6 ms·

More choosy means that work will be perpetually understaffed, and there will never be enough people to do the work, even if the company WANTS to hire more, they

by stale2002 9y ago

More choosy means that work will be perpetually understaffed, and there will never be enough people to do the work, even if the company WANTS to hire more, they just can't take the risk.

nickpp 9y ago
And the company will turn to other ways of getting that work done: contractors&temps. Maybe this is why the "share economy" is so popular lately.
eesmith 9y ago
Are Swedish companies perpetually understaffed, moreso than in (say) the US? The report doesn't lead me to that conclusion.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Business work is hardly steady-state. Being unable to quickly shrink/expand the workforce means the business will be perpetually over/understaffed, making the business less competitive. Of course, there's always going to be friction in changing staff. But increasing the friction should be approached with caution.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Yes, you are correct that businesses are not in a steady-state. I'm pretty sure that Swedish companies employ contractors for this situation, just like US companies do. And as the article point out, Swedish companies can have massive layoffs if need. I really feel like the negative effects you are thinking of are not, on their own, significant enough to use your model to guide policy decisions. Perhaps the Swedes have given it sufficient caution? By the way, one example I found of short-term contract work in Sweden is as a temporary replacement for when an employee takes a year off for paternity leave.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      One negative I neglected to mention is salaries may be systemically lower to compensate for the extra friction in getting rid of unproductive people. There never is a "free lunch" in these sorts of things. The cost gets paid one way or another.
      - eesmith 9y ago
        Even if I you are correct, I again ask if these costs enough to use your model to make policy decisions? For examples: How much lower? 0.5% or 50%? How much of a paycut are willing to accept in exchange for longer-term stability? (Are there jobs in the US with two employment options; one with job protections and the other without?) How does it compare to other factors which affect salary? As has come up on HN before, salary in Sweden and Norway are public information. This is meant to reduce information inequality during salary negotiations. (Eg, it would have been more difficult for Goodyear to have systematically underpaid Lilly Ledbetter had she known her market worth.) Obviously there are other differences as well, like the effect of employment-based insurance vs. national insurance.
        WalterBright 9y ago
        Norway and the US have endless differences, and many that affect salary. Trying to tease out the effect of just one difference is a significant project. I've been an employer. I know for a fact that I'd think twice, three times about hiring somebody if I knew it would be hard to get rid of them if they don't work out. (Such as a requirement to document the poor performance would be - that can take months.) I also know I'd make a lower offer. You would, too, if it was your money paying their salary.
        eesmith 9y ago
        And I know that I would be willing to accept a lower salary in order to reduce bullshit conditions on my employment, like being fired because the boss doesn't like what I do on my own time, having to work with people that the boss wants but is incompetent (and possibly be fired due to nepotism), forced to decide between working extra hours over being with family, etc. I know that I am not alone in thinking this. You have pointed out one factor. Others, including jernfrost's account of Norwegian conditions, have pointed out that there are many factors. I've specifically argued that your observation is not significant enough to set policy decision. Now you agree that there are many factors, so do you agree that one point that you bring up might not be a useful one? You give your experience in the US workforce, but your original observation concerned how you thought it would affect the Swedish workforce, with the implication that it was a significant universal principle.

More choosy means that work will be perpetually understaffed, and there will never be enough people to do the work, even if the company WANTS to hire more, they just can't take the risk.

nickpp 9y ago

And the company will turn to other ways of getting that work done: contractors&temps. Maybe this is why the "share economy" is so popular lately.

eesmith 9y ago

Are Swedish companies perpetually understaffed, moreso than in (say) the US? The report doesn't lead me to that conclusion.

WalterBright 9y ago
Business work is hardly steady-state. Being unable to quickly shrink/expand the workforce means the business will be perpetually over/understaffed, making the business less competitive. Of course, there's always going to be friction in changing staff. But increasing the friction should be approached with caution.
- eesmith 9y ago
  Yes, you are correct that businesses are not in a steady-state. I'm pretty sure that Swedish companies employ contractors for this situation, just like US companies do. And as the article point out, Swedish companies can have massive layoffs if need. I really feel like the negative effects you are thinking of are not, on their own, significant enough to use your model to guide policy decisions. Perhaps the Swedes have given it sufficient caution? By the way, one example I found of short-term contract work in Sweden is as a temporary replacement for when an employee takes a year off for paternity leave.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    One negative I neglected to mention is salaries may be systemically lower to compensate for the extra friction in getting rid of unproductive people. There never is a "free lunch" in these sorts of things. The cost gets paid one way or another.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Even if I you are correct, I again ask if these costs enough to use your model to make policy decisions? For examples: How much lower? 0.5% or 50%? How much of a paycut are willing to accept in exchange for longer-term stability? (Are there jobs in the US with two employment options; one with job protections and the other without?) How does it compare to other factors which affect salary? As has come up on HN before, salary in Sweden and Norway are public information. This is meant to reduce information inequality during salary negotiations. (Eg, it would have been more difficult for Goodyear to have systematically underpaid Lilly Ledbetter had she known her market worth.) Obviously there are other differences as well, like the effect of employment-based insurance vs. national insurance.
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        Norway and the US have endless differences, and many that affect salary. Trying to tease out the effect of just one difference is a significant project. I've been an employer. I know for a fact that I'd think twice, three times about hiring somebody if I knew it would be hard to get rid of them if they don't work out. (Such as a requirement to document the poor performance would be - that can take months.) I also know I'd make a lower offer. You would, too, if it was your money paying their salary.
        eesmith 9y ago
        And I know that I would be willing to accept a lower salary in order to reduce bullshit conditions on my employment, like being fired because the boss doesn't like what I do on my own time, having to work with people that the boss wants but is incompetent (and possibly be fired due to nepotism), forced to decide between working extra hours over being with family, etc. I know that I am not alone in thinking this. You have pointed out one factor. Others, including jernfrost's account of Norwegian conditions, have pointed out that there are many factors. I've specifically argued that your observation is not significant enough to set policy decision. Now you agree that there are many factors, so do you agree that one point that you bring up might not be a useful one? You give your experience in the US workforce, but your original observation concerned how you thought it would affect the Swedish workforce, with the implication that it was a significant universal principle.