This essay is about: how we do we get talent if we can't pay at the top of the scale? It says that the conventional wisdom is you have to instead attract peopl

This essay is about: how we do we get talent if we can't pay at the top of the scale? It says that the conventional wisdom is you have to instead attract people with "vision", some really exciting thing that the company is targetted at. But suggests instead, basically (this part is more my interpretative summary, what do you think?) that you can identify the people who couldn't get those top of the scale jobs (for example don't have a degree), but nevertheless are well-suited for your particular company/roles. OK, sure, that makes sense, just on an economic basis. It's a kind of "hiring arbitrage" -- and at it's worse may be treating the employees as much as commodities as that phrase sounds like. Like, I'm not sure the people will stick around if working at your company for a couple years makes them now more competitive for higher-paying jobs, and all you had to attract them was that you were willing to hire them when others weren't. But maybe that's fine, there will be more where they come from. But how about instead considering what could attract an employee in addition to top-scale salary or "vision"? How about "quality of life"? This could be internal -- you will like your co-workers, our managers are good at managing, we have a non-toxic work environment, you will feel like you have the support and freedom to actually do good work here toward understood organizational goals. (It's amazing how rare that is, right? I think a lot of people would take a salary drop for it). This could be work/life balance -- our hours are reasonable and predictable, our time off is flexible and plentiful. Or, even take a risk and offer 4-day weeks for the 'full' salary you can afford to offer -- you'll honestly probably be getting nearly as much productivity as 5-day week. Etc.