No, not only bad for capitalists. There already is a shortage in healthcare workers (not just nurses but also doctors, technicians, emergency personnel etc), teachers, social workers etc. That is bad for all of us as healthcare and education are essential to all of us and the weakest in our society are hit hard by there being too few social workers. Unfortunately, that is the part capitalists don’t care about.
Isn’t that because the public sector refuses to compete with the private in wages? If social workers would be better paid than factory workers, then it would be a shortage of factory workers, not social ones, right?
Pressing all wages down does not feel like the right solution to the problem of public servants not being paid enough for someone to take the job.
A thing we see over here in America sometimes is the same group, or even the same man, having control over both public and private options of a given service. The public option is stripped of funding and only operates at minimum wage, while the private option has 5x the funding and hires industry experts. This then easily paves the way for “the public option is trash and doesn’t work, we need to privatize this entire industry”. Suddenly your post office is owned by an individual and you’re paying a weekly post subscription.
Be very, very cautious and suspicious of private options attempting to supplant public ones. It’s a key tactic that our homegrown American fascists like to use and it’s upsettingly effective on the general public.
Yes and no. For some jobs in the public sector, that might be true. But teachers, healthcare workers and social workers usually have a more philanthropic motivation. Some jobs can even be quite well paid, like teacher and doctor. However, most people leaving those fields don’t do it due to the money but because other working conditions. Shift times, workload in relation to personnel numbers, that kind of stuff. Not that money was no factor, a huge point often is unpaid overtime, but not necessarily the most important and far from the only reason.
And even if wages were the only or the major reason: that wasn’t my point. The point is that a significant labour shortage does not only mean that companies have to offer benefits and more money, it also means that people don’t get services that are sometimes necessary. Or there might be product shortages in critical fields. Stuff like that. And that might drive up prices.
Or that the workers left are even more exploited and get heavier workloads.
Shift times, workload in relation to personnel numbers, that kind of stuff.
That’s still a funding issue, still a money issue. If teachers were better paid, there would be many more teachers, reducing staffing strain.
The point is that a significant labour shortage does not only mean that companies have to offer benefits and more money, it also means that people don’t get services that are sometimes necessary.
There are a ton of bullshit jobs going around the economy. Maybe a small company of five people doesn’t need a secretary for the boss.
Or there might be product shortages in critical fields. Stuff like that. And that might drive up prices.
Prices are always set at what the market will bear, it’s behaving in a quasi-monopolistic way and that has been quite obvious for the past few years. In Croatia, a consumer strike took prices back to levels seen a year before in multiple supermarkets, yet the supermarkets didn’t go into the red because of it.
And that does not take into account the fact that housing is the biggest inflationary pressure in Europe right now, and it is completely decoupled from immigration, or at the very least, it’s inversely attached, more immigration drives up housing prices.
Look, I get it that in an idealistic way, more business would be great if a rising tide lifts all boats, but since more people won’t mean more competition on the supply side, it won’t keep prices low, only depress wages. I mean do you honestly think immigrants are going to found a business competing with the 2-3 car conglomerates that own everything? Same with tech, same with everything really.
If teachers were better paid, there would be many more teachers, reducing staffing strain.
It’s only a money issue if you think that just throwing enough money at it it will eventually solve an issue. Teachers and doctors do not earn badly in Germany. The minimum salary for a teacher (verbeamtet) I could find was 4756.83€/month. And Beamte in Germany are exempt from social security contributions, have better job security, higher pensions, better healthcare…
The rest of your comment has no relation to what I said though.
it’s inversely attached, more immigration drives up housing prices.
What if the Capitalists care about it and wanted it to be like this? The healthcare system will be privatized and workers will be dependend on their employer like in the USA.
With labour shortage wages should increase which can pay for bigger homes and bigger cars which allows families to have more children which ends the shortage.
If the health of workers and their family depend on the employer, wages can be kept low.
And who builds those homes? Labour shortage is already a factor that drives up prices for new buildings. There are too few craftspeople and building projects rise in costs (not saying it’s the only factor, but it is one and not the least important). That’s what I mean when I say that labour shortage is not only bad for capitalist. You need labourers to get shit done. Less workers, less shit gets done, more people do not get access to shit. Got it?
From that perspective all the workers should meet in one place.
Coincidentally that place is earth and we move the products of work around globally.
Germany would need much fewer new buildings if the population of Germany would not be growing. Likewise the number of employed people is increasing and yet there are not enough workers to build housing.
If costs rise and workers are not compensated accordingly then the market for workers is oversaturated, despite what everybody says.
The shortage in 10 years can be used to sort things out. Then, when things run smoothly, workers from all over the world can be invited to share a good life, instead of now being used to offload the worst working conditions onto them so that everything can stay the same.
Germany would need much fewer new buildings if the population of Germany would not be growing. Likewise the number of employed people is increasing and yet there are not enough workers to build housing.
This shows you’re thinking onedimensional. People move into cities, cities are already overpopulated, so we need housing in the cities even if our population was shrinking. Also, we don’t just need any kind of housing, we need affordable housing, especially for lower income groups. Also, just because the number of employed people is rising doesn’t mean the number of people in relevant fields is rising. Plus, you are actually wrong if you think the number of people employed was rising - we are facing a sharp drop off of people in the workforce because the boomer generation is about to retire or are already retiring.
No, not only bad for capitalists. There already is a shortage in healthcare workers (not just nurses but also doctors, technicians, emergency personnel etc), teachers, social workers etc. That is bad for all of us as healthcare and education are essential to all of us and the weakest in our society are hit hard by there being too few social workers. Unfortunately, that is the part capitalists don’t care about.
Isn’t that because the public sector refuses to compete with the private in wages? If social workers would be better paid than factory workers, then it would be a shortage of factory workers, not social ones, right?
Pressing all wages down does not feel like the right solution to the problem of public servants not being paid enough for someone to take the job.
Refuses, or is forced?
A thing we see over here in America sometimes is the same group, or even the same man, having control over both public and private options of a given service. The public option is stripped of funding and only operates at minimum wage, while the private option has 5x the funding and hires industry experts. This then easily paves the way for “the public option is trash and doesn’t work, we need to privatize this entire industry”. Suddenly your post office is owned by an individual and you’re paying a weekly post subscription.
Be very, very cautious and suspicious of private options attempting to supplant public ones. It’s a key tactic that our homegrown American fascists like to use and it’s upsettingly effective on the general public.
Yes and no. For some jobs in the public sector, that might be true. But teachers, healthcare workers and social workers usually have a more philanthropic motivation. Some jobs can even be quite well paid, like teacher and doctor. However, most people leaving those fields don’t do it due to the money but because other working conditions. Shift times, workload in relation to personnel numbers, that kind of stuff. Not that money was no factor, a huge point often is unpaid overtime, but not necessarily the most important and far from the only reason.
And even if wages were the only or the major reason: that wasn’t my point. The point is that a significant labour shortage does not only mean that companies have to offer benefits and more money, it also means that people don’t get services that are sometimes necessary. Or there might be product shortages in critical fields. Stuff like that. And that might drive up prices.
Or that the workers left are even more exploited and get heavier workloads.
That’s still a funding issue, still a money issue. If teachers were better paid, there would be many more teachers, reducing staffing strain.
There are a ton of bullshit jobs going around the economy. Maybe a small company of five people doesn’t need a secretary for the boss.
Prices are always set at what the market will bear, it’s behaving in a quasi-monopolistic way and that has been quite obvious for the past few years. In Croatia, a consumer strike took prices back to levels seen a year before in multiple supermarkets, yet the supermarkets didn’t go into the red because of it.
And that does not take into account the fact that housing is the biggest inflationary pressure in Europe right now, and it is completely decoupled from immigration, or at the very least, it’s inversely attached, more immigration drives up housing prices.
Look, I get it that in an idealistic way, more business would be great if a rising tide lifts all boats, but since more people won’t mean more competition on the supply side, it won’t keep prices low, only depress wages. I mean do you honestly think immigrants are going to found a business competing with the 2-3 car conglomerates that own everything? Same with tech, same with everything really.
It’s only a money issue if you think that just throwing enough money at it it will eventually solve an issue. Teachers and doctors do not earn badly in Germany. The minimum salary for a teacher (verbeamtet) I could find was 4756.83€/month. And Beamte in Germany are exempt from social security contributions, have better job security, higher pensions, better healthcare…
The rest of your comment has no relation to what I said though.
Nope, that’s wrong.
What if the Capitalists care about it and wanted it to be like this? The healthcare system will be privatized and workers will be dependend on their employer like in the USA.
But that is a whole other discussion and has nothing to do with labour shortage.
With labour shortage wages should increase which can pay for bigger homes and bigger cars which allows families to have more children which ends the shortage.
If the health of workers and their family depend on the employer, wages can be kept low.
And who builds those homes? Labour shortage is already a factor that drives up prices for new buildings. There are too few craftspeople and building projects rise in costs (not saying it’s the only factor, but it is one and not the least important). That’s what I mean when I say that labour shortage is not only bad for capitalist. You need labourers to get shit done. Less workers, less shit gets done, more people do not get access to shit. Got it?
From that perspective all the workers should meet in one place.
Coincidentally that place is earth and we move the products of work around globally.
Germany would need much fewer new buildings if the population of Germany would not be growing. Likewise the number of employed people is increasing and yet there are not enough workers to build housing.
If costs rise and workers are not compensated accordingly then the market for workers is oversaturated, despite what everybody says.
The shortage in 10 years can be used to sort things out. Then, when things run smoothly, workers from all over the world can be invited to share a good life, instead of now being used to offload the worst working conditions onto them so that everything can stay the same.
You are so far separated from people’s reality, I cannot see further discussion as any sort of fruitful. Have fun in your weird ivory tower.
I won’t push you any further but please tell me which facts I have got wrong.
Let’s start here:
This shows you’re thinking onedimensional. People move into cities, cities are already overpopulated, so we need housing in the cities even if our population was shrinking. Also, we don’t just need any kind of housing, we need affordable housing, especially for lower income groups. Also, just because the number of employed people is rising doesn’t mean the number of people in relevant fields is rising. Plus, you are actually wrong if you think the number of people employed was rising - we are facing a sharp drop off of people in the workforce because the boomer generation is about to retire or are already retiring.