3 ms·

>If you're an employer and you cant find employees, the answer is virtually always to increase total compensation. Most cases I would guess this is true until

>If you're an employer and you cant find employees, the answer is virtually always to increase total compensation. Most cases I would guess this is true until you hit the point that the pay is enough to live comfortably. Then it changes. My partner was recently approached for a position offering compensation more than 200% of their current for the same work. However,the hiring process is exposing red flags hinting at a toxic working environment: On-fighting, lack of planning, unreasonable expectations. I'm guessing this is the reason the pay they offer is so much higher than it 'should' be. That position may remain unfilled for quite some time. Working conditions are such a major aspect of any job, and while folks will put up with a bad working environment if the pay is right, that only works up to the point of being comfortably paid. Once you reach that level most folks start to care more about what their work day feels like. Toxic work cultures are very hard to fix, too.

rgbrenner 8y ago
Yes, thanks. This is why I wrote "total compensation" instead of wages. There are many forms of compensation: health insurance and other benefits; how nice the working environment is; how nice your boss is; the reputation of the firm (for example, the value of having google on your resume vs an unknown company); etc.
flukus 8y ago
I'd happily put up with a toxic work environment for double my pay. My costs are fixed so if I tolerate it for a couple of years that's a lot of money to put towards some major investments, it could easily pay off the rest of my apartment in a year. IME places like this usually pay low to middle of the road salaries though, I suspect you partner may have avoided a bait and switch hiring process.
- Avshalom 8y ago
  My sister developed a psychosomatic peanut (amongst other things) allergy and insomnia because of a toxic work environment. There is definitely a price for that but if you are comfortable emotionally and physically now 'double' isn't enough in a lot of cases.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    Double may not be enough in a lot of cases but it doesn't need to be. A marginal pay raise has a marginal effect on the numbet of people who are willing to take that job. While some people are willing to accept 2x the pay, it's possible to attract more people if 3x or 5x the pay is offered.
phyzome 8y ago
There's always a price. I wouldn't work that job for $100k/yr; I would work it for 1000 times the amount. Somewhere in the middle is, technically, the right price. This all gets silly when looked at in isolation, though. :-) I'd agree that there's not always an amount of compensation that the company could pay that would also attract enough workers.
- bobbytherobot 8y ago
  When asked, "what will make you stop looking at other jobs and join us today," my response is always, "a $500k salary." We laugh, but I'm not kidding.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Working conditions are such a major aspect of any job So they need to increase compensation even more to account for these aspects of the job. If they can't fill the position, it is because they aren't paying enough for the job. I don't see how anything changes except that employers don't want to admit that their jobs suck so much more than similar jobs that paying even twice the amount doesn't pull people in.
- azernik 8y ago
  I think the major difference is that, if you're in this regime where you're getting diminishing returns on increased pay, for the employer it can be a lot more cost-effective to improve working conditions. Trucking companies paying drivers 30-50K/year are probably not in this situation; software companies got there a long time ago for engineers.

rgbrenner 8y ago

Yes, thanks. This is why I wrote "total compensation" instead of wages. There are many forms of compensation: health insurance and other benefits; how nice the working environment is; how nice your boss is; the reputation of the firm (for example, the value of having google on your resume vs an unknown company); etc.

flukus 8y ago

I'd happily put up with a toxic work environment for double my pay. My costs are fixed so if I tolerate it for a couple of years that's a lot of money to put towards some major investments, it could easily pay off the rest of my apartment in a year. IME places like this usually pay low to middle of the road salaries though, I suspect you partner may have avoided a bait and switch hiring process.

Avshalom 8y ago
My sister developed a psychosomatic peanut (amongst other things) allergy and insomnia because of a toxic work environment. There is definitely a price for that but if you are comfortable emotionally and physically now 'double' isn't enough in a lot of cases.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  Double may not be enough in a lot of cases but it doesn't need to be. A marginal pay raise has a marginal effect on the numbet of people who are willing to take that job. While some people are willing to accept 2x the pay, it's possible to attract more people if 3x or 5x the pay is offered.

phyzome 8y ago

There's always a price. I wouldn't work that job for $100k/yr; I would work it for 1000 times the amount. Somewhere in the middle is, technically, the right price. This all gets silly when looked at in isolation, though. :-) I'd agree that there's not always an amount of compensation that the company could pay that would also attract enough workers.

bobbytherobot 8y ago
When asked, "what will make you stop looking at other jobs and join us today," my response is always, "a $500k salary." We laugh, but I'm not kidding.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>Working conditions are such a major aspect of any job So they need to increase compensation even more to account for these aspects of the job. If they can't fill the position, it is because they aren't paying enough for the job. I don't see how anything changes except that employers don't want to admit that their jobs suck so much more than similar jobs that paying even twice the amount doesn't pull people in.

azernik 8y ago
I think the major difference is that, if you're in this regime where you're getting diminishing returns on increased pay, for the employer it can be a lot more cost-effective to improve working conditions. Trucking companies paying drivers 30-50K/year are probably not in this situation; software companies got there a long time ago for engineers.