3 ms·

Depends on the type of work, surely. If it's menial tasks and labor is plenty, you can afford your workforce continuously burning out, since it's fast to train

• jonathonf 5y ago
  > it's probably more efficient to reduce churn That would be lovely. Unfortunately, many places would rather you move job than give you a raise. It's cheaper in their accounts, and that's what (ah) counts.
  • IMTDb 5y ago
    You are living under the assumption that giving a raise would prevent churn. In many cases it does not work like that, just reading the comments in this thread shows that many people would be OK earning less if that meant working part-time. This is consistent with many studies showing that above a certain level of revenues, money matters less and less, while free time matters more and more. Since training is expensive, what companies are looking for are people that are willing to work more so that those costs are divided amongst more working hours. And they notice that paying more does not translate in people working more, for the reasons outlined above. A equilibrium is reached when people work the amount that they need to reach a certain comfort level then switch to looking for more free time.