5 ms·
Most people in this industry are contractual employees so that's usually not a legal option. If their pay was any less, it'd be approaching minimum wage laws. B
by vortico 8y ago
Most people in this industry are contractual employees so that's usually not a legal option. If their pay was any less, it'd be approaching minimum wage laws. But if not, it's a bad option because instead of the algorithm "filter out the least passionate ones so we can increase expectations of the remaining" as in (2), it's "filter out the employees who can't take the financial hit so... we can keep the wealthier ones who don't need their pay as much?" Doesn't make sense in this industry.
- coldtea 8y ago>it's "filter out the employees who can't take the financial hit so... we can keep the wealthier ones who don't need their pay as much?" Doesn't make sense in this industry. Actually, wouldn't it be the inverse? Those who have other options would go, and the less cushioned / wealthy ones would agree to stay and take the hit...
- vortico 8y agoNo, I think I stated it correctly. Those with more savings/assets would stay and be able to withdraw from their savings while their pay isn't enough. Those who need every penny for the next utility bill would be forced to leave.
- coldtea 8y agoWell, how about considering the inverse: Those with more savings/assets would be able to live off of them while looking for another job if the pay isn't enough. Those who need every penny for the next utility bill (but still make it, even if barely, with the reduced pay) will stay with the company, as they can't risk getting off employment for any length of time. All 4 options could be at play. Which is why people barely making, still keeping at jobs despite horrible pay cuts. It's because they don't have any safety net to go look elsewhere.