7 ms·

There's more to this than simple supply and demand economics. People take into account significantly more factors than raw pay when deciding to pick a job (and

There's more to this than simple supply and demand economics. People take into account significantly more factors than raw pay when deciding to pick a job (and especially when leaving one). Working conditions are especially horrible in pretty much all the cases of "nobody wants to work anymore" that I have seen. Even if you paid me a good wage, I might not want to work at a terrible employer. It doesn't help that the terrible employers also usually pay below-market wages.

Gibbon1 3y ago
Recently went to get a vaccine shot. Making talk with the pharmacist she let the mask slip, working conditions are horrible. The problem with supply and demand is like everything from economics[1] it acts as if only money is important. And discounts things like being able to hold up psychologically. When your pharmacists are at the breaking point where they're going to up and quit at the first opportunity because they can't stand the job anymore, your system is sick indeed. [1] First rule of economics, humans are robots obsessed with money.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  Did she say specifically why the working conditions were so horrible?
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    It's a pro social job where you are responsible for something important. But the MBA's that run pharmacies have stripped pharmacists of all power and are overworking them relentlessly.
- tomjen3 3y ago
  It doesn't and it is generally acknowledged that working conditions are a part of the pay that gets factored in when you do supply and demand. But the example from Ford where he did nothing to improve the working conditions, but made 5 usd/day the standard is also famous for a reason: double the pay and you get the kind of people who care primarily about money.
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    Yes and economist's also think the risk to the workers physical health and safety is part of the pay that gets factored in and the government should mind it's own beeswax too. That's generally part of economists reflex to look the other way when the free market creates a race to the bottom. Just pretend that workers have a choice between working at a coal mine that exposes them coal dust for higher pay or one that doesn't. Same as pharmacists have to choice between working for companies that put them at risk for burnout, PTSD and panic attacks for more money and ones that don't.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xtracto 3y ago
So, I am advisor to several startups at different stages. One of them is pretty well bootstraped and has had a good Seed round not long ago. (All this here in Mexico) Talking with their head of Engineering he was asking my advice on how to better hire Android devs; apparently they are having problems of candidates rejecting their offers at the end of their long hiring process. The reason is because they are avoiding giving the law benefits: some companies in Mexico pay you the minimum in a "straight " manner and the rest they pay in different ways, all this to avoid some taxes. When he explained me those reasons I straight told him: I'll give you 2 answers: as a person and as your advisor. As a person I would never work for your company, because what you are doing is shady. Even if it doesn't directly affect me (it actually does affect employees in several ways, but not many know), if you are open to that, what else are you open to. It's crazy how little companies value their employees.
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
Working condition are factored in demand and supply, unless the market is very small. Every position is hire-able if the you pay for it.
- ddingus 3y ago
  Nope. There are bad condition scenarios that would require far more compensation than filling the position delivers value. "Not worth it" is a very real thing.
- noodlesUK 3y ago
  > Every position is hire-able if the you pay for it. I completely disagree with this. I have a friend who recently turned down a job that would have been a significant pay increase because he didn't like the sound of the working conditions (which would have also included relocation to a new place). Many of the times that I recall when friends have left their jobs, the reason they left is not necessarily because they weren't being paid enough, but because they became tired of their job, or something changed at their employer that made working there less tolerable.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    He factored in the cost right. Different people factors it in differently. And that is how market rate is decided. I refuse to believe that the company can't find another candidate who is willing to take the job if the pay is good.
  - vidanay 3y ago
    The reductionist reply to this is that the employment offer didn't meet your friend's threshold for "pays enough". Theoretically, if they offered your friend $1,000,000 USD per year, he would have accepted the job. The economic viability of that pay is a different topic.
    - noodlesUK 3y ago
      I'm not sure about this. I think it easily met the threshold for "pays enough" in an absolute sense, but so often the whole sentiment of "pays enough for what they're asking from me" goes unsaid. And sometimes people value whatever personal thing they might be giving up (like being able to live with their loved ones) more than even a very large amount of money.

Gibbon1 3y ago

Recently went to get a vaccine shot. Making talk with the pharmacist she let the mask slip, working conditions are horrible. The problem with supply and demand is like everything from economics[1] it acts as if only money is important. And discounts things like being able to hold up psychologically. When your pharmacists are at the breaking point where they're going to up and quit at the first opportunity because they can't stand the job anymore, your system is sick indeed. [1] First rule of economics, humans are robots obsessed with money.

shiroiuma 3y ago
Did she say specifically why the working conditions were so horrible?
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  It's a pro social job where you are responsible for something important. But the MBA's that run pharmacies have stripped pharmacists of all power and are overworking them relentlessly.
tomjen3 3y ago
It doesn't and it is generally acknowledged that working conditions are a part of the pay that gets factored in when you do supply and demand. But the example from Ford where he did nothing to improve the working conditions, but made 5 usd/day the standard is also famous for a reason: double the pay and you get the kind of people who care primarily about money.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  Yes and economist's also think the risk to the workers physical health and safety is part of the pay that gets factored in and the government should mind it's own beeswax too. That's generally part of economists reflex to look the other way when the free market creates a race to the bottom. Just pretend that workers have a choice between working at a coal mine that exposes them coal dust for higher pay or one that doesn't. Same as pharmacists have to choice between working for companies that put them at risk for burnout, PTSD and panic attacks for more money and ones that don't.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xtracto 3y ago

So, I am advisor to several startups at different stages. One of them is pretty well bootstraped and has had a good Seed round not long ago. (All this here in Mexico) Talking with their head of Engineering he was asking my advice on how to better hire Android devs; apparently they are having problems of candidates rejecting their offers at the end of their long hiring process. The reason is because they are avoiding giving the law benefits: some companies in Mexico pay you the minimum in a "straight " manner and the rest they pay in different ways, all this to avoid some taxes. When he explained me those reasons I straight told him: I'll give you 2 answers: as a person and as your advisor. As a person I would never work for your company, because what you are doing is shady. Even if it doesn't directly affect me (it actually does affect employees in several ways, but not many know), if you are open to that, what else are you open to. It's crazy how little companies value their employees.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

Working condition are factored in demand and supply, unless the market is very small. Every position is hire-able if the you pay for it.

ddingus 3y ago
Nope. There are bad condition scenarios that would require far more compensation than filling the position delivers value. "Not worth it" is a very real thing.
noodlesUK 3y ago
> Every position is hire-able if the you pay for it. I completely disagree with this. I have a friend who recently turned down a job that would have been a significant pay increase because he didn't like the sound of the working conditions (which would have also included relocation to a new place). Many of the times that I recall when friends have left their jobs, the reason they left is not necessarily because they weren't being paid enough, but because they became tired of their job, or something changed at their employer that made working there less tolerable.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  He factored in the cost right. Different people factors it in differently. And that is how market rate is decided. I refuse to believe that the company can't find another candidate who is willing to take the job if the pay is good.
- vidanay 3y ago
  The reductionist reply to this is that the employment offer didn't meet your friend's threshold for "pays enough". Theoretically, if they offered your friend $1,000,000 USD per year, he would have accepted the job. The economic viability of that pay is a different topic.
  - noodlesUK 3y ago
    I'm not sure about this. I think it easily met the threshold for "pays enough" in an absolute sense, but so often the whole sentiment of "pays enough for what they're asking from me" goes unsaid. And sometimes people value whatever personal thing they might be giving up (like being able to live with their loved ones) more than even a very large amount of money.