According to the JSOnline's story, Wisconsin Dells employers are scrambling for labor. Several days ago, a similar complaint was voiced by employers in Door County.
...due to changes to the national temporary guest-worker program and the weak American dollar, General Manager Tom Diehl and other Dells employers are facing an international labor shortage this summer.
"We have 27 (foreign workers) this year," Diehl said before the Tommy Bartlett Show opened its season Friday night. "Usually, we have no less than 60."
The nationwide crunch among tourist-town employers comes after Congress failed to renew a provision that exempted returning foreign guest workers from counting toward the limit of 66,000 per year. Without the exemption, applications for the H-2B visas were filled remarkably fast this year.
Hmmmmmm.
Read the entire article. Go ahead. What's missing from the article's text?
(Hint: it's spelled W-A-G-E-S)
Same thing was missing from the Door County article.
Reality-check time, here. There are PLENTY of American college students who would love to have a summer job paying $8.00-$10.00/hour. But if they want to pay a big chunk of their tuition bills with the proceeds, then living expenses have to be considered.
A college-student friend of ours took a summer job at the Dells a few years back. Even though she lived in a rental property with 3 other kids and lived on the usual Ramen-noodle diet, the expenses almost equalled the net-after-tax income.
Contrast that with real-life experiences of a few decades ago, when an ambitious college student could knock down ALL their tuition payment with a summer-job wage if they were living at home. Yes, college tuitions have risen, faster than medical costs, in the last 20 years or so. But then, "summer job" wages haven't kept pace, either.
According to DoL's COL-index: $2.50/hour in 1965 would be $17.+/hour today, and the UW-M's $150./semester tuition of 1965 would be $1,022.00 in 2008.
Maybe "creative recruiting" should include rents and meals--or larger wages?
Naaaaahhhhh. That would be silly--having Americans do jobs that Americans are WILLING to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I'm not following your argument. Are you advocating a minimum wage? You're obviously an anti-free-trade, big government liberal, so I'm guessing that you are.
Why should we care where people are born? It's not silly to have PEOPLE do jobs that they are WILLING to do.
Also, you seemed to miss the part about the Dells becoming a year-round attraction, and thus, just-summer workers aren't enough.
Nope. I'm not advocating a minimum wage.
And yah, I'm against "free trade." Because if you really want "free trade," then YOU better be prepared to give up FLSA, SocSec, health insurance, and your 401(k)--not to mention safety and enviro protections.
THAT, my boy, is REAL Free Trade.
If the Dells attractions need workers, then maybe they ought to consider new tricks--like paying more.
THAT, my boy, is "free market" economics.
You've heard of it, no?
When the corporate and small biz tax cuts were championed for their ability to create legions of new jobs, you'da thunk that mighta meant jobs with real wages. I got a waterslide in my backyard - what do I need to drive to the Dells for?
"And yah, I'm against "free trade." Because if you really want "free trade," then YOU better be prepared to give up FLSA, SocSec..."
Done, where do I sign?
"health insurance, and your 401(k)"
Why would I have to give these up to embrace free trade?
"not to mention safety and enviro protections"
Or we could regulate these things through the market, rather than the government.
"If the Dells attractions need workers, then maybe they ought to consider new tricks--like paying more."
Sure, they could. But why should they do that when there are people that are perfectly willing to do the job for what they are paying? Why should you and your big-government friends get to say who can and can't work in the Dells?
If someone is willing to do my job as well as me for less pay, they should get that job regardless of where they were born. That, my old man, is the free market.
"WE", white man? Who you kidding?
The health, safety, enviro, fair-labor, and retirement stuff is not available in PRChina, nor any other 3rd world economy.
You think "free trade" only applies to the USA?
Think a little harder.
Further, JJ--if you actually had READ the article, you'd notice that the Dells CANNOT find el-cheapo foreign labor (no bennies, no tax, no nothing paid...)
Is this beyond you?
See, I'm not "telling" the Dells who to hire. I'm just suggesting, as a matter of "free trade" that they have to increase their wage-offering.
Maybe you've heard of the supply/demand curve?
Why don't you give the article another read. They can't find cheap foreign labor because government has restricted their access to it.
"The nationwide crunch among tourist-town employers comes after Congress failed to renew a provision that exempted returning foreign guest workers from counting toward the limit of 66,000 per year. Without the exemption, applications for the H-2B visas were filled remarkably fast this year.
"Some resorts and attractions in the Dells have gotten around that hurdle by hiring college workers on summer travel and work visas, known as J-1s, which aren't as restricted by the government. But as the region has grown into a year-round destination, employers need laborers for more than the summer, said Jerome Grzeca, an immigration attorney in Milwaukee."
"The health, safety, enviro, fair-labor, and retirement stuff is not available in PRChina, nor any other 3rd world economy."
That doesn't mean that I couldn't choose to invest money for retirement, pay to insure risks of health problems etc. etc.
"You think "free trade" only applies to the USA?"
Obviously I said the opposite of this. Try reading.
"Think a little harder."
I think you're an old crank.
"See, I'm not "telling" the Dells who to hire. I'm just suggesting, as a matter of "free trade" that they have to increase their wage-offering."
But you're WRONG. It is a trade barrier that is forcing them to increase wages. You do realize that open borders = free trade of services, don't you?
They can't find cheap foreign labor because government has restricted their access to it.
Well, ain't that a bitch. Then they'll have to find American labor. I guess that Government "restricted" labor arbitrage this year, eh?
You do realize that open borders = free trade of services, don't you?
Yah. I also realize that thie Republic was built by FULL-TIME immigrants and their children, and their children's children.
I always kinda thought that importing cheap labor was settled by the Civil War.
You remember that? Lincoln, Davis, all those guys?
"Well, ain't that a bitch. Then they'll have to find American labor. I guess that Government "restricted" labor arbitrage this year, eh?"
Why should they have to? Why should our government get to tell us who we can and can't buy stuff from? And is that last sentence even a sentence?
"Yah. I also realize that thie Republic was built by FULL-TIME immigrants and their children, and their children's children."
So we're on the same page then...
"I always kinda thought that importing cheap labor was settled by the Civil War."
Oh, I guess I spoke too soon. You're clearly crazy.
These businesses aren't importining slave labor. They are purchasisng services at market prices. Or they would be if the US Government would let them.
"You remember that? Lincoln, Davis, all those guys?"
I don't remember it. Unlike you, I was born after the Lincoln administration.
Well, that explains your hazy understanding of actual history.
There is no "right" to import cheap (or expensive) labor in the Constitution. Immigration policy and law is a function of Congress and the Executive, not body-merchants.
And since it's politicians, one can expect variations. (See tax rates, e.g.)
You are on another planet when you talk about '....restricting who we can "buy" from.'
Labor is not a commodity. Try to wrap your skull around that fact--and you'll begin to get the idea behind my total lack of sympathy for the Dells (and Door County) hoteliers.
Just because it's not in the constitution doesn't make it a not a right. In the state of nature, we would be able to purchase the services from anyone we want for whatever price they are willing to work and we are willing to pay. This interaction causes no harm to anyone, so there's no legitimate reason for government to regulate it.
Obviously labor isn't a commodity, but all exchanges of it for pay are essentaill the same as exchanges in commodities. There's no material difference that makes it so the two things should be treated differently. If you think there is, what is that difference old man?
And who cares if it's business owners in the Dells or anything else. The government is also telling YOU that you can't hire certain people. Why should it be able to do that?
Obviously labor isn't a commodity
You're right. So why do you ask ME to defend that statement?
The Government mandates, and forbids, all sorts of transactions, all the time. Sometimes the mandates and forbiddings are contradictory; sometimes they are sequential (on one day, off the next.)
But that's not the point, and you know it. The point is that the businesses are hoping to alter the supply/demand curve by crying.
To them, it's a better option than actually dealing with the market by raising their wage-offers.
And by the way: money is described as "a medium of exchange" for a reason.
Dude, you're just not getting it. Think about it: who's mind are they expecting to change by crying? Answer: the government's. They want a government restriction on the market REMOVED.
Post a Comment