Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Tony Spencer" <tony AT tonyspencer.com>]

One more interesting point is that people like Lee and myself who have made
a living via 1099'ing for the past two years are assumed to be unemployed.

-----Original Message-----
From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Jim Allman
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 6:21 PM
To: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Economic growth figures

On Apr 12, 2004, at 6:08 PM, Lee Haslup wrote:

>> Then there's the fact that many of the new jobs are lower-paying than 
>> the ones they "replaced," which sucks.
>
> A minutes reflection about supply and demand suggests that it is not 
> surprising that the first few jobs created after a prolonged recession 
> don't pay very well.  Right now we have a buyer's market for labor and 
> it is holding salaries down.  As someone who has subsisted for the 
> last two years on short-term contract work (and not much of that) I am 
> ok with the idea of getting a regular paycheck first and then worrying 
> about how big it is later.

Certainly--first things first. But I'm not talking about lower salaries 
for the same work, which should be cyclical. I'm talking about a  
"structural" shift toward lower-paying occupations.

I gather that most of the new jobs are in retail, food service, 
hospitality, and so on. All perfectly fine ways to make a living, but 
these are commodity jobs that will pay more only when there are no more 
warm bodies (including migrants) willing to do them.

I'm not on the warpath over this, but it does seem to be a recognized 
part of the new job landscape.

   =jimA=

---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
To unsubscribe visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers