When you hear someone say "I cannot find qualified workers" always add "at the price I am offering" because if they doubled or tripled the wage they offered, they could find a qualified person so it is a matter of price, not a matter of availability.

>Maybe, maybe not. But that's not an argument for not increasing wages.

The initial comment was about paying a living wage. There are two ways to make a non-living wage a living wage. Make the wage higher or make the living cheaper. I think way to much political energy is focused on making wages higher when I think it would be more productive in the long run to focus on making living cheaper.

> When you hear someone say "I cannot find qualified workers" always add "at the price I am offering" because if they doubled or tripled the wage they offered, they could find a qualified person so it is a matter of price, not a matter of availability.

Somewhat related, but sometimes the issue is an unreasonable definition of "qualified". I feel like there are a lot of choosing beggars, particularly in the tech industry.

Isn't the aphorism "beggars can't be choosers" exactly about price, though? (Just the price happens to be zero)

That said, I don't actually mean to merely quibble over semantics and wish to clarify: Is what you meant that many tech tech companies are hoping to hire someone that just doesn't exist at all [1], rather than not existing in sufficient number?

[1] Expecting, like Dilbert's pointy-haired boss that, just because qualifications can be listed in a job description, there must exist someone who fits them all.

>>> I feel like there are a lot of choosing beggars, particularly in the tech industry.

Assuming true, that would be limited to the silicon valley and new york area.

Try to work in tech in smaller cities and you will quickly realize that there are few employers and they can be picky.