by mozumder on 8/2/18, 3:17 PM with 99 comments
by CydeWeys on 8/2/18, 3:34 PM
Also, construction is a job that's notoriously hard on your body. You can't count on being able to do it into your 60s like office work, and one bad accident can end your career in construction (or just flat out end you). And the work itself is hard. Pay needs to be higher than other jobs to compensate for this. I know I'd rather be, say, a Starbucks barista than a construction worker, even if the latter paid a little bit more.
by learc83 on 8/2/18, 3:40 PM
If you want people to make those trade offs you have to pay more.
This kind of rhetoric from companies drives me nuts. They push to remove regulations, but when the free market says they have to pay more for labor, suddenly it's not the free market driving up wages, it's a worker shortage. Now we need the government to step in and fix it. You see it most obviously with tech companies pushing for STEM in public schools and the push for more H-1Bs.
by Kluny on 8/2/18, 3:37 PM
If there was decent workplace safety (my hometown is infamous for it's poor safety standards), and a good pension program where you're expected to want to quit and do something else after 10 years or so, before your body is ruined, then I'd be all about it.
by OldSchoolJohnny on 8/2/18, 3:36 PM
by tekstar on 8/2/18, 3:34 PM
You used to be able to buy a house and grow a family on these wages, and eventually retire. With that no longer being the case, why would anyone with choice choose this option?
by jeffreyrogers on 8/2/18, 3:39 PM
That doesn't seem sustainable long term. I worry that by losing goods-producing jobs like manufacturing and construction we are creating a long-term problem where people who can't produce high value services end up living an impoverished life. To some extent you could address this problem by making immigration easier which would help create more low-labor cost, goods-producing jobs, which would in-turn lead to more low-skill service jobs.
by null000 on 8/2/18, 3:51 PM
Three seconds on google suggests that they make <40k in my area, typically. That's definitely not well paid, especially for a job that's fickle and physically demanding. Hell, that's barely above minimum wage (I'm in a $15/hr area, minimum wage is $32k) - I can get an office job tomorrow paying close to the same with basically no effort.
As usual, whenever someone blames labor for labor shortages, just look at the wages. If you pay less than a waiter earns with tips while demanding more out of your workers, don't expect people to be lining up at the door. Same goes for farm labor. Same goes for teachers. Same goes for truckers. And so on.
[1] - taken from the Non-WSJ alternative in the comments below
by mamurphy on 8/2/18, 3:32 PM
by crooked-v on 8/2/18, 3:30 PM
by chuckgreenman on 8/2/18, 3:56 PM
Over the past couple of decades the percentage of young people getting degrees has swelled, we've been encouraging everyone to get a degree. Did we expect people to remain in low paying jobs when they can do something else? Those student loans payments aren't making themselves.
by craig1f on 8/2/18, 3:38 PM
In my last position, I worked across the street from where they were putting up two buildings. We'd gawk over how brave they must be to be up that high on the rafters.
by burlesona on 8/2/18, 3:58 PM
The article mentions labor commuting from Sacramento to SF where the wages are higher, thus driving up prices in Sacramento due to lack of supply. That kind of domino effect eventually makes it so SF can't get labor because the labor has shifted to live 90' outside of Sacramento and commute there instead. At some point wages do have to go up, driving up costs further in a vicious cycle.
I don't know when but I believe another broad housing market collapse is coming.
by platz on 8/2/18, 3:31 PM
by linksnapzz on 8/2/18, 3:32 PM
by dccoolgai on 8/2/18, 3:33 PM
by gldev3 on 8/2/18, 3:54 PM
by minikites on 8/2/18, 3:31 PM
by stealthmodeclan on 8/2/18, 3:48 PM
by johnvega on 8/2/18, 3:46 PM