3 ms·

Companies (and governments) never raise wages to solve problems for employees. They raise wages to solve problems for themselves. Maybe that’s the stated reas

by mwint 4y ago

Companies (and governments) never raise wages to solve problems for employees. They raise wages to solve problems for themselves. Maybe that’s the stated reason, and maybe it’s used to drum up political support, but it’s never the real reason.

blamazon 4y ago
It can be both. Everyone prospers when incentives are aligned on both sides of being and using labor.
- ahepp 4y ago
  I absolutely agree in principle, but unless pay is in some way linked to performance I really don’t see how. The existing seniority based pay system completely decouples money as an incentive, doesn’t it?
  - blamazon 4y ago
    It's a tough nut to crack, I do agree. On one end of the scale you have labor incentive systems that are overly associated to (perceived) performance, which can produce much misery, inequity, and arguably reduced productivity - toxic stack ranking, the 2014 amazon NYT article, 996 Taylorism, etc. On the other hand you have systems that you describe that are not at all calibrated to performance, and only care about seat time. Such as, toxic school systems or government agencies. But, somewhere in between, there is a tremendous amount of happiness, equity and productivity. Such as, the customer service representatives that have worked for Amazon in Germany in the same roles since 1998. Or, airline pilots who, setting aside the various labor and equity troubles for a second, get great performance results from a seat-time oriented approach. Or someone that happily worked as a dishwasher at a restaurant in Rome for 20 years. In USA there's also a good deal of civil servants that have faithfully served our local societies for decades with a high quality of labor and life. The USPS mail person that delivers to my parents' house has been running that route for like 2 or 3 decades, he's still great at it and spends as much time playing with my parents' dogs as he wants. I don't know what the perfect formula is, but I do think it involves outpacing inflation for compensation increases regardless of performance, and some amount of performance evaluation too. But maybe not too much of either. Just my two cents, not an economist, etc.
elil17 4y ago
Sure, for companies. But the government is supposed to act in the interest of all citizens, including the citizens it employs.
- hammock 4y ago
  The government is supposed to act according to its constitution, and the elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents
  - elil17 4y ago
    And of those constituents are employed by the government. Hence the government should consider the interests of its own employees to a certain degree.

by mwint 4y ago

blamazon 4y ago

It can be both. Everyone prospers when incentives are aligned on both sides of being and using labor.

ahepp 4y ago
I absolutely agree in principle, but unless pay is in some way linked to performance I really don’t see how. The existing seniority based pay system completely decouples money as an incentive, doesn’t it?
- blamazon 4y ago
  It's a tough nut to crack, I do agree. On one end of the scale you have labor incentive systems that are overly associated to (perceived) performance, which can produce much misery, inequity, and arguably reduced productivity - toxic stack ranking, the 2014 amazon NYT article, 996 Taylorism, etc. On the other hand you have systems that you describe that are not at all calibrated to performance, and only care about seat time. Such as, toxic school systems or government agencies. But, somewhere in between, there is a tremendous amount of happiness, equity and productivity. Such as, the customer service representatives that have worked for Amazon in Germany in the same roles since 1998. Or, airline pilots who, setting aside the various labor and equity troubles for a second, get great performance results from a seat-time oriented approach. Or someone that happily worked as a dishwasher at a restaurant in Rome for 20 years. In USA there's also a good deal of civil servants that have faithfully served our local societies for decades with a high quality of labor and life. The USPS mail person that delivers to my parents' house has been running that route for like 2 or 3 decades, he's still great at it and spends as much time playing with my parents' dogs as he wants. I don't know what the perfect formula is, but I do think it involves outpacing inflation for compensation increases regardless of performance, and some amount of performance evaluation too. But maybe not too much of either. Just my two cents, not an economist, etc.

elil17 4y ago

Sure, for companies. But the government is supposed to act in the interest of all citizens, including the citizens it employs.

hammock 4y ago
The government is supposed to act according to its constitution, and the elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents
- elil17 4y ago
  And of those constituents are employed by the government. Hence the government should consider the interests of its own employees to a certain degree.