Epic FU money stories

[LennStar]

As I said above, I support mandates requiring employers to respect employees' personal choices. If an employee doesn't feel comfortable working without a mask, employers shouldn't be allowed to fire him because of it.

Do you think doctors and nurses in the operating room should be able to choose whether they have to mask?   And why?

Of course surgeons should be required to wear masks while performing surgery. Should surgeons be required to wear masks while sitting at a desk, working on a laptop? No, of course not. The choice should be up to the individual.

Why?
What's your argument to say it's not ok to kill a patient on the table, but ok to kill him in the explanation 2 hours earlier?

[ATtiny85]

As I said above, I support mandates requiring employers to respect employees' personal choices. If an employee doesn't feel comfortable working without a mask, employers shouldn't be allowed to fire him because of it.

Do you think doctors and nurses in the operating room should be able to choose whether they have to mask?   And why?

Of course surgeons should be required to wear masks while performing surgery. Should surgeons be required to wear masks while sitting at a desk, working on a laptop? No, of course not. The choice should be up to the individual.

Why?
What's your argument to say it's not ok to kill a patient on the table, but ok to kill him in the explanation 2 hours earlier?

I don't think employers require the wearing of PPE during surgery. I'd think that was part of some ToS for licensing? So the employer's requirement would be "don't fuck up and get us in trouble, follow the regulations." Similar to my manufacturing company having to abide by OSHA stuff.

Also, I added the underlining. The poster said sitting at a desk working on a laptop. That is not the same as a post-op visit. Plus, as mentioned, there is time dependency, and as anyone who has been cut on before, 15 seconds is closer to any post-op visit.

[Shane]

Before surgeons ever take a job, they know ahead of time that most employers will require that they wear masks while performing surgery. Construction workers also are aware before they even apply, that they will be required to wear a hard hat, while on active construction sites. They're both choosing to pursue those careers, knowing beforehand that they will be required to wear certain protective gear, while performing their professional duties. If a construction worker is sitting alone in the office, looking over some blueprints, and a pencil pusher comes down and tells her she needs to put on a mask because of some company 'policies,' if she's got FU money, she can tell the pencil pusher where to shove it. If not, she'll have to do what she's told or suffer the consequences. FU money gives us options that those without it don't have available to them.

[grantmeaname]

Can we take the asinine mask bickering to the Off topic forum for those who want to see that?

[By the River]

Can we take the asinine mask bickering to the Off topic forum for those who want to see that?

Yes!  I feel like taking a rash action just to get this topic back on subject.  Let me think of something bothering me at work.

[Captain FIRE]

Can we take the asinine mask bickering to the Off topic forum for those who want to see that?

Yes!  I feel like taking a rash action just to get this topic back on subject.  Let me think of something bothering me at work.

I can take one for the team.  Hoping to give notice tomorrow once the background check clears and my boss is back in the office.

[Turtle]

Perhaps @fuzzy math has an update for us which would get this thread back on topic.

[eyesonthehorizon]

I have one of those employers where they announced a company policy that those wishing to wear masks would be allowed to continue. (Every rule is a response to precedent: we had harassment directed at those using PPE.)

Not especially epic, but I used my FU position to indicate that despite our "generous policy accommodations" allowing masks, I would not be returning to in-person work (though there was an expectation we do so.)

No one should need to share medical information as to whether they are high risk or have FU money to insist on doing the exact same work remotely in this day & age. The employer gets another available desk, the risk of employees taking sick days or increasing the company's insurance premiums is decreased with fewer in-person carriers, there's one fewer car ahead of everyone at each stop sign & on the road burning gas in general.

But it took FU money for me to make that happen, which is the point. Everyone should have this sort of negotiation & veto power over the inertia of thoughtless precedent to improve the state of their lives & the world.

[mm1970]

Perhaps you're the one not remembering that almost EVERYONE got sick from Omicron last winter.

Sorry to add more fluff, but this is technically not true.  By April 2022, 60% of all Americans had been infected with COVID.  Calculating what percentage of that is Omicron...I dunno, but it's definitely not almost everyone...

(I got Omicron in July, as did my teen, and my DH and smaller child have still not had it.)

[Loren Ver]

Good luck @Captain FIRE

Thank you for pushing as hard as you can to get us going back to the stories (see thread title)!

LV

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Can we take the asinine mask bickering to the Off topic forum for those who want to see that?

Yes!  I feel like taking a rash action just to get this topic back on subject.  Let me think of something bothering me at work.

If you did an Epic FU to just get us back on topic, that would probably top my list of Epic FU's ever :)

[mm1970]

Can we take the asinine mask bickering to the Off topic forum for those who want to see that?

Yes!  I feel like taking a rash action just to get this topic back on subject.  Let me think of something bothering me at work.

If you did an Epic FU to just get us back on topic, that would probably top my list of Epic FU's ever :)

Is it an Epic FU to ignore recruiting emails that want to hire me at this great salary, which is a full >$40k less than I currently make?  Usually recruiting emails don't include salary.

[grantmeaname]

Lol yeah. I got a recruiter email breathlessly quoting a salary that is less than 40% of what I make now. I kindly explained how far off base he was, and he hit me with "is there anyone in your network you'd recommend to me [now that you know I have terrible judgment and no idea what you do]?"

[BicycleB]

Lol yeah. I got a recruiter email breathlessly quoting a salary that is less than 40% of what I make now. I kindly explained how far off base he was, and he hit me with "is there anyone in your network you'd recommend to me [now that you know I have terrible judgment and no idea what you do]?"

lol

[fuzzy math]

Perhaps @fuzzy math has an update for us which would get this thread back on topic.

Things are still in flux but my 2 coworkers may not sign on with the contractor. And we found out that the one contract that our hospital covers elsewhere, their contract doesn't allow subcontractors. So my hospital is officially defaulting on that contract LOL. I have a feeling someone's going to get sued, maybe multiple people and this contractor might end up backing out.
Its going to be a nail biter until the bitter end. I'm at least able to laugh over the ridiculousness of it all.

[okits]

Perhaps @fuzzy math has an update for us which would get this thread back on topic.

Things are still in flux but my 2 coworkers may not sign on with the contractor. And we found out that the one contract that our hospital covers elsewhere, their contract doesn't allow subcontractors. So my hospital is officially defaulting on that contract LOL. I have a feeling someone's going to get sued, maybe multiple people and this contractor might end up backing out.
Its going to be a nail biter until the bitter end. I'm at least able to laugh over the ridiculousness of it all.

This doubles as an "Epic F-Up" on management's part.  I hope it feels good to know this is not your problem.  Congratulations on extricating yourself!

[Shane]

I have one of those employers where they announced a company policy that those wishing to wear masks would be allowed to continue. (Every rule is a response to precedent: we had harassment directed at those using PPE.)

Not especially epic, but I used my FU position to indicate that despite our "generous policy accommodations" allowing masks, I would not be returning to in-person work (though there was an expectation we do so.)

No one should need to share medical information as to whether they are high risk or have FU money to insist on doing the exact same work remotely in this day & age. The employer gets another available desk, the risk of employees taking sick days or increasing the company's insurance premiums is decreased with fewer in-person carriers, there's one fewer car ahead of everyone at each stop sign & on the road burning gas in general.

But it took FU money for me to make that happen, which is the point. Everyone should have this sort of negotiation & veto power over the inertia of thoughtless precedent to improve the state of their lives & the world.

Totally agree. Since long before MMM, I always tried to save at least 50% of whatever I earned. Having significant savings has, multiple times, given me the confidence to push back against unreasonable employer demands. Workers shouldn't *have* to have FU money in order to be treated decently, but given that not all employers do the right thing voluntarily, and the US Department of Labor can't always be counted on to enforce workers' rights (usually because of budget cuts by GOP politicians), I can't imagine not at least trying to build up as much FU money as possible. Aside from the obvious benefit of more leverage when negotiating with employers, not having to borrow to pay totally predictable expenses, such as a new roof on the house or a new transmission in the family car, seems like another good reason everyone should save and invest as much as they possibly can.

[Luke Warm]

I have one of those employers where they announced a company policy that those wishing to wear masks would be allowed to continue. (Every rule is a response to precedent: we had harassment directed at those using PPE.)

Not especially epic, but I used my FU position to indicate that despite our "generous policy accommodations" allowing masks, I would not be returning to in-person work (though there was an expectation we do so.)

No one should need to share medical information as to whether they are high risk or have FU money to insist on doing the exact same work remotely in this day & age. The employer gets another available desk, the risk of employees taking sick days or increasing the company's insurance premiums is decreased with fewer in-person carriers, there's one fewer car ahead of everyone at each stop sign & on the road burning gas in general.

But it took FU money for me to make that happen, which is the point. Everyone should have this sort of negotiation & veto power over the inertia of thoughtless precedent to improve the state of their lives & the world.

Totally agree. Since long before MMM, I always tried to save at least 50% of whatever I earned. Having significant savings has, multiple times, given me the confidence to push back against unreasonable employer demands. Workers shouldn't *have* to have FU money in order to be treated decently, but given that not all employers do the right thing voluntarily, and the US Department of Labor can't always be counted on to enforce workers' rights (usually because of budget cuts by GOP politicians), I can't imagine not at least trying to build up as much FU money as possible. Aside from the obvious benefit of more leverage when negotiating with employers, not having to borrow to pay totally predictable expenses, such as a new roof on the house or a new transmission in the family car, seems like another good reason everyone should save and invest as much as they possibly can.

That's almost like having your own personal union. I like it.

[Zamboni]

Lol yeah. I got a recruiter email breathlessly quoting a salary that is less than 40% of what I make now. I kindly explained how far off base he was, and he hit me with "is there anyone in your network you'd recommend to me [now that you know I have terrible judgment and no idea what you do]?"

I've dealt with a couple of these. One was an email requesting that I send names for a ridiculously low salary in a government position where they wanted a researcher with a PhD, and I replied to let them know that even my teenage son wouldn't be willing to work for that salary.

The most outrageous one I've ever seen was an online posted ad by a University of California school last year seeking someone with a PhD to take a faculty position to teach with no pay. It said something absurd like "candidates must understand that this position has no salary or other compensation associated with it." I had previously interacted with the Chair of that department, so I wrote an email to let him know that he was violating several state labor laws (and I looked up and quoted the statutes.) He didn't reply, but the ad was removed shortly thereafter (I doubt I was the only person to send him what I thought.)

[mm1970]

"candidates must understand that this position has no salary or other compensation associated with it."

holy shit!

[alcon835]

Lol yeah. I got a recruiter email breathlessly quoting a salary that is less than 40% of what I make now. I kindly explained how far off base he was, and he hit me with "is there anyone in your network you'd recommend to me [now that you know I have terrible judgment and no idea what you do]?"

This happens to me way too often! No, I am not going to recommend someone to you when you're lowballing and asking me about a role I'm clearly not a good fit for (spend 5 seconds on my LinkedIn!)

[Tempname23]

Perhaps you're the one not remembering that almost EVERYONE got sick from Omicron last winter.

Sorry to add more fluff, but this is technically not true.  By April 2022, 60% of all Americans had been infected with COVID.  Calculating what percentage of that is Omicron...I dunno, but it's definitely not almost everyone...

(I got Omicron in July, as did my teen, and my DH and smaller child have still not had it.)

 Where did you get that 60% number, I had no idea it was that high. If it is really that high we should have just for got about all restrictions, job losses, and economic slow down and just let the another 10% or 20% get it. I believe there would be a percentage of the population that would never get it.

Edit, I went looking for articles, the numbers are all over, here's one that bounces a lot.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220802/havent-had-covid-yet-wanna-bet

[Zamboni]

I've been noticing that a bunch of retail stores in my area are having trouble keeping shelves stocked and arranged neatly. While there may be supply chain issues for some of it, I suspect that it has more to do with people not willing to work retail jobs for what they pay anymore.

All of these places are advertising that they are hiring boldly with large signage around the entrance and exit doors, and it's been like this for the last few years, but it has definitely gotten worse.

I guess more people have FU money than we think! Or working in retail is just that miserable . . . probably some of both.

[BicycleB]

I've been noticing that a bunch of retail stores in my area are having trouble keeping shelves stocked and arranged neatly. While there may be supply chain issues for some of it, I suspect that it has more to do with people not willing to work retail jobs for what they pay anymore.

All of these places are advertising that they are hiring boldly with large signage around the entrance and exit doors, and it's been like this for the last few years, but it has definitely gotten worse.

I guess more people have FU money than we think! Or working in retail is just that miserable . . . probably some of both.

Maybe they're getting FU jobs.

[Tempname23]

I've been noticing that a bunch of retail stores in my area are having trouble keeping shelves stocked and arranged neatly. While there may be supply chain issues for some of it, I suspect that it has more to do with people not willing to work retail jobs for what they pay anymore.

All of these places are advertising that they are hiring boldly with large signage around the entrance and exit doors, and it's been like this for the last few years, but it has definitely gotten worse.

I guess more people have FU money than we think! Or working in retail is just that miserable . . . probably some of both.

 My thinking, there has there is a large attitude shift regarding work, combined with government and parent money to aiding financial survival.
 A sad place to see this is, https://www.reddit.com/t/antiwork/
btw, I got kicked off because I didn't toe the line.
 Posting this is what got me kicked out.

[Sibley]

I've been noticing that a bunch of retail stores in my area are having trouble keeping shelves stocked and arranged neatly. While there may be supply chain issues for some of it, I suspect that it has more to do with people not willing to work retail jobs for what they pay anymore.

All of these places are advertising that they are hiring boldly with large signage around the entrance and exit doors, and it's been like this for the last few years, but it has definitely gotten worse.

I guess more people have FU money than we think! Or working in retail is just that miserable . . . probably some of both.

I've been asking cashiers how much the store pays. A year ago I was getting most answers around $10-12 per hour, now its more like $15 per hour. Which is an improvement, but not good enough. I also notice that the places that don't seem to be short staffed are generally the ones who are paying $18-20+ per hour.

I've also identified a couple stores that apparently have incompetent or abusive management.

[startingsmall]

Perhaps you're the one not remembering that almost EVERYONE got sick from Omicron last winter.

Sorry to add more fluff, but this is technically not true.  By April 2022, 60% of all Americans had been infected with COVID.  Calculating what percentage of that is Omicron...I dunno, but it's definitely not almost everyone...

(I got Omicron in July, as did my teen, and my DH and smaller child have still not had it.)

 Where did you get that 60% number, I had no idea it was that high. If it is really that high we should have just for got about all restrictions, job losses, and economic slow down and just let the another 10% or 20% get it. I believe there would be a percentage of the population that would never get it.

Edit, I went looking for articles, the numbers are all over, here's one that bounces a lot.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220802/havent-had-covid-yet-wanna-bet

The goal was never to prevent all infections. Don't you remember "flatten the curve?" The goal was to spread infections out over a long enough time that our health care system could keep up with the infections, providing care for COVID and all of the other stuff that kept happening during COVID.

I agree that some people lost track of that goal and seemed to start thinking we could prevent/avoid all infections. The message from public health officials, however, was always that most of us would eventually contract COVID.... we just needed to let it burn through slowly instead of explosively.

[dcheesi]

I've been noticing that a bunch of retail stores in my area are having trouble keeping shelves stocked and arranged neatly. While there may be supply chain issues for some of it, I suspect that it has more to do with people not willing to work retail jobs for what they pay anymore.

All of these places are advertising that they are hiring boldly with large signage around the entrance and exit doors, and it's been like this for the last few years, but it has definitely gotten worse.

I guess more people have FU money than we think! Or working in retail is just that miserable . . . probably some of both.

I've been asking cashiers how much the store pays. A year ago I was getting most answers around $10-12 per hour, now its more like $15 per hour. Which is an improvement, but not good enough. I also notice that the places that don't seem to be short staffed are generally the ones who are paying $18-20+ per hour.

I've also identified a couple stores that apparently have incompetent or abusive management.

I do feel like there's more of an FU attitude out there in general, regardless of whether folks have the money or not. Maybe part of it is that some people had to deal with lost or deferred income for months during the shutdown, and found out that they could survive it better than they expected?

[Dicey]

I've been noticing that a bunch of retail stores in my area are having trouble keeping shelves stocked and arranged neatly. While there may be supply chain issues for some of it, I suspect that it has more to do with people not willing to work retail jobs for what they pay anymore.

All of these places are advertising that they are hiring boldly with large signage around the entrance and exit doors, and it's been like this for the last few years, but it has definitely gotten worse.

I guess more people have FU money than we think! Or working in retail is just that miserable . . . probably some of both.

I've been asking cashiers how much the store pays. A year ago I was getting most answers around $10-12 per hour, now its more like $15 per hour. Which is an improvement, but not good enough. I also notice that the places that don't seem to be short staffed are generally the ones who are paying $18-20+ per hour.

I've also identified a couple stores that apparently have incompetent or abusive management.

I do feel like there's more of an FU attitude out there in general, regardless of whether folks have the money or not. Maybe part of it is that some people had to deal with lost or deferred income for months during the shutdown, and found out that they could survive it better than they expected?

Ooh, that's an interesting idea.

[RyanAtTanagra]

My thinking, there has there is a large attitude shift regarding work, combined with government and parent money to aiding financial survival.

People keep blaming too much unemployment/welfare for 'no one wants to work anymore', but I have yet to see any data on that.  Unemployment rate right now isn't even high, so where are all these people sitting around collecting all this government money?  Or maybe the ongoing retiring of the baby boomers is doing exactly what everyone new it always would and create a lot of unfilled jobs and the people in retail are able to move up as everyone else moves up to fill the gaps?

[mm1970]

I've been noticing that a bunch of retail stores in my area are having trouble keeping shelves stocked and arranged neatly. While there may be supply chain issues for some of it, I suspect that it has more to do with people not willing to work retail jobs for what they pay anymore.

All of these places are advertising that they are hiring boldly with large signage around the entrance and exit doors, and it's been like this for the last few years, but it has definitely gotten worse.

I guess more people have FU money than we think! Or working in retail is just that miserable . . . probably some of both.

- A grocery checker here makes about $35k a year, but rent on a 1 BR apartment is $2900/month.  That math...doesn't work out.
- A friend's son works at the grocery store as a HS student, but you know, he's not paying rent.
- The few older people I know working at grocery stores inherited their homes.
- If the pay is so low that you have to commute an hour to afford an apartment, you might as well just get a job in the new city.

- At the very beginning of COVID, our dog sitter got a job at the local grocery store and the customers were SO horrible he quit after 4 months.

- The jobs are crap and people literally cannot afford to do them and live, partly because of a massive underbuilding of housing over the last 30 years or so.

[mm1970]

My thinking, there has there is a large attitude shift regarding work, combined with government and parent money to aiding financial survival.

People keep blaming too much unemployment/welfare for 'no one wants to work anymore', but I have yet to see any data on that.  Unemployment rate right now isn't even high, so where are all these people sitting around collecting all this government money?  Or maybe the ongoing retiring of the baby boomers is doing exactly what everyone new it always would and create a lot of unfilled jobs and the people in retail are able to move up as everyone else moves up to fill the gaps?

You haven't seen the data because there really isn't any.  It's just a boomer thing to say that "nobody wants to work anymore".

[Catbert]

My thinking, there has there is a large attitude shift regarding work, combined with government and parent money to aiding financial survival.

People keep blaming too much unemployment/welfare for 'no one wants to work anymore', but I have yet to see any data on that.  Unemployment rate right now isn't even high, so where are all these people sitting around collecting all this government money?  Or maybe the ongoing retiring of the baby boomers is doing exactly what everyone new it always would and create a lot of unfilled jobs and the people in retail are able to move up as everyone else moves up to fill the gaps?

If you're talking about official unemployment statistics you have to be actively looking for work to be counted as "unemployed".  If you're retired, happy living in your mom's basement or given up looking because you can't find work you don't count as
"unemployed".

[Taran Wanderer]

I run around in business circles with many senior executives, though my role is a little different.  It’s always fascinating to hear the emphasis on free markets and unfettered capitalism while also hearing the woe-is-me response about lack of labor. So many business models are built on the assumption of a plentiful, cheap supply of labor. When the supply isn’t there, or perhaps the labor is available but just not interested in working at the offered wage, the business leaders’ response is that “people just don’t want to work anymore”. Um, no, people don’t want to sell you what they have (labor) for the price you are offering (wage). That’s capitalism for you. Welcome to seeing that it works the other way around, too.

[zolotiyeruki]

My thinking, there has there is a large attitude shift regarding work, combined with government and parent money to aiding financial survival.

People keep blaming too much unemployment/welfare for 'no one wants to work anymore', but I have yet to see any data on that.  Unemployment rate right now isn't even high, so where are all these people sitting around collecting all this government money?  Or maybe the ongoing retiring of the baby boomers is doing exactly what everyone new it always would and create a lot of unfilled jobs and the people in retail are able to move up as everyone else moves up to fill the gaps?

I came across an interesting tool today, which helps visualize various welfare benefits as a function of earned income.  It lets you drill down all the way down to the county level, and view how much a person can receive from each of many programs.  It's really interesting to play around with: https://emar-data-tools.shinyapps.io/prd_dashboard/

One thing that strikes me, however:  I put in a 25-year-old single parent with two kids under 5, and based on the charts, it looks like the model assumes a $75k/year spend for such a family.  Curious, I poked around a bit more, and it looks like it assumes about $26k of expenses for a single person, $55k for a single person with one young child, and $106k (!) for the same single parent with three kids.  I don't know how the model sources those spending numbers, so I'd take those with a massive block of salt.

I run around in business circles with many senior executives, though my role is a little different.  It’s always fascinating to hear the emphasis on free markets and unfettered capitalism while also hearing the woe-is-me response about lack of labor. So many business models are built on the assumption of a plentiful, cheap supply of labor. When the supply isn’t there, or perhaps the labor is available but just not interested in working at the offered wage, the business leaders’ response is that “people just don’t want to work anymore”. Um, no, people don’t want to sell you what they have (labor) for the price you are offering (wage). That’s capitalism for you. Welcome to seeing that it works the other way around, too.

It goes beyond whether employees (or potential) employees will apply for a job and consistently come to work.  It's about performance, too.  In his experience, there is little correlation between an employee's compensation and their productivity.  Crudely stated, giving someone a raise doesn't impact their performance.  That said, rewarding more productive employees *does* improve retention.

Both sides have to keep in mind that there is competition.  For the low-skilled employee, it's not just competition with other employees.  The employer's money can also be spent on automation, or on re-engineering a product to require less labor to produce.  And the same goes for the employer--the employee's time could be alternatively spent going to school, or getting a more desirable job, or staying home and collecting various welfare benefits.

[Sibley]

I suspect there's a lot of people no longer in the job market which is causing a good amount of the pain. Far more than many are willing to admit. Retirements, death, disability, lack of child care, caretaking for the disabled.... COVID did a number on the workforce and the expected retirements of the Baby Boomers is only compounding it. Also, you have those suffering from the "diseases of despair" - those addicted to drugs or debilitated by depression are not likely to be holding down steady employment, and that's further decreasing the labor supply.

I've heard some people, usually those fitting particular stereotypes of Boomers and conservatives, crowing that the coming recession is going to force people get back to work. But I really don't think that's going to happen. Many of the people who aren't working right now have specifics reasons why they're not working, and a recession isn't going to change those reasons. Its going to take time to resolve a lot of this.

[kanga1622]

I've been noticing that a bunch of retail stores in my area are having trouble keeping shelves stocked and arranged neatly. While there may be supply chain issues for some of it, I suspect that it has more to do with people not willing to work retail jobs for what they pay anymore.

All of these places are advertising that they are hiring boldly with large signage around the entrance and exit doors, and it's been like this for the last few years, but it has definitely gotten worse.

I guess more people have FU money than we think! Or working in retail is just that miserable . . . probably some of both.

I've been asking cashiers how much the store pays. A year ago I was getting most answers around $10-12 per hour, now its more like $15 per hour. Which is an improvement, but not good enough. I also notice that the places that don't seem to be short staffed are generally the ones who are paying $18-20+ per hour.

I've also identified a couple stores that apparently have incompetent or abusive management.

My husband works with preschool aged children. He could make equal (or slightly higher) pay working at Walmart filling the pickup orders. Even more if he was willing to work as a Pharmacy Tech and our store will even send you to the training. Sad thing is that he's been with his same job for about 15 years... Some of the harder to fill parts of the store are advertising $19-21 per hour.

[TomTX]

My thinking, there has there is a large attitude shift regarding work, combined with government and parent money to aiding financial survival.

People keep blaming too much unemployment/welfare for 'no one wants to work anymore', but I have yet to see any data on that.  Unemployment rate right now isn't even high, so where are all these people sitting around collecting all this government money?  Or maybe the ongoing retiring of the baby boomers is doing exactly what everyone new it always would and create a lot of unfilled jobs and the people in retail are able to move up as everyone else moves up to fill the gaps?

It's just a continuation of Reagan's lies fictional stories about "Welfare queens" which were entirely made up.

[Sugaree]

My thinking, there has there is a large attitude shift regarding work, combined with government and parent money to aiding financial survival.

People keep blaming too much unemployment/welfare for 'no one wants to work anymore', but I have yet to see any data on that.  Unemployment rate right now isn't even high, so where are all these people sitting around collecting all this government money?  Or maybe the ongoing retiring of the baby boomers is doing exactly what everyone new it always would and create a lot of unfilled jobs and the people in retail are able to move up as everyone else moves up to fill the gaps?

I came across an interesting tool today, which helps visualize various welfare benefits as a function of earned income.  It lets you drill down all the way down to the county level, and view how much a person can receive from each of many programs.  It's really interesting to play around with: https://emar-data-tools.shinyapps.io/prd_dashboard/

One thing that strikes me, however:  I put in a 25-year-old single parent with two kids under 5, and based on the charts, it looks like the model assumes a $75k/year spend for such a family.  Curious, I poked around a bit more, and it looks like it assumes about $26k of expenses for a single person, $55k for a single person with one young child, and $106k (!) for the same single parent with three kids.  I don't know how the model sources those spending numbers, so I'd take those with a massive block of salt.

I run around in business circles with many senior executives, though my role is a little different.  It’s always fascinating to hear the emphasis on free markets and unfettered capitalism while also hearing the woe-is-me response about lack of labor. So many business models are built on the assumption of a plentiful, cheap supply of labor. When the supply isn’t there, or perhaps the labor is available but just not interested in working at the offered wage, the business leaders’ response is that “people just don’t want to work anymore”. Um, no, people don’t want to sell you what they have (labor) for the price you are offering (wage). That’s capitalism for you. Welcome to seeing that it works the other way around, too.

It goes beyond whether employees (or potential) employees will apply for a job and consistently come to work.  It's about performance, too.  In his experience, there is little correlation between an employee's compensation and their productivity.  Crudely stated, giving someone a raise doesn't impact their performance.  That said, rewarding more productive employees *does* improve retention.

Both sides have to keep in mind that there is competition.  For the low-skilled employee, it's not just competition with other employees.  The employer's money can also be spent on automation, or on re-engineering a product to require less labor to produce.  And the same goes for the employer--the employee's time could be alternatively spent going to school, or getting a more desirable job, or staying home and collecting various welfare benefits.

Honestly the numbers for what small kids cost seem about right.  A parent with three children who are not yet school age is  likely paying ~$5000/month just for childcare (assuming $1800/month/child, which is a steal in many places though about three times what I paid for my now-nine-year-old).  And the cost doesn't decrease as much as you think once they start school because of before/after-school care and summer care.  I was still paying about half the cost of full year care just to cover those times.  Thank goodness that the grandparents have stepped up to cover before and after school duty now.  Add in the cost of buying/renting a place with enough bedrooms and you're pretty close to that $106k. 

[Tempname23]

My thinking, there has there is a large attitude shift regarding work, combined with government and parent money to aiding financial survival.

People keep blaming too much unemployment/welfare for 'no one wants to work anymore', but I have yet to see any data on that.  Unemployment rate right now isn't even high, so where are all these people sitting around collecting all this government money?  Or maybe the ongoing retiring of the baby boomers is doing exactly what everyone new it always would and create a lot of unfilled jobs and the people in retail are able to move up as everyone else moves up to fill the gaps?

"Today over 7 million of these men of “prime working age” are neither working nor looking for work."
https://nypost.com/2022/11/02/disturbing-rise-of-the-nilfs-men-not-in-the-labor-force/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-7-million-american-men-063039864.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/labor-force-why-have-so-many-american-men-left/
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-free-expression/the-decline-of-men-in-the-workforce/b2e11b0d-5ec6-4652-a974-5a2ede320760

[AccidentialMustache]

Aren't all the men on this forum "of prime working age" trying to join that group?

The 2016 article isn't really supporting your point, being pre-covid. Nor do the articles talking about the nice steady rate this cohort is growing, which don't mention a blip related to covid and the stimulus checks (nor any blips for previous boom/bust cycles).

[RyanAtTanagra]

Yea I'm not sure what the point is.

"Half or more of the gap is due to men and women 55 and older (perhaps especially those over 65). Strangely, labor force participation rates for the 55-plus group remain lower now than in summer 2020, before the advent of COVID mRNA vaccines."

Yea, the pandemic made a bunch of people realize they could retire.  That's not surprising, and I don't get how that falls in with the 'no one wants to work anymore!' bandwagon.

"For a generation — from the mid-1990s until the eve of the pandemic — trends for older Americans were one of the few bright spots in the US employment picture."

So the boomer generation is retiring and causing exactly what everyone has known for decades would cause.

There's a lot on conflicting, nonsensical, and unsubstantiated causation claims (like saying everyone is retiring early because of the average $25k in covid benefits, which took them from broke to able to retire?), but my take-away is basically the above, which was my original point.

[zolotiyeruki]

Several months ago, I saw a statistic that there are roughly 5-6 million fewer people in the workforce than pre-covid.  About a third of them were people who simply accelerated their retirement by a few years.  Assuming a 160-million-person workforce and an average 40-year career, you'd expect about 4 million people to retire each year and 4 million to join the workforce.  So, about six months' worth of retirees retired early.  That's a pretty substantial impact, and it'll take a few years to settle out.

I've also heard anecdotally that a lot of school teachers made an exit during COVID.  I can't imagine wanting to continue teaching if I were in the position many of them faced during that time...

[SwordGuy]

Several months ago, I saw a statistic that there are roughly 5-6 million fewer people in the workforce than pre-covid.  About a third of them were people who simply accelerated their retirement by a few years.  Assuming a 160-million-person workforce and an average 40-year career, you'd expect about 4 million people to retire each year and 4 million to join the workforce.  So, about six months' worth of retirees retired early.  That's a pretty substantial impact, and it'll take a few years to settle out.

I've also heard anecdotally that a lot of school teachers made an exit during COVID.  I can't imagine wanting to continue teaching if I were in the position many of them faced during that time...

1/2 of 4 million is 2 million, not 5-6.    I think you mean 18 month's worth of people retiring early, on top of the 4 million who normally leave and 4 million who normally enter.

[TomTX]

There's a lot on conflicting, nonsensical, and unsubstantiated causation claims (like saying everyone is retiring early because of the average $25k in covid benefits, which took them from broke to able to retire?), but my take-away is basically the above, which was my original point.

$25k in COVID benefits as an average? I didn't see anywhere near that much, even at the family level.

Guess I should have participated in the PPP scam....

[zolotiyeruki]

Several months ago, I saw a statistic that there are roughly 5-6 million fewer people in the workforce than pre-covid.  About a third of them were people who simply accelerated their retirement by a few years.  Assuming a 160-million-person workforce and an average 40-year career, you'd expect about 4 million people to retire each year and 4 million to join the workforce.  So, about six months' worth of retirees retired early.  That's a pretty substantial impact, and it'll take a few years to settle out.

I've also heard anecdotally that a lot of school teachers made an exit during COVID.  I can't imagine wanting to continue teaching if I were in the position many of them faced during that time...

1/2 of 4 million is 2 million, not 5-6.    I think you mean 18 month's worth of people retiring early, on top of the 4 million who normally leave and 4 million who normally enter.

I think you may have missed my meaning.  The 5-6 million includes all demographics, while the unexpectedly-early retirees numbered 2 million.  So an extra six months' worth.

[SwordGuy]

Several months ago, I saw a statistic that there are roughly 5-6 million fewer people in the workforce than pre-covid.  About a third of them were people who simply accelerated their retirement by a few years.  Assuming a 160-million-person workforce and an average 40-year career, you'd expect about 4 million people to retire each year and 4 million to join the workforce.  So, about six months' worth of retirees retired early.  That's a pretty substantial impact, and it'll take a few years to settle out.

I've also heard anecdotally that a lot of school teachers made an exit during COVID.  I can't imagine wanting to continue teaching if I were in the position many of them faced during that time...

1/2 of 4 million is 2 million, not 5-6.    I think you mean 18 month's worth of people retiring early, on top of the 4 million who normally leave and 4 million who normally enter.

I think you may have missed my meaning.  The 5-6 million includes all demographics, while the unexpectedly-early retirees numbered 2 million.  So an extra six months' worth.

If 4 million usually leave and 4 million usually enter, that's a net change of 0.

If we're 6 million down, that means an additional 6 million left, or 2 million left and 4 million didn't enter, so somewhere between those two.

[lhamo]

BAM!

https://gizmodo.com/facebook-meta-vr-john-carmack-metaverse-oculus-1849909943

John, I'm guessing you are probably way to busy/efficient to be hanging out with the likes of us, but if you do happen to be lurking here thank you for such a great Epic FU story.  Anybody who walks out on Zuckerberg is a winner in my book....

[zolotiyeruki]

Several months ago, I saw a statistic that there are roughly 5-6 million fewer people in the workforce than pre-covid.  About a third of them were people who simply accelerated their retirement by a few years.  Assuming a 160-million-person workforce and an average 40-year career, you'd expect about 4 million people to retire each year and 4 million to join the workforce.  So, about six months' worth of retirees retired early.  That's a pretty substantial impact, and it'll take a few years to settle out.

I've also heard anecdotally that a lot of school teachers made an exit during COVID.  I can't imagine wanting to continue teaching if I were in the position many of them faced during that time...

1/2 of 4 million is 2 million, not 5-6.    I think you mean 18 month's worth of people retiring early, on top of the 4 million who normally leave and 4 million who normally enter.

I think you may have missed my meaning.  The 5-6 million includes all demographics, while the unexpectedly-early retirees numbered 2 million.  So an extra six months' worth.

If 4 million usually leave and 4 million usually enter, that's a net change of 0.

If we're 6 million down, that means an additional 6 million left, or 2 million left and 4 million didn't enter, so somewhere between those two.

Yes, the statistics are that we have 5-6 million fewer workers than we would expect to see.  Of those 5-6 million, 2 million are people who were close to retiring pre-covid, and chose to accelerate their retirement by a few years. The other 4 million were from younger demographics.

[NorCal]

Several months ago, I saw a statistic that there are roughly 5-6 million fewer people in the workforce than pre-covid.  About a third of them were people who simply accelerated their retirement by a few years.  Assuming a 160-million-person workforce and an average 40-year career, you'd expect about 4 million people to retire each year and 4 million to join the workforce.  So, about six months' worth of retirees retired early.  That's a pretty substantial impact, and it'll take a few years to settle out.

I've also heard anecdotally that a lot of school teachers made an exit during COVID.  I can't imagine wanting to continue teaching if I were in the position many of them faced during that time...

1/2 of 4 million is 2 million, not 5-6.    I think you mean 18 month's worth of people retiring early, on top of the 4 million who normally leave and 4 million who normally enter.

I think you may have missed my meaning.  The 5-6 million includes all demographics, while the unexpectedly-early retirees numbered 2 million.  So an extra six months' worth.

If 4 million usually leave and 4 million usually enter, that's a net change of 0.

If we're 6 million down, that means an additional 6 million left, or 2 million left and 4 million didn't enter, so somewhere between those two.

Yes, the statistics are that we have 5-6 million fewer workers than we would expect to see.  Of those 5-6 million, 2 million are people who were close to retiring pre-covid, and chose to accelerate their retirement by a few years. The other 4 million were from younger demographics.

I'm part of this group as a stay-at-home parent.  And I'm too lazy to dig into the actual statistics, so I might be misstating what the statistics are saying.

My experience is anecdotal, but there's enough people out there in a similar situation that I'd expect it to at least partly explain the numbers.  There are a lot of parents that left work in Covid to be a stay-at-home parent when they might have otherwise stayed in the workforce.  While some of these parents are going back into the workforce, many are remaining full time parents.  While it is fewer people in the workforce, it isn't exactly someone being lazy at home collecting benefits.

Also (completely anecdotally), the SAHP's now seem much more likely to be men.  I wouldn't be surprised if this is messing with the statistical models, as the "expected" workforce was largely based on historical participation by gender.  At least this was true when I looked at these statistics many years ago.