Beige Book Finds Widespread Labor Shortages, Modest Wage Growth

Hot on the heels of the news that Apple will create some 20,000 jobs in the US over the next 5 years, came the latest Beige Book report from the Federal Reserve, according to which it's not jobs that are missing in the US, it's qualified employees.

As it usually does, the Beige Book - which collects data from the 12 Federal Reserve Districts - found that the economy continued to expand from late November, with the various Fed districts reporting "modest to moderate" gains while Dallas was the sole outlier, recording a "robust increase." it also said that most districts reported "modest to moderate price growth since the last report; exceptions were Chicago, which noted that prices increased only slightly while San Francisco noted price inflation was down slightly." There were also reports of rising home prices across most of the country.

The Beige Book said that the outlook for 2018 remains optimistic "for a majority of contacts across the country" and that some retailers highlighted that holiday sales were higher than expected. Meanwhile, most manufacturers reported modest growth in overall business conditions.

To be sure, the one thing the Beige Book has been closely watched for in recent quarter, are its observations on the state of labor market, and here it once again reiterated that most districts cited on-going labor market tightness and challenges finding qualified workers across skills and sectors, which, in some instances, was described as constraining growth.

Curiously, despite the pervasive inability to find skilled workers, most districts said that wages increased only at a modest pace. Perhaps if employers are so short staffed, they would consider rising wages?

And while the Beige Book noted that only a few Districts observed that firms were raising wages in a broader range of industries and positions, some districts reported that firms expect wages to increase in the months ahead.

Below are some of the most notable anecdotes from the various regional Feds, courtesy of Bloomberg:

  • Boston: An industrial firm had 20 unfilled openings in a plant with 100 employees and said they were making up for it with significant overtime; An industrial-firm contact said that when a worker leaves, they typically end up paying the replacement 10 percent more than the departing worker
  • New York: An employment agency contact noted that recent New York City legislation restricting employers from asking about job candidates’ salary histories may boost salary offers overall
  • Philadelphia: On balance, wage growth held steady at a modest pace, although the percentage of non-manufacturing firms reporting increases slipped below 40 percent.
  • Cleveland: A professional services contact reported boosting wages for select low-skills jobs by up to 20 percent, while a fast food executive said that wages at her restaurants are now up to $11 per hour. Higher labor costs were difficult to pass through to customers because of competitive markets; A fast food chain observed that the average revenue per transaction from recently installed self-service kiosks was higher than transactions generated by cashiers
  • Richmond: Trucking companies expressed concerns that the newly mandated use of electronic logs could lead to an even greater shortage of drivers and lead to more mergers and acquisitions in the trucking industry
  • Atlanta: To find and retain workers, firms continued to broaden their geographical search for candidates and develop or expand training programs
  • Chicago: Almost all contacts thought that the Federal tax bill would have a positive impact on their firms. Most respondents expected to spread the tax savings across outlays for capital, labor, debt repayment, and profit distributions to owners
  • St. Louis: A contact in Louisville reported increasing starting salaries multiple times a year to attract new hires, as well as increasing wages to retain skilled employees in information technology
  • Minneapolis: A transportation union in Minneapolis-St. Paul agreed to a three-year contract with annual 2.5 percent increases
  • Kansas City: Abundant supply continues to weigh on natural gas prices, but several respondents stated that increasing LNG exports could help push up prices; Energy sector respondents expected spending in all categories to increase in 2018, with the largest increases for exploration and development capital spending
  • Dallas: Homebuilders generally did not report concern about the changes in the mortgage interest and property tax deductions in the new tax bill, but they did note ongoing pushback from buyers on new home pricing;
  • San Francisco: Contacts reported increasing deflationary pressures for generic drug prices partly due to a rise in FDA drug approvals; Animal boarding and health service activity increased as pet owners traveled over the holiday season

All of the above, of course, is strange considering the US has nearly 100 million work eligible people currently not in the labor force. Maybe if US employers are truly so short of workers, they will consider - gasp - raising wages to attract talented employees...

Comments

sabaj49 Four Star Wed, 01/17/2018 - 14:49 Permalink

employers are only interested in unqualified young workers and NON-WHITE workers whether they have any skills or not

they have never been interested in RE-TRAINING highly skilled workers and would rather lay them off and hire new college grads with no experience

 

our just outsource them to MEXICO OR CHINA

In reply to by Four Star

Luc X. Ifer 847328_3527 Wed, 01/17/2018 - 15:30 Permalink

in the former economy - before of globalization enabling import of cheap slaves replacements, the problem was solved by raising the wages for attracting the employees and that was fair and good obviously. It shouldn't take a genius IQ to observe where the problem lays and what the easy solution is.

In reply to by 847328_3527

Luc X. Ifer DavidC Wed, 01/17/2018 - 15:48 Permalink

Forced introduction of slave labour force into a dynamic driven by meritocracy social enclave also collapses the moral and trust of the young members of the enclave in the fairness of the system because they know they have to compete into a race to the bottom instead of a race to the top by becoming more educated and skilled - this is the reason of the school collapse also in the US, the young people don't see anymore a meritocracy system to be trusted as fair in providing return for them working hard and building skills because instead of being better paid in return to the provided effort they are back stabbed by the forced introduction of cheaper foreign to the enclave replacement. Practically, outsourcing and immigrant cheap labour are economical and social terrorism legalized and i hope the time will come when the citizens will awake to this reality, take the matters in their hands and start the proceedings against the treason terrorism enabling current social enclave administrators who turned from trustees into farmers working for the farm owners.

In reply to by DavidC

crazzziecanuck sabaj49 Wed, 01/17/2018 - 15:37 Permalink

Because employers can get subsidies.  Business incentives have now transmogrified into business expectations.  Look at the new auto plants down south.  States are falling over themselves giving these multibillion dollar entities more and more tax money.

Employers now expect that their employees come to them fully trained on someone else's dime (this is one reason why student debt is exploding; costs for vocational training is paid for by the individual through debt).  Remember a couple years ago about how a company explicitly said that they refuse to hire the unemployed?  It's because they want to poach from each other.  The result is a shit job market and escalating wages only for certain cliques of workers.

Hard to see this lasting.  Something has got to give sometime.

In reply to by sabaj49

swmnguy Four Star Wed, 01/17/2018 - 15:03 Permalink

Correct.  I'm from Minneapolis and employers are bitching that they can't attract workers.  A little digging reveals they're offering wages that simply won't pay the rent. 

It's not 1992 anymore.  A grown-up can't take a full-time job that pays $12/hr.  My wife is a Special Ed Assistant in the public schools.  They work 7.5 hours a day to make sure they can't ever get Overtime.  Autism is skyrocketing in frequency.  She takes care of people's kids who can't talk, aren't potty-trained, bite, spit, hit; the works.  Their parents could never afford to get them any kind of daycare so we make the public schools do it.  That job requires a 4-year degree and continuing education, and starts at $12/hr.  After a dozen or so years doing it, my wife is making $20/hr., but she's topped out in the pay scale.  Her school is the nicest and best elementary school in Minneapolis, and they have a couple job openings.  They can't even get applicants to show up for interviews at $12/hr. to start, and why would they.

We can conceal inflation and lie about the cost of living, but those of us who have to work for that living and pay our bills can't live in a city on less than $40,000/yr., however we come by it.

In reply to by Four Star

847328_3527 JRobby Wed, 01/17/2018 - 15:23 Permalink

These disabled kids and so-called "slow learners" are a  huge cost to a school district. And you are right; the people who care/teach them should be paid alot more. It's tough work. My sister quite a public school for many reasons including that. the last straw is when a 12 y.o. dindu put a knife to her throat. She went back to school and became a hospital administrator earning twice as much and gets cocktail parties, educated people around her, etc now all the time as part of her job.

Not to mention all the "free" school lunches .... free for them but paid by hard working taxpayers.

System is very broken.

 

Cut the child tax credit and end chain migration is a start.

In reply to by JRobby

Moe-Monay JRobby Wed, 01/17/2018 - 18:00 Permalink

Some of these dindus and autistic types are lost causes.  They'll never have an economic output of any sort.  Better to give up and not even spend the money on them.  Sounds like some bad genes going around. Perhaps the parents should be taking care of them. They rolled the dice reproducing and they lost.  We could possibly help them a bit but who can care more for a child than the parents?  No one.

It's when I think about things like this that the thought that war serves a purpose when the low IQ'd are put out front as infantry.   I think I am cold hearted until I see AntiFa SJWs running amok then I realize you have to burn out the underbrush in the forest somehow.

Sad state of affairs.  But I am definitely against this spending more on the retarded than the gifted.  The retarded will never have an economic output.

Brush piles getting very very high.  Hell of a fire coming.

In reply to by JRobby

crazzziecanuck JRobby Wed, 01/17/2018 - 15:45 Permalink

What's interesting is that vaccines are not the cause of the problems.  Money is.  Here's why.

The biggest example of "vaccines causing autism" is the MMR vaccine.  Stands for Measles, Mumps and Rubella.  Each of those shots used to be done one at a time and spaced out over time and there was never a problem.  People used to say it's the mercury-based preservative, but that's not the problem either (it's used in other single-dose vaccines without issue).

However, MMR is "special."  A particular pharmaceutical managed to trademark the MMR vaccine into one and the market eventually drove out the single dose providers.  Now, you don't have any choice.  It's the MMR.  And that makes a disgustingly evil corporation "earn" more and more money.  They didn't even invent or develop this.  They just slapped the three together and got patent protection.  Talk about capitalist innovation making our lives better...

I don't know if it's true or not, but apparently a Yes-Man-like group confronted one of the executives and asked if their kids had the MMR vaccine and the executive never gave an answer.  Speaks volumes.

Money is destroying our intelligence and integrity.

In reply to by JRobby

Twee Surgeon swmnguy Wed, 01/17/2018 - 15:33 Permalink

I think a lot of people are thinking out of the box, unlike the flesh-bot creatures that do thing like write Beige reports or whatever the fuck it is they do. They seem to be living in an era where Nixon is President, jobs abound and a nice home can be had for 40 grand. The system as it was is FUBAR. People who otherwise might be applying for that $12 an hour 'steady gig' are becoming increasingly aware that it might just as well be $5 an hour for all the good it's going to do them. There are alternative ways to live, other than the traditional 40 hr week and Beaver Cleaver fantasy of 1960 something. A single person in particular would quickly recognize the Futility of $12 an hour in any US city. That's $480 for a 40 hour week, minus 1/3 for SSI and other deductions depending on State. Probably $290 a week, take home, if your lucky. On the West coast that will get you a 'Man who lives in a van and eats mostly spam,kind o'lifestyle. until the Police tow your home for illegal camping or some shit.

In reply to by swmnguy

Endgame Napoleon Four Star Wed, 01/17/2018 - 17:35 Permalink

Unless you have unearned income from a spouse or government, low-wage jobs are expensive. For people with housing and groceries covered by welfare, with a refundable child tax credit of up to $6,444, a low-wage job just supplements unearned income, and they have to stay below the earned-income limit for welfare and the cut off for the child tax credit to get it, making low wages and few hours an advantage to them. 

For everyone else, a low-wage job, or even a slightly higher wage temp, part time, high turnover or 1099 contract gig, must be weighed against the expenses of working, including long commutes, wardrobe and the greater amount of money spend on food, etc. when working.

Since these jobs pay so little that rent absorbs more than half of your pay, you do not feel comfortable signing a lease agreement, especially with the jobs are so transitory, including (especially) for employees who show up for work every day, stay the whole day and meet the sales generation and account retention numbers every month, which, ironically, is a good way not to be a “culture fit” in mom-gang jobs, where crony-parent managers and their nearly 100% mom employees take turns, taking off for kids, using the hard workers to bump up their sales numbers and then churning them, getting other chumps to do the same thing. 

It is a crony-corrupt revolving door in many service sector and financial services jobs, not to mention the non-sales-related back-office jobs, which are worse.

People have not re-entered the workforce due to seeing a TON of chicanery, game playing and some outright job scams in a workplace landscape, offering nothing but these low-quality churn jobs. 

I am also skeptical of blanket statements about open jobs. What kind of jobs are these? Are they temp jobs?

Even when looking at the better-quality jobs—i.e. the lauded tech jobs—most of the offerings are contract gigs. Even though a few contract jobs pay far more than the type of temp gigs that most of us work, applicants have to consider whether they can afford to move around the country, working 1099 contract gigs. For one thing, you pay twice-as-high SS tax—15.3%, rather than 7.65%—although at a high-wage level that might not be so awful. 

It is so much more hopeless when the temp or 1099 contract jobs pay rock-bottom wages, like the financial services jobs that I have worked, with my useless bachelor’s degree and even more useless multi / costly / state-required licenses. These jobs pay nothing....nothing and, in fact, are often staffed by almost all unlicensed crony moms who have unearned income streams from spouses or welfare and tax welfare for womb productivity. 

You ask yourself: Can I afford to move around the country, when I will need to shoulder the exhorbitant cost of multiple moves and living expenses, waiting lengthy periods of time to get my first low pay check between each of these temp gigs? Ughhh, no, I cannot afford to do that even one time.

Enployers know that.

That is why employers say things like this: “The girls (moms all) I have working here have somethin’ coming in” from spouses, ex spouses or from welfare that covers their rent and groceries and child tax credits up to $6,444. What those mom-gang employees have “comin in” makes the low wages palatable. 

Or, like two different interviewers told me, they have sisters in the same situation as me, needing for EARNED income only to cover all of their household bills, but “there is just nothing out there like that,” including the jobs they were hiring for, which were staffed with all (or almost all) moms with spousal income, moms with child support that covers rent or moms with welfare and child-tax-credit welfare.

They, at least, were polite, whereas many of these mom-discrimination rings just tell you point blank: “We have 17 women in here (moms), and we HAVE to have someone who fits in.” 

Fitting in mostly means backwatching in a gang of frequently absentee moms who, when at work, rather than leaving every afternoon at 2:30 and for days and weeks beyond PTO and pregnancy leaves, are engaged in things like baby-mommy-look-alike-bulletin-board-decorating contests and Halloween dress-up day, rather than generating new-business sales and retaining accounts of PAYING customers. 

Employers value nothing but an expendable workforce that is willing (and able) to accept low pay due to unearned income, which related to their personal life—to their womb productivity for the most part.

Occasionally, employees have unearned income from Social Security, making it easy to accept low wages. Take the marketing firm in my town that is notorious for hiring nothing but senior citizens, with SS that covers their major household bills, and young college students, living at home. It is a joke throughout the temp/contract workforce. 

The law in NYC, stating that employers cannot ask about previous pay rates is probably good. Because, when hiring, they give you the impression that you will be turned down if you ask for more.

I do not buy that most employers are paying most men more, however. I do not buy it at all. I have had too many experiences, where other enployees were arrogantly peeved to the endth degree when I made $1-per-hour more than them, even though I had far more certifications, a degree and, more importantly, many years of experience and far higher sales, mostly because I was actually at work every day and all day instead of leaving work constantly (for kids). Most of the people who make a huge fuss about that are women, but I have encountered few men who were making any more than me in these jobs unless they were managers.

It is better to be paid less than to deal with the cattiness unleashed by that. The most absentee and the lowest selling employees are always the ones to bully you out over stuff like that. It is a zoo out there—a zoo where working hard and selling a lot does you little good. People do a cost / benefit analysis, seeing little benefit from hard work and a lot of costs associated with these so-called jobs. 

In reply to by Four Star

Endgame Napoleon swmnguy Wed, 01/17/2018 - 17:49 Permalink

The vast majority of underemployed citizens do none of that stuff—ZERO. Most of them have taken tons of drug tests for jobs—tons—passing them all, even though it is ludicrous to have to go through umpteen steps like that for every six-week temp job. I do not even drink, never have in my entire life, not even as a youth. The attempt to paint underemployed Americans as drug addicts is abusive, just like the attempt to paint underemployed citizens with years of job experience, degrees, licenses and even business ownership as “unskilled” is abusive. How do you think we were able to pay business loans back with zero skills? 

Oftentimes, in jobs, these “unskilled” people are the ones keeping the crony-parent manager’s numbers up while s/he takes her 9th lengthy babyvacation of the year, with about half of her mom-gang staff doing the same. If these underlings who keep the numbers up during her lengthy absences are unskilled, so is the manager who is paid 10 times more for doing mostly the same work. 

Underemployed Americans are not unskilled. America just has limited jobs that pay enough to cover household bills, and those jobs are almost always doubled up in the households of assortative mates, with the husband and the wife each making enough to support 2 households.

Most of the jobs are low paying, part time and geared toward moms (or male immigrants). I.E., the jobs are geared to those with unearned income from spouses, ex spouses or welfare (free food, free rent) and refundable child tax credits that, at the $6,444 max, equal 3 to 4 months of full-time wages in many jobs. Employers are looking for people who can accept low wages and part-time work due to unearned income for womb productivity, with lenient-cubed absenteeism standards for moms making up for the low pay.

In reply to by swmnguy

swmnguy ThePhantom Wed, 01/17/2018 - 15:12 Permalink

I'm now an old fart (51 years old) so I remember when employers fully expected to train employees to do jobs.

Really, I'm not making this shit up; they used to hire people and then teach them how to do jobs.  Yes, it was inconvenient and cost them money, but they did it.  They even considered it an investment in their future operations, even though Labor is only counted as a cost in Accounting, not as an asset as even disposable supplies are.

But then in the 1970s, the Baby Boomers graduated from college and an awful lot of colleges built in the 1950s to serve the GI Bill and the 1960s to teach the Baby Boomers would have had to close down.  So they cooked up the notion of offering vocational programs, which created enough demand for a college education and shifted the cost of job training from the employer to the employee, to the benefit of lenders and colleges.  Employers went along by requiring college degrees and specific training programs to even consider employees.  Then they created HR departments to avoid possible hiring lawsuits, and to relieve managers of having to actually hire and train employees.  HR managers don't know the requirements of any job; they just tick off boxes on a checklist by looking over applications, many of them online and automated.

Great scam, huh?  Like everything else that's been Financialized, quality plummets, costs skyrocket, layers of Administrators and Executives appear to lap up the money, and the middle class gets stuck holding the bag.

So if you want a good employee, you probably should hire somebody poor, teach them how to do the job, pay them a decent wage, and treat them decently.  Somebody did that for me decades ago, and I went from my welfare-eligible childhood to making 5x the median wage from a job today.

In reply to by ThePhantom

NoDebt whatisthat Wed, 01/17/2018 - 14:40 Permalink

"get the deadbeat people off welfare and put them to work...."

Me, too.  Remember when Obama (illegally) waived the work requirement to receive welfare benefits by EO?  Why the fuck isn't Trump reinstating it via EO?

Everyone who had a hand writing the bill that instituted that requirement (circa 1996) said they wrote it specifically so it couldn't be waived, ignored or misconstrued.  Of course, Obama never gave a shit about any of that and waived it anyway while giving everyone who complained a giant middle finger.

So where's the move to put it back again by Trump?  Yet another case where we could fix a major problem without passing a single new law or regulation.  But..... <crickets>

 

 

In reply to by whatisthat

Endgame Napoleon NoDebt Wed, 01/17/2018 - 18:35 Permalink

That is not how welfare works. Obama raised the earned-income limit, allowing more single mommas who work part time for slightly higher wages to get on welfare. When the limit was higher, they got EBT, even though they made a little more.

As part of his stimulus, Obama also raised the refundable child tax credits for maximum womb productivity (3 or more children) for single moms and legal / illegal immigrants with a sole, male breadwinner 

Another thing Obama did in his stimulus was to offer employers a $9,000-per-employee tax credit for hiring certain types of workers, including those on SNAP. This forced people like me—a childless, single citizen—to fill out even more paperwork for every six-week temp job, specifying that I was not on SNAP and TANF. They finally removed that incentive to hire people with unearned income from welfare. 

Those refundable child tax credits are for parents who do not pay income tax. It is free money that the moms often brag about spending on trips to Florida with boyfriends since their groceries and rent are covered by taxpayers. They also get monthly cash assistance, nearly free daycare which is still used as an expense for income-tax purposes and subsidized electricity. 

In his stimulus, Obama raised the maximum refundable child tax credit to over $8,000, no different from the RepubliCONs who just doubled the child tax credit in their tax cut / tax-welfare stimulus. They did that even though the refundable child tax credit was already at a $6,444 max, raising it even for illegal aliens with US-both kids.

They did this even though per-capita income in many states is between $18k and $20k, meaning that the refundable child tax credits of many part-time-worker moms equal 1/3rd of yearly EARNED income for most low-income citizens who are not eligible for these multi layers of welfare and tax welfare that government gives out to reward sex and reproduction. 

But recipients DO work; they work part time. 

People can be working or looking for work, according to the welfare rules. Prooof is required in either case— i.e. 8 paycheck stubs or statements from potential employers. We had to make copies of this proof to submit with the cases.

I have seen the Earned Income and Work History screens for many thousands of EBT and cash assistance applicants at the Department of Human Services. They work. They go in and out of low-wage jobs, just like so many other Americans, with the difference being their potpourri of pay-per-birth freebies from government to cushion the brutality of this job market.

Most citizens have nothing to cushion it, not even UC between churn jobs to help with rent until they find another churn job. But The Uniparty Swamp creatures cannot stop adding layers of welfare and tax welfare, making sure that single moms and immigrants can work for beans, keeping wages low for the rest of us.

I got $39 per paycheck in Obama’s stimulus, and I was working full-time in a hard (and even dangerous) job that required four licenses and long hours. 

If I get another job today, I’ll get $24 per paycheck from this tax cut / tax-welfare plan, and $24 will not help at all, when rent absorbs more than half of my monthly, earned-only income.

Hard work does not pay for most in America. 

Meeting sales quotas every month, along with daily / all-day attendance, rarely pays in a workforce that revolves around family-friendly, absenteeism-friendly work schedules and employees with unearned income for womb productivity that makes low wages acceptable. 

Sex and reproduction—in or out of wedlock and whether or not you are legally in this country—literally pays in America. 

In reply to by NoDebt

Endgame Napoleon whatisthat Wed, 01/17/2018 - 18:03 Permalink

Look, I have WORKED at the Department of Human Services, calculating their benefit amounts. The people on welfare HAVE to work, post welfare “reform.” That is a big reason why wages never go up.

Single moms and immigrant households with a sole, male earner and US-born kids are incentivized to accept rock-bottom wages and/or part-time hours by access to layers of monthly welfare and refundable child tax credits of up to $6,444 when they work part time for low wages.

It drives wages down to nothing for all of us with earned-only income. The moms got more than I made in a week as a college grad, just in free EBT food.

But they have to accept low pay; they cannot go above the earned-income limit for the welfare programs or the cut off for the refundable child tax credits without losing the unearned income from Uncle Sammy.

RepubliCONs peddle this as an issue of people who are not working so that they can continue to support a low-wage citizen / immigrant workforce for the COC and other wealthy campaign donors. They do it so they can continue to support socialism for some, like their doubled child tax credit for part-time workers, even for illegal alien parents.

In reply to by whatisthat

flyonmywall Wed, 01/17/2018 - 14:29 Permalink

"An industrial-firm contact said that when a worker leaves, they typically end up paying the replacement 10 percent more than the departing worker" - Article

Here is a thought. How about boosting pay before the worker leaves so you don't have to incur hiring costs, paperwork and the hassle of finding a new one?

Duh !!

 

Yen Cross Wed, 01/17/2018 - 14:34 Permalink

   labor shortages... That's a funny one.  What's the labor participation rate again?  I'd laugh my ass off if the fed raised rates on Jan. 31st.

LetThemEatRand Wed, 01/17/2018 - 14:37 Permalink

"Curiously, despite the pervasive inability to find skilled workers, most districts said that wages increased only at a modest pace. Perhaps if employers are so short staffed, they would consider rising wages?"

I'll bet you could read this same article in 20 financial media sites and not see the Tylers' spot on commentary, which blows the entire narrative out of the water.  This is kind of like the tech industry which says it needs to go to India to find "qualified" engineers, which is code for engineers who want to earn less than six figures in a city where a 1000 sq. ft. home costs seven figures.

Oreilly LetThemEatRand Wed, 01/17/2018 - 14:56 Permalink

This is exactly right.  The "million+" skilled job descriptions are so tightly worded that they don't have to hire someone unless they want to.  This is partially an HR trick to avoid lawsuits from people who are passed over ("You clearly didn't meet the qualifications"), but it is also used as a negotiation tactic to force lower salaries on job applicants without getting sued in return.  Over the past decade I've interviewed with numerous potential employers who would love to hire me, but are only willing to pay what I used to make 20 years ago ... and these are not entry level jobs but above-senior level technical skill jobs.  The question inevitably comes from HR "Do you know that the salary range for this job is only $X"?, which is usually 15 to 20% less than the going rate.  I've never needed to take such a job, but it is a shocker to see others who have no choice but to take the pay cut in order to meet the mortgage. 

In reply to by LetThemEatRand

Disgruntled Goat Wed, 01/17/2018 - 14:42 Permalink

What a load of shit. Labor Force Participation is at 1970s lows .... there is no fucking labor shortage .... strictly political propaganda disguised as a Fed communication .... just shows you how deep the Progressive narative in support of unlimited immigration goes....