3 ms·
But it's more efficient to hire 1 worker for 8 hours than 2 workers for 4 hours. The latter has more overhead in terms of training, etc. Why would an employer c
by eurleif 14y ago
But it's more efficient to hire 1 worker for 8 hours than 2 workers for 4 hours. The latter has more overhead in terms of training, etc. Why would an employer choose to do that?
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoBy the same token, it's more efficient to hire one worker for 16 hours than two workers for 8 hours. Why do employers do that? (Also, the fixed-costs of hiring workers can be somewhat decreased through various means. For example, if you're in the United States, the American employer-sponsored insurance system is so appallingly inefficient that it's obvious low-hanging fruit for reduction of fixed costs. Get rid of it and go universal!)
- eurleif 14y ago>By the same token, it's more efficient to hire one worker for 16 hours than two workers for 8 hours. Not necessarily. Being tired reduces efficiency.