First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Shortage Of Illegal Labor Caused Construction Worker Wages To Rise Up To 30%
28396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Well with the wages going up it'll make it easier to talk high school kids into pursuing that career path. Though stability is a major factor. When the economy hits another recession construction will be hit hard. Just like with oil, when prices are high oil companies pop up, try to get a piece of the pie but when the bubble bursts you're out of a job. You can organize but that'll put a cap on whatever workforce you have because you have to keep your union workers working through good times and bad times. The goal is to keep as many people employed and well-paid as possible, for as consistently as possible. Short of construction company bailouts every time the market crashes I can't think of a way to do that other than having a more sustainable industry that can withstand the bad times, meaning less lay-offs.


Possibly, but as you say the problem is stability. Getting high school kids on that career path again is going to be a fundamental undertaking that will take years to bare fruit so to speak. In order to do that to begin with you need state and local level focuses on bringing vocational education back into schools to begin with. But with the piecemeal way that the US works with states rights that's a tricky problem on its own.

I mean, the fact is that major sections of US industries ( especially agriculture, fisheries, service, etc ) rely on illegal immigrants and migrant workers. Not as a cost measure but as a labour availability measure. Americans don't seem to want those jobs and its not that they don't pay well. The US unemployment rate is sitting at a historic low of 4.3% despite all the screaming about jobs.

The problem isn't that anyone is stealing said jobs from Hard Working Americans(tm) its that said jobs are not what people want or are not in the places people need them to be. Focusing on cutting out illegal labour or migrant labour will just cut a hole in those work forces without people to fill them. It's attacking the supply instead of fixing the problem that lead to the demand.

Its a convenient scapegoat but it doesn't ultimately solve the underlying causes.

Even up here in the frozen north we are having a problem with labour shortage in trades and as we don't border Mexico it obviously has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Nor does it have anything to do with wage levels as these are really nice paying jobs up here. I mean cripes, *I* could get you a job here for $20/hour if you're willing to learn how to help lay carpet or lay roofing tiles. Just off who I know in town that's short on construction labour for their business.

And we still have vocational training in schools as a standard. =/




MysticGon wrote:
Either way I don't think cheap illegal immigrant labor should be used as a way to keep construction prices down. If you want to support higher wages you have to be prepared to do your part and pay more.


Agreed there. Hell, construction in general is an industry I really, really don't want cutting corners on cost. >.>


Or you could just focus more on recruitment and apprenticeships. 18-year-olds are just as teachable as 15-17yo kids. The biggest hurdle would be to teach them how to be good employees. Showing up to work on time, not calling in, not disappearing the weekend after payday. Changing perception of those kind of jobs takes time. People still remember the recessions and there is more prestige in the desk job. A lot of these jobs are entry level and like a poster earlier said, can be had with very little experience. You just have to be willing to learn. Spending money on awareness and recruitment might pay off better than funneling billions into shop classes at public schools. Especially when community colleges are offering affordable technical programs in these fields, which the government funds on the back end with FASFA anyway.
runec 
37175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/17

MysticGon wrote:
Or you could just focus more on recruitment and apprenticeships. 18-year-olds are just as teachable as 15-17yo kids. The biggest hurdle would be to teach them how to be good employees. Showing up to work on time, not calling in, not disappearing the weekend after payday. Changing perception of those kind of jobs takes time. People still remember the recessions and there is more prestige in the desk job. A lot of these jobs are entry level and like a poster earlier said, can be had with very little experience. You just have to be willing to learn. Spending money on awareness and recruitment might pay off better than funneling billions into shop classes at public schools. Especially when community colleges are offering affordable technical programs in these fields, which the government funds on the back end with FASFA anyway.


The state of US education is largely a clusterfuck to an outside observer due to the state level shit. Do you guys not get job fairs in high school for recruitment and awareness as is or? I can't imagine that every public high school is devoid of vocational classes. Or at least I would hope it hasn't gotten THAT bad otherwise this is even worse then I thought.

There should be a variety of vocational training or career related classes in school as is.
28396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/17 , edited 9/5/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Or you could just focus more on recruitment and apprenticeships. 18-year-olds are just as teachable as 15-17yo kids. The biggest hurdle would be to teach them how to be good employees. Showing up to work on time, not calling in, not disappearing the weekend after payday. Changing perception of those kind of jobs takes time. People still remember the recessions and there is more prestige in the desk job. A lot of these jobs are entry level and like a poster earlier said, can be had with very little experience. You just have to be willing to learn. Spending money on awareness and recruitment might pay off better than funneling billions into shop classes at public schools. Especially when community colleges are offering affordable technical programs in these fields, which the government funds on the back end with FASFA anyway.


The state of US education is largely a clusterfuck to an outside observer due to the state level shit. Do you guys not get job fairs in high school for recruitment and awareness as is or? I can't imagine that every public high school is devoid of vocational classes. Or at least I would hope it hasn't gotten THAT bad otherwise this is even worse then I thought.

There should be a variety of vocational training or career related classes in school as is.


Each district prioritizes what they want afaik. Some decisions go down to the school level. The school I went to offered an agricultural class where others did not.(they had auto repair too but this is all prior to the recession) They have job fairs but those come and go and are seen as an excuse to get out of class. Having recruiters walking around like the military has will go a long way into snatching up the students that would otherwise have no idea what they want to do after high school.
1308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/5/17 , edited 9/5/17

MysticGon wrote:
Each district prioritizes what they want afaik. Some decisions go down to the school level. The school I went to offered an agricultural class where others did not.(they had auto repair too but this is all prior to the recession) They have job fairs but those come and go and are seen as an excuse to get out of class. Having recruiters walking around like the military has will go a long way into snatching up the students that would otherwise have no idea what they want to do after high school.


It also depends whether or not there is a vocational/technical center that is parallel to the district's high school system.
In my own high school, I was offered the opportunity to take classes at our technical center that was stationed right next to the high school.
In my freshman year, they offered us the chance to take four various courses (one per semester).
Once you get to your junior year, you can take a specialized course at the technical center based on your desires.
The courses are as stated in the "spoiler" below:



At the end of the two or three-year courses, you are given an internship at a local company.
If you do well, they will offer you a position at their company as well as pay for any additional certifications or education.
To my knowledge, the biggest issue with the vast majority of the labor industry-based courses is that students are not willing to take the drug test due to how common marijuana use is these days in the area.
Unions require you to take a drug test prior to joining them and all labor industries have their fair share of unions that you must join in order to do work in the specific region.

The interesting scenario is that companies are hiring illegal immigrants still because it's cheaper than having to pay the union a specific amount of fees on top of paying the contracted employee.
Unions are not going to die out anytime soon because it ensures that wages are competitive in areas that they're needed.
It's one of those situations where it will require a lot more than just a handful of threats made by President Trump this year to make any great strides.
28396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/17 , edited 9/5/17

Cydoemus wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Each district prioritizes what they want afaik. Some decisions go down to the school level. The school I went to offered an agricultural class where others did not.(they had auto repair too but this is all prior to the recession) They have job fairs but those come and go and are seen as an excuse to get out of class. Having recruiters walking around like the military has will go a long way into snatching up the students that would otherwise have no idea what they want to do after high school.


It also depends whether or not there is a vocational/technical center that is parallel to the district's high school system.
In my own high school, I was offered the opportunity to take classes at our technical center that was stationed right next to the high school.
In my freshman year, they offered us the chance to take four various courses (one per semester).
Once you get to your junior year, you can take a specialized course at the technical center based on your desires.
The courses are as stated in the "spoiler" below:



At the end of the two or three-year courses, you are given an internship at a local company.
If you do well, they will offer you a position at their company as well as pay for any additional certifications or education.
To my knowledge, the biggest issue with the vast majority of the labor industry-based courses is that students are not willing to take the drug test due to how common marijuana use is these days in the area.
Unions require you to take a drug test prior to joining them and all labor industries have their fair share of unions that you must join in order to do work in the specific region.

The interesting scenario is that companies are hiring illegal immigrants still because it's cheaper than having to pay the union a specific amount of fees on top of paying the contracted employee.
Unions are not going to die out anytime soon because it ensures that wages are competitive in areas that they're needed.
It's one of those situations where it will require a lot more than just a handful of threats made by President Trump this year to make any great strides.


How much would all that cost. The sponsored charter school route that everyone says will segregate society seems like easy fix even if there is a lot of negative PR around it as being market driven rather than purely academically driven. Take the money that would be used for the vouchers and pump it into the current school system? The problem might be like you said the environment might not benefit the students that want to take those programs and opportunities seriously. Having a academy like setting where all the students are going there for the same thing might give you a bigger return on your investment.
runec 
37175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/17

MysticGon wrote:
Each district prioritizes what they want afaik. Some decisions go down to the school level. The school I went to offered an agricultural class where others did not.(they had auto repair too but this is all prior to the recession) They have job fairs but those come and go and are seen as an excuse to get out of class. Having recruiters walking around like the military has will go a long way into snatching up the students that would otherwise have no idea what they want to do after high school.


Hmm. Career planning was a mandatory class here for me and our job fairs did have military recruiters. I remember them distinctly because the Canadian Army recruits by taking you out for Tim Hortons. They're both clever and evil. >.>

Around where I am the general wisdom is if you have nfi what to do after high school get an apprenticeship in a trade in the meantime. You'll make good money and if you decide on a different career later you always have those skills to fall back on. Because there will always be work in the trades long as people still want to live inside.

Both of my nephews went that route. But their dads are blue collar too. One had no idea what he wanted to do so went into construction. He's 22-23. Bought a house last year. Lives upstairs, rents out the downstairs. My other nephew was a problem child. Still pretty much a year or so out of high school. But he got work on the railway further north. Which is damn good money if you don't mind being in the middle of no where for a few months at a time.

It's a bit hard for me to wrap my head around an education system that isn't managed at a federal level. It just seems like a recipe for disaster if standards change the moment you cross a state line.



28396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/17 , edited 9/5/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Each district prioritizes what they want afaik. Some decisions go down to the school level. The school I went to offered an agricultural class where others did not.(they had auto repair too but this is all prior to the recession) They have job fairs but those come and go and are seen as an excuse to get out of class. Having recruiters walking around like the military has will go a long way into snatching up the students that would otherwise have no idea what they want to do after high school.


Hmm. Career planning was a mandatory class here for me and our job fairs did have military recruiters. I remember them distinctly because the Canadian Army recruits by taking you out for Tim Hortons. They're both clever and evil. >.>

Around where I am the general wisdom is if you have nfi what to do after high school get an apprenticeship in a trade in the meantime. You'll make good money and if you decide on a different career later you always have those skills to fall back on. Because there will always be work in the trades long as people still want to live inside.

Both of my nephews went that route. But their dads are blue collar too. One had no idea what he wanted to do so went into construction. He's 22-23. Bought a house last year. Lives upstairs, rents out the downstairs. My other nephew was a problem child. Still pretty much a year or so out of high school. But he got work on the railway further north. Which is damn good money if you don't mind being in the middle of no where for a few months at a time.

It's a bit hard for me to wrap my head around an education system that isn't managed at a federal level. It just seems like a recipe for disaster if standards change the moment you cross a state line.





Well thats probably because each state is so distinct with their own economic priorities it's easier for them to manage their education on their own. States compete with one another, putting up ads in other states telling those residents to move to their state.

But the academics are the same. Your maths, sciences, literature and history. But with community colleges being a thing there doesn't seem to be a rush in getting kids to choose right away. The college bound kids take high school classes that will benefit their majors. Whether they're A.P. classes or do dual enrollment to get a jump on college so they can get all the prerequisites out of the way so they can focus on their program right out of high school. There are plenty of paths. The only problem is it's usually on the kid and parents to choose the right path and ask the right questions. Counselors only offer so much help, unless they take a particular interest in the student.
runec 
37175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/17

MysticGon wrote:
Well thats probably because each state is so distinct with their own economic priorities it's easier for them to manage their education on their own. States compete with one another, putting up ads in other states telling those residents to move to their state.

But the academics are the same. Your maths, sciences, literature and history. But with community colleges being a thing there doesn't seem to be a rush in getting kids to choose right away. The college bound kids take high school classes that will benefit their majors. Whether they're A.P. classes or do dual enrollment to get a jump on college so they can get alll the prerequisites out of the way so they can focus on their program right out of high school. There are plenty of paths. The only problem is it's usually on the kid and parents to choose the right path and ask the right questions. Counselors only offer so much help, unless they take a particular interest in the student.


Provinces have their own distinct economic priorities as well and that's reflected in education but that's in addition to federal standards. Where I find it so bizarre with US education is that what your taught in regards to core subjects like history or science can vary from state to state based simply on local politics. The academics aren't the same and that's super fucked up. It also doesn't help kids in terms of secondary education because colleges and universities have higher standards for subjects like that.

It locks kids into following an education track where if their high school curriculum was politically affected they're stuck with going into subpar secondary education that politically aligns with their high school. While making it more difficult for them to aim for better post secondary education because the better a college/university the less politics are going to shape their education standards.

It prepares kids to exist in their state's preferred microcosm. But if that microcosm is crap economically or suffers an economic blow it leaves them at a disadvantage if they seek greener pastures outside of it.

1308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/5/17

MysticGon wrote:

How much would all that cost. The sponsored charter school route that everyone says will segregate society seems like easy fix even if there is a lot of negative PR around it as being market driven rather than purely academically driven. Take the money that would be used for the vouchers and pump it into the current school system? The problem might be like you said the environment might not benefit the students that want to take those programs and opportunities seriously. Having a academy like setting where all the students are going there for the same thing might give you a bigger return on your investment.


The outlined "technical center" (or vocational center, depending on how you wish to look at it) is actually part of the public school system where I grew up.
This is an area that has only three high schools in the entire county.
Therefore, the costs aren't as high per student in the area and they were able to construct a fourth "secondary education" school that allows students to focus on vocational courses.
As you suggested, this isn't ideal for all areas because of the overall costs to ensure each student has access to this kind of environment (even the school I'm speaking of now is highly competitive and requires you to have a reasonable GPA, attendance rate, behavioral statuses (how many times you've been suspended or given detention), and a referral from a teacher in order to get accepted).

In my state, charter schools are funded by tax dollars (local and state taxes).
There's no transparency or accountability when it comes to charter schools, especially when they're turning a profit based on the students themselves.
If you look at charter schools that opened in the early 2000's, you'll find that over a third of them were closed by 2011-2012 (and this trend is still happening).
This means that when students become used to a specific school and the local community relies on said school to provide access to students ends up closing, public schools cannot handle the additional student load as there weren't any expectations and funding for public schools in the area was stiff due to the charter school accepting funding from local/state government that could have been used for enhancements or additional schools to handle it.
If we focused on expanding the abilities of charter schools, we also need to make rules for accountability for them.
If they're going to operate like businesses, then the local taxpayers (the county/state government) must be treated like customers - there are expectations that have to be met and financial offsets when a charter school decides to close its doors.

When taxpayers' money is being pushed into charter schools like no tomorrow, they need to be accountable for what they use that money for and to ensure that the school is going to remain for an extended period of time.
The issue with charter schools is mostly the fact that they take away money from public schools and has less accountability and more change of corruption (including money laundering).
Corruption isn't as wide-spread as the left-leaning organizations would have you believe.
It is, however, an issue enough to cause concern about the lack of transparency or accountibility.
28396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/17 , edited 9/5/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Well thats probably because each state is so distinct with their own economic priorities it's easier for them to manage their education on their own. States compete with one another, putting up ads in other states telling those residents to move to their state.

But the academics are the same. Your maths, sciences, literature and history. But with community colleges being a thing there doesn't seem to be a rush in getting kids to choose right away. The college bound kids take high school classes that will benefit their majors. Whether they're A.P. classes or do dual enrollment to get a jump on college so they can get alll the prerequisites out of the way so they can focus on their program right out of high school. There are plenty of paths. The only problem is it's usually on the kid and parents to choose the right path and ask the right questions. Counselors only offer so much help, unless they take a particular interest in the student.


Provinces have their own distinct economic priorities as well and that's reflected in education but that's in addition to federal standards. Where I find it so bizarre with US education is that what your taught in regards to core subjects like history or science can vary from state to state based simply on local politics. The academics aren't the same and that's super fucked up. It also doesn't help kids in terms of secondary education because colleges and universities have higher standards for subjects like that.

It locks kids into following an education track where if their high school curriculum was politically affected they're stuck with going into subpar secondary education that politically aligns with their high school. While making it more difficult for them to aim for better post secondary education because the better a college/university the less politics are going to shape their education standards.

It prepares kids to exist in their state's preferred microcosm. But if that microcosm is crap economically or suffers an economic blow it leaves them at a disadvantage if they seek greener pastures outside of it.



Hmm, the A.P./honors classes are there to teach kids at or near college level curriculum. How the school districts perform in relation to each other when it comes to standardized testing makes for great gotcha moments, and it's true the best educators tend to flock to school systems with loads of money and opportunity for growth but material is the same at that higher level. The pacing might change but the trig in Bumblefuck, MS is the as the trig in Freemason, NY.

Overall you may be right. You don't need advance math to make a living in service heavy Miami but the same isn't true in tech heavy San Francisco. That's probably for the best on that lowest common denominator level.
28396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/17

Cydoemus wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

How much would all that cost. The sponsored charter school route that everyone says will segregate society seems like easy fix even if there is a lot of negative PR around it as being market driven rather than purely academically driven. Take the money that would be used for the vouchers and pump it into the current school system? The problem might be like you said the environment might not benefit the students that want to take those programs and opportunities seriously. Having a academy like setting where all the students are going there for the same thing might give you a bigger return on your investment.


The outlined "technical center" (or vocational center, depending on how you wish to look at it) is actually part of the public school system where I grew up.
This is an area that has only three high schools in the entire county.
Therefore, the costs aren't as high per student in the area and they were able to construct a fourth "secondary education" school that allows students to focus on vocational courses.
As you suggested, this isn't ideal for all areas because of the overall costs to ensure each student has access to this kind of environment (even the school I'm speaking of now is highly competitive and requires you to have a reasonable GPA, attendance rate, behavioral statuses (how many times you've been suspended or given detention), and a referral from a teacher in order to get accepted).

In my state, charter schools are funded by tax dollars (local and state taxes).
There's no transparency or accountability when it comes to charter schools, especially when they're turning a profit based on the students themselves.
If you look at charter schools that opened in the early 2000's, you'll find that over a third of them were closed by 2011-2012 (and this trend is still happening).
This means that when students become used to a specific school and the local community relies on said school to provide access to students ends up closing, public schools cannot handle the additional student load as there weren't any expectations and funding for public schools in the area was stiff due to the charter school accepting funding from local/state government that could have been used for enhancements or additional schools to handle it.
If we focused on expanding the abilities of charter schools, we also need to make rules for accountability for them.
If they're going to operate like businesses, then the local taxpayers (the county/state government) must be treated like customers - there are expectations that have to be met and financial offsets when a charter school decides to close its doors.

When taxpayers' money is being pushed into charter schools like no tomorrow, they need to be accountable for what they use that money for and to ensure that the school is going to remain for an extended period of time.
The issue with charter schools is mostly the fact that they take away money from public schools and has less accountability and more change of corruption (including money laundering).
Corruption isn't as wide-spread as the left-leaning organizations would have you believe.
It is, however, an issue enough to cause concern about the lack of transparency or accountibility.


A fair-minded take and criticism. The pursuit of money makes people do some awful things. Getting the companies who are looking for workers to buy into sustaining charter schools is hard because they are stuck in a "build it and they will come" frame of mind AND commercially funded schools rub people the wrong way. They can't buy into the public school system unless trades were set up more like clubs and sports teams rather than curriculum. That might not be a bad idea actually.
3370 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 9/5/17
I don't understand why people hire illegals in the first place, it doesn't do well with the moral of the workers, etc. sure it's cheaper, they work, but are the fines really worth it.

now remember, when one raises wages then there comes a price, the fast food industry has already begun to hire robots and computers are taking orders. not to mention, when it comes to more wages that means more money will be going into uncle sam's pocket and your government benefits will start to drop. so, sure, beg all you want for more wages, I know how the system works. don't fret there's always going to be someone who will pay a large sum for a burger, an idiot is born every day, but that number might not be as high as it is now.
runec 
37175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/17 , edited 9/10/17

niotabunny wrote:
I don't understand why people hire illegals in the first place, it doesn't do well with the moral of the workers, etc. sure it's cheaper, they work, but are the fines really worth it.


When the politics focus on the illegals rather than the people hiring the illegals than yes. Because clearly the actual risk of being caught and fined isn't high enough to deter anyone. Hence me saying that targeting the supply rather than the demand is ass backwards.



niotabunny wrote:
now remember, when one raises wages then there comes a price, the fast food industry has already begun to hire robots and computers are taking orders. not to mention, when it comes to more wages that means more money will be going into uncle sam's pocket and your government benefits will start to drop. so, sure, beg all you want for more wages, I know how the system works. don't fret there's always going to be someone who will pay a large sum for a burger, an idiot is born every day, but that number might not be as high as it is now.


Now remember, the rest of the western world operates with higher minimum wage laws in the fast food industry without any problem whatsoever and these are the exact same companies that operate chains in the US. Regardless of what the lobbyists of said companies try to tell you. Adjusted for inflation the amount said workers in said industry are paid has not increased since 1968 and indeed has *declined* since 1968. Despite the fact that overall work productivity has increased by several magnitudes.

As for paying a large sum for a burger, you could raise the wages of every single employee at McDonalds to $15/hour tomorrow and it would only increase the cost of your burger by about 17-19 cents. And that's only assuming that McDonalds chose to pass the entire cost of a wage increase directly on to the consumer. McDonald's operating costs are public and thus labour costs, employee totals, etc are available. So you can freely go math this out yourself to verify if you want.

But hey, if you're content with being paid less for more work because you know how the "system" works by all means. ><




25774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 9/5/17

runec wrote:
As for paying a large sum for a burger, you could raise the wages of every single employee at McDonalds to $15/hour tomorrow and it would only increase the cost of your burger by about 17-19 cents.


Take 17-19 cents per burger from middle class students & homeowners who are paying off loans, and give it to McDonalds workers.

Bad policy.
runec 
37175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/17 , edited 9/10/17

Kavalion wrote:
Take 17-19 cents per burger from middle class students & homeowners who are paying off loans, and give it to McDonalds workers.

Bad policy.


.....er? Purchasing power would obviously rise along with wages. How many burgers do you eat a day at McDonalds that it consumes your entire paycheque? If 19 cents leads you to utter financial ruin you weren't "middle class" to begin with.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.