, a lie if you will. Only a relatively small portion of the population that can afford child care would benefit, at the cost of those at the bottom rung of the population. Predictable enough, as that's how it usually goes with these sorts of 'compassionate' gov't programs. And more to the point, it would likely exacerbate the very demographic problem it aims to solve by making the position of those on that bottom, and most populous, socioeconomic rung that much more disparate and nearly impossible to have children of their own. Also a fairly predictable result of such gov't programs which have a habit of hurting the very people they purport to help and being ultimately counter-productive to boot.
The corporations do care about this. They care so much that they'll shell out whatever it takes to keep scraping those fetuses out of your womb. Childcare problem solved. Big hurrah for fundamental womens' rights. Champion social justice and keep your employees grinding, it's win-win.
Economists need to do better and figure out an economic system that works for a stable population. Infinite growth on a finite planet was never a workable plan.
Socialism is the cancer. We don't have capitalism in this country. We have a centrally planned economy masceraiding as capitalism. Prime example is social security. It was ponzi since day 1. It requires an ever expanding population to pay for the older retiring generation. Our money supply requires constant inflation to pay for government prolific spending mostly to fund social welfare Our economic system is a mess primarily because of several waves of progressive policies put in place in the 1913s 1930s, 1970s, and 1990s, up till present day. The socialist destroyed the free market of this nation and then blames capitalism for the mess they created
@@simonl4657 Wow - you sound like a John Bircher... No Socialism, so guess we should fire all the police, firemen and military? Social Security insurance worked fine in the 20th century, but agree we should have taken a different tact than Reagan/Greenspan set (once we saw population growth rate drop which was obvious in the '90s). Free markets don't exist except in your fantasies.
@@simonl4657 Ahh, so if we just took the rails off this baby, the 54 trillion dollar interests of DTCC and the 41.7 trillion dollar interests of BNY Mellon wouldn't be sufficient lobbies to control the economy like a government, but without courts?
@Simon L If social security was so badly planned, why did it generate a surplus for every year of its existence until trump, while also ameliorating poverty and providing for the sick and injured?
You glossed over raising wages saying it just makes everything more expensive. That is only true it the ratio of earnings between labor and capital stays the same, if executives and owners were willing to take a smaller slice of the pie there would be no need to raise prices. If you look at the ratio in the so called "golden age" it points straight to that.
Summary: slave labor is cheap so let's use that. This is why we must make prison labor illegal for anything outside of road work and license plates. We're already seen cases in the private prison industry where they're finding pretext to keep people in prison longer and to keep the wages they earned as prisoners.
I’ve been aware of this coming demographic drop for a few years. And it got me thinking: humanity is not just going to shrink down to 0. There is some minimum to where eventually enough babies will be born to bring the numbers back to replacement level. It will just be a lot lower than what we have now.
I think most demographers are graphing that global population will level off at around 10-11 billion, rather than dipping down lower than it is right now. Of course there are huge amounts of assumptions involved in this. I think the US population could go back to growing, it's interesting to note that urban populations have far less children than rural populations, so any migration toward rural living would potentially increase population.
The problem is: what happens when there are wayyyyyy too many old people versus young strong healthy workers? That's the issue my friend. And will that young generation be ready for such a task? With our godless culture, certainly not. Great Evil is on the horizon. But honestly it's of our own consequences from our choices. We've laid a snare for ourselves. And God will mock us when we are caught in our own net. Cost of turning our backs on God and His Righteous ways.
“Instead of raising wages for your workers in this environment of record profits, you should instead utilize prison slave labor.” Seriously? I thank you deeply for the analysis of the issue but is this really the solution?
Men can be happy living simply. The more we work the more we have to pay in alimony and child support. Working has become less attractive to men. We're happy women are working more, earning more, better educated. I'm an American man, retired 20 years ago at 45 as a software engineer. If I'd kept working I'd be paying huge alimony and be forced to keep working to keep up those payments. But because I dropped out $0 alimony. And I'm very happy with a simple life.
Treat men like shit and they'll respond by not participating. Family/divorce courts are certainly one significant source of the problem. And the thing is, men can turn their backs on society and not tell anyone. Ghost if you will. It will be awhile before society notices this.
I thought of another element Water Bug, that is high earning solo people, more often men as hey pursue higher earning work, pay significantly more in taxes as they have few deductions. What a penalty for being highly productive and yet very low burden on society. I can imagine those like you who hit the work/pay hard, and invest while doing it, have an incentive to retire early since tax rates on investments are lower. Good job to you!
I never get why you have to pay alimony, child support I do. We have alimony in Australia but it goes both ways and is not common as mos people do not know about it.
I hope you didn’t make any babies. My sister’s first husband “accidentally” shot her in the leg while cleaning his gun. If he had not “accidentally” shot a friend doing the same thing, we might have bought that bullshit. She fled with their two small sons. One took a couple of years to stop walking on his tip toes. That was due to his frequently angry dad. He was a traveling musician and was able to hide his income by being paid under the table. Not until his adoptive mother died when his kids were 17 and 18 did they get some back child support. She owned a home. No skin off his nose. My sister has worked hard her entire life. At 71 she still works full time. Without a college education she went from bookkeeper to Controller of the company she has worked for for 39 years. She is extremely smart. Gave up on men after her second husband turned out to be a pedo. Both sides complain about the other. There are just as many bad exes of both genders.
Exactly what our economics teacher taught us while I was getting my MBA in 2008. I could never get my mechanical design/engineering job back after spending 15 years working in it and I never really got a job as an MBA. I did get a 3 year paid internship with a government agency but it kind of looked like our government doesn't spend time & money training older white males and preferably anyone over the age of 50 years old. Came back to the area I graduated from with my MBA only to discover that companies don't want to employ people over 50 years old especially if they have any education beyond high school. The jobs they will employ you for are through employment agencies and so physical in nature that some 20 year olds cannot perform the job and the rest run from the job. Also, most of the employment agencies don't provide any, as in zero benefits. The 20 year olds can get hired directly after only 6 months or less on the job, while the older crowd had to wait 5 to 7 years. The 20 year olds were also given the easiest jobs. Coming into 2017 to 2018 companies started hire the older crowd but only for the hardest jobs. Wages for these jobs jumped to as much money I made as design engineer after working for 10 years. That was the only good news. Today it all remains the same with the local companies trying to eliminate about every older worker they can through injury, retirement, or just making your day difficult. The companies are also giving the unqualified high school graduates jobs in the engineering, HR, and management positions. Lastly, a sizable amount of the work only gets done through the efforts of the older generations who for some known reason are retiring or working less while at work but not at home. I train people fast and well but I am still in the same entry level job I did 3 years ago. In short, companies no longer value hard working or educated people so if there is a labor shortage they can thank their mid through top management and the government's aggressive equal opportunity policies. This country is screwed up & I can not wait to retire and possibly move elsewhere.
"Out of the labor force" includes every noninstitutionalized civilian over age 16 who is not working nor looking for work. Thus, it includes the two groups you have mentioned, but also retirees, non-working housewives or students and others.
@Anderson Who wouldn't want to do what they want all day, rather than what their employer wants. What is your employer, god? We're not slaves yet, although they're working on that.
@Anderson Isn't unemployment limited by time and amount and lifetime limits, as well as by your previous level of taxed compensation? Your replies sound like an outdated myth, much like reagan's welfare queens.
Maybe if wages had kept up with inflation for the last 15 years. Health insurance is more than a whole minimum wage job's pay. As an ordinary guy, without a degree, I made 2 to 3 times as much as a handyman than any job would pay. And If prices went up, so did my fees. There's no such balance in a job working for the typical company today.
Discussing income without discussing cost of living, is an incomplete discussion. Comparing incomes where middle class had one income source (usually husband) to income with two income earners does not take into account cost to family of second income (child care, family cohesion...) Discussing labor force participation or job postings, without stratifying by wage, is an incomplete discussion and can lead to false conclusions about causality and remedies. Associating degree is NOT a very educated degree, it is at most 2 years in a very focused road, so the equivalent of a HS diploma but without the stigma of having only a HS diploma. Naming cares act and other aid programs without defining the actual payment to an individual is an incomplete discussion. Concluding that median income was "skyrocketing" by COVID related payments, payments given when people were not working, doesn't make sense. I stopped at this point - too many gross generalization fallacies. These are all gross and selective observations without a careful analysis of cause and stratification (eg by wage...).
@T_rat Could not hv said it better myself. Once again, people not really wanting to look at the matter in detail. Cherry pick your presentations and instead, get your ass of that seat and go walk the streets of America to SEE, the proof of devastation.
Not to mention that of the 6 T in covid payouts, only .5 T went to the common people whereas 5.5 T went to corporations, with no checks or balances thanks to the republicans in charge.
There is a bigger picture to all of this. Many economists agree that a growing population is key to a growing economy. If that's true, then the world is in deep trouble. Western democracies can attract foreign workers. But what about other countries. Who dreams of moving to Iran, Bulgaria, China. Most countries planetwide can't attract workers. If the world population is shrinking, then most countries will have shrinking economies. Western democracies don't operate in isolation. If 3rd world economies tank, they will take the West with them.
It's certainly true that growing populations will make the economy grow. An economy is people exchanging goods and services, so more people = more economy. But that's not what's driven growth since the Industrial Revolution. Learning how to use the energy stored in fossil fuels has, because wealth is created by labor, and machines powered by heat engines can do monstrous amounts of labor. Before the heat engine, wealth increased at a rate of about one tenth of one percent, and you can make your adjustments for population growth or decline. After the heat engine, in capitalist economies, that jumped to 3%, a huge difference, and it means economic output doubles every fourteen years. It's increases in productivity that is the key driver of economic growth in the industrial age.
@@joshbobst1629 Productivity does not matter if there are no new customers. If the US population drops by half over night, why build more housing. Who are you going to sell the new house to.
@Rich X You will sell those houses to the same entities buying them now: real estate investment firms seeking hard assets, in hopes that they may retain their value when all else collapses.
I agree with everyone' comments about this being a great presentation, well presented. Your solutions are admirable. A big problem I see is that bosses are "scorpions" who will not change, and will drown with the "frogs" who are holding them up. So, as you noted, it will take at least 10 years for us to see improvements. I hope I'm wrong, but I haven't been wrong in the 20 years that I have worked for the govt entity that I work for now.
Great presentation. But I hope you’re aware that wages have been flat for decades and that is one of the huge problems here. Productivity is through the roof, but wages are stagnant. Not only are the younger generation smaller but have had the smallest real wages. If we’re unaware of the needs for workers the boomers wealth will be lost as the under generations need to pay more from less income, and boomers will have a terrible end of life and a catastrophic end to US wealth generation.
As children in the late 50's/early 60's we were instructed to be ready for an atomic exchange were the cold war were to heat up. Later we were drafted off to Vietnam to serve in a war aimed at preventing people living on the other side of the world from exercising self rule. No wonder there was a wholesale refusal by our generation to procreate children to feed America's military industrial complex. I knew for sure that I would remain childless sitting under my desk in grade school waiting for the bombs to fall and never regretted the decision, it could have been so different.
The idea that rising wages simply makes everything cost more is an idea that doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Conservatives--especially investors--love this idea because it scares the target audience into believing that rising wages is a zero-sum game. If this were true, we'd be stuck back at that $5,500/yr annual household income. Rising wages and prices only establish an equilibrium in actual value of income (income v cost index) if rising costs do not inspire any changes in labor utilization that increase efficiency or productivity. In other words, claims that rising wages get eaten up by rising costs fly in the face of the core principle of free market capitalism, which is that innovation will result in better and cheaper products. If labor were the sole factor in the cost of goods and services, and if the market completely lost its power to inspire better labor utilization and reward the same, then sure, rising wages would get counterbalanced by rising costs on a more-or-less dollar-for-dollar basis. In the real world. labor is not the only factor which determines costs; and investors find themselves highly incentivized to improve labor utilization. This process has been going on while wages have risen since the start of the Industrial Revolution at least--all without causing standards of living to stagnate.
Asking that wages be kept the same, especially in sectors where wages have been flat or falling in real dollars, out of fear that rising wages in those sectors will raise prices, is a really bad take, especially as companies pay their leaders increasingly higher salaries year after year. Raise for me, but not for thee, is the prevailing motto among business leaders and it is the best way possible to discourage labor force participation. Eventually even the most inveterate gambler will walk away from the table when they realize the game was rigged against them, and that's what we are seeing. For decades we have told kids to get a good education so they can have a good career. Those kids did that and the result was that those good careers did not exist in the numbers needed to employ all of them at the wages required to even repay the loans they took out getting that education, and now we say "oops, turns out we needed you to be less educated because what we really need is truck drivers and burger flippers. You are over qualified, but i guess i can hire you at a poverty wage". How grossly insulting. It should not be a surprise to anyone that people have walked away from the labor market, what should be a surprise is how many people haven't.
Useful education, skills, and experience are dwindling as compensation demands continue to rise. Before long hiring will have to look seriously at literacy, this is no joke. People are coming out of colleges with degrees but communicating at the level of grunts and text-speak.
Why do we have so many college educated residents when less than 25% of the population has an IQ over 110? (Realistically, 75% probably have an IQ below 107 these days.) A lot of them must be going deep in debt for the sort of education they should have gotten in high school.
More years in school don't make you better educated, in my trade, we have to recruit grad-students in order get get kids who can read and cipher at an 8th grade level.
In addition, for industrial societies, marriage rate reflects a belief in future prosperity. If you don't think your life can support a spouse and children, you don't get married.
Laws regarding marriage have completely destroyed the institution. Women are now rewarded for breaking their contract. So it's becoming less appealing to even high earning men.
Fuel demand goes up, prices go up and workers have to deal with it. Food supply goes down, prices go up and workers have to deal with it. Millions of job openings and all the candidates are overqualified, businesses complain that no one wants to work. It's not that no one wants to work, it's that no one wants to work for a wage they can't support themself on. The $15 minimum wage was the demand ten years ago. Labor is in even more demand now. Businesses need to start paying living wages and providing the kinds of benefits we see from OECD countries or things are going to get ugly in this county.
It seems obvious that there needs to be a law that every time a company posts a profit above a certain amount, and for every bracket above that amount in profit, quarterly or whenever, for all companies, before the shareholders see a cent, all employees get a mandatory flat bonus - the same amount for everyone from janitor to CEO, not tied to salary. That way the employees making the least get the biggest benefit, percentage wise. It should also not count towards minimum wage calculations. A flat, mandatory performance bonus quarterly to all employees everywhere based on profit would go a loooong way towards rectifying the difference between efficiency/output growth and salary growth. On a per-business basis it would even be relatively inflation neutral. The intended result is that no matter how successful and efficient a business gets, as long as it's profitable at all, employee costs should track above a certain percentage of net income from that business and salary pyramids should be relatively flattened relative to job description or role. Make the best investment any person can make be to work for a profitable business rather than owning a business and you will see labour participation increase and successful businesses have the most productive, profitable employees at the same time.
That was a really good presentation. It would be hard to answer the "now what do we do" without first covering "how we got here". The key take-away appears to be that creativity and flexibility will be required to navigate the uncharted territory. While employees wouldn't mind having money thrown at the problem, a money cannon won't solve all of these challenges. With a relative oversupply of college educated workers compared to manufacturing and trades, the market may need to reflect that in terms of compensation. Those in the trades and manufacturing would be well served to engage high school students perhaps as early as their sophomore years and educate them to potential career paths (and ways they can grow those careers). Another aspect not mentioned, the US hasn't had meaningful increases in worker productivity in over two decades. The relative productivity of an hour of American labor versus a competitor is what allows the US to have higher standards of living.
H.R. is the "iron fist in a velvet glove". H.R. is design to minimize labor cost. Workman's Comp. H.R. works against the worker infavor of the company. So now, employees are becoming hard to find.
50 years ago they would let people graduate who couldn’t even do basic math. They would send criminals to war instead of prison. Algebra 1 wasn’t even required until about the 80s. The comparison is terrible. It doesn’t paint a proper picture. Most women were gonna be housewives while the men were going to the factory or trades. Generation is irrelevant. Those people have never been considered intelligent
This is true. There should be more direct govt funding of colleges, as there was in the past, but before there is to be any more talk of debt forgiveness, lets first reform our high schools to be more like colleges. If you cannot pass a class then you should not get the credit for it. If your gpa is too low then you should not be able to claim a diploma. Money needs to be more wisely spent, not divided among any number of unaccountable charter schools. Advanced placement classes need to be available for all students of every district. I suspect that high school today is basically day care for certain troublesome adolescents who would otherwise drive wages down for family men. If there were more stringent standards, perhaps we could have a more skilled workforce that is also unburdened by debt.
Comments: 1) Have you ever thought of requiring you managers and your customers to treat your staff as humans? Seriously, I watch how people in the service industry are treated by John and Joan Q. Public and I wonder who would sign up for that treatmenht. 2) Training - What is that? You used to have to go through months of training for even low level jobs. Now, yu get thrown into the job and good luck 3) Many or most college graduates are not taught the basic skills necessary to thrive in the workplace. They lack basic skills on how to work with their coworkers, especially those who are older. 4) In the old days, you had to learn skills and move up in the organization to enter management. Now, you have an MBA class who has little or no practical business knowledge and experience that are being anointed as "high potential employees" who walk into management positions more based on their degree than their abilities. And you wonder why Boomers are rushing out the door?
How to retain employees "The boss can't be an asshole anymore." It's to bad that companies need to be forced into a position of not being assholes to thier employees, LoL!
Participation rate will go up as soon as the government stops subsidizing them. Just because people are educated doesn't mean they know anything. A horseman I knew said it doesn't matter what you put on a horses head, it matters what you put in it. Same applies to people.
Maybe, but even then, you need to radically restructure your society, less schools, more nursing homes. Also, Malthus has been proven wrong over and over again.
It's very bad news because short sighted Western elites will continue to import people from parts of the world with very high fertility rates. America will turn into Brazil or Yugoslavia. I'm not sure which one yet.
His point about training is very interesting. After WW2 people were given jobs in management that didn't have this or that qualification. We have become obsessed with qualifications - so CVs are searched for them and if there are not on a CV its excluded. Also, it makes HR lazy and not looking at people who are not an obvious fit. Lastly, tapping into Prisons is not something that Russian employers can do as Putin as sent them to their deaths in Ukraine.
You are so wrong on wages. People aren't having kids because they can't afford them. How do you justify saying not raising employee wages to keep up with cost of living increases, but executives paying themselves tens of millions of dollars? You missed the chart showing executive pay ballooning but real wages decreasing over time.
I see many indicators of underlying pessimism. Falling and stagnant real wages for years, poor working conditions, decaying cities all discourage having children. Why would we bring kids into this mess?
That ironic place where you can see it in your friends but not in yourself. Get locked up people to do it so you don't have to, so you can make spreadsheets that show you the actions of people who told you that before they quit. Maybe they don't want to work because you do work for your kids, and they don't want to have kids because your plan is to lock the kids up so they need your self interested position to stay out of jail.
There are numerous 50 year old men living with their mothers in Northern Nevada. Mom owns a residence and they will never own a home unless they inherit one. They will never qualify for either a pension or Social Security. The worst thing is their old age parents are enabling this laziness, and the future destitution of their children.
Have three friends in their early 60s and they were unemployed as beginning of this and continue to look for work and never found it at any rate of pay. Another looked for three years before getting a job as a lifeguard at the Y after having been a mid manager. And then many Boomers retired early under these conditions and found they were able to make it with less than they thought. They won't be coming back. Finally, ten million people, or about 3% of the population now has Long Covid. They will not be returning to work for at least a year if not ever.
Wife and I no kids. Live well below our means and save in Gold coins. Practically buy nothing unless absolutely needed, don't care about Tech products and own very few. Why? so I can leave the work force early and retire to a simple but relaxed and quiet life. I'm one of those that laughes at most of the crap people do and buy. Not at all impressed by material wealth and do not desire it for myself. More I make the quicker I'm out is the only reason I care at all about money. I have been warning people myself of the demographic winter coming. Most laugh it off. But IMO it will be even worse than this presentation suggests. A world of ever increasing excess. Less and less children. And finally a long term if not permanent decreasing population.
@@JM-ps6le I wouldn't know what system they will plan. I buy gold coins because they are legal tender in my country and so no capital gains tax. Crypto and stocks get taxed. I don't want to pay tax to the government. So I buy gold minted coins and silver minted coins for savings. Doing it for 15 years now and it's done well. And when I finally sell no tax. Sweet.
I've worked as a Consultant for many companies over the years. I've long since realised that the on-site HR department is actually working for people on a different planet.
This issue of a shrinking working population is always framed as a bad thing, and I the basic idea that growing the economy has been generally quite good. But on environmental side of things I've also heard the call for degrowth in regards to the economy talked about as a necessary part of the fix. So I wonder since it's seems basically a fact to state that the working population is going to shrink could this problem be solved instead by taking steps to actively shrink the economy and changing things in that regard.
Yes, thank you feminists! As standard of living and personal agency increases, more and more women are taking charge of their bodies and are practicing family planning instead of giving up and letting their environment dictate their behavior. This is causing human population to drop to sustainable levels, even in the poorest parts of the world (although they still have a ways to go to catch up). Huzzah!
I love my job! (No, actually I don’t) but I love that I picked a career that is guaranteed to always have high demand. Healthcare. There will be so many people aging and needing my care. I’m 26. I have no kids. I can’t imagine being able to afford them at this time. I think when I’m in my 30s I’d feel more ready. I only want ONE. I truly do feel the world is grossly overpopulated.
Very well presented video, thank you! Just a small thing that I noticed; you ignored illegal immigration in the sheet about immigration dropping to almost zero. It was explained in the small subtext, but still.
For aviation and transportation, drugs being legal disqualifies many, and safety concerns keep it at lock down. Nobody wants a drugged up pilot or heavy equipment operator, bus driver etc....
This is very interesting. I wonder what would happen if the labor shortage will be additionally impacted by the rise of Autism. Every year the incidence rate goes up.
A period of shrinking population can be painful, but to reset at a lower level (with less demand on natural resources) might not be bad. But transfer payments, particularly for the aged, will be a problem for decades to come.
Majority of people looking for economic support because they are having children by accident. The child’s put them into financial difficulty. Government handout would be a reward for irresponsibility. I remember them teaching us in our high school parenting class. Kids are lotta responsibility they would teach us. and you have to grow up and prepare to be able to take care of them before you have them. Free childcare as a government handout chooses some citizens to be rewarded over others. The government would be treating people equally if they payed back about the same amount of money to each citizen and those with children could use it for childcare, those without could use it for retirement and their healthcare or to start a business.
Despite a relatively high number of babies being born with a surprisingly even bigger increase in the number of babies born to the well educated class, Israel is short around 10,000 experts just in the Hi-Tech Sector alone. There are a large numbers of foreign workers in Agriculture, Health Care for Seniors and Construction. Most Israeli males are only entering Universities etc. or the work force at age 21/22 [women a bit earlier] due to compulsory Military Service. Then after adding 4 years at Uni/College we get to around 26 years old before a guy starts to earn/save to marry etc.. Most women work after marriage and having children and make up an important part of the family budget and workforce. Real Estate is very expensive as is the cost of living so all in all it is amazing that the birth rate is so high.
I know folks who are more than hesitant to go back into their service industry jobs because they can't be assured any level of safety with loud resistance to vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, despite these loud folks making up the minority of Americans. I hear this story over and over and over. We must return to a more welcoming culture to immigration, though we may have permanently damaged our attractiveness in that regard in the years leading up to the pandemic.
There's a point you failed to mention. China's One Child policy ended 6 years ago. The US Census Bureau predicts the US population (which has doubled since I was born in the '50s) will be around 435 million by 2100 and China's population drop by almost 400 million people. India's population will also grow by almost 100 million. Wages have not kept up with inflation. What I think needs to happen, as long as businesses don't try to play the system, is for entry, non-skilled, jobs to pay pretty much what they do now, adjusted for inflation, but as an incentive for workers to stay business needs to give decent pay raises at the 90 day mark and at other milestones of length at the job and tie that in with promotions. Another factor on the workforce in the future is the huge impact of automation in eliminating jobs.
He's talking like all these changes are bad. 1. People who have degrees that they can't use will get the jobs that boomers left, 2. The low-education jobs have to pay more (and can avoid inflation by just paying CEOs less) 3. We still attract immigrants but don't treat them like crap 4. We have to pay construction workers more to do hard, dangerous jobs 5. We make less stuff, but there aren't as many people to divide up the stuff, so that works What exactly is bad? I mean... except for his convict factory plan. That's what I'd call "bad." He also didn't mention automation, digitization, improved efficiency, or people retiring later.
Huh, Turns out I was ahead of my time. I’ve always told management “Get me someone with people skills, we can teach them the technicalities.” They never did.
No crisis to explain the Depression era level fertility rate in 2010-2020? What about the 2008 market crash? The climate crisis? Stagnant wages? Student debt? The poor handling of the pandemic? There are many reasons why someone may not be able to afford children, or fears for the future discouraging having children. I stopped watching shortly after hearing him say there was no crisis to explain the fertility rate; it revealed that he was out of touch with the realities on the ground. And then I read the comments and apparently it got even worse from there, how he was basically ignoring his own statistics to say raising wages wouldn't help to alleviate the problems he described.
The older, more vulnerable to Covid took a look at early retirement. The number of friends who say, "I can retire comfortably now and I do not want to play Covid politics, so I am out. If I need some quick cash, I can dip into the gig economy."
Excellent video. This is why we need immigration but not en masse. The governments of each state should estimate the skills and quantity of people needed and then post in countries from where pools of workers can be VETTED (e.g. no criminals). En Masse without vetting is the Democrat's way of building up voting blocks. And they will take ANYBODY....and with mail-in voting....alive or dead.
Is there higher criminality among illegal immigrants than the native population? I mean, other than the border hopping, of course. Can illegals vote? Can you please describe how illegal immigrants are putting their own livelihoods at risk to put themselves on official voter rolls in order to cast votes in a representative democracy? How is an illegal immigrant working for below the table wages managing to afford verified fake ids, which according to the fbi cost 20 thousand dollars apiece a decade ago? If they are casting votes in place of legal citizenry, why has there been a dearth of double voting, except by misinformed republicans? I like that democrats employ the profit motive to discourage illegal immigration. Obama trialed a bond program that got over 99 percent of suspected illegal immigrants to court and deported, without necessitating family separations or expensive state detention, by seizing and holding suspects' property until they show up for court. Today, Biden is going after illegal employers, which has already proven to be successful in Arizona, where a republican governor had to raise the state's minimum wage since getting rid of illegal employers practically eliminated illegal immigration. I like that so much better than putting white nationalists and grifters in charge of border security, or leaving in place a system where illegal employers can keep illegal immigrants enslaved and profitable.
It's a fallacy, proven wrong many times over, that pay going up causes the costs of everything going up in a proportion that makes the increase of pay irrelevant. What is not considered when statements like this are made, like this guy made, is that labor is a small percentage of the cost in business which is why increases in pay does not influence costs all that much.
Working hours is a sticky problem. What would you do if you had so much demand that you had to increase working hours for everyone? Because they know if everyone is making more overtime money the price of everything will go up. So, everyone works harder and longer to achieve the same material results. Then they start quitting for more reasonable hours elsewhere. Which causes a greater gap between demand and production. Which causes the company to keep hours high, or even increase them. Which causes more people to quit. They try like mad to hire more, but there's no one left with time to train them. So they're not successful in their job. Which causes more people to quit. Automation, they say, is the way. But nobody has the skills to set up maintain the robots, because the company operates in rural areas. And they can't attract and retain skilled workers because there's no houses to buy, and no one to build them. I think an incredible simplification of production will need to take place, so fewer workers can do more. Fewer choices at the drive through, the grocery store, the car lot, the furniture store, and the shoe store. We have to ask ourselves if it's economically wise to send moms into the workforce as cashiers and teachers who then have to pay to place their own children in day care or their mother or grandmother in the nursing home. We definitely need to talk about how we can curb divorce, because nobody talks about the astronomical monetary cost it drags on the economy. And we need to ask ourselves why inflation is 6% but the cost of housing has gone up 12% or 18%. Without a place to put them, future generations will be disinclined to grow the population, if you know what I mean.
Are you sure you're an economist? What I hear you saying is that low-skill people are becoming a scarce resource. Usually, when economists talk about scarcity of resources, they also talk about increasing cost. It could be that, well, I know this'll sound crazy, but that your low-skill people are actually not 100000 times less valuable than the people who sit on the board of directors.
The graph at 2:45 seems WAY off. How did you get $14K real household income for 1975? If I look at Russel Sage Foundation's Chartbook of Social Inequality for example, shows 1967 Median Household Income of $43K (2012 dollars) and in 1995 it was about $50K and in 2012 is was $51K. That is extremely different than going from $14K to $56K between '75 and '95, something I've never heard anyone say has happened after adjusting for inflation. It looks like the number is WITHOUT adjusting for inflation.
Employers have screwed themselves. So many have considered workers disposable for the last 30 years. This destroyed company loyalty. That, and internal paths to advancement have dried up, as it was easier to hire from outside. So the only thing that people will trust is cash.
The whole section at the end about training and pay hides the sins from the mostly corporate audience. Pay was effectively stagnant because as noted there were always more Baby Boomers. The flattening of earnings by changing logistics systems was aided by the removal the high skill, high cost, low profit training and development programs companies didn't need anymore. There is simply no path to continued growth for most companies because there profits and executive pay will have to go down to hire new people and build programs they haven't had to pay for in 40 years.
@@ianbelanger7459 Exactly. I will speculate, however, that corporations that don't respond to this new/old methodology will collapse. At least, that is what I want.
@@christianlibertarian5488 which parties benefit from the transition will mostly be determined by how the country collectively stabilizes the economy. The truly rich almost always skate by. If the support is primarily delivered to companies, even the bad companies will do fine. If the support programs are aimed at cities and individuals, the bad actors are far more likely to fade or collapse being replaced by companies more suited to the new post growth business environment.
You nailed it. Demographics are the reflection of the expectations of people regarding the future of their children... and a big part of that is the long-term security of your income.
@@cordfortina9073 Right now, labor is in the driver's seat. I am speculating that it will be for another decade. Outsourcing to China is no longer an option. Building stuff in the US is now cheaper than China, even with higher labor costs. So stuff is being built here, and it needs labor; there is a relative shortage. As regards CEO's, for a big corporation, they are indeed worth $30M. A good CEO is very difficult to find. Look at GE--it had Jack Welch, and became a superstar company. He left, the company tanked. Billions rest on their decisions. OTOH, bad CEOs cost. JCPenney hired a guy they thought was a star, then fired him because he wasn't.
The audience for this research: businesses and corporations. How you know this research is NOT for the workers: "The thing I'm not a fan of is raising wages...Everybody loses. Well the workers win, bUt eVEn tHeN....." 🤣
@@ryanroggenbauer3642 Because business leaders don't want the system to actually change in a way that hurts them. They will not accept a change in percentages of distribution of gains, so the only way to increase pay for their employees is to raise their prices, which means that while it might seem like those employees are wealthier in the short term, if every company does the same thing, nothing changes. It's hard to argue that capital investors deserve less of a cut from corporate revenue, but I think that upper management salaries are bloated. There's clear cases across the economy of bad CEOs making bad decisions and their company making money anyway, and good CEOs watching their company die to forces outside their control. Leadership positions are seen as way more influential than they actually are, and the sooner we realize that they're just another part of the team, the better off we'll all be.
The thing is: When everyone's pay goes up... what hinders buisnesses from raising prices to match? When you just increase the pay with no regards to the general value you can end up with hyper inflation (though this usually happens when the government begins to print money in mass to get rid of their debt) And when you have increased inflation, you don't have (as much of) a benefit from saving anymore. Look at China: They have for one person growing up up to six people (parents+grandparents) who help when it comes to buy a house... House prices rise and the cost of raising (and supporting) a child goes up. Now it isn't economic anymore to have multiple children (as they were in the majority of human history the only retirement option).
Indeed. This entire presentation is completely out of touch with reality. Many of the assumptions and premises made are almost complete 180 degrees from what is actually going on.
@@ryanroggenbauer3642 Higher wages lead to higher prices. Higher wages also leads to higher tax brackets and more money going to government. Wages can and should only go up when productivity goes up otherwise most people will be worse off and their standard of living will go down.
Honestly working isn’t the issue. The issue is the overpriced homes, the 8% bidenflation, the dumb hiring policies from companies (some people still can’t get hired even though companies are “begging” for workers) and the low wages on starter jobs. Also the fact every shitty job wants a college degree
The Millennial man is currently at war with this system. As long as we maintain this fiat debt based system, which funnels all the excess labor to the top rather than allowing a man to keep the fruits of his labor; then I will continue to work my "part-time" job, not buy a house, not have a family, and enjoy watching the Corporation bitch and moan about "not enough workers", who they have been screwing for the better part of 4 decades. The long arc of Universe bends towards justice.
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se Bidenflation? Yeah, it’s all his fault…..and has nothing to do with companies raising prices to make up for Trump’s shut down, supply chain issues or even the greed heads who see workers everywhere finally getting raised leaning in.
@@christinelafromboise6731 Jesus man..relax..it’s just a joke..depends on your definition of “rich” some do and some don’t….not everybody is trying to cheat the system but you would be a fool not follow the advice of your financial adviser…thats what you hire them for right?🤨
I remember trying to negotiate a pay raise in the 1990's after my first and only child, my wife and I were hoping to have at least one more. I'll never forget the way my boss just laughed and said, "it's not our problem if you want to have more children". All I can say to companies now is, you will not be hiring the children your workers could not afford to have. Corporations and politicians have been governed by a think long/think wrong attitude for coming on 2 generations, and it's about to seriously bite them in the rear.
That company was correct imo. You should get a higher salary because you want more kids so single people working there have to be paid less. Let's consider a system that pays people based on their desires rather than what they produce. Doesn't sound like that great a system. The US can get as many low wage workers as we like extremely quickly via immigration. We don't have to pay people to have kids.
The presenter is quite clear that immigration will not provide the needed labor because too many developed countries need labor and the potential immigrant labor force is too small. Also this country expects parents to shoulder pretty much the entire burden of raising children, and the ensuing economic losses of lower income and/or child care expenses, increased medical insurance, car insurance (for teen drivers), educational expenses, housing, it goes on. Tax policies can help by greatly increasing the deduction for dependent children to off set these expenses. Plus none of this addresses the stress and emotional demands of parenting in the isolation of the nuclear family. It is no wonder birth rates are declining.
@@MrWaterbugdesign I can remember a time when businesses understood that they needed to pay workers enough to provide the next generation of workers or they would be screwed. They forgot that in the 1970s, took profit for 2 generations and for the next 3 generations it's going to cost more than it was worth.
@@gadaadhoon Yes. I lived through the 70s stagflation so I have read about its causes and cures. Ultimately, the end of empire and fiat currency are what is needed to restore the Republic. I don't think that will happen until we go through a civil war to reestablish the true founding stock nation. Aliens (foreign not space) have ruled America since the formation of the central bank and brought this cosmopolitan empire into existence to destroy the true nation.
Please correct my ignorance. If stagflation is what happens when wages are constant and prices go up due to supply side problems how will increasing wages cause stagflation? I understand very well that it will cause inflation, I'm just confused as to how it will cause stagflation
@@gadaadhoon It won't cause inflation either. Inflation drives workers to seek higher pay, that explains the great resignation. The central bankers are reacting to this as they always do ultimately by restricting money supply and putting the economy into severe recession. The resulting unemployment destroys workers leverage and forces them to accept lower wages. Demand is reduced and comes into balance with supply. The only problem is that it also destroys the working and middle class. Sound money would lead to a constantly growing, mildly deflationary economy (productivity gains slowly lowering prices) that favors savings and middle class probity. That is the old and much finer Republic.
So the takeaway is ... Simplify your job descriptions, invest in training your staff and don't let them quit if you can possibly avoid it. Just don't under any circumstances whatsoever increase the salaries you offer because that is 'bad' (no further explanation provided). One assumes that's because 'hey lets just increase salaries' is a message the presenter's employer thinks their clients (real or potential) don't want to hear. And I get that. Because hey, like when was the salary offered by a potential employer actually ever the main consideration when applying for a job? Mostly it's just about the 'vibe' right?
@@wohnai Wow, I didn't get that far before giving up in frustration. Just confirms that the presentation was aimed at the type of employer who would rather eat their own liver than offer higher pay to attract staff. I.E. Bad employers.
I think part of the point he was trying to make is that companies should try and keep employees longer to make training costs go down. He failed to mention that increasing pay and giving people job security is the most important part of keeping workers. This is not happening enough in companies today. They prefer to lay off workers who are inconvenient at the time and pay prospective workers very little
@@blakehill5324 Best way to change that? Make hiring costs tax deductible and reduce other taxes affecting 'new' hires. Then impose tax penalties and mandate termination payments for firings - particularity mass redundancies. Carrot and stick. (Ideally they should roughly balance out) but basically make hiring cheaper and firing more expensive.) And it the case of mass redundancies - no executive or board bonuses that year.
You miss the point when you advise not to raise wages. By your own line graph, the money supply doubled. Retail items now cost 15-21 percent more in stores than they did compared to February 2020. Low wage people have an intuitive understanding of Cost of Living relative to wage increases. They are (rationally) opting out because they know it would require a massive sea change of Economic Nationalism to get them a spouse and a single family home in a decent low-crime school district. If they are just going to waste away in a crappy apartment from age 37 to 87, why not work as little as possible? It’s entirely rationale. Oddly, even Gen X managers have not figured out the demographic trend lines yet, and still treat their employees as though they can be easily replaced.
Low wage people need to get some skills, which comes only from work/experience and or education. There is no reason to simply stay in the low wage category over time.
They have the skill of noticing food costs 17% more than it did a year ago and they are not going to eat that cost. For most business owners I know, 2020 was there most profitable year despite COVID. All that printed money had not been “priced in” to peoples wag expectations yet. Individual business owners have zero leverage now. You can acknowledge that or have no employees.
Not to mention that real wages have stagnated over the past 50 years relative to inflation. Wages in lower skilled jobs were way overdue for a signficant rise before COVID. However, he is correct that simply raising wages is not enough. Workers want to be treated better and have more scheduling flexibility (or in some cases predictability). Employers need to learn how to give their employees regular predictable hours. Retail and food service employers seem to be particularly bad at that. It may be that we will need to move back to a society where we don't expect businesses to be open all hours of the day and night because we simply don't have enough labor for it.
Working is pointless... You can't get ahead because the Boomers and Gen Xers won't let you! They'll attack you, bare false wittiness on you, and try to turn people on you, no point sticking your neck out, because Boomers and Gen Xers will just want to Take It!
@@randyross5630 Ummm...that's some pretty broad generalizations you are making there. I'm a Gen Xer and I've never attacked anyone at the workplace. The only complaint I've had about staff who work under me is people thinking they can do whatever they want at work and show up whenever they want without consequence. That's not how the world works. When you agree to take a job you are agreeing to do the work you were hired to do at a certain price and you agreed to show up on time when the job requires. Too many people think that they can treat a job like a hobby and you can't run an organization that way. Incidently, I've had problems when all age groups in this regard. No age group was really any worse than they other.
29:54 “I am not a fan of raising wages” Sir, that mindset is the driving cause of your population loss. Up until about 1970, gains in productivity were returned in part to the labor force. Since then, the inflation adjusted wage of the employee has stagnated or declined while the output of those employees has continued to rise. People do not enjoy being abused and there is a limited incentive to bring children into a society where they are likely to be abused. I agree that increases in wages result in increases in costs which drives inflation. Those most worried about inflation are precisely the ones who need to put their money back in circulation. I am a millennial with three children. The first was easy to justify. Bringing more into this world took quite a bit of contemplation, weighing the benefits and costs to myself and society.
Raising the minimum wage is a short-term stopgap, nothing more. When the minimum wage is raised, businesses pass the higher costs to customers, and statistically most of those customers must be earning at or near minimum wage themselves. You get more money from The Man just so you can pay more money to The Man. The real problem is a lack of price controls for basic commodities, which is the reason _why_ businesses are able to pass on to their customers the higher costs of paying higher wages.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 "There is only one cause of inflation; overproduction of money." This is not quite true at all. If you look at it you can classify inflation as either demand -pull inflation which is influenced by cuts in interest rates, and higher wages along with an increase in the money supply as you described, or cost-push inflation which is influenced by devalualuation, and value-added taxes (which in the US's case would be like excise taxes), expatations of inflation itself, or yet again, higher wages. You seem to be specifcily stuck on the principle of higher wages. Higher wages increase firms costs and increase consumers’ disposable income allowing them to spend more, thus increasing money in circulation. Rising wages are a key cause of cost-push inflation because wages are the most significant cost for many firms. Wage-push inflation is the increase in general price level resulting from higher wages in an economy. If there was a very significant rise in the minimum wage, it could in theory cause inflation, but generally speaking modest rises in the minimum wage have no significant impact on inflation. If higher wages cause higher prices. Then workers may make more efforts to increase wages in response to rising prices. This can lead to a wage-price spiral. Instances of hyperinflation often have an element of this. For example, in the 1920s, Weimar Germany saw moderate inflation, meaning workers were becoming worse off. To keep workers happy, the government printed more money so that they could increase nominal wages. But, this just fed through into higher inflation, more wage demands and hyperinflation. However, in cases of higher productivity there will not be a wage-price spiral.. and, as previously stated there as been an increase in productivity but no real increase in worker's wages since the 1970's, so they are due their wage adjustment.
Our companies abandoned us. They sent our jobs to Taiwan and China. They even sent people from manufacturing and engineering to train our replacements.
@@omeryehezkely3096 always need more "gig entrepreneurs" paying 50% of revenues to Amazon or fighting for eyeballs on UA-cam living in fear of getting demonetized with no explanation!
most who paid into SS said nothing as it was burnt in the general fund plus much more debt incurred... and companies don't owe you nothing is the attitude that has forgotten the social contract. nothing gets done without labor, and capital does not get to capture all gains... this guy says people left manufacturing for restaurants... like they wanted a huge cut in pay... this guy is a economics school idiot... he thinks people leave manufacturing jobs... the manufacturing job left the worker with the help of the global slave keepers... the jobs went to wear the slaves are
I spent 48 years with the same company. Obviously, I liked my work. There were many cycles where moving would have paid better in wages or vacation. A lot better. I stayed put for the retirement. Now I’m 72 living on $86K. or a little under half pay. I’ve deteriorated physically or I’d still be working but what made it work for me was stability and knowing I would have a retirement when I needed it. $15/hr isn’t bringing people in. Toxic work environment is keeping people home.
I am a millenial. I will work at least part time until I die. I'm planning on being in the ground by 75. I will probably be living on about 15k adjusted for inflation that year.
@@moshow93 Have you considered moving to a country that at least has health care and paid holiday leave such as any of the beautiful European countries? This would be an optimal time to do so before you have a family. Have a good life!
I'm 27, worked for 5 years in software (did very well) and am now retired. I live off of investments and rental income. Everyone should retire early. it's nuts to spend your live working for someone else. explore foreign real estate as well. get renters/people being your employees and making you money. US renter laws can be ridiculous. Working for someone else for 48 years is ridiculous. Find worker bees that make your rich! If your in your 20s/30s in the US, only plan on a working for someone else for 2 years max. If the company isn't making you more valuable, quit fast!
Lol yeah. He also has no concept how the measurement of inflation has changed. Go to home depot see how one size nail is half the cost of all the others by weight.... That's because that is the ONLY nail on the inflation index...... It's been way worse then they say since the 70s. Everytime it gets real bad they just change how they measure it.....
Yup, people are broke so they don't have kids. It's that simple. We drove up housing prices and put everyone in debt with college loans, they're barely surviving, and then we wonder, why doesn't anyone have children? The boomers had kids because they could afford to.
How can we expect people to work if they have no hope of making a living? Exploiting prison labour at least takes care of workers' costs of living (the taxpayers pay it), but won't this encourage the investment class to increase incarceration levels to ensure they have an adequate pool of labour? In recent years, those employing non-skilled minimum wage workers have repeatedly threatened to automate before raising wages. So? Where are we at with that? Now seems like the perfect time to make good on that threat.
As someone who's currently studying computer science and AI, I have to let you know that was mostly an empty threat at least for the next decade or two primarily because that's because dexterity requires a lot more processing power than replacing white collar workers. So why we can automate a good chunk of lawyers doctors and people who sit on their job, it is much harder to automate Tradesmen and others.
Also thanks to the 14th Amendments loophole, prisoners can legally be enslaved so I guess the plan is to use slavery to buffer the labor shortage. Of course we pay the slaves 10 to 15 cents per hour so people can't point fingers at us that were enslaving them even though that's exactly what's being done
The thing about machines is that they don't make good consumers. Even if you reduce your labor costs to zero, you're still going bankrupt when nobody can afford to buy your product, because they don't have a job. Money is supposed to be like life blood for a country; yet these people who keep making windfall profits are acting like artery plaque.
@@TarsonTalon Agreed, but maybe they're not thinking we're going to have a consumer driven economy in the future. It looks like they're accruing all this wealth in advance of returning to some sort of feudal model, in which most people are commodities to be exploited or pests to be exterminated.
Excellent presentation - very informative. Mentally I am envisioning AI coming in to fill a lot of the openings. Not that I am in favor of that, it is just the technology is right around the corner and this problem exists.
Imo we are still a long way to replace a sizable share of humans with AI
Tax the robots!
I am trying to reconcile that as well. There was a Frontline episode about 2 years ago and one of the featured commentators was an author of a book called AI Superpowers. His projection was that automation will be coming for the white collar jobs within a decade or so, negating something like 30 to 50% of those jobs. This is on top of the significant amount of automation that has already reduced blue collar work.
Maybe there are not enough upcoming AI researchers and professionals to develop the models needed to fill all the gaps.
@@gregoryknapen9133 AI right now is very brittle. Plenty of smart people working on many algos. Right now all I see is recommendations, search engines and advertising. All the chatbots I've had the misfortune of "using" are as helpful as a scummy self help guru. Insurance behemoths are investing big money but I've yet to see a killer app. The hype is real but tangible progress imho is still 5 years in the future.
For the past 20 years all of these companies, especially the telecom sector, embraced the idea of laying off at least 5% of the workforce every single year. They created a very toxic internal work environment that required management to constantly rate and rank employees, and at least yearly remind employees that they could be laid off. I finally volunteered to be laid off so that I could get my severance and leave. That mind set appears to still be in most major corporations.
Extreeeme Capitalizm in practice. Unchecked and moronic greed. When you run out of workers and whine to the government for more bailouts while the managers get out with golden parachutes.
It's like that in the mortgage industry of big banks
We empowered corporations to treat our neighbors this way. This is not an unfixable problem, but we need to start respecting people's labor.
@@azmodanpc They laid off the US citizens then they whine to government and give them lobbyist dollars to increase the number of H1B Visas to get more technical immigrants. And because the congressmen are getting their re-election coffers filled with dollars, they simply add to the H1B total. Biden tried to get 1,000,000 more H1Bs with his Build Back Better plan. Thank goodness it was blocked.
Very true... but I'd say all tech, not just telecom.
My left ear enjoyed this.
Ha ha. Thought it was just me.
The Stereophonic Drought(tm)
Ok good, my headphones aren't broken.
😆
@@gregorynuttall I was legitimately concerned
"Dont raise waiges, go get workers from your local prison, so that you as a business owner don't need to pay your workers, the population will do it for you as the gouvernment subsidizes prisons"
The free market at work. How many slaves you need?
hm, i just realized that if that actually happens police brutality and the over-arresting of people for minor things will skyrocket to fuel the slave-prisoner market... i could use that idea for the book i'm writing
@@jjackandbrian5624 look at Clinton's 1994 crime bill if this interests you
For a moment, I thought he was just talking about offering training programs... and then he started talking about working in prisoners before they were released.
@@amyfox3877 SO the take home message if you are a parent in the US and can't afford to pay for a college degree. Tell your children they will always be assured of a steady employment, All they have to do is go to jail! Presumably the longer the sentence the better...🤔
You have these companies that have requirements two pages long for a job that pays $11.00/hr. Then expect these employees to work 60 or 70 hours a week. People just finally said no…
Raise the pay, make the jobs family friendly. Stop making low wage people feel abused just to be at work.
Yes. The way job descriptions are written I couldn't even recognize the ones for the positions I already held! They shoot themselves in the foot by writing job descriptions so ridiculous that people figure they may as well apply even if they have none of the qualifications.
In the early days of the internet I saw job descriptions expecting 5 years of experience for positions that didn't exist 2 years before that. Who writes these things? Corporations are now reaping what they've sown. Give no respect or loyalty to your people and you get none in return.
@@Growmap What I love are the jobs that are advertised as “entry level jobs” but they want 5 years experience. Lol🐝🤗❤️
I agree 100%. One thing that needs to be understood is that in some ways, US manufacturers are FORCED to act this way, in a low tariff, free trade environment. Even in only moderately labor intensive industries, it is impossible to compete with $2/hr Chinese or Pakistani labor without being "stingy" on the factory floor. The root of the problem is low-tariff free trade. If Americans want higher wages and more family friendly hours, they have to give up cheap imported products, and buy fewer (but better made) but more expensive products made by their countrymen.
@@brunopadovani7347 I agree! People that want high wages but want to use it to buy cheap foreign products, are essentially saying they believe themselves to be the only one that deserves a good job.
We need to scale back our personal spending too. Like you say, buy quality instead of quantity. This will take a complete reset of our thinking.
@@brunopadovani7347 Few people realize we would be better off if we did buy more expensive products that are better made because they last a long time.
Appliances from the 1950s-1970s are still working today. Meanwhile, people regularly replace their cheap appliances every few years.
Well-made western boots worn daily for hard work last 2 years. Cheap ones last 3 months.
Personally, I always buy quality over cheap price because I don't want to have to keep buying something repeatedly. I want it to last as long as possible.
How on earth can you have a presentation about workforce participation without talking about the availability, costs and structure of child care? Totally shocking that people are “coasting” and “don’t want to work” when the cost/benefit analysis of raising their kid[s] themselves comparing to securing child care has never been more favorable to staying home.
The presenter appears to live in a bubble. Employment for most people sucks. And whatever stimulus government provided to keep the Covid scam going has long since disappeared servicing the fraudulent debt-as-money system's interest payments.
I love this reply
Perversely enough I actually think that this will end up being better for the children and their families development.
The problem is "affordable" child care can never be made truly affordable. It will never, for example, be affordable enough for a low/minimum wage worker since those are the very people that provide labor for child care for others. It's a farce, a lie if you will. Only a relatively small portion of the population that can afford child care would benefit, at the cost of those at the bottom rung of the population. Predictable enough, as that's how it usually goes with these sorts of 'compassionate' gov't programs.
And more to the point, it would likely exacerbate the very demographic problem it aims to solve by making the position of those on that bottom, and most populous, socioeconomic rung that much more disparate and nearly impossible to have children of their own. Also a fairly predictable result of such gov't programs which have a habit of hurting the very people they purport to help and being ultimately counter-productive to boot.
The corporations do care about this. They care so much that they'll shell out whatever it takes to keep scraping those fetuses out of your womb. Childcare problem solved. Big hurrah for fundamental womens' rights. Champion social justice and keep your employees grinding, it's win-win.
Economists need to do better and figure out an economic system that works for a stable population. Infinite growth on a finite planet was never a workable plan.
Exactly, Capitalism is best described as cancer
Socialism is the cancer. We don't have capitalism in this country. We have a centrally planned economy masceraiding as capitalism.
Prime example is social security. It was ponzi since day 1. It requires an ever expanding population to pay for the older retiring generation.
Our money supply requires constant inflation to pay for government prolific spending mostly to fund social welfare
Our economic system is a mess primarily because of several waves of progressive policies put in place in the 1913s 1930s, 1970s, and 1990s, up till present day.
The socialist destroyed the free market of this nation and then blames capitalism for the mess they created
@@simonl4657 Wow - you sound like a John Bircher... No Socialism, so guess we should fire all the police, firemen and military?
Social Security insurance worked fine in the 20th century, but agree we should have taken a different tact than Reagan/Greenspan set (once we saw population growth rate drop which was obvious in the '90s).
Free markets don't exist except in your fantasies.
@@simonl4657 Ahh, so if we just took the rails off this baby, the 54 trillion dollar interests of DTCC and the 41.7 trillion dollar interests of BNY Mellon wouldn't be sufficient lobbies to control the economy like a government, but without courts?
@Simon L If social security was so badly planned, why did it generate a surplus for every year of its existence until trump, while also ameliorating poverty and providing for the sick and injured?
You glossed over raising wages saying it just makes everything more expensive. That is only true it the ratio of earnings between labor and capital stays the same, if executives and owners were willing to take a smaller slice of the pie there would be no need to raise prices. If you look at the ratio in the so called "golden age" it points straight to that.
This this and more of this. He lost me when he skimmed over that and then went on to say that we should just use prison labor because it’s cheap 🤡🤡
@@jizzlemcskizzle3076 People here congratulating this guy for saying "lets just use slaves (14th amendment)" instead of raising wages... wtf?
"raising wages doesn't work because inflation" lol
You had me until "the thing I'm not a fan of is raising wages".
Prices go up even more or people become unemployed.
If wages increase but bread doubles you are not better off
Summary: slave labor is cheap so let's use that.
This is why we must make prison labor illegal for anything outside of road work and license plates. We're already seen cases in the private prison industry where they're finding pretext to keep people in prison longer and to keep the wages they earned as prisoners.
I’ve been aware of this coming demographic drop for a few years. And it got me thinking: humanity is not just going to shrink down to 0. There is some minimum to where eventually enough babies will be born to bring the numbers back to replacement level. It will just be a lot lower than what we have now.
I think most demographers are graphing that global population will level off at around 10-11 billion, rather than dipping down lower than it is right now. Of course there are huge amounts of assumptions involved in this. I think the US population could go back to growing, it's interesting to note that urban populations have far less children than rural populations, so any migration toward rural living would potentially increase population.
The problem is: what happens when there are wayyyyyy too many old people versus young strong healthy workers? That's the issue my friend. And will that young generation be ready for such a task? With our godless culture, certainly not. Great Evil is on the horizon. But honestly it's of our own consequences from our choices. We've laid a snare for ourselves. And God will mock us when we are caught in our own net. Cost of turning our backs on God and His Righteous ways.
“Instead of raising wages for your workers in this environment of record profits, you should instead utilize prison slave labor.”
Seriously? I thank you deeply for the analysis of the issue but is this really the solution?
Men can be happy living simply. The more we work the more we have to pay in alimony and child support. Working has become less attractive to men. We're happy women are working more, earning more, better educated. I'm an American man, retired 20 years ago at 45 as a software engineer. If I'd kept working I'd be paying huge alimony and be forced to keep working to keep up those payments. But because I dropped out $0 alimony. And I'm very happy with a simple life.
Treat men like shit and they'll respond by not participating. Family/divorce courts are certainly one significant source of the problem. And the thing is, men can turn their backs on society and not tell anyone. Ghost if you will. It will be awhile before society notices this.
Lol why would I be paying alimony and child support??
I thought of another element Water Bug, that is high earning solo people, more often men as hey pursue higher earning work, pay significantly more in taxes as they have few deductions. What a penalty for being highly productive and yet very low burden on society. I can imagine those like you who hit the work/pay hard, and invest while doing it, have an incentive to retire early since tax rates on investments are lower. Good job to you!
I never get why you have to pay alimony, child support I do. We have alimony in Australia but it goes both ways and is not common as mos people do not know about it.
I hope you didn’t make any babies. My sister’s first husband “accidentally” shot her in the leg while cleaning his gun. If he had not “accidentally” shot a friend doing the same thing, we might have bought that bullshit. She fled with their two small sons. One took a couple of years to stop walking on his tip toes. That was due to his frequently angry dad. He was a traveling musician and was able to hide his income by being paid under the table. Not until his adoptive mother died when his kids were 17 and 18 did they get some back child support. She owned a home. No skin off his nose. My sister has worked hard her entire life. At 71 she still works full time. Without a college education she went from bookkeeper to Controller of the company she has worked for for 39 years. She is extremely smart. Gave up on men after her second husband turned out to be a pedo.
Both sides complain about the other. There are just as many bad exes of both genders.
Exactly what our economics teacher taught us while I was getting my MBA in 2008. I could never get my mechanical design/engineering job back after spending 15 years working in it and I never really got a job as an MBA. I did get a 3 year paid internship with a government agency but it kind of looked like our government doesn't spend time & money training older white males and preferably anyone over the age of 50 years old. Came back to the area I graduated from with my MBA only to discover that companies don't want to employ people over 50 years old especially if they have any education beyond high school. The jobs they will employ you for are through employment agencies and so physical in nature that some 20 year olds cannot perform the job and the rest run from the job. Also, most of the employment agencies don't provide any, as in zero benefits. The 20 year olds can get hired directly after only 6 months or less on the job, while the older crowd had to wait 5 to 7 years. The 20 year olds were also given the easiest jobs. Coming into 2017 to 2018 companies started hire the older crowd but only for the hardest jobs. Wages for these jobs jumped to as much money I made as design engineer after working for 10 years. That was the only good news. Today it all remains the same with the local companies trying to eliminate about every older worker they can through injury, retirement, or just making your day difficult. The companies are also giving the unqualified high school graduates jobs in the engineering, HR, and management positions. Lastly, a sizable amount of the work only gets done through the efforts of the older generations who for some known reason are retiring or working less while at work but not at home. I train people fast and well but I am still in the same entry level job I did 3 years ago. In short, companies no longer value hard working or educated people so if there is a labor shortage they can thank their mid through top management and the government's aggressive equal opportunity policies. This country is screwed up & I can not wait to retire and possibly move elsewhere.
Doesn't "out of the work force" include people who have just given up getting a job, and not just those who have exited the work force by choice?
"Out of the labor force" includes every noninstitutionalized civilian over age 16 who is not working nor looking for work. Thus, it includes the two groups you have mentioned, but also retirees, non-working housewives or students and others.
Uh, yeah
@Anderson if they ever had a decent job they would have probably kept it
@Anderson Who wouldn't want to do what they want all day, rather than what their employer wants. What is your employer, god? We're not slaves yet, although they're working on that.
@Anderson Isn't unemployment limited by time and amount and lifetime limits, as well as by your previous level of taxed compensation? Your replies sound like an outdated myth, much like reagan's welfare queens.
Maybe if wages had kept up with inflation for the last 15 years. Health insurance is more than a whole minimum wage job's pay.
As an ordinary guy, without a degree, I made 2 to 3 times as much as a handyman than any job would pay. And If prices went up, so did my fees.
There's no such balance in a job working for the typical company today.
Discussing income without discussing cost of living, is an incomplete discussion. Comparing incomes where middle class had one income source (usually husband) to income with two income earners does not take into account cost to family of second income (child care, family cohesion...) Discussing labor force participation or job postings, without stratifying by wage, is an incomplete discussion and can lead to false conclusions about causality and remedies. Associating degree is NOT a very educated degree, it is at most 2 years in a very focused road, so the equivalent of a HS diploma but without the stigma of having only a HS diploma. Naming cares act and other aid programs without defining the actual payment to an individual is an incomplete discussion. Concluding that median income was "skyrocketing" by COVID related payments, payments given when people were not working, doesn't make sense. I stopped at this point - too many gross generalization fallacies. These are all gross and selective observations without a careful analysis of cause and stratification (eg by wage...).
@T_rat Could not hv said it better myself.
Once again, people not really wanting to look at the matter in detail.
Cherry pick your presentations and instead, get your ass of that seat and go walk the streets of America to SEE, the proof of devastation.
Not to mention that of the 6 T in covid payouts, only .5 T went to the common people whereas 5.5 T went to corporations, with no checks or balances thanks to the republicans in charge.
There is a bigger picture to all of this. Many economists agree that a growing population is key to a growing economy. If that's true, then the world is in deep trouble. Western democracies can attract foreign workers. But what about other countries. Who dreams of moving to Iran, Bulgaria, China. Most countries planetwide can't attract workers. If the world population is shrinking, then most countries will have shrinking economies. Western democracies don't operate in isolation. If 3rd world economies tank, they will take the West with them.
It's certainly true that growing populations will make the economy grow. An economy is people exchanging goods and services, so more people = more economy. But that's not what's driven growth since the Industrial Revolution. Learning how to use the energy stored in fossil fuels has, because wealth is created by labor, and machines powered by heat engines can do monstrous amounts of labor. Before the heat engine, wealth increased at a rate of about one tenth of one percent, and you can make your adjustments for population growth or decline. After the heat engine, in capitalist economies, that jumped to 3%, a huge difference, and it means economic output doubles every fourteen years. It's increases in productivity that is the key driver of economic growth in the industrial age.
@@joshbobst1629 Productivity does not matter if there are no new customers. If the US population drops by half over night, why build more housing. Who are you going to sell the new house to.
Climate refugees will work
@Rich X You will sell those houses to the same entities buying them now: real estate investment firms seeking hard assets, in hopes that they may retain their value when all else collapses.
I agree with everyone' comments about this being a great presentation, well presented. Your solutions are admirable. A big problem I see is that bosses are "scorpions" who will not change, and will drown with the "frogs" who are holding them up.
So, as you noted, it will take at least 10 years for us to see improvements. I hope I'm wrong, but I haven't been wrong in the 20 years that I have worked for the govt entity that I work for now.
That's cause capitalism's needed socialism since the end of the homestead days.
if only mothers were valued in the same way you value workers then the problem might solve itself
Great presentation. But I hope you’re aware that wages have been flat for decades and that is one of the huge problems here. Productivity is through the roof, but wages are stagnant. Not only are the younger generation smaller but have had the smallest real wages. If we’re unaware of the needs for workers the boomers wealth will be lost as the under generations need to pay more from less income, and boomers will have a terrible end of life and a catastrophic end to US wealth generation.
My left ear is hurting. Right ear is fine.
Your audio is all on the left channel.
I honestly thought it was my airpods!
@@wz8881 Ha ha. Funny. I could see that happening.
As children in the late 50's/early 60's we were instructed to be ready for an atomic exchange were the cold war were to heat up. Later we were drafted off to Vietnam to serve in a war aimed at preventing people living on the other side of the world from exercising self rule. No wonder there was a wholesale refusal by our generation to procreate children to feed America's military industrial complex. I knew for sure that I would remain childless sitting under my desk in grade school waiting for the bombs to fall and never regretted the decision, it could have been so different.
Great presentation. Very knowledgeable and enlightening. But poor solution. You have to pay people a living wage, there is no debating it
The idea that rising wages simply makes everything cost more is an idea that doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Conservatives--especially investors--love this idea because it scares the target audience into believing that rising wages is a zero-sum game. If this were true, we'd be stuck back at that $5,500/yr annual household income. Rising wages and prices only establish an equilibrium in actual value of income (income v cost index) if rising costs do not inspire any changes in labor utilization that increase efficiency or productivity. In other words, claims that rising wages get eaten up by rising costs fly in the face of the core principle of free market capitalism, which is that innovation will result in better and cheaper products. If labor were the sole factor in the cost of goods and services, and if the market completely lost its power to inspire better labor utilization and reward the same, then sure, rising wages would get counterbalanced by rising costs on a more-or-less dollar-for-dollar basis. In the real world. labor is not the only factor which determines costs; and investors find themselves highly incentivized to improve labor utilization. This process has been going on while wages have risen since the start of the Industrial Revolution at least--all without causing standards of living to stagnate.
Asking that wages be kept the same, especially in sectors where wages have been flat or falling in real dollars, out of fear that rising wages in those sectors will raise prices, is a really bad take, especially as companies pay their leaders increasingly higher salaries year after year. Raise for me, but not for thee, is the prevailing motto among business leaders and it is the best way possible to discourage labor force participation. Eventually even the most inveterate gambler will walk away from the table when they realize the game was rigged against them, and that's what we are seeing.
For decades we have told kids to get a good education so they can have a good career. Those kids did that and the result was that those good careers did not exist in the numbers needed to employ all of them at the wages required to even repay the loans they took out getting that education, and now we say "oops, turns out we needed you to be less educated because what we really need is truck drivers and burger flippers. You are over qualified, but i guess i can hire you at a poverty wage". How grossly insulting.
It should not be a surprise to anyone that people have walked away from the labor market, what should be a surprise is how many people haven't.
The answer could not be more simple: Fully share the profits with the workers who create that wealth. Economic equity. Boom. Done.
Useful education, skills, and experience are dwindling as compensation demands continue to rise. Before long hiring will have to look seriously at literacy, this is no joke. People are coming out of colleges with degrees but communicating at the level of grunts and text-speak.
Why do we have so many college educated residents when less than 25% of the population has an IQ over 110? (Realistically, 75% probably have an IQ below 107 these days.) A lot of them must be going deep in debt for the sort of education they should have gotten in high school.
Correct
Enjoying the labor shortage. More interviews and offers.
You ate the carrot on the stick, and are shocked the workhorse won't still be led along.
More years in school don't make you better educated, in my trade, we have to recruit grad-students in order get get kids who can read and cipher at an 8th grade level.
Never seen someone being so cheerful about something so somber! And he was not being "ironic".
Another data I like to see is marriage rates. Falling marriage rates and family formation also factors into labor force!
In addition, for industrial societies, marriage rate reflects a belief in future prosperity. If you don't think your life can support a spouse and children, you don't get married.
Laws regarding marriage have completely destroyed the institution. Women are now rewarded for breaking their contract. So it's becoming less appealing to even high earning men.
Fuel demand goes up, prices go up and workers have to deal with it.
Food supply goes down, prices go up and workers have to deal with it.
Millions of job openings and all the candidates are overqualified, businesses complain that no one wants to work.
It's not that no one wants to work, it's that no one wants to work for a wage they can't support themself on.
The $15 minimum wage was the demand ten years ago. Labor is in even more demand now.
Businesses need to start paying living wages and providing the kinds of benefits we see from OECD countries or things are going to get ugly in this county.
The death of a middle class, industry, & a quality population of shared morals & values. (Robert Putnam researched this early 21st century.)
Workers have value again! Train them. Try to keep them working for you. Be kind.
It seems obvious that there needs to be a law that every time a company posts a profit above a certain amount, and for every bracket above that amount in profit, quarterly or whenever, for all companies, before the shareholders see a cent, all employees get a mandatory flat bonus - the same amount for everyone from janitor to CEO, not tied to salary. That way the employees making the least get the biggest benefit, percentage wise. It should also not count towards minimum wage calculations.
A flat, mandatory performance bonus quarterly to all employees everywhere based on profit would go a loooong way towards rectifying the difference between efficiency/output growth and salary growth. On a per-business basis it would even be relatively inflation neutral.
The intended result is that no matter how successful and efficient a business gets, as long as it's profitable at all, employee costs should track above a certain percentage of net income from that business and salary pyramids should be relatively flattened relative to job description or role.
Make the best investment any person can make be to work for a profitable business rather than owning a business and you will see labour participation increase and successful businesses have the most productive, profitable employees at the same time.
That was a really good presentation. It would be hard to answer the "now what do we do" without first covering "how we got here".
The key take-away appears to be that creativity and flexibility will be required to navigate the uncharted territory. While employees wouldn't mind having money thrown at the problem, a money cannon won't solve all of these challenges.
With a relative oversupply of college educated workers compared to manufacturing and trades, the market may need to reflect that in terms of compensation.
Those in the trades and manufacturing would be well served to engage high school students perhaps as early as their sophomore years and educate them to potential career paths (and ways they can grow those careers).
Another aspect not mentioned, the US hasn't had meaningful increases in worker productivity in over two decades. The relative productivity of an hour of American labor versus a competitor is what allows the US to have higher standards of living.
I'm pretty certain that with modern recording equipment, it's actually harder to mess up the sound than it is to get it right!
H.R. is the "iron fist in a velvet glove". H.R. is design to minimize labor cost. Workman's Comp. H.R. works against the worker infavor of the company.
So now, employees are becoming hard to find.
Unspoken truth: education has failed to produce good students. Compare 8th grade tests from 50 years ago to current tests.
50 years ago they would let people graduate who couldn’t even do basic math. They would send criminals to war instead of prison. Algebra 1 wasn’t even required until about the 80s. The comparison is terrible. It doesn’t paint a proper picture. Most women were gonna be housewives while the men were going to the factory or trades. Generation is irrelevant. Those people have never been considered intelligent
Correct
Raising wages is a bad idea? You are out of touch with reality.
Time for wages to rise, executive pay to drop if that's what it takes.
This is true. There should be more direct govt funding of colleges, as there was in the past, but before there is to be any more talk of debt forgiveness, lets first reform our high schools to be more like colleges. If you cannot pass a class then you should not get the credit for it. If your gpa is too low then you should not be able to claim a diploma. Money needs to be more wisely spent, not divided among any number of unaccountable charter schools. Advanced placement classes need to be available for all students of every district. I suspect that high school today is basically day care for certain troublesome adolescents who would otherwise drive wages down for family men. If there were more stringent standards, perhaps we could have a more skilled workforce that is also unburdened by debt.
Comments:
1) Have you ever thought of requiring you managers and your customers to treat your staff as humans? Seriously, I watch how people in the service industry are treated by John and Joan Q. Public and I wonder who would sign up for that treatmenht.
2) Training - What is that? You used to have to go through months of training for even low level jobs. Now, yu get thrown into the job and good luck
3) Many or most college graduates are not taught the basic skills necessary to thrive in the workplace. They lack basic skills on how to work with their coworkers, especially those who are older.
4) In the old days, you had to learn skills and move up in the organization to enter management. Now, you have an MBA class who has little or no practical business knowledge and experience that are being anointed as "high potential employees" who walk into management positions more based on their degree than their abilities. And you wonder why Boomers are rushing out the door?
Unable to see charts. Online content should have full page charts added instead of the original visual presentation mode with a speaker.
How to retain employees "The boss can't be an asshole anymore." It's to bad that companies need to be forced into a position of not being assholes to thier employees, LoL!
Participation rate will go up as soon as the government stops subsidizing them. Just because people are educated doesn't mean they know anything. A horseman I knew said it doesn't matter what you put on a horses head, it matters what you put in it. Same applies to people.
Was the audio recorded in mono? It's extremely distracting when using headphones.
If companies want to hire, they need to compete in the market and pay more to the average worker and cut the pay of upper management.
This is good news. I am celebrating. There are far too many people, perhaps by a factor of 100,000.
Maybe, but even then, you need to radically restructure your society, less schools, more nursing homes. Also, Malthus has been proven wrong over and over again.
It's very bad news because short sighted Western elites will continue to import people from parts of the world with very high fertility rates. America will turn into Brazil or Yugoslavia. I'm not sure which one yet.
@@grapeshot3462 I'm fine with taking advantage of other counties' brain train.
His point about training is very interesting. After WW2 people were given jobs in management that didn't have this or that qualification. We have become obsessed with qualifications - so CVs are searched for them and if there are not on a CV its excluded. Also, it makes HR lazy and not looking at people who are not an obvious fit. Lastly, tapping into Prisons is not something that Russian employers can do as Putin as sent them to their deaths in Ukraine.
You are so wrong on wages. People aren't having kids because they can't afford them. How do you justify saying not raising employee wages to keep up with cost of living increases, but executives paying themselves tens of millions of dollars? You missed the chart showing executive pay ballooning but real wages decreasing over time.
I really wasn’t expecting the conclusion to be “more prison labor” 💀
I see many indicators of underlying pessimism. Falling and stagnant real wages for years, poor working conditions, decaying cities all discourage having children. Why would we bring kids into this mess?
That ironic place where you can see it in your friends but not in yourself. Get locked up people to do it so you don't have to, so you can make spreadsheets that show you the actions of people who told you that before they quit. Maybe they don't want to work because you do work for your kids, and they don't want to have kids because your plan is to lock the kids up so they need your self interested position to stay out of jail.
There are numerous 50 year old men living with their mothers in Northern Nevada. Mom owns a residence and they will never own a home unless they inherit one. They will never qualify for either a pension or Social Security. The worst thing is their old age parents are enabling this laziness, and the future destitution of their children.
Have three friends in their early 60s and they were unemployed as beginning of this and continue to look for work and never found it at any rate of pay.
Another looked for three years before getting a job as a lifeguard at the Y after having been a mid manager.
And then many Boomers retired early under these conditions and found they were able to make it with less than they thought. They won't be coming back.
Finally, ten million people, or about 3% of the population now has Long Covid. They will not be returning to work for at least a year if not ever.
Every time a person fails to go to work when they could, Social Security’s solvency takes another hit.
Wife and I no kids. Live well below our means and save in Gold coins. Practically buy nothing unless absolutely needed, don't care about Tech products and own very few. Why? so I can leave the work force early and retire to a simple but relaxed and quiet life. I'm one of those that laughes at most of the crap people do and buy. Not at all impressed by material wealth and do not desire it for myself. More I make the quicker I'm out is the only reason I care at all about money. I have been warning people myself of the demographic winter coming. Most laugh it off. But IMO it will be even worse than this presentation suggests. A world of ever increasing excess. Less and less children. And finally a long term if not permanent decreasing population.
We will never ever go back to the gold standard. It’s unfeasible and why the previous civilizations were essentially stuck in the Iron Age.
@@JM-ps6le I wouldn't know what system they will plan. I buy gold coins because they are legal tender in my country and so no capital gains tax. Crypto and stocks get taxed. I don't want to pay tax to the government. So I buy gold minted coins and silver minted coins for savings. Doing it for 15 years now and it's done well. And when I finally sell no tax. Sweet.
HR has been terrible for a long time. They deserve blame at least as far as what damage they have done
I've worked as a Consultant for many companies over the years.
I've long since realised that the on-site HR department is actually working for people on a different planet.
This issue of a shrinking working population is always framed as a bad thing, and I the basic idea that growing the economy has been generally quite good. But on environmental side of things I've also heard the call for degrowth in regards to the economy talked about as a necessary part of the fix. So I wonder since it's seems basically a fact to state that the working population is going to shrink could this problem be solved instead by taking steps to actively shrink the economy and changing things in that regard.
Thank you feminism!!
Yes, thank you feminists! As standard of living and personal agency increases, more and more women are taking charge of their bodies and are practicing family planning instead of giving up and letting their environment dictate their behavior. This is causing human population to drop to sustainable levels, even in the poorest parts of the world (although they still have a ways to go to catch up). Huzzah!
Almost every company is posting record profits. PAY PEOPLE MORE MONEY.
No comments on worker displacement due to computers and the AI thats just coming on line if you don’t have people to manage you won’t need managers
I love my job! (No, actually I don’t) but I love that I picked a career that is guaranteed to always have high demand. Healthcare. There will be so many people aging and needing my care. I’m 26. I have no kids. I can’t imagine being able to afford them at this time. I think when I’m in my 30s I’d feel more ready. I only want ONE. I truly do feel the world is grossly overpopulated.
Why is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan missing from the map? Seriously, you can't even get a map of the United States correct?
Very well presented video, thank you! Just a small thing that I noticed; you ignored illegal immigration in the sheet about immigration dropping to almost zero. It was explained in the small subtext, but still.
They use e verify now. Less and less under the table work available these days
For aviation and transportation, drugs being legal disqualifies many, and safety concerns keep it at lock down. Nobody wants a drugged up pilot or heavy equipment operator, bus driver etc....
This is very interesting. I wonder what would happen if the labor shortage will be additionally impacted by the rise of Autism. Every year the incidence rate goes up.
A period of shrinking population can be painful, but to reset at a lower level (with less demand on natural resources) might not be bad. But transfer payments, particularly for the aged, will be a problem for decades to come.
Majority of people looking for economic support because they are having children by accident. The child’s put them into financial difficulty. Government handout would be a reward for irresponsibility. I remember them teaching us in our high school parenting class. Kids are lotta responsibility they would teach us. and you have to grow up and prepare to be able to take care of them before you have them. Free childcare as a government handout chooses some citizens to be rewarded over others. The government would be treating people equally if they payed back about the same amount of money to each citizen and those with children could use it for childcare, those without could use it for retirement and their healthcare or to start a business.
Despite a relatively high number of babies being born with a surprisingly even bigger increase in the number of babies born to the well educated class, Israel is short around 10,000 experts just in the Hi-Tech Sector alone.
There are a large numbers of foreign workers in Agriculture, Health Care for Seniors and Construction.
Most Israeli males are only entering Universities etc. or the work force at age 21/22 [women a bit earlier] due to compulsory Military Service.
Then after adding 4 years at Uni/College we get to around 26 years old before a guy starts to earn/save to marry etc..
Most women work after marriage and having children and make up an important part of the family budget and workforce.
Real Estate is very expensive as is the cost of living so all in all it is amazing that the birth rate is so high.
I know folks who are more than hesitant to go back into their service industry jobs because they can't be assured any level of safety with loud resistance to vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, despite these loud folks making up the minority of Americans. I hear this story over and over and over.
We must return to a more welcoming culture to immigration, though we may have permanently damaged our attractiveness in that regard in the years leading up to the pandemic.
There's a point you failed to mention. China's One Child policy ended 6 years ago. The US Census Bureau predicts the US population (which has doubled since I was born in the '50s) will be around 435 million by 2100 and China's population drop by almost 400 million people. India's population will also grow by almost 100 million.
Wages have not kept up with inflation. What I think needs to happen, as long as businesses don't try to play the system, is for entry, non-skilled, jobs to pay pretty much what they do now, adjusted for inflation, but as an incentive for workers to stay business needs to give decent pay raises at the 90 day mark and at other milestones of length at the job and tie that in with promotions.
Another factor on the workforce in the future is the huge impact of automation in eliminating jobs.
He's talking like all these changes are bad.
1. People who have degrees that they can't use will get the jobs that boomers left,
2. The low-education jobs have to pay more (and can avoid inflation by just paying CEOs less)
3. We still attract immigrants but don't treat them like crap
4. We have to pay construction workers more to do hard, dangerous jobs
5. We make less stuff, but there aren't as many people to divide up the stuff, so that works
What exactly is bad?
I mean... except for his convict factory plan. That's what I'd call "bad."
He also didn't mention automation, digitization, improved efficiency, or people retiring later.
I think this is going to be self correcting. Inflation will shake out luxury and other unnecessary products and services thus less demand.
Huh, Turns out I was ahead of my time. I’ve always told management “Get me someone with people skills, we can teach them the technicalities.” They never did.
No crisis to explain the Depression era level fertility rate in 2010-2020? What about the 2008 market crash? The climate crisis? Stagnant wages? Student debt? The poor handling of the pandemic? There are many reasons why someone may not be able to afford children, or fears for the future discouraging having children.
I stopped watching shortly after hearing him say there was no crisis to explain the fertility rate; it revealed that he was out of touch with the realities on the ground.
And then I read the comments and apparently it got even worse from there, how he was basically ignoring his own statistics to say raising wages wouldn't help to alleviate the problems he described.
The older, more vulnerable to Covid took a look at early retirement. The number of friends who say, "I can retire comfortably now and I do not want to play Covid politics, so I am out. If I need some quick cash, I can dip into the gig economy."
@24:00, there have been crisises many many many crises just not 1 of the scale which you seem to require...
Excellent video. This is why we need immigration but not en masse. The governments of each state should estimate the skills and quantity of people needed and then post in countries from where pools of workers can be VETTED (e.g. no criminals).
En Masse without vetting is the Democrat's way of building up voting blocks. And they will take ANYBODY....and with mail-in voting....alive or dead.
Is there higher criminality among illegal immigrants than the native population? I mean, other than the border hopping, of course. Can illegals vote? Can you please describe how illegal immigrants are putting their own livelihoods at risk to put themselves on official voter rolls in order to cast votes in a representative democracy? How is an illegal immigrant working for below the table wages managing to afford verified fake ids, which according to the fbi cost 20 thousand dollars apiece a decade ago? If they are casting votes in place of legal citizenry, why has there been a dearth of double voting, except by misinformed republicans?
I like that democrats employ the profit motive to discourage illegal immigration. Obama trialed a bond program that got over 99 percent of suspected illegal immigrants to court and deported, without necessitating family separations or expensive state detention, by seizing and holding suspects' property until they show up for court. Today, Biden is going after illegal employers, which has already proven to be successful in Arizona, where a republican governor had to raise the state's minimum wage since getting rid of illegal employers practically eliminated illegal immigration. I like that so much better than putting white nationalists and grifters in charge of border security, or leaving in place a system where illegal employers can keep illegal immigrants enslaved and profitable.
Most won’t see it coming and won’t understand what happened after it happened.
It's a fallacy, proven wrong many times over, that pay going up causes the costs of everything going up in a proportion that makes the increase of pay irrelevant. What is not considered when statements like this are made, like this guy made, is that labor is a small percentage of the cost in business which is why increases in pay does not influence costs all that much.
Working hours is a sticky problem.
What would you do if you had so much demand that you had to increase working hours for everyone?
Because they know if everyone is making more overtime money the price of everything will go up.
So, everyone works harder and longer to achieve the same material results.
Then they start quitting for more reasonable hours elsewhere.
Which causes a greater gap between demand and production.
Which causes the company to keep hours high, or even increase them.
Which causes more people to quit.
They try like mad to hire more, but there's no one left with time to train them.
So they're not successful in their job.
Which causes more people to quit.
Automation, they say, is the way.
But nobody has the skills to set up maintain the robots, because the company operates in rural areas.
And they can't attract and retain skilled workers because there's no houses to buy, and no one to build them.
I think an incredible simplification of production will need to take place, so fewer workers can do more. Fewer choices at the drive through, the grocery store, the car lot, the furniture store, and the shoe store.
We have to ask ourselves if it's economically wise to send moms into the workforce as cashiers and teachers who then have to pay to place their own children in day care or their mother or grandmother in the nursing home.
We definitely need to talk about how we can curb divorce, because nobody talks about the astronomical monetary cost it drags on the economy.
And we need to ask ourselves why inflation is 6% but the cost of housing has gone up 12% or 18%. Without a place to put them, future generations will be disinclined to grow the population, if you know what I mean.
Are you sure you're an economist? What I hear you saying is that low-skill people are becoming a scarce resource. Usually, when economists talk about scarcity of resources, they also talk about increasing cost. It could be that, well, I know this'll sound crazy, but that your low-skill people are actually not 100000 times less valuable than the people who sit on the board of directors.
What is a "labor economist" as opposed to a regular old economist?
The graph at 2:45 seems WAY off. How did you get $14K real household income for 1975? If I look at Russel Sage Foundation's Chartbook of Social Inequality for example, shows 1967 Median Household Income of $43K (2012 dollars) and in 1995 it was about $50K and in 2012 is was $51K. That is extremely different than going from $14K to $56K between '75 and '95, something I've never heard anyone say has happened after adjusting for inflation. It looks like the number is WITHOUT adjusting for inflation.
77 percent of Baltimore public school seniors are reading at the kindergarten level. How is that going go?
Employers have screwed themselves. So many have considered workers disposable for the last 30 years. This destroyed company loyalty. That, and internal paths to advancement have dried up, as it was easier to hire from outside. So the only thing that people will trust is cash.
The whole section at the end about training and pay hides the sins from the mostly corporate audience. Pay was effectively stagnant because as noted there were always more Baby Boomers. The flattening of earnings by changing logistics systems was aided by the removal the high skill, high cost, low profit training and development programs companies didn't need anymore. There is simply no path to continued growth for most companies because there profits and executive pay will have to go down to hire new people and build programs they haven't had to pay for in 40 years.
@@ianbelanger7459 Exactly. I will speculate, however, that corporations that don't respond to this new/old methodology will collapse. At least, that is what I want.
@@christianlibertarian5488 which parties benefit from the transition will mostly be determined by how the country collectively stabilizes the economy. The truly rich almost always skate by. If the support is primarily delivered to companies, even the bad companies will do fine. If the support programs are aimed at cities and individuals, the bad actors are far more likely to fade or collapse being replaced by companies more suited to the new post growth business environment.
You nailed it. Demographics are the reflection of the expectations of people regarding the future of their children... and a big part of that is the long-term security of your income.
@@cordfortina9073 Right now, labor is in the driver's seat. I am speculating that it will be for another decade. Outsourcing to China is no longer an option. Building stuff in the US is now cheaper than China, even with higher labor costs. So stuff is being built here, and it needs labor; there is a relative shortage.
As regards CEO's, for a big corporation, they are indeed worth $30M. A good CEO is very difficult to find. Look at GE--it had Jack Welch, and became a superstar company. He left, the company tanked. Billions rest on their decisions. OTOH, bad CEOs cost. JCPenney hired a guy they thought was a star, then fired him because he wasn't.
The audience for this research: businesses and corporations.
How you know this research is NOT for the workers: "The thing I'm not a fan of is raising wages...Everybody loses. Well the workers win, bUt eVEn tHeN....." 🤣
@@ryanroggenbauer3642 Because business leaders don't want the system to actually change in a way that hurts them. They will not accept a change in percentages of distribution of gains, so the only way to increase pay for their employees is to raise their prices, which means that while it might seem like those employees are wealthier in the short term, if every company does the same thing, nothing changes.
It's hard to argue that capital investors deserve less of a cut from corporate revenue, but I think that upper management salaries are bloated. There's clear cases across the economy of bad CEOs making bad decisions and their company making money anyway, and good CEOs watching their company die to forces outside their control. Leadership positions are seen as way more influential than they actually are, and the sooner we realize that they're just another part of the team, the better off we'll all be.
“Cheese pizza isn’t enough, anymore. These workers are demanding meat lovers.”
The thing is:
When everyone's pay goes up... what hinders buisnesses from raising prices to match?
When you just increase the pay with no regards to the general value you can end up with hyper inflation (though this usually happens when the government begins to print money in mass to get rid of their debt)
And when you have increased inflation, you don't have (as much of) a benefit from saving anymore.
Look at China:
They have for one person growing up up to six people (parents+grandparents) who help when it comes to buy a house...
House prices rise and the cost of raising (and supporting) a child goes up. Now it isn't economic anymore to have multiple children (as they were in the majority of human history the only retirement option).
Indeed. This entire presentation is completely out of touch with reality. Many of the assumptions and premises made are almost complete 180 degrees from what is actually going on.
@@ryanroggenbauer3642 Higher wages lead to higher prices. Higher wages also leads to higher tax brackets and more money going to government. Wages can and should only go up when productivity goes up otherwise most people will be worse off and their standard of living will go down.
Why aren’t the debt-slaves working anymore?! THE SICKNESS IS THE SYSTEM
Pre-1973 boomers were not debt slaves. They bought houses for $25k that are now selling for $500k.
Honestly working isn’t the issue. The issue is the overpriced homes, the 8% bidenflation, the dumb hiring policies from companies (some people still can’t get hired even though companies are “begging” for workers) and the low wages on starter jobs. Also the fact every shitty job wants a college degree
@Steve G that’s correct
The Millennial man is currently at war with this system. As long as we maintain this fiat debt based system, which funnels all the excess labor to the top rather than allowing a man to keep the fruits of his labor; then I will continue to work my "part-time" job, not buy a house, not have a family, and enjoy watching the Corporation bitch and moan about "not enough workers", who they have been screwing for the better part of 4 decades. The long arc of Universe bends towards justice.
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se Bidenflation? Yeah, it’s all his fault…..and has nothing to do with companies raising prices to make up for Trump’s shut down, supply chain issues or even the greed heads who see workers everywhere finally getting raised leaning in.
Pay more! It works. Treat your employees with respect… What a concept.
I laughed when he said, "The thing I'm not a fan of is raising wages...Everybody loses. Well the workers win, bUt eVEn tHeN....." 🤣
Not the answer 😕 if you understand how money works,but alas 50 % of Americans have no clue how money works
NO! Yacht, Yacht, yacht, McMansion McMansion McMansion, Porsche, Ferrari, Benz, Chefs, dogs, ex wives, mistresses, coke and taxes…No…I can’t afford it…🤔🤣
@@waris4thewealthy549 do rich people pay taxes? 😕
@@christinelafromboise6731 Jesus man..relax..it’s just a joke..depends on your definition of “rich” some do and some don’t….not everybody is trying to cheat the system but you would be a fool not follow the advice of your financial adviser…thats what you hire them for right?🤨
I remember trying to negotiate a pay raise in the 1990's after my first and only child, my wife and I were hoping to have at least one more. I'll never forget the way my boss just laughed and said, "it's not our problem if you want to have more children". All I can say to companies now is, you will not be hiring the children your workers could not afford to have. Corporations and politicians have been governed by a think long/think wrong attitude for coming on 2 generations, and it's about to seriously bite them in the rear.
That company was correct imo. You should get a higher salary because you want more kids so single people working there have to be paid less. Let's consider a system that pays people based on their desires rather than what they produce. Doesn't sound like that great a system. The US can get as many low wage workers as we like extremely quickly via immigration. We don't have to pay people to have kids.
You don't ask for raises anymore, you look for a new job and never accept counter offers. Company loyalty to the employee is dead.
Wife and I have zero kids. And life is so much easier and you don't have that vulnerability that goes along with it either.
The presenter is quite clear that immigration will not provide the needed labor because too many developed countries need labor and the potential immigrant labor force is too small. Also this country expects parents to shoulder pretty much the entire burden of raising children, and the ensuing economic losses of lower income and/or child care expenses, increased medical insurance, car insurance (for teen drivers), educational expenses, housing, it goes on. Tax policies can help by greatly increasing the deduction for dependent children to off set these expenses. Plus none of this addresses the stress and emotional demands of parenting in the isolation of the nuclear family. It is no wonder birth rates are declining.
@@MrWaterbugdesign I can remember a time when businesses understood that they needed to pay workers enough to provide the next generation of workers or they would be screwed. They forgot that in the 1970s, took profit for 2 generations and for the next 3 generations it's going to cost more than it was worth.
Only a "labor" economist could come up with the formulation that rising wages isn't a good idea.
@Jace Rivera Read about the destruction of the working class and middle class.
Does anyone ever do the thing you just told each other to do?
@@gadaadhoon Yes. I lived through the 70s stagflation so I have read about its causes and cures. Ultimately, the end of empire and fiat currency are what is needed to restore the Republic. I don't think that will happen until we go through a civil war to reestablish the true founding stock nation. Aliens (foreign not space) have ruled America since the formation of the central bank and brought this cosmopolitan empire into existence to destroy the true nation.
Please correct my ignorance. If stagflation is what happens when wages are constant and prices go up due to supply side problems how will increasing wages cause stagflation? I understand very well that it will cause inflation, I'm just confused as to how it will cause stagflation
@@gadaadhoon It won't cause inflation either. Inflation drives workers to seek higher pay, that explains the great resignation. The central bankers are reacting to this as they always do ultimately by restricting money supply and putting the economy into severe recession. The resulting unemployment destroys workers leverage and forces them to accept lower wages. Demand is reduced and comes into balance with supply. The only problem is that it also destroys the working and middle class. Sound money would lead to a constantly growing, mildly deflationary economy (productivity gains slowly lowering prices) that favors savings and middle class probity. That is the old and much finer Republic.
So the takeaway is ... Simplify your job descriptions, invest in training your staff and don't let them quit if you can possibly avoid it. Just don't under any circumstances whatsoever increase the salaries you offer because that is 'bad' (no further explanation provided). One assumes that's because 'hey lets just increase salaries' is a message the presenter's employer thinks their clients (real or potential) don't want to hear. And I get that. Because hey, like when was the salary offered by a potential employer actually ever the main consideration when applying for a job? Mostly it's just about the 'vibe' right?
good vibrations only pay the bills if you're the beach boys
My favorite was at the very end. Just hire the legal form of slavery that is our gigantic prison population! Unreal...
@@wohnai Wow, I didn't get that far before giving up in frustration. Just confirms that the presentation was aimed at the type of employer who would rather eat their own liver than offer higher pay to attract staff. I.E. Bad employers.
I think part of the point he was trying to make is that companies should try and keep employees longer to make training costs go down. He failed to mention that increasing pay and giving people job security is the most important part of keeping workers. This is not happening enough in companies today. They prefer to lay off workers who are inconvenient at the time and pay prospective workers very little
@@blakehill5324 Best way to change that? Make hiring costs tax deductible and reduce other taxes affecting 'new' hires. Then impose tax penalties and mandate termination payments for firings - particularity mass redundancies. Carrot and stick. (Ideally they should roughly balance out) but basically make hiring cheaper and firing more expensive.) And it the case of mass redundancies - no executive or board bonuses that year.
You miss the point when you advise not to raise wages. By your own line graph, the money supply doubled. Retail items now cost 15-21 percent more in stores than they did compared to February 2020. Low wage people have an intuitive understanding of Cost of Living relative to wage increases. They are (rationally) opting out because they know it would require a massive sea change of Economic Nationalism to get them a spouse and a single family home in a decent low-crime school district. If they are just going to waste away in a crappy apartment from age 37 to 87, why not work as little as possible? It’s entirely rationale. Oddly, even Gen X managers have not figured out the demographic trend lines yet, and still treat their employees as though they can be easily replaced.
Low wage people need to get some skills, which comes only from work/experience and or education. There is no reason to simply stay in the low wage category over time.
They have the skill of noticing food costs 17% more than it did a year ago and they are not going to eat that cost. For most business owners I know, 2020 was there most profitable year despite COVID. All that printed money had not been “priced in” to peoples wag expectations yet. Individual business owners have zero leverage now. You can acknowledge that or have no employees.
Not to mention that real wages have stagnated over the past 50 years relative to inflation. Wages in lower skilled jobs were way overdue for a signficant rise before COVID. However, he is correct that simply raising wages is not enough. Workers want to be treated better and have more scheduling flexibility (or in some cases predictability). Employers need to learn how to give their employees regular predictable hours. Retail and food service employers seem to be particularly bad at that. It may be that we will need to move back to a society where we don't expect businesses to be open all hours of the day and night because we simply don't have enough labor for it.
Working is pointless... You can't get ahead because the Boomers and Gen Xers won't let you! They'll attack you, bare false wittiness on you, and try to turn people on you, no point sticking your neck out, because Boomers and Gen Xers will just want to Take It!
@@randyross5630 Ummm...that's some pretty broad generalizations you are making there. I'm a Gen Xer and I've never attacked anyone at the workplace. The only complaint I've had about staff who work under me is people thinking they can do whatever they want at work and show up whenever they want without consequence. That's not how the world works. When you agree to take a job you are agreeing to do the work you were hired to do at a certain price and you agreed to show up on time when the job requires. Too many people think that they can treat a job like a hobby and you can't run an organization that way. Incidently, I've had problems when all age groups in this regard. No age group was really any worse than they other.
29:54 “I am not a fan of raising wages” Sir, that mindset is the driving cause of your population loss. Up until about 1970, gains in productivity were returned in part to the labor force. Since then, the inflation adjusted wage of the employee has stagnated or declined while the output of those employees has continued to rise. People do not enjoy being abused and there is a limited incentive to bring children into a society where they are likely to be abused. I agree that increases in wages result in increases in costs which drives inflation. Those most worried about inflation are precisely the ones who need to put their money back in circulation. I am a millennial with three children. The first was easy to justify. Bringing more into this world took quite a bit of contemplation, weighing the benefits and costs to myself and society.
Increasing wages drives unemployment, it does not drive inflation. There is only one cause of inflation; overproduction of money.
Raising the minimum wage is a short-term stopgap, nothing more. When the minimum wage is raised, businesses pass the higher costs to customers, and statistically most of those customers must be earning at or near minimum wage themselves. You get more money from The Man just so you can pay more money to The Man. The real problem is a lack of price controls for basic commodities, which is the reason _why_ businesses are able to pass on to their customers the higher costs of paying higher wages.
@A. person : Higher wages are not the sole cause of inflation, but they are one cause.
@@deusexaethera You should learn something about economics other than socialist fairytales.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 "There is only one cause of inflation; overproduction of money." This is not quite true at all. If you look at it you can classify inflation as either demand -pull inflation which is influenced by cuts in interest rates, and higher wages along with an increase in the money supply as you described, or cost-push inflation which is influenced by devalualuation, and value-added taxes (which in the US's case would be like excise taxes), expatations of inflation itself, or yet again, higher wages. You seem to be specifcily stuck on the principle of higher wages. Higher wages increase firms costs and increase consumers’ disposable income allowing them to spend more, thus increasing money in circulation. Rising wages are a key cause of cost-push inflation because wages are the most significant cost for many firms. Wage-push inflation is the increase in general price level resulting from higher wages in an economy. If there was a very significant rise in the minimum wage, it could in theory cause inflation, but generally speaking modest rises in the minimum wage have no significant impact on inflation. If higher wages cause higher prices. Then workers may make more efforts to increase wages in response to rising prices. This can lead to a wage-price spiral. Instances of hyperinflation often have an element of this. For example, in the 1920s, Weimar Germany saw moderate inflation, meaning workers were becoming worse off. To keep workers happy, the government printed more money so that they could increase nominal wages. But, this just fed through into higher inflation, more wage demands and hyperinflation. However, in cases of higher productivity there will not be a wage-price spiral.. and, as previously stated there as been an increase in productivity but no real increase in worker's wages since the 1970's, so they are due their wage adjustment.
Our companies abandoned us. They sent our jobs to Taiwan and China. They even sent people from manufacturing and engineering to train our replacements.
Nobody owes you anything. Grow up and create your own business.
@@omeryehezkely3096 always need more "gig entrepreneurs" paying 50% of revenues to Amazon or fighting for eyeballs on UA-cam living in fear of getting demonetized with no explanation!
@@omeryehezkely3096 Ok boomer. Nobody owes you social security, get off your butt and go to work!
Social security is a tax for the general use of the government. You are a sucker.
most who paid into SS said nothing as it was burnt in the general fund plus much more debt incurred... and companies don't owe you nothing is the attitude that has forgotten the social contract. nothing gets done without labor, and capital does not get to capture all gains... this guy says people left manufacturing for restaurants... like they wanted a huge cut in pay... this guy is a economics school idiot... he thinks people leave manufacturing jobs... the manufacturing job left the worker with the help of the global slave keepers... the jobs went to wear the slaves are
I spent 48 years with the same company. Obviously, I liked my work. There were many cycles where moving would have paid better in wages or vacation. A lot better. I stayed put for the retirement. Now I’m 72 living on $86K. or a little under half pay. I’ve deteriorated physically or I’d still be working but what made it work for me was stability and knowing I would have a retirement when I needed it. $15/hr isn’t bringing people in. Toxic work environment is keeping people home.
I am a millenial. I will work at least part time until I die. I'm planning on being in the ground by 75. I will probably be living on about 15k adjusted for inflation that year.
@@moshow93 Have you considered moving to a country that at least has health care and paid holiday leave such as any of the beautiful European countries? This would be an optimal time to do so before you have a family. Have a good life!
I'm 27, worked for 5 years in software (did very well) and am now retired. I live off of investments and rental income. Everyone should retire early. it's nuts to spend your live working for someone else. explore foreign real estate as well. get renters/people being your employees and making you money. US renter laws can be ridiculous. Working for someone else for 48 years is ridiculous. Find worker bees that make your rich! If your in your 20s/30s in the US, only plan on a working for someone else for 2 years max. If the company isn't making you more valuable, quit fast!
@@1MinuteFlipDoc If everyone did that then the money you have would be worthless beacuse nobody would be doing anything of any actual value.
@@niteowl365 Me and 40 million other middle income millenials will get right on that.
The employer in the Midwest who decided to pay his workers 70k per year found an massive increase in the birth rate of his workers.
Lol yeah. He also has no concept how the measurement of inflation has changed. Go to home depot see how one size nail is half the cost of all the others by weight.... That's because that is the ONLY nail on the inflation index...... It's been way worse then they say since the 70s. Everytime it gets real bad they just change how they measure it.....
Oddly enough, that will make the employees less likely to move to other cities to work elsewhere!!!!
Yup, people are broke so they don't have kids. It's that simple. We drove up housing prices and put everyone in debt with college loans, they're barely surviving, and then we wonder, why doesn't anyone have children? The boomers had kids because they could afford to.
An employer choosing to pay his employees more? Clearly that is socialism!! (actually unironically yes)
@@cathrynm Damn good Clift Note version Cathryn.
How can we expect people to work if they have no hope of making a living? Exploiting prison labour at least takes care of workers' costs of living (the taxpayers pay it), but won't this encourage the investment class to increase incarceration levels to ensure they have an adequate pool of labour? In recent years, those employing non-skilled minimum wage workers have repeatedly threatened to automate before raising wages. So? Where are we at with that? Now seems like the perfect time to make good on that threat.
As someone who's currently studying computer science and AI, I have to let you know that was mostly an empty threat at least for the next decade or two primarily because that's because dexterity requires a lot more processing power than replacing white collar workers. So why we can automate a good chunk of lawyers doctors and people who sit on their job, it is much harder to automate Tradesmen and others.
Also thanks to the 14th Amendments loophole, prisoners can legally be enslaved so I guess the plan is to use slavery to buffer the labor shortage. Of course we pay the slaves 10 to 15 cents per hour so people can't point fingers at us that were enslaving them even though that's exactly what's being done
@@NadeemAhmed-nv2br Gee, ya think?
The thing about machines is that they don't make good consumers. Even if you reduce your labor costs to zero, you're still going bankrupt when nobody can afford to buy your product, because they don't have a job. Money is supposed to be like life blood for a country; yet these people who keep making windfall profits are acting like artery plaque.
@@TarsonTalon Agreed, but maybe they're not thinking we're going to have a consumer driven economy in the future. It looks like they're accruing all this wealth in advance of returning to some sort of feudal model, in which most people are commodities to be exploited or pests to be exterminated.