3 ms·

> Switching jobs suck, increase their pay by $n/yr to where they dont consider moving. The employer that doesn't incur the large cost can afford to pay the emp

by mlyle 4y ago

> Switching jobs suck, increase their pay by $n/yr to where they dont consider moving. The employer that doesn't incur the large cost can afford to pay the employee much more and still come out ahead versus hiring an employee who still needs the rating. The Nash eq outcome is that no one pays for type ratings and externalizes the cost completely to prospective employees. > They need to put in some up front effort or collateral to prove there's loyalty there and behavior like, I will invest in a skill that takes time for you as an employee to learn, and is only worth it to you because it will let you command a higher salary This doesn't work for the business jet case. If you have a Gulfstream V that you want to fly, you need to either hire someone with a GV type rating or immediately get the new guy the GV rating. Hence, you tend to put in the offer letter a requirement to repay.

michaelmrose 4y ago
> externalizes the cost completely to prospective employees. This assumes that such a system would actually produce enough people willing to bear the cost instead of underproducing resulting in reverting to prior strategies in order to continue existing with the primary successful strategy being successful long term relationships with workers including paying them the new market rate after training is complete to make "pouching" non trivial.
- mlyle 4y ago
  I don't understand why people don't understand what I'm saying. > including paying them the new market rate after training is complete This structure doesn't work. If a pilot is worth $100k to a firm that pays for training, surely he is worth more to a firm that won't have to pay that expense. There is no "market rate" that you can select that doesn't incentivize employers to try and "just grab trained employees" from other employers. It's a classic case of the free rider problem.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    Just grab trained employees is a strategy that only works because most employers are shit. You think you have an airtight mathematical argument. People aren't numbers. Everyone is both looking to grab other firms already trained employees and train their own. Exclusively using the former strategy is only a useful strategy in markets full of shitty employers. Functional good employers will lose no more on average to poaching than they gain from it.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > Just grab trained employees is a strategy that only works because most employers are shit. You think you have an airtight mathematical argument. People aren't numbers. If employer A pays $100k to increase the value of new employee B over a span of a couple weeks... a big proportion of the time new employee B will decide to divide the value of that $100k with employer C, no matter how nice employer A is. People very often choose to act in their own economic interest. This is especially true when they don't have a longstanding relationship with employer A. > Exclusively using the former strategy is only a useful strategy in markets full of shitty employers. Here, you need a pilot or two. Paying to train without any kind of security is a very risky strategy versus paying a somewhat higher price for an already trained employee.
      - lovich 4y ago
        Again as I and the other poster have pointed out, you are treating the employees as actors with no agency being acquired by competing firms. If employers are good and also increase pay to employees the employees will on average not be looking to jump ship. The mental cost to switch jobs is not zero and people prefer to stay where they are comfortable. The majority of people look to move when their employer is not providing them a benefit. Undergoing any sort of training imposes a mental and time cost on the employee and if their current employer does not increase their compensation at all, then they are shouldering a cost for no benefit. The employer offering the training doesn't need to match what other companies could offer if they don't pay for training, they just need to offer enough that the newly trained employee doesn't care to switch.

by mlyle 4y ago

michaelmrose 4y ago

> externalizes the cost completely to prospective employees. This assumes that such a system would actually produce enough people willing to bear the cost instead of underproducing resulting in reverting to prior strategies in order to continue existing with the primary successful strategy being successful long term relationships with workers including paying them the new market rate after training is complete to make "pouching" non trivial.

mlyle 4y ago
I don't understand why people don't understand what I'm saying. > including paying them the new market rate after training is complete This structure doesn't work. If a pilot is worth $100k to a firm that pays for training, surely he is worth more to a firm that won't have to pay that expense. There is no "market rate" that you can select that doesn't incentivize employers to try and "just grab trained employees" from other employers. It's a classic case of the free rider problem.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Just grab trained employees is a strategy that only works because most employers are shit. You think you have an airtight mathematical argument. People aren't numbers. Everyone is both looking to grab other firms already trained employees and train their own. Exclusively using the former strategy is only a useful strategy in markets full of shitty employers. Functional good employers will lose no more on average to poaching than they gain from it.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Just grab trained employees is a strategy that only works because most employers are shit. You think you have an airtight mathematical argument. People aren't numbers. If employer A pays $100k to increase the value of new employee B over a span of a couple weeks... a big proportion of the time new employee B will decide to divide the value of that $100k with employer C, no matter how nice employer A is. People very often choose to act in their own economic interest. This is especially true when they don't have a longstanding relationship with employer A. > Exclusively using the former strategy is only a useful strategy in markets full of shitty employers. Here, you need a pilot or two. Paying to train without any kind of security is a very risky strategy versus paying a somewhat higher price for an already trained employee.
    - lovich 4y ago
      Again as I and the other poster have pointed out, you are treating the employees as actors with no agency being acquired by competing firms. If employers are good and also increase pay to employees the employees will on average not be looking to jump ship. The mental cost to switch jobs is not zero and people prefer to stay where they are comfortable. The majority of people look to move when their employer is not providing them a benefit. Undergoing any sort of training imposes a mental and time cost on the employee and if their current employer does not increase their compensation at all, then they are shouldering a cost for no benefit. The employer offering the training doesn't need to match what other companies could offer if they don't pay for training, they just need to offer enough that the newly trained employee doesn't care to switch.