Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Eddie Teach]

2/3 ain't bad?

[Syt]

2/3 ain't bad?

Well, my our parents/grandparents were refugees. But as they never fail to point out, they were "real" refugees, fleeing the Red Army and they fled within the country, not like people today fleeing oppressive poverty or crime or war in their countries (I know that there's differences between the groups worth talking about, but the "good" vs "bad" refugees distinction seems a bit simplistic).

They like to romanticize this as a time when people stood together to help one another.

While that's not wrong, there was also a lot of hostility towards the refugees who needed housing, food, etc. in areas that either had been ravaged during the war, or otherwise didn't have many resources to deal with them. There's a reason you have in most larger West German towns areas with streets named after towns in areas ceded to Poland and Russia after the war, often with houses from ca. the 50s - these were often created to house the new arrivals (the GDR didn't memorialize the lost territories that way). It was quite notable in my home state Schleswig-Holstein who took in the second most refugees from the East - it was reachable via sea, plus it was one of the last areas to be occupied.

In 1939 the state it had close to 1.6 million people, in 1946 close to 2.6 million (200k refugees from Hamburg had been housed there during the war as well). The numbers dropped a bit till the 1960s, but largely stayed at that level (it sits at 2.9 million at the moment).

And of course the resentment already existed during the war. People from the cities who were moved to the countryside often resented their accommodations for not having the same amenities as the cities. Likewise, rural populations resented their guests who needed resources and often had more money to throw around (not to mention a snobby attitude).

[DGuller]

Most of these points quoted are not obviously wrong.  In fact, most of them are reasonable on the face of it.  I agree that points 2 and 3 are in fact good refutations of bad arguments supporting illegal immigration, though the "welfare" references are uncomfortably close to dog whistles.

[Razgovory]

The resevoir of cheap labor seems to be drying up as we have a labor shortage right now.

[DGuller]

The resevoir of cheap labor seems to be drying up as we have a labor shortage right now.

There is no such thing as labor shortage, there is only a stubborn unwillingness to pay a wage that will attract and retain labor.

[Josquius]

The resevoir of cheap labor seems to be drying up as we have a labor shortage right now.

There is no such thing as labor shortage, there is only a stubborn unwillingness to pay a wage that will attract and retain labor.

You can offer to pay 200 an hour if you want. You're still not going to make a skilled electrician (or whatever) appear overnight if there aren't any about.

You can temporarily solve your hiring problems by paying more but this won't help the economy overall. All you're doing is swiping a worker from elsewhere. It's a short term fix that will lead to a nasty negative feedback loop of economic unravelling.

This is not a healthy way to increase wages.

Of course. There's the very valid point that companies are usually unwilling to increase wages when times are good as they really should be doing which means for worker welfare shit times like this can be useful. But if this isn't constrained to certain industries and is allowed to go everywhere at once then the net result is not many people are actually richer thanks to inflation and other issues.

[Admiral Yi]

Why is that not a healthy way to increase wages?  I think it's a the healthiest.  The rising price sends a signal to everyone else that this is a lucrative field to enter.

[Josquius]

Why is that not a healthy way to increase wages?  I think it's a the healthiest.  The rising price sends a signal to everyone else that this is a lucrative field to enter.

Which will take the better part of a decade to see results.
And what about the jobs they would otherwise be doing?
All you're doing is shuttling water from one leaky bucket to another.

[Admiral Yi]

Which will take the better part of a decade to see results.
And what about the jobs they would otherwise be doing?
All you're doing is shuttling water from one leaky bucket to another.

It hardly takes 10 years to train an electrician.

The other jobs are not as lucrative any more, presumably.

Please tell me what the healthiest way to increase wages is.

[Josquius]

Which will take the better part of a decade to see results.
And what about the jobs they would otherwise be doing?
All you're doing is shuttling water from one leaky bucket to another.

It hardly takes 10 years to train an electrician.

The other jobs are not as lucrative any more, presumably.

Please tell me what the healthiest way to increase wages is.

At a quick Google it takes 3 years. Plus you have to factor in a while for mentality to shift enough that a significantly higher number of people than usual do this. I do think you're looking at a good 5 or 6 minimum.
And that's assuming an OK situation of a shortage in one job being fixed by wage increases and associated good advertising of those wages. Not a situation where there's a shortage of labour across the board.

The healthiest way to increase wages is just to increase wages when times are good and there's nothing fucking with the economy.

The thing is with immigrants are holding wages down idea is its not just theoretical, we have an actual practical example of where a declining workforce gets us in the shape of Japan.... 30 years of wage stagnation.

[Gups]

Why is that not a healthy way to increase wages?  I think it's a the healthiest.  The rising price sends a signal to everyone else that this is a lucrative field to enter.

Which will take the better part of a decade to see results.
And what about the jobs they would otherwise be doing?
All you're doing is shuttling water from one leaky bucket to another.

Not really. You might get part timers shifting to full time, full timers doing some overtime, older workers delaying retirement, more apprentices helping and improving productivity of those trained.

[Josquius]

Why is that not a healthy way to increase wages?  I think it's a the healthiest.  The rising price sends a signal to everyone else that this is a lucrative field to enter.

Which will take the better part of a decade to see results.
And what about the jobs they would otherwise be doing?
All you're doing is shuttling water from one leaky bucket to another.

Not really. You might get part timers shifting to full time, full timers doing some overtime, older workers delaying retirement, more apprentices helping and improving productivity of those trained.

This can fill small short term holes but its still a very finite number you're pulling from.

[Threviel]

So, increasing wages is not the way to do it, rather one should increase wages at a better time?

[Syt]

No, lower benefits to incentivize the degenerate freeloaders to get off their asses and be GRATEFUL for the opportunity to add to corporate bottom lines.

[Josquius]

So, increasing wages is not the way to do it, rather one should increase wages at a better time?

Increasing wages is a good thing. Companies should do it when times are good. Increasing wages is a sign of a healthy sector.
It's not a solution when everyone is doing it during a period of temporary international economic meltdown. Its merely a minimum, try and keep people's heads marginally above water, action.