Clearly we just have a different definition of a labour shortage, then.
I think what you're overlooking is that different people have different expectations/needs/wants/whatever in terms of pay, and different employers have different expectations/needs/wants/whatever in terms of what they're willing to pay, all of which depends on a given situation. So at the bottom end of the spectrum, you have employers willing to pay minimum wage (the least they can legally pay someone) and a certain number of people who are willing to accept that wage. What you're seeing now is employers still hoping to get people at that lowest possible rate because they're not desperate to bring someone on board. If they can get someone at $8.00/hr (or whatever minimum wage is these days - frankly, I have no idea) then great. If not, then so be it. If they raised the wage to $10/hr, more people would likely be intersted and the position would be filled. But the employer doesn't need anyone that badly that they'll pay $10/hour, so they'll just sit and wait until someone will accept the lowest legal wage.
Meanwhile, further up the spectrum, you've got a guy who just got laid off from his job at the Ford plant where he was making $75,000 a year. This guy isn't rushing out to take that minimum wage job at Tim Hortons, but at the same time, he doesn't have much opportunity to grab another $75k factory job.
The difference between an area with a labour shortage and one without is that this guy probably could find another $75K factory job and the bottom end employer would be willing to pay more. Again, use Alberta as an example. Some rig worker making six figures could probably quit his job and find another paying the same amount without too much difficulty because employers can't find enough people to throw money at. Similarly, McDonalds isn't waiting around for someone to take the lowest legal wage, they're upping their offering and still not getting people. That's a labour shortage.
I think what you're overlooking is that different people have different expectations/needs/wants/whatever in terms of pay, and different employers have different expectations/needs/wants/whatever in terms of what they're willing to pay, all of which depends on a given situation. So at the bottom end of the spectrum, you have employers willing to pay minimum wage (the least they can legally pay someone) and a certain number of people who are willing to accept that wage. What you're seeing now is employers still hoping to get people at that lowest possible rate because they're not desperate to bring someone on board. If they can get someone at $8.00/hr (or whatever minimum wage is these days - frankly, I have no idea) then great. If not, then so be it. If they raised the wage to $10/hr, more people would likely be intersted and the position would be filled. But the employer doesn't need anyone that badly that they'll pay $10/hour, so they'll just sit and wait until someone will accept the lowest legal wage.
Meanwhile, further up the spectrum, you've got a guy who just got laid off from his job at the Ford plant where he was making $75,000 a year. This guy isn't rushing out to take that minimum wage job at Tim Hortons, but at the same time, he doesn't have much opportunity to grab another $75k factory job.
The difference between an area with a labour shortage and one without is that this guy probably could find another $75K factory job and the bottom end employer would be willing to pay more. Again, use Alberta as an example. Some rig worker making six figures could probably quit his job and find another paying the same amount without too much difficulty because employers can't find enough people to throw money at. Similarly, McDonalds isn't waiting around for someone to take the lowest legal wage, they're upping their offering and still not getting people. That's a labour shortage.
Comment