Have you tried to find
anyone competent in a Home Depot lately?

YMMV, but a high percentage of people working at Home Depot around here are
people who used to work in the various building trades but gave it up due to
injury, economics, advancing age, etc.

Wages are down enough in some of the local building trades that steady work at
Home Depot pays as well as on-again, off-again work as a framer, wire puller,
plumber's helper, etc. Even though construction is doing OK, most of the
workers on many of the job sites don't speak English. The contractors pick them
up down on Western Avenue every morning, where hundreds of day laborers,
primarily of Hispanic ethnicity, are lined up
sober, dressed for work, and with tool box in hand. The going rate is $10 an
hour- cash paid daily. No questions asked, no records kept, no union demands,
no pesky fringe benefits or workman's compensation insurance. If a guy falls
off a ladder and breaks his back, too bad I guess- legally he was never there.

But I would agree in general. We have a regional large scale variety and food
store
called Fred Meyer. They probably pay thier entry level people minimum wage, and
managers a buck or two more per hour. Walked into Freddie's the other day to
pick up some small item, and there was a big colorful display set up in the
foyer inviting people to apply for "a career" at Fred Meyer. When things were
more robust, all the low wage, undesirable employers had
"help wanted" signs plastered everywhere.
This set up at Freddie's was the first such item that I have actually noticed
in the last few years.

Gould 0738 wrote:

Have you tried to find
anyone competent in a Home Depot lately?

YMMV, but a high percentage of people working at Home Depot around here are
people who used to work in the various building trades but gave it up due to
injury, economics, advancing age, etc.

Wages are down enough in some of the local building trades that steady work at
Home Depot pays as well as on-again, off-again work as a framer, wire puller,
plumber's helper, etc. Even though construction is doing OK, most of the
workers on many of the job sites don't speak English. The contractors pick them
up down on Western Avenue every morning, where hundreds of day laborers,
primarily of Hispanic ethnicity, are lined up
sober, dressed for work, and with tool box in hand. The going rate is $10 an
hour- cash paid daily. No questions asked, no records kept, no union demands,
no pesky fringe benefits or workman's compensation insurance. If a guy falls
off a ladder and breaks his back, too bad I guess- legally he was never there.

But I would agree in general. We have a regional large scale variety and food
store
called Fred Meyer. They probably pay thier entry level people minimum wage, and
managers a buck or two more per hour. Walked into Freddie's the other day to
pick up some small item, and there was a big colorful display set up in the
foyer inviting people to apply for "a career" at Fred Meyer. When things were
more robust, all the low wage, undesirable employers had
"help wanted" signs plastered everywhere.
This set up at Freddie's was the first such item that I have actually noticed
in the last few years.


Ah, yes...the Brave New Republican World.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Productivity isn't just up...it's waaaaaaaaaay up. It really can't go up
anymore...which means even the the pessimists will be needing to hire
additional people soon.

Productivity has gone up while employment has declined. Why would further
increases in productivity necessarily require corresponding increases in
employment?

We're not producing more stuff -as much as we are producing a little less stuff
with a whole lot less people. That goes down as a productivity "gain" based on
efficiency, but doesn't do much to increase the base of overall wealth.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Productivity isn't just up...it's waaaaaaaaaay up. It really can't go up
anymore...which means even the the pessimists will be needing to hire
additional people soon.

Productivity has gone up while employment has declined. Why would further
increases in productivity necessarily require corresponding increases in
employment?


Because in order to continue growing, a company must then invest in *either*
labor or capital (ie--automate their processes). If they invest in capital,
someone has to make that automated machinery...and there is an increase in
employment at the supplier's end.


We're not producing more stuff -as much as we are producing a little less
stuff
with a whole lot less people. That goes down as a productivity "gain"
based on
efficiency, but doesn't do much to increase the base of overall wealth.