I'm curious, has your employer tried paying more? There are a fair few desk jobs that pay $25-30/hr, and it's entirely possible that people are trading job stability for something that isn't so physically demanding.
There's not that many jobs that pay that much around here.
However, our Seattle location has that problem. It was almost closed down because of competition.
edit: can't reply to the person who replied below, but if you have a contract to sell parts to a company you can't just increase your worker pay to whatever you want and have it be sustainable.
There's not that many jobs that pay that much around here.
But that doesn't answer the question. If you can't get people to apply for a physically demanding job, despite other benefits like stability, unionization, etc, at $25-30/hr then it seems rational to try $35-40/hr unless the need really isn't there. We've been living with so much inflation relative to such little wage growth that if I was told things are more expensive because machinists want a wage they can use to buy a house with I would still chafe at the inflation but the justification would be a lot more palatable than "the board raised the prices and did a stock buyback with the profits".
>but if you have a contract to sell parts to a company you can't just increase your worker pay to whatever you want and have it be sustainable.
Renegotiating a contract sounds more sustainable than not having workers.
The bottom line is always that the pay to quality of life at work is insufficient.
>Nobody wants to stand in front of a machine (or 5-6 machines) for 10 hours a day. Nobody wants to be in a 90 degree factory all day. Nobody wants to work 2nd or 3rd shifts.
>The pay isn't incredible. $25-30/hr. You get overtime.
For this much, there are lots of office jobs in front of a computer with zero risk of injury where you can sit. And overtime is not worth much if you do not get to enjoy life outside of work.
> There's not that many jobs that pay that much around here.
So, I shouldn't be around there?
> you can't just increase your worker pay to whatever you want
I respect that it's a challenge, but job seekers aren't responsible for solving Boeing's supply chain problems. Either the job is important enough to draw people into it, or it isn't.
If you have a contract to sell parts then your incentive to give higher salary would also be greater, given contracts would have penalties for failure to deliver. The companies are apparently in equilibrium with this situation, so either shortsighted in management or complain because effectively they want to pay less than they currently do.
McDonald's in my small 5k population town in Montana (which has a bit of a reputation for shit wages) was advertising $20/hr (might be $19 and I'm mentally rounding up) last summer including paid leave. McDonalds is nearly to your starting pay. The market has adjusted.
If a large number of people who are already credentialed for a job get it, and then quit soon after, why would it be rational for someone to spend their own time and money pursuing unpaid training in the hopes of also being hired onto that job?
It seems to me that companies have unrealistic ideas about what they need to do in order to attract employees. Start training again. Cross-train, even, if the boredom issue is a real one. Make work floors more hospitable (provide heaters/fans, lower noise, etc.). There was a time when typists and "computers" worked regimented shifts in sweltering/freezing, warehouse-style offices, too; very few workers will put up with being triple-layered at their keyboards or drowning in their own sweat these days. Maybe that needs to change for trades; or, businesses need to pay more to reflect the trouble people are putting themselves through for their paycheck.
> There's not that many jobs that pay that much around here.
Hiring movers to pack your stuff and move it across the country costs a few thousand dollars, and it's never been easier to rent an apartment via online showings. Your competition is a lot broader than your immediate geographic area.
This statistic is so misleading. I know you have honest intentions, but I think you find this statistic appealing because you have a worldview that poor people are helpless. If you read the actual report that statistic came from, you would see that about 40% said they had enough in savings to cover a surprise $500 expense. Another 21% said they would rely on a credit card, while 20% said they’d cut back on other expenses. Another 11% said they’d turn to family or friends for the money. So roughly 92% of people have a way of covering a $500 expense.
If you look at the discussion this statistic has started, it's basically a pissing contest of more and more extreme means that either help or hinder one's ability to move. But both sides of the argument are total strawmen: a vast majority of Americans can cover a $500 expense. Most people can find a way to move if they really want to. Those who can't are likely people you wouldn't want to hire.
That much-repeated factoid is the result of sloppy, clickbait reporting of a lousy survey.
People were asked "If you had a sudden $500 expense, how would you pay for it?" with options like ["cash", "checking account", "credit card", "pay-day loan", "borrow from family"] and unsurprisingly many people said "credit card". This then got repeated and reported as "Americans can't pay $500 without going into debt".
Yeah, would like to see the source of that. My generation puts everything on rewards cards even if they have no debt; so of course $500 is going on a card first lol.
That statistic originates from this report by the Federal Reserve from 2014.[0] In the report they define it as "paying for it entirely using cash, money currently in their checking/savings account, or on a credit card that they would pay in full at their next statement (referred to here as “cash or its functional
equivalent”)."
The target worker in this case is people in Gen z? They're young out of school and own nothing. It doesn't cost anything to move in that case. I moved across the country with a suit case. My only cost was the plane ticket
So that didn't cost you nothing then. Then what did you do when you got off the plane? Presumably you paid a security deposit for an apartment and didn't just camp on BLM land. For someone with no credit history, a landlord might ask for 4 months rent as a deposit these days.
When I was working shit jobs for minimum wage in Washington I hitchhiked to North Dakota's oil rush and slept in a train yard. It literally cost me nothing.
When an able bodied, single, mentally competent and healthy young person says they don't have enough money to move across country it is actually code for "I have no initiative so I will sit and cry like a pathetic child." Meanwhile people are successfully walking across the Darien gap and the Sonoran desert with entire families to find success.
> When an able bodied, single, mentally competent and healthy young person
Might want to add 'male' to that. I'm a female with a damn high risk tolerance (I worked third shifts in major cities, lived alone in one of the most dangerous cities in the country, and had no problem walking alone in a Middle Eastern country where I didn't speak the language well) and I wouldn't hitchhike. And I definitely am not sleeping in a train yard. So that cuts out half of Gen Z right there.
You made it fine, and others who try and hitchhike sometimes end up robbed, kidnapped, or worse. Don't blame an entire generation for not doing something that you know for a fact comes with a ton of risk.
Making a significantly lower wage is probably more dangerous in the long run than hitch-hiking a few trips in a lifetime to relocate to higher wages. That is the relative risk is likely actually negative.
If your try hard enough, you can always find a plausible sounding reason why it's impossible to improve your life. It's best not to take any risks, and always blame others for your problems. You can earn a lot of upvotes that way.
Your info is a little out of date. Two months ago I hired movers to go 150 miles, and I did the packing myself. I have a house rather than an apartment but I don't have that much stuff. Cost was $3500. A full service pack and move across the country would probably be upwards of $5000. Even more if you were moving a whole family.
I literally just had a move from NYC to Stanford quoted at $5,500. A full pack-and-move from NYC to NJ suburbs was $2,500. Perhaps you have more stuff than me. I definitely have more stuff than a young person.
