Hacker News Reader

Comment by freyir | Hacker News Reader

> There is no shortage.

The article claims that employment offices do not have enough job seekers to fill the roles. If true, this would suggest a shortage, and an Econ 101 notion of supply-and-demand that disregards time isn't evidence to the contrary.

> If employers want more workers then they can just pay more, or offer better working conditions.

This is irrelevant. For example, if low-wage or middle-wage workers have left the area, and the remaining workers have full employment, this would cause a shortage at the present time. Raising wages may attract new workers to move to the area over time, but until that happens, there will be a shortage.

View on HN

So if scour classified ads for $5,000 BMWs, and cant find any, is there a shortage of BMWs? (or am I just being unwilling to pay a market price and instead using some made up shortage as an excuse?)

I'd say the later. There is no such thing as a shortage without the context of a price. Otherwise, anyone can manufacture shortages.

There is a shortage of homes for $75,000 in the bay area. There is a shortage of people willing to deliver fresh coffee to my doorstep for $1. Pretty easy..

If we permitted more homes the price would fall. No reason the bay can't become an Asian megapolis.

Empty employment offices are not evidence of a shortage. Plenty of workers will appear right now, today if you offer sufficient wages.

If you don't believe me then post a help wanted ad with a >$50 hourly wage for unskilled work and watch the applications roll in.

> If you don't believe me then post a help wanted ad with a >$50 hourly wage for unskilled work and watch the applications roll in.

This proves nothing. For example, if a >$50 hourly wage is well above market rate, it may lead currently-employed people to apply. If they leave their current job to take your offer, then you've just shifted the job vacancy from one employer to another. This is clearly not evidence that a labor shortage does or does not exist.

This absolutely disproves the existence of a shortage. The labor participation rate is currently only 63%, which is relatively low for the post-war era. Let me know when it reaches a historic high. Until then there is zero hard evidence of any labor shortage.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns11300000

That number is not a great indicator of whether there is a labor shortage or not, because it is for everyone 16 and over, so it includes college students (and even many high school students) and retirees. It also counts people who are seeking employment, but who aren't actually employed as part of the labor force.

A better indicator is employment-population ratio[1] which has recovered since the drop in 2008.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060

Sure use whatever metric you like. That one is also still significantly below the peak set in 1999. They're highly correlated.

The peak in 1999 has never been matched at any time since the metric has been recorded. A few years with abnormally high levels of employment does not indicate a labor shortage now.

> The labor participation rate is currently only 63%

It's 63% nationwide. But in San Jose, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, which is what we're talking about, it's closer to 69%. That's quite high.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com