We Are Closed
Popping up on businesses everywhere, trending on Twitter
https://twitter.com/search?q=we+are+clo … r%5Esearch
Gas Shortages predicted before the pipeline cyberattack?
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3630 … -cnn-says/
Help Wanted Signs... no one will work?
https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/ne … 0201d.html
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/15/96637649 … nd-workers
What is going on in our Country?
Jesus, I'm glad I don't use Twitter. Just opening that and reading the first two things I saw had my skin crawling.
Bring on the shortages, and keep our remote workers comfortable and safe at home. Having everyone home has been a real blessing as it concerns friendship and familial ties, and with a gas shortage there will be more reason for corporations to keep their workers working remotely.
If you've ever worked in a restaurant, or any service industry position in the back of house, you'd understand why NO ONE (not even award-winning chefs) want to work at restaurants. It's an industry stereotype, and they all have those issues. As for other positions in other industries needing workers that's always been the case, and I feel like that second article is capitalizing on the times.
What's going on is a time of great social upheaval, and a restructuring of the way we think as a country; at least that is how I am viewing things. The things I've witnessed over the last year or so, what has now become acceptable and promoted behavior, has convinced me we are undergoing some sort of big change that will reshape the entire future of our country. Though I have no idea what that future looks like it feels bleak; we will prevail, though.
Funny thing to think about for the more-paranoid in the crowd: The armed personal guard industry is booming. Armed personal guards, not just security guards, are being hired at an alarming rate. It's a good time to own a security company, or testing site for guard cards right now.
After reading the comments on your first Twitter link, I have two thoughts; first, No, the hashtag WEARECLOSED is not trending because folks are refusing to work for businesses that don't support a Living Wage', it is trending because the government is now paying one more to not work, and, second, that Twitter account is as fruity as any of the criticized Conservative sites.
Been a while since I've seen you post, thanks for the reply.
I agree that is a part of it.
But another part is likely that in these States where gas is over $5.00 a gallon (IE - CA) right now, and where food and gas prices are rising in general, jobs that pay any less than $15 an hour aren't even worth going to.
As the inflation that was certain to come from creating all those trillions of dollars last year and dumping them into the economy starts to take hold, wages will have to keep pace... or there will be no sense going to a job that pays $10 an hour, when it costs you $50 in gas just to get there and $25 dollars for your lunch.
Not to mention $1,800 rent for a one bedroom apartment in San Diego my area, though for Calif it is about $1,500.
I have a different perspective regarding whether going to that $10 hr. job is worth the effort. Your thought almost demands the addition of the thought `as long as the government is artificially inflating the benefits.'
In that case, it would take a very principled person to put in their labor and receive less money.
But, without that free money, whatever money that is left after expenses must be more than a person had before they worked.
There is a lot of important stuff attached to the difference in these perspectives. Consider what personality traits one choice vs. the other would illustrate.
I think this particular issue involves more important considerations than just the economic balance. Nope, I think it is always better to choose to work. The task of making that job, (their labor), "worth it" isn't the government's job.
For certain there is the very real aspect that many people are getting more income from unemployment/other benefits than they could going to work.
When one considers the costs in time, effort, gas, to have a job... one would have to be getting offered considerably more to work, than to stay on benefits.
I would go so far as to say I think it is downright idiotic to go to work, when it doesn't make you considerably more money than not working does.
I would say a person has a personality trait that is detrimental to their wellbeing if they looked at it in any other way.
Second issue, which coincides with this, is that the government created trillions of dollars in 2020 and those extra dollars are now working their way into the "real world economy".
When you create more of something, it lessens the value of each, so what buying power the Dollar has now and going forward into 2022, 2023, will be considerably less than what it was in 2019.
In 2019, when gas was $2.25 a gallon at one point (national average) your dollar bought more than it does today, as it now tops $3.00 a gallon (national average) due to whatever reason they decide to sell you (IE - cyber attack).
A gallon of milk that used to be $2.99 will soon be $5.99 a nice juicy steak that cost $15.00 will now cost $25.00, you get the point.
So as the dollar buys less, because it is worth less, it requires that people be paid more.
Why would someone go to work to make $10 an hour (minus taxes leaving you with $65 for an 8 hour shift) if it costs you $30 in gas to get to work and back again?
Far better off staying home, collecting benefits, or finding some other way to make some side hustle money.
First, and to be clear, I am not principled enough to refuse over-generous unemployment benefits if the money difference is significant. So now the question must be "What is significant?"
"When one considers the costs in time, effort, gas, to have a job... one would have to be getting offered considerably more to work, than to stay on benefits."
So where is the "significant" line for you; 50%, 20%, 10%?
Could a value be added for the non-economic benefits of working; self-esteem, gained avenues for future opportunity, gained work experience?
My "significant line" would probably be in the 30% range. Anything less and I think the loss of those non-economic benefits outweighs your "better of" thought.
It would depend on the job I suppose and the value a person found in it.
I would think the more meaningful one felt the job to be, the less the difference needs to be between the two.
However, one can use the time not working to work on other things, education, family, fitness, whatever one finds value in.
I would prefer to have more time free to do the things I want to do, than to be using that time working for others.
"I would think the more meaningful one felt the job to be, the less the difference needs to be between the two."
One problem here, I think, is that most of those laid off and still drawing unemployment are from the bottom end of the wage scale. Few will find their work "meaningful".
"I would prefer to have more time free to do the things I want to do, than to be using that time working for others."
Unless the funding is available for those things (education, fitness, home improvement, whatever) the time to do it doesn't mean much. Even if they are "earning" more from unemployment it isn't going to go very far.
"However, one can use the time not working to work on other things, education, family, fitness, whatever one finds value in."
Wait, wait. You aren't saying you would ride on the backs of others so that you could have more discretionary time, are you?
And that thought is based on one's interpretation of whether the job is worth doing?
I am always one to adjust to new realities.
The current reality is our government, in the process of bankrupting its own economy, is giving away money to just about anyone who wants it.
I counter your position by saying that taking away time from family and one's own health and wellbeing, to "work" for what is freely given to others, would be downright masochistic and counter productive.
As it happens, I continue to work, as a hedge against possible and unforeseen problems, however my wife, who is a RN and was continuously exposed to patients with Covid (getting it twice) has enjoyed an extended leave of absence from work, for over half a year, and will continue to do so, focusing on her health and wellbeing and the family.
Made possible in large part by a government that wants to give away free money.
It's good to see someone else is always one to adjust to new realities. In this fast pace of changing events of the world right now its feel changing gears from survival to thriving mode.
It will be a new world order, just not like the way most people would think right now.
You sound better prepared for the changes to come than the majority.
Even though I try to prepare, it is difficult when one has a family and obligations to maintain.
"But, without that free money, whatever money that is left after expenses must be more than a person had before they worked."
"he task of making that job, (their labor), "worth it" isn't the government's job."
And yet we choose, as a nation, to give to the poor. And when they work, when they begin to climb the wage ladder, we take away more of that charity than they earn. In that manner we are making sure that their job is NOT "worth it" - something that seems like a major problem to me.
Yep, our `safety net' programs are a mess, but that's a different issue than I have been addressing. Relative to my response to Ken, my thought is that it is always more beneficial to work, in normal life situations, than it is to be bought off by a few more dollars.
I look at it like those pandemic lock-down psych talking heads that talk about humans being social creatures that needed hugs and smiles, (so to speak). Except that I am saying that humans need a sense of value—such as being a working productive member of a social group.
You'll get no argument from me - I agree right down the line.
And not only does the individual get that "sense of value", society also gets additional production for free. I've said it before, but when a society determines that over half of it's members are incapable of feeding themselves that society has a very real, very serious problem.
A re-set button is being pushed. We will get back to reality, I predict
- out of sheer necessity.
things may be delightfully different.
like "remote work."
- so cool.
I'm just throwing out one notion that part of the issue with employers not finding workers is the creation of a society that has been locked out of employment for decades. For too long companies have had blanket policies that meant anyone with a felony, and sometimes misdemeanor convictions, were barred from employment. If they could get employment, it was entry level work that paid way less than before the conviction.
I do think (and hope) these policies are starting to loosen through necessity, but, in the meantime, we have many people running around who were not given the chance to work their way up the job ladder, and are used to dealing drugs, living off of government assistance, etc. Of course, some people do make things work post-conviction due to various reasons (connections, an extremely stubborn will , etc.) but with estimates running over 20 million convicted felons in the US, I have difficulties thinking that the worker shortage has no link to this issue.
I don't trust the Government as much as I can throw them.
Lucky I've been prepare for this starting 10 years ago, even on my hub articles. Got food and housing covered in a our eco landbase community.
Good deal. I remember you speaking of this community. You may have people clamoring at your gates soon.
Are you speaking of "Great Reset" type changes?
I did read a piece by Ken about this reset though I'm not sure I know a great deal about it at this point. I've been running across the idea more recently with my work for a social media company. No matter what happens, I feel like our family will adapt as we are certainly accustomed to the need to deal the hand given, even when that hand is entirely reshuffled.
People will really wake up!!! when people with WEF start getting voted on.
I'm sure it will fail, like this temporary covid world order.
I can't say for sure what will happen, but I can read what the plans are, be it the World Economic Forum or the Agenda 2030 accord the most powerful world leaders are trying to move the world in a certain direction.
Who knows how successful or how disastrous it will be?
What I do know is how to do basic math.
General GDP of the last 15 years... 1.8%
General growth of the monetary supply of the last 15 years... 6.3%
That means they have created more dollars per year 4.5% above GDP.
That means the dollar has been devalued at that rate over that time.
in 2020 however monetary supply rose over 24%...
At some point in time that means prices have to go up...
Compound that reality with the fact that people are not going to work, things are not being produced, supply lines are beginning to fail...
And you have some tough times ahead.
That is great simplified math. Not ever seen hyper inflation so out of whack in my life. I bought 2x2 wood today for 5 times more than it was, just 8 years ago.
Being a history buff, the pendulum always swings the other way for extreme empire tyrants. The 80 year swings was in ww2, then civil war another 80years back American revolution. The writing is on the wall, so it's so obvious today, most everyone knowns it's not working.
After more suffering abuse, the 99% will take overs. We only need 80% of the collective consciousness of the people to change for better good times.
Of course the only group I belong to, is the optimist club.
by Eugene Hardy 11 years ago
Specifically, you have run out of benefits and you still can not find a job?
by ledefensetech 13 years ago
Can you believe it? The government may have actually underreported the real number of unemployed and underemployed.FYI, that last part is bunk. The real reason the "official" numbers are lower is because the only numbers reported are people who are receiving unemployment...
by Freegoldman 8 years ago
Is there any particular reason for it,,,,,,
by fishskinfreak2008 12 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Firsttime … 8.html?x=0Obviously, this is yet another sign that we are NOT fully on the way to recovery yet.
by globaltechsource 7 years ago
Average tuition at four-year public colleges in the U.S. climbed 6.5 percent, or $429, to $7,020 this fall as schools apologetically passed on much of their own financial problems, according to an annual report from the College Board, released Tuesday. At private colleges, tuition rose 4.4 percent,...
by Shawn McIntyre 10 years ago
Always a hot button issue, let's see what HubPages has to say:Should the Minimum Wage be:A) Raised. B) LoweredC) Done away with immediately D) Phased out over the next 10 years.E) None of the above.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|