3 ms·
Assuming you need some level of competence, if you have sufficiently bad working conditions and wanted to rely solely on pay, then at some point you'd have to p
by ndriscoll 3y ago
Assuming you need some level of competence, if you have sufficiently bad working conditions and wanted to rely solely on pay, then at some point you'd have to pay enough that someone could quickly retire, which means it'd be impossible to find experienced hires.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- underlipton 3y agoOn a similar note: assuming that a business is run rationally and only hires people it needs for the business to run, eventually the inability to fill the position should lead to the business collapsing. In this sense, on long-enough time scales, positions that cannot be filled no matter what compensation is offered don't exist. (QED/s)
- YetAnotherNick 3y agoAverage wage of drain cleaner in US is $52,930[1] and for mining machine operator which is among the riskiest job it is $81,741[2], not exactly a quickly retiring wage. [2]: https://www.salary.com/research/salary/hiring/mining-machine-operator-salary https://www.salary.com/research/salary/hiring/mining-machine... [1]: https://www.talent.com/salary?job=drain+cleaner https://www.talent.com/salary?job=drain+cleaner
- ndriscoll 3y agoSure, there's a supply component as you say. If you need some level of competence (i.e. you can't just hire whomever), that strategy isn't going to work. If someone can make six figures already as an electrical engineer or programmer or something, then even if you offer $1M/yr for your totally crappy job like another poster said, the best you'll get is that they'll do it for 6-12 months and quit. Try to put golden handcuffs on, and they'll just start coasting once they've gotten enough. Try to prevent that (e.g. have a clawback if you fire them), and they won't take the deal because they don't trust you not to screw them.