Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
Just admit you are full of shit. You waste time repeating yourself cause you can't back up your claim.Again, you could have found it by now if it existed. Clearly it doesn't and you'd rather babble.Economists are all baffled by the lack of wage growth. It’s strange you choose to ignore it’s been poor...Here employers complain they can’t get good people. doesn’t seem to raise wages though. The market is broke for the reasons I’ve explained.Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.harvardmagazine.com
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
All industry is interconnected.
Everything is interconnected to everything.
Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.
So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....
I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.
It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.
So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?
So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.
The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.
People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.
And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.
Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.
So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
In, a healthier economy with a better labor market, even that would not be enough. THey would HAVE to offer better wages even to keep the dregs.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
I have. It was glorious.
I want to share that joy, with as many of my fellow workers as possible.
No, that's not true. Unwanted employees can easily be held onto at below market wages. I know this because I talk to these people, and they openly tell me why they were for below market wages.
Also you need to understand a fundamental difference between typical employment, and health care employment.
When I mean that some of the nurses or doctors are bad... I mean that they are employees that private care systems simply don't want at any price.
The example I always point to, is this story from over 10 years ago, about a doctor at a VA hospital. So this guy went in for routine minor surgery. The kind of surgery that less than half a percent die in. He died, and his wife was in the hospital, when a nurse approached her, and whispered 'get a lawyer' and walked away. So she hired a lawyer and investigator, and found out this doctor had been fired from 3 private hospitals for killing patients.
But of course, the VA desperate for doctors because government run anything is crap, and pays nothing, had no problem hiring a doctor that can't get employment anywhere else, because he was terrible. Remember a VA hospital doesn't lose any money when a Vet dies. It just means the wait list is one shorter now.
That's what I'm talking about. Some of the people who work at Medicare and Medicaid clinics, are people who are so bad at their jobs, they are simply not wanted in the market. So yes, if this clinic is a Medicare Medicaid clinic, then it is likely desperate for people willing to work for less, and people who simply suck too bad to work in private clinics, will have no problem working there, even for below market wages.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
Sure. I've been in that position most of my life. Out of my last... 10 employers I'd guess, at least 8 of them did everything they could to prevent me from leaving the company.
But you need to grasp that this is because I'm a good employee. I'd say at least 1/3 to almost half, are terrible employees, and them leaving is a positive more than a negative. None of these people are likely to be paid more, and most likely less, anywhere else.
In fact I've heard that first hand. "I deserve a raise! I'm worth more than this!" Ok... go get a job that pays more. (long pause) "Well no one else will pay me as much as I'm earning here"..... dur... then you are not worth more than this, are you? In fact maybe this company is over paying you, if any other employer would pay you less.
I've not seen gross incompetence like you suggest.
What I have seen is job openings that get massive numbers of applicants so there is no pressure on the employer to work to hold onto a good employee.
Or to raise wages.
Well that's true.
They can't get good people. And that is exactly why they don't raise wages.
The two are connected.
Paying more, doesn't magically make the people good. Sucky people, get sucky wages.
One of the more interesting times in my life, was 2007-2010. So during those years, my wages went up, several times in fact. Now this was fascinating, because during that time, everyone was having a melt down that no one could find a job, and no one was getting pay raise, and everyone was having a horrible time.
Meanwhile, I found jobs, and get pay raises. Why was this? Because I showed up on time, worked my entire shift, and did whatever was required to get the job done.
Fact is, most people do as little as possible, do as low quality work as possible, and then expect a raise in pay... not coming. Best advice I've heard, was your raise will be effective when you are.
Scott B. Sumner (born 1955) is an American economist. He is the Director of the Program on Monetary Policy at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, and professor who teaches at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts.
Monetary policy (mostly) determines nominal wage growth - Econlib
Monetary policy drives NGDP growth, and NGDP growth (per worker) is by far the most important determinant of nominal wage growth. (The other determinant is labor share of GDP.) During the past 4 years, NGDP growth has been running at 4.05%/year, well below the historical norms. So why is wage...www.econlib.org
During the past 4 years, NGDP growth has been running at 4.05%/year, well below the historical norms. So why is wage growth running at only about 2.5%/year? The answer is simple; payroll employment has been growing at 1.78% over that same period. The predicted growth in average hourly earnings is 2.27%, whereas actual wage growth has been running at 2.47%. The recent puzzle is why is wage growth so high, not low.
SO..... economists are not "baffled" by this. In fact, given the increase in employment, wages are growing pretty well.
So maybe what is strange is that you choose to ignore that it's been pretty decent.
In search of real — not nominal — wage gains
While it’s always tempting to equate higher wages with higher living standards, we should be thinking specifically in terms of real wages.thehill.com
If it existed you could have found it by now. Instead you seem to have lots of time making excuses.You can’t cause you are making shit up.You are playing a game, just making shit up.Yeah it happened and wasn’t documented in any way. Definitely not on the internet anywhere. You have some imagination kid. Let me know when you step into reality.Yeah where is the link? You just babble nonsense. Link to support your claim.You can’t even show what those promised results were. I’ll be waiting for a link. You are a joke.Economists are failed authority figures? You been drinking?You are delusional. You made claims you couldn’t even prove. I gave you work by actual economists.Yes you choose to believe in nonsense you can’t even explain. Funny.Here employers complain they can’t get good people. doesn’t seem to raise wages though. The market is broke for the reasons I’ve explained.Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.
Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine
Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.
MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”
In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.
But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
All industry is interconnected.
Everything is interconnected to everything.
Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.
So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....
I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.
It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.
So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?
So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.
The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.
People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.
And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.
Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.
So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
In, a healthier economy with a better labor market, even that would not be enough. THey would HAVE to offer better wages even to keep the dregs.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
I have. It was glorious.
I want to share that joy, with as many of my fellow workers as possible.
No, that's not true. Unwanted employees can easily be held onto at below market wages. I know this because I talk to these people, and they openly tell me why they were for below market wages.
Also you need to understand a fundamental difference between typical employment, and health care employment.
When I mean that some of the nurses or doctors are bad... I mean that they are employees that private care systems simply don't want at any price.
The example I always point to, is this story from over 10 years ago, about a doctor at a VA hospital. So this guy went in for routine minor surgery. The kind of surgery that less than half a percent die in. He died, and his wife was in the hospital, when a nurse approached her, and whispered 'get a lawyer' and walked away. So she hired a lawyer and investigator, and found out this doctor had been fired from 3 private hospitals for killing patients.
But of course, the VA desperate for doctors because government run anything is crap, and pays nothing, had no problem hiring a doctor that can't get employment anywhere else, because he was terrible. Remember a VA hospital doesn't lose any money when a Vet dies. It just means the wait list is one shorter now.
That's what I'm talking about. Some of the people who work at Medicare and Medicaid clinics, are people who are so bad at their jobs, they are simply not wanted in the market. So yes, if this clinic is a Medicare Medicaid clinic, then it is likely desperate for people willing to work for less, and people who simply suck too bad to work in private clinics, will have no problem working there, even for below market wages.
Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?
Sure. I've been in that position most of my life. Out of my last... 10 employers I'd guess, at least 8 of them did everything they could to prevent me from leaving the company.
But you need to grasp that this is because I'm a good employee. I'd say at least 1/3 to almost half, are terrible employees, and them leaving is a positive more than a negative. None of these people are likely to be paid more, and most likely less, anywhere else.
In fact I've heard that first hand. "I deserve a raise! I'm worth more than this!" Ok... go get a job that pays more. (long pause) "Well no one else will pay me as much as I'm earning here"..... dur... then you are not worth more than this, are you? In fact maybe this company is over paying you, if any other employer would pay you less.
I've not seen gross incompetence like you suggest.
What I have seen is job openings that get massive numbers of applicants so there is no pressure on the employer to work to hold onto a good employee.
Or to raise wages.
You've explained your opinion about why that is.
Stating it again, and more confidently, is good technique.
I though, am beyond being convinced by such tricks.
Perhaps, if you do it again and with more passion? Perhaps, that will sway me.
I explained it, as well as you did.
Your citing of failed Authority figures means nothing.
Have you? You didn't notice when Free Trade did not deliver the promised results?
The goal was not generations of wage stagnation and a declining life expectancy.
I remember. I did not read it online. I was there, and the goal was improved productivity and a return to winning. And it was not supposed to take forever either.
NOW? Now people are talking about the American worker being fucked until EVERY THIRD WORLD SHIT HOLE, is brought up to our level?
That is not a sane policy. That is reason to rise up and burn down the Lord's castle.
Did you read what I posted? I did not read it online. I heard it when I was there. This is not ancient history to me, but living memory.
Are you high?
Not what I said. Why you making up so much shit?
Oh, you know that, right, and your just playing a silly game?
If I go and find some documentation, for what I recall personally, you know that you will just dismiss it.
Just tell us the reason you will dismiss it, and save me the time of finding something from pre-internet era. And we can move the discussion forward without wasting anyone's time.
Because, you are not open to changing your mind, due to new information, are you?
Just tell us the reason you will dismiss it, and save me the time of finding something from pre-internet era. And we can move the discussion forward without wasting anyone's time.
We both know that you already have your reason for dismissing it, already picked out.
Just tell us the reason you will dismiss it, and save me the time of finding something from pre-internet era. And we can move the discussion forward without wasting anyone's time.
We both know that you already have your reason for dismissing it, already picked out.
Just tell us the reason you will dismiss it, and save me the time of finding something from pre-internet era. And we can move the discussion forward without wasting anyone's time.
We both know that you already have your reason for dismissing it, already picked out.
