Will We Need More Workers?

Should rich nations begin making plans to import poor people?:

A labour shortage can be a blessing, by Michael Lind, Commentary, Financial Times: Do rich nations need more poor workers? The answer is yes, according to ... a new United Nations report on migration and development. The UN says that in developed nations 10 years from now there will be only 87 young entrants to the labour force for every 100 retirees. To forestall a labour shortage in the developed world, the report says that rich nations should turn to developing countries, which will have 342 new labour market entrants for every 100 first world retirees.

This assumes that a labour shortage in the developed world is an evil to be averted. But is it? In the ageing nations of the first world, the benefits of a labour shortage, in the form of higher productivity growth and higher wages, might outweigh the costs. Where labour is scarce and expensive, businesses have an incentive to invest in labour-saving technology, which boosts productivity growth... It is no accident that the industrial revolution began in countries where workers were relatively few and had legal rights...

The availability of low-wage immigrant labour has caused the US to lag behind Japan, Australia and others with advanced mechanical harvesting. And thanks to a glut of cheap labour, home construction in the US remains low-tech and inefficient. A tight labour market would force rapid productivity gains in non-traded domestic industries that today are labour-intensive.

To be sure, a growing percentage of the workforce in advanced nations is employed in services such as nursing, lawn care and toenail painting, which cannot be done by machines. In these fields, wages would go up as a result of a tight labour market. What is wrong with that? ... Would higher wages not drive inflation? Not if productivity growth were adequate.

It is a myth that affluent countries must import vast numbers of immigrants to maintain the age ratio between tax-paying workers and retirees to prevent the collapse of social security systems. The immigrants themselves will retire, requiring an even greater expansion of immigrants...

Productivity growth can solve much or all of the pension funding problem. In the US, for example, the ratio of workers to retirees will go from 3 to 1 today to 2 to 1 in 2080. This is quite minor, compared to the shift from an 18 to 1 ratio in 1950 to the 3 to 1 ratio of today – a shift made smooth and painless by productivity growth in the past half century...

But doesn’t national prosperity depend on population growth? Here a final economic fallacy rears its head – the confusion between gross domestic product and per capita income. ...[T]he countries that lead the list in GDP tend to be the most populous ones: the US, China, Japan, India and Germany. Compare the quite different list of countries with high per capita income, measured by purchasing power parity: Luxembourg, Norway, US, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark. Then there is the list measuring social equality: Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Norway. The individual is arguably better off in a less populous country...

Ageing populations and shrinking workforces present challenges to developed countries. But those challenges can only be met by technology-driven productivity growth, not immigration... If it stimulates automation, raises wages for poor workers and reduces inequality, the impending labour shortage in the advanced industrial nations may be a blessing rather than a curse.

There may be good reasons to open the immigration gates a bit more, but keeping wages low isn't one of them.

Comments

[Alejandro]

In these fields, wages would go up as a result of a tight labour market. What is wrong with that? ... Would higher wages not drive inflation? Not if productivity growth were adequate.

This comment shows that how little people know about inflation. Inflation is an increase in the general price level. An increase in the wage of toenail painters because of their scarcity (lower supply or higher demmand) which translates into a higher price of that service is a change in the RELATIVE PRICE of that service. IT IS NOT INFLATION.

The availability of low-wage immigrant labour has caused the US to lag behind Japan, Australia and others with advanced mechanical harvesting. And thanks to a glut of cheap labour, home construction in the US remains low-tech and inefficient.

Another comment that shows that the author knows very little about economics and is trying to disguise political reasons as economic ones. Efficiency is to do things at the lower cost possible, NOT WITH THE MOST HIGH TECH GADGET AROUND.

But doesn’t national prosperity depend on population growth? Here a final economic fallacy rears its head – the confusion between gross domestic product and per capita income. ...[T]he countries that lead the list in GDP tend to be the most populous ones: the US, China, Japan, India and Germany. Compare the quite different list of countries with high per capita income, measured by purchasing power parity: Luxembourg, Norway, US, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark. Then there is the list measuring social equality: Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Norway. The individual is arguably better off in a less populous country...

Another great error. Defining an economy by the geographical limits of the nation. It is like saying that market size is not important just because the Bill Gates economy has GDP per capita of hundreds of millons (with a capital stock of 30Bn) and is one person only. I'm not sure if population growth is the key to productivity growth but there are some good reasons to think that they are related. Adam Smith's: "The division of labor is limited by the size of the market" and models of R&D where bigger markets imply that the new idea can be applied to more people which increases the return of R&D are some good examples.

(Charly Jones JPE 1995 if I'm correct has a model where productivity growth is proportional to population growth).

[Mark Thoma]

I also think there's a lot of confusion between relative and absolute prices, and also between changes in the equilibrium price level and transitions between equilibrium outcomes, i.e. as prices move to a new equilibrium, this is routinely called inflation.

[anne]

Alejandro, now you too are playing with italicized type, though Mark Thoma blames an open symbol allowing italicizing, and I may be reading too much though I like to read :) Enough with being fancy. Now, I have to figure out why I like the essay so much and you do not....

[Mark Thoma]

Italics, bold, and my favorite for differentiating a section from the main text, blockquotes, are all allowed.

The tags are:

i and /i
b and /b
blockquote and /blockquote

and if someone accidentally forgets to close a tag so that all the comments are bold, italics, etc., anyone can fix it by putting a /i, /b, etc. at the top of their comment.

[anne]

Italics do slow down reading, especially on the screen, but I do not allow them even on papers for that reason. Also, on screen I find they tire me. So, please do think before using italics for I likely will not read them :) Block-quotes are clean and simplest to read.

[anne]

Yes; as Elaine in Seinfeld, I am "difficult." Remember how her doctor noted that in her chart and each doctor after noted in turn. Since then, I make a point of taking my chart from the desk, flaunting it, and reading it in front of nurses and doctors :) Only my general doctor immediately caught on and laughed and still laughs.

[anne]

As Kramer has it, "who says I can do any of the things I do" :)

[anne]

What Jerry said about Elaine's being difficult, I will refrain from repeating on this family blog, well, for now.

[anne]

Thank you as always, Mark :) I must try not to be too "difficult." Unless I am reading poorly, this is quite a compelling labor and emphasis on immigrant-education focused essay.

[Richard]

The demographic changes worldwide in the last fifty years have been remarkable and continue to unfold. The gradual demolishing of caste in India, the reduction of racial and class barriers to employment everywhere, the increasing enfranchisement of women, the increasing lifespan in almost all countries. The American economy has been able to absorb not only immigrants but also a very large increased female workforce, and I predict that it will also manage to absorb an increasing number of older (elderly?) workers as well.

[t11]

"The countries that lead the list in GDP tend to be the most populous ones: the US, China, Japan, India and Germany. Compare the quite different list of countries with high per capita income, measured by purchasing power parity: Luxembourg, Norway, US, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark. Then there is the list measuring social equality: Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Norway."

Point #1 - size matters and there are benefits to economy of scale

Point 2 - wealth does not depend on size

Point 3 - social equality is proportional to lack of diversity

The paper is pretty much bang on.

[Charly]

Belgium doesn't really support point 3

[Winslow R.]

Alejandro wrote:

"Another comment that shows that the author knows very little about economics and is trying to disguise political reasons as economic ones. Efficiency is to do things at the lower cost possible, NOT WITH THE MOST HIGH TECH GADGET AROUND."

I'd agree that many in the economics profession seem to be soley concerned with efficiency and forget about what is optimal and productive.

Where efficiency would be price/unit of output.

I think it was Blissex? or Robert? that pointed out only suboptimal economists thought this way.

I would agree the author was addressing productivity with a bit of political optimization.

Productivity would be output/hour.

Of course we can leave out what 'the people' want to happen within their national borders.

Optimal would be decided by 'the people'.

The author strikes me as an 'superoptimal' economist, someone able to think beyond the first order calculations where the cheapest cost, even though unproductive and suboptimal, is the considered the best method.

I also agree there is much confusion about inflation, though I don't see a problem with the way he used it as the general price level does have a large labor component.

[tom s.]

Did anyone else choke on this?

"It is no accident that the industrial revolution began in countries where workers were relatively few and had legal rights..."

Tell that to those who were driven off their land by enclosure or driven into the cities by the Poor Laws.

[Bruce Webb]

Tom S

Henry Ford had the shortest and most pungeant rebuttal to your actual reference to historical facts as related to British economics in the 17th through 19th centuries:

"History is bunk"

Good enough for the Cato Insitute, good enough for you. Why confuse us with that reality thing?

[Winslow R.]

I guess the 'choke' part comes from the 'legal rights...'? I don't have a subscription to FT but perhaps it said "legal rights... taken away by enclosure and poor laws"?

You'd agree the 'enclosure' and 'poor laws' were no 'accident' and would seem to have been written to increase the labor supply because there were too few workers in the cities?

[lonesome moderate]

Productivity growth can solve much or all of the pension funding problem. In the US, for example, the ratio of workers to retirees will go from 3 to 1 today to 2 to 1 in 2080. This is quite minor, compared to the shift from an 18 to 1 ratio in 1950 to the 3 to 1 ratio of today – a shift made smooth and painless by productivity growth in the past half century...

Methinks that Michael Lind should do a little more research before he starts trotting out statistics to support his preconceived agenda. In 1949, the OASDI tax rate was raised for the first time, from 1.0% to 1.5%; it is now 6.2% (or 7.65% counting the Medicare tax), and the threshold has also been increased, from slightly over 100% of the average wage to a bit over 200%. That is, the social security tax burden is at least five times as much as it was in 1950, while the worker/beneficiary ratio is one-sixth what it was then. In other words, the effect of higher productivity in maintaining the system's solvency so far has been approximately zero, with the necessary increased revenues coming almost exclusively from higher taxes.

An even bigger howler is his implication that, since social security's projected 1980 ratio is still 2:1, we don't need immigrants to help us balance the books. But, if you actually look at the source of the statistics which lead up to the 2:1 (actually 1.8:1) ratio, it assumes net immigration of 900,000 per year--i.e. about the same as now. Source http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR02/V_demographic.html#79479. By the way, this same "intermediate" projection shows that approximately 20% of GDP in 2076 will have to be devoted to maintaining our social security programs. Under the "high cost" projection (which assumes, among other things, net immigration of "only" 665,000 per year), it will be 28.5% of GDP.

[reason]

lonesome moderate ...

what a dumb argument (sorry to be blunt). Of course the rates have to rise (simple arithmatic) since the taxes and pensions are paid in money. But this has been done without creating financial stress because of productivity improvements (and the attendant wage growth). The issue is not whether tax rates must rise, but whether the economy can afford higher taxes - two different things. You may be making a political choice in saying that higher taxes are bad - but if wages and productivity they may not result in a crippling burden in terms of real living standards.

[Blissex]

There may be good reasons to open the immigration gates a bit more, but keeping wages low isn't one of them.
Well, it is always a question of political economy...

Keeping [low end] wages low may be a very good reason if 70% of the voters benefit.

If the problem is how to provide cheap health care and cheap home service to an ageing largely wealthy population, as that article hins, then keeping low end wages low is going to save the state and them a lot of money and benefit their heirs too.

Consider for example this all too explicit article about immigration and the British health service:

http://WWW.Economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=486825
MIGRANTS, according to research published by the Home Office this week, can help boost growth, reduce inflationary pressure and fill labour-market shortages.Labour knows that many British voters want less immigration. On the other hand, skills shortages are increasingly apparent, especially in the public sector. The speed with which the government has executed a U-turn in its approach to immigration owes much to its need to bring in foreign workers to meet its recruitment targets for the NHS and education.
It just implicitly says that most of the voters are ageing, home owning people with a secure job or a good pension, well then, keeping low end wages low can be a pretty compelling strategy. It all depends on the politics of the situation. Pareto-optimal is a dream...

http://WWW.Economist.com/World/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5279609
THE Oxford Belfry is a typical modern British hotel: big, bland and strikingly lacking in native staff. Among the multinational workforce, the cheerful, omnipresent Poles stand out: at the front desk, in the bars and restaurants, cleaning and (while reading an economics textbook) supervising the gym and pool.

“It's the work ethic. Many British people think the service industries are about servitude,” complains John Cotter, a senior manager. Since Poland joined the European Union last year, his staffing headaches have largely been over. “We are inundated with applications from Poland,” he says.

Indeed, the new reservoir of good, cheap labour is a boon for many employers in Britain, Ireland and Sweden, the only old EU countries that have fully opened their doors to workers from the new members.

http://WWW.Telegraph.co.UK/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/21/weu221.xml
While a hero to the British middle classes, the Polish plumber is a symbol to many French of cheap labour from eastern Europe supposedly intent on putting them out of a job.

http://WWW.DailyMail.co.UK/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=386567
There can hardly be a street in the country where a kitchen or roof hasn't been fixed by an eastern European.
But while the middle classes have been full of praise, others claim the competition has meant British workers losing out.

There are lots of votes in making good staff easier to find :-).

I can well believe that all of these statements apply:

* Immigration increases the GDP of a country.

* Most of the voters benefit from that increase.

* Those who benefit from it capture more than 100% of the increase, as their pricing power is not affected but that of those competing with immigrants is.

[Bruce Webb]

Winslow I think you are confusing cause and effect. Enclosure began well before industrialization. In England it had more to do with agricultural improvements. Larger plots with fewer workers meant more rent. Perhaps more to the point the assertion that lordship equated to ownership of the commons allowed Lords to enclose forest and other commons to large benefit to them and huge damage to tenants who had the rights to take fuel, forest foods, and to run hogs from time immemorial. Later this extended to the open fields themselves. Peasants who had been working land for centuries somehow ended by being tenants at will

Incidentally I wrote a graduate paper on this called "Why Kill the Lawyers" in regards to the Peasants Revolt of 1381. It is notable that the Peasants focused their actual violence more on lawyers than actual representatives of their landlords. My argument in the paper is that they knew exactly who their enemies were. Starting in the 12th century English Land Law was steadily transformed by the two valued logic of Roman Law. What had been a wide range of rights and obligations both directions up and down the social spectrum gradually hardened as lords claimed their heriditary rights first against the King (Magna Carta had little to do with freedom, lots to do with denying the King's Rights over feudal lands) and then against the Peasants. And the weapon of choice against the Peasant was an assertion of ownership over the open fields and commons totally alien to English tradition. And the hired guns were the lawyers who simply wrote peasants rights right out of the rules.

When the Peasants marched on London and headed right to the Inns of Court they knew exactly what they were doing.

[lonesome moderate]

I guess my argument is "dumb" if the author really was saying that taxes will have to rise enormously, but that that's OK because productivity improvements will be enough to offset the increased tax burden. I didn't get that at all when I read the article, but perhaps it's clearer for those with access to the entire text. To me, when the author said "smooth and painless" he was implying "without massive tax increases", but if he wasn't then I withdraw that objection.

[lonesome moderate]

I still find it difficult to believe that a transition to a social security tax rate of 30% or more (tax rates not GDP %, my bad) would be no big deal because of productivity improvements. Would there really not be howls of protest if we triple the payroll tax from current levels? I suppose that it's possible, but it seems to me likely that future generations would prefer current levels of immigration or a higher retirement age, or both, to take some of the sting out of those tax hikes.

[save_the_rustbelt]

According the National Review Online, our real problem is a huge and growing labor shortage (it is later implied that it is a shortage of qualification as much as bodies).

Perhaps I am juandiced by my location, but I find that a little hard to believe. Maybe the rich cannot find enough servants.

[cm]

save_the_rustbelt: There is always a labor shortage in the segment of the young, "willing", and top-qualified.

At work I'm constantly hearing rhetoric of hiring "exceptionally qualified" candidates (which we seem to be unable to find).

I cannot claim to have seen a lot, but from what I've seen it strikes me that there are many job descriptions where somebody who is top qualified (by employers' expectations) is at least OK qualified for, and would perhaps aim for, more desirable positions.

Esp. in "tech" I'm of the opinion that positions are often oversold in the job description, either because employers have too high an opinion of what "rocket science" they are doing, or they want to cover multiple functional areas in one job because they are not willing to allocate certain positions, and this leads to (1) qualified candidates not applying (and then you have to deal with people who exaggerate or lie on their resume), (2) employers rejecting good, but perhaps not great, candidates.

There is a good number of people who would be good "work horse" contributors, but who are not of the very imaginative or self-driven sort, and who would need some degree of guidance and supervision to be effective. An organization that is not willing or able to truly manage and work with their people (instead of just "tracking" projects on spreadsheets) will not hire those.

[cm]

OTOH (as Lord (?) pointed out), this probably means that those employers (and particularly their people in charge of staffing policy & process) don't take their business very seriously.

[Michael Cain]

"I still find it difficult to believe that a transition to a social security tax rate of 30% or more (tax rates not GDP %, my bad) would be no big deal because of productivity improvements. Would there really not be howls of protest if we triple the payroll tax from current levels?"

Figure II.D5 in the annual trustees' report is illuminating: SS costs are forecast (as they have been forecast in previous reports) to stabilize in the long term at about 6.2% of GDP. The Baby Boomers affect only how quickly we get to that level, but not the level itself. Predictions that payroll taxes must rise far above that rate, and keep rising, tells us that income subject to SS taxes is to be a constantly shrinking piece of the pie. I would suggest that the degree of income inequality implied by the need to triple SS taxes to deliver that fixed (as a fraction of GDP) benefit will have far different and possibly violent consequences long before the SS taxes are raised that far.

[Lord]

Labor shortages and higher wages drive the creation and adoption of labor saving technology in the same way that material shortages and higher costs drive the creation and adoption of material saving technology.

Efficiency is to do things at the lower cost possible, NOT WITH THE MOST HIGH TECH GADGET AROUND.

But growth in standards of living is driven far more by technological advancement than efficiency.

The division of labor is limited by the size of the market

But markets are no longer bound by political boundaries. Few people want no immigration, few people want unlimited immigration, but pro-immigration people seem unable to say how much they want.

[Cassandra]

Where labour is scarce and expensive, businesses have an incentive to invest in labour-saving technology, which boosts productivity growth...

Speaking of labour shortages, from today's Asahi Shimbun:

Robot's Save Japan: Interview with CEO of Yaskawa Co

Fukuoka: Japan's New 'Robot Zone'

[Blissex]

There is always a labor shortage in the segment of the young, "willing", and top-qualified.

What I have called the ''desirable candidates''; Oxbridge and the Ivy League are regrettably not expanding their output as fast as they can :-).

At work I'm constantly hearing rhetoric of hiring "exceptionally qualified" candidates
Well, of course, management are always in "search of excellence". It is also to remind existing employees that someone better may be taking their jobs soon.
(which we seem to be unable to find).
There is a skill shortage, we need more H1Bs and we are being ''forced'' to offshore... :-)

Esp. in "tech" I'm of the opinion that positions are often oversold in the job description,
Job descriptions more often than not are a PR tool, and especially in tech especially with startups they are often imaginary.

''Ambitious'' job adverts communicate both a glowing and an intimidating message. The glowing message is to investors and potential customers: ''our aims are the same as Google'', the intimidating message is to employees and competitors ''we have a queue of awesome people willing to work for us''.

Sometimes the imaginary is just a ruse; at some companies interviews are done to gather competitor intelligence, or for other reasons...

I even knew one startup selling a tool to do X, and their hiring manager told me they kept on their web site job ads for X developers, with the aim to lure them for an interview that actually was a captive sales presentation for the X tool, with the aim that when the ''interviee'' finally got a job at a potential client client doing X, they would be impressed by the presentation and order the tool.

either because employers have too high an opinion of what "rocket science" they are doing,
I guess it is just propaganda, but some people do drink their own kool-aid...

or they want to cover multiple functional areas in one job because they are not willing to allocate certain positions,
I would rather think that many of them advertise impossible-to-fill positions just because they know they are not going to hire, but offshore, but for legal or propaganda reasons they want to claim that they can't find the right employees locally.

There is a good number of people who would be good "work horse" contributors, but who are not of the very imaginative or self-driven sort, and who would need some degree of guidance and supervision to be effective. An organization that is not willing or able to truly manage and work with their people (instead of just "tracking" projects on spreadsheets) will not hire those.
I have a very different opinion on this... That it used to be that tech companies once upon a time would almost only hire ''bulk headcount'' because they are easily managed employees, and they don't threaten the career paths of insiders:

http://WWW.RealChangeNews.org/archive3/2005_09_28/baitandswitch.html
RC: You talk in your book about how being a desirable white-collar worker often depends upon exhibiting a sort of cheerful docility at all times.

But for the past few years tech companies and startups in particular have switched to hire new ''bulk headcount'' only offshore, and only hire nationally ''best and brightest'', which often means people with credentials that impress investors. Consider John Doerr:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2005/tc20050721_5428_tc057.htm
Importantly, Zazzle had a terrific set of very young founders: Matt Wilsey, Jeff Beaver, Bobby Beaver, and [the two sons'] dad, Robert Beaver. All of them are Stanford graduates. Then we proceeded to hire an incredibly talented young team of developers, a great marketer who built and ran Yahoo! Personals, and a super-experienced vice-president of operations. So we're growing the team to meet the demand. The average age of the people working at Zazzle is certainly twentysomething.

Also, in Silicon Valley VCs currently as a rule demand as a condition of investment that at least 1/2 or more usually 2/3s of the headcount of a startup be hired offshore, and of course they mean that the offshore minority should have MIT/CMU/Stanford degrees.

[Barry]

cm: "There is always a labor shortage in the segment of the young, "willing", and top-qualified."

That's the whole point, to the top 10% (or less) of society. They benefit when everybody below them is a bit hungry and scared. To them, the job market of the late 1990's was terrifying - workers were getting cocky all up and down the ladder.

[Blissex]

«That's the whole point, to the top 10% (or less) of society. They benefit when everybody below them is a bit hungry and scared.»

Master of the understatement! :-) As to «a bit hungry and scared» an informative number from another post in this blog:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/05/the_increasing_.html

«For all age groups except those 70 and older, the odds of a temporary spell of poverty doubled in the 1990's... For example, during the 1980's, around 13 percent of Americans in their 40's spent at least one year below the poverty line; in the 1990's, 36 percent of people in their 40's did, according to the analysis.»

If this does not keep in check the sour losers...

:-)

[Winslow R.]

"Winslow I think you are confusing cause and effect."

Bruce I agree, enclosure along with farm productivity may have driven peasants into the cities for centuries before the industrial revolution and the trend continues today.

Given the author's contention that a labor shortage leads to increases in productivity, it is interesting that farm productivity seems to be driven forward despite a surplus in farm labor.

Perhaps the innovation for farm productivity comes from the city, though the ideas comes from people thinking on the farm. Perhaps people only have the time to innovate once they become 'surplus'.

At one time I cut my own lawn 'for the exercise' but it was also a time to think. I came up with several ideas for doing it better just because that was what I was doing. Now 'surplus labor' cuts my lawn and I have some 'surplus labor' of my own. I haven't thought of any better ways to cut lawns since, but I now have the time to innovate.

I enjoyed your story about the lawyers.

[tom s.]

Winslow (well back up the page) -- yes, it was mainly the assertion that workers had legal rights, and the implication that these rights contributed to the industrial revolution.

Bruce Webb. I'm not quite sure what you meant by your Ford/Cato apparent dig. You clearly know more than I do about history. Nevertheless, while enclosure had been going for some time, it also continued through well into the 19th century, and certainly helped to address the "shortage of labour". So I'm not sure Winslow did have cause and effect mixed up.

I also enoyed reading about your lawyer paper - although I think Woody Guthrie beat you to it: "some will rob you with a six gun, and some with a fountain pen"

[cm]

Blissex: I'm not disputing what you are saying, there is a whole gamut of what people think and do. From what I know personally, the advertised job descriptions and the quest for "top talent", at least at the hiring manager/product manager level, are genuine. In management layers increasingly removed from the actual value creation, who have a more financially colored view and are less directly accountable for staff quality, the proportion of politically motivated BS certainly goes up, and staffing priorities change.

[cm]

In my organization, the offshoring policies come top down from the executive level, not from the product groups.

[lonesome moderate]

The chart at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR02/II_project.html#82804 does indeed show the percentage of the USA GDP given over to OASDI payments tapering off at 7.0 percent in 2076 (versus 4.5 percent today). However, this figure assumes steady immigration of 900,000 per year between now and then. If we attempt to reduce immigration significantly from that level then the payments would of course go up proportionately.

[Kart Mason]

A hospital executive would feel more comfortable contracting a nurses from an agency dedicated to temporary medical staffing than from a one-stop-shop that also places welders, janitors and filing clerks.

Try to visit this site How to start a nursing agency its a nursing guide.. And its a solution to the nursing shortage crisis. Lets stop the nursing shortage crisis!