Live data from Hacker News

Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

latimes.com

431–440 of 451 posts

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#431
post #280

I've been thinking about this. Let's say a company has 1000 employees at $50,000 per year. They were able to find enough workers at that rate. Now let's say they need 100 extra workers. They'd expect their labour costs to go up 10%. But, it turns out there isn't a supply of 100 workers at $50,000. To pull in extra workers, they'd need to offer $60,000. So far, so good. Extra labour costs are only $6,000,000, and only…

Yes, but I can't find the name for it right now. It is also the reason companies have people work overtime even though it costs +50% more because it is still cheaper than hiring more workers.

Most introductory economics textbooks go over it.

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#432

I worked for a Canadian company that's absolutely hemmoraging talent because they refuse to pay well. I'm now paid about 50% more to work remotely for a US company in an environment that is far far more fitting of my life goals of being with my kids as they grow up. It's beyond bizarre to watch them continue to refuse to pay anyone properly despite their imminent collapse.

[deleted]

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#433

I worked for a Canadian company that's absolutely hemmoraging talent because they refuse to pay well. I'm now paid about 50% more to work remotely for a US company in an environment that is far far more fitting of my life goals of being with my kids as they grow up. It's beyond bizarre to watch them continue to refuse to pay anyone properly despite their imminent collapse.

I was in a similar boat. I worked for Canadian companies 2003 up until 2011. From there I have worked exclusively for US based companies, while I work out of my home office in Canada (Quebec). At my last job, we were acquired by a big company that had a Canadian (Ontario) presence and at that moment the gravy train stopped. Working remotely from another province meant I had to pay 2 provincial taxes throughout the year (I got some back at tax time) and forced benefits costs and I was forced to receive a Canadian standard salary, just as the US -> CAD exchange rate started increasing from $1.09 to $1.4x. I was netting exactly 50%... I got out of there pretty quick to go back to having US-Only based clients and will never go back.

It's not perfect, and there are always trade-off no matter what your choice:

US Remote pros

--------------

- (US in general) Salary is higher and competitive

- When exchange rate is good, it's so good

- you can enjoy all the benefits of living in this great country of Canada while not worrying about salary

- you generally have to work as a contractor, which generally means you have more autonomy and say in how/when you work.

US Remote cons

--------------

- You generally have to negotiate to have your Canadian holidays, and you work during American ones. Employers don't always go for this one.

- Canadian benefits/rights employment laws do not apply to you, and your job can be terminated without cause really. You are not protected by Canadian labor laws. I have been openly discriminated against (according to Canadian labor laws) and had to take it. In my US employer's defense, there was no such comparable US standard that their company was held to. I looked into it, my choice was to accept it and move on or leave.

- In 7 years working for US based companies with American colleagues, each with their own employment stories, I have come to realize that American companies work their employees to the bone, compared to Canadian companies. I have had to work 60-80 hour weeks before (for one company) and had to fight to be compensated even for time in lieu (1 hour for 1 hour), which really annoyed the owner. You may have to work weekends, you may be called in during holidays, I've had surprise deadlines for surprise features for an upcoming trade show in a week. Not negotiable. All this can be acceptable if you REALLY love your job, and/or you are compensated for it, but if not, you will hate your life when this happens.

- you have to take care of your own taxes, since you are a contractor. But tbh, the difference in salary is so vast that I hire an accounting firm to take care of it all, and I still come out way ahead (more so if you consider all the professional advice that has saved me money)

CAN Pros

---------------

- You are entitled to benefits (this can also be a con, since the average person would spend less in a given year if they only had to pay for procedures/appointments etc... as they come up)

- you are protected by labor laws

- you have automatic deposits

- you have automatic tax deductions

- you have your Canadian holidays EVEN when it falls on a weekend and you have to take it on the Monday

CAN Cons

---------------

- Salary is just silly small. Especially in the Maritime provinces and Quebec. Quebec is a surprising one, but many attribute this to the vast majority of employees being monolingual, speaking only French, thus not being qualified to work in other provinces without learning English first. Employers then theoretically have candidates at a disadvantage and exploit them by paying them WELL below industry standards. Don't like it? Move.

- Remote-exclusive work is very rare and many companies frown on the idea. Canada is so crazy behind the times in this area.

Those are really the only 2 cons for working in Canada that I have seen. Unfortunately the salary one is so bad that it makes working in Canada just not worth it at all imo. Choices

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#434
post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't that simple. A company that does "good things" for their employees can in turn reap results from those "good things". Better employees, or employees that stay long enough to have experience both have a value that returns back to shareholders. Of course how much so spend on those "good things" is an optimization problem.

> Better employees, or employees that stay long enough to have experience both have a value that returns back to shareholders. You're making the argument that companies should be nicer to their employees, because that is in the best interests of their shareholders. The linked article is implying that companies should be nicer to their employees, despite the best interests of their shareholders. These are 2 completely…

Actually WalMart is very concerned about employee happiness. The things they do about it are very different from other industries, but they results are employees that are generally happy. Of course outsiders look at it and wonder how their employees can be happy.

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure and I basically agree with that. But saying that the actual Average person is spending nearly 100% of any income gains is a pretty bold claim.

That's not a claim that I make, nor one that I think is relevant. What would I do with more income? Well, I'd probably save some of it, use some of it to pay down debt, and spend some of it. I don't have to be spending 100% of my current income for that to be true.

You must be lost. OP made precisely that claim...

>The average person spends almost exactly as much as they make as income rises.

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#436
post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/common-misconceptions-abo... "The CPI used to include the value of a house in calculating inflation and now they use an estimate of what each house would rent for -- doesn't this switch simply lower the official inflation rate?" "No. Until 1983, the CPI measure of homeowner cost was based largely on house prices. The long-recognized flaw of that approach was that owner-occupied hous…

Housing purchase prices are largely an investment , not a cost. Including purchase prices in the CPI would be just as silly as including 401(k) contributions. If all goes well you're going to get that money back plus gains.

> Including purchase prices in the CPI would be just as silly as including 401(k) contributions.

If 401k contributions were deemed by 60% of Americans to be a ~necessary part of their life.

And whether or not you're going to get it back....you may, yes, but then again, you may not, in a very big way. For example, perhaps there's a gigantic bubble going on.

It's a bit of a philosophical question really - is the government's role to inform people of reality, or to shape their perception of reality.

At least a partial role of the CPI is to measure inflation, and reflect the real world costs to real world citizens. If not, then why fund this department?

Would you be philosophically opposed to publishing two CPI numbers: one as is (that uses estimates), and one that uses actuals that are consistent with the actual economic environment citizens experience according to the way they have chosen to arrange their lives?

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#437
post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a very poor financial decision to turn down 300k from Google to make 150k + fairy dust money from a Startup. Even if the 300k is lower than what Google ought to be paying.

Financially, I’d agree. But what about your lifetime?

Lifetime? Not sure what you mean. Given that the vast majority of Startups fail and any equity you were granted would be worthless and even those that do payout are usually just getting you to parity to people who were at a FAANG over the same time frame I fail to see how a Startup would benefit. Even Resume wise, recruiters won't care that you worked at a startup that had a $100M exit but they definitely will if you worked at Google for 5 years.

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#438
post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Better employees, or employees that stay long enough to have experience both have a value that returns back to shareholders. You're making the argument that companies should be nicer to their employees, because that is in the best interests of their shareholders. The linked article is implying that companies should be nicer to their employees, despite the best interests of their shareholders. These are 2 completely…

Actually WalMart is very concerned about employee happiness. The things they do about it are very different from other industries, but they results are employees that are generally happy. Of course outsiders look at it and wonder how their employees can be happy.

From what I've read, Costco is extremely generous with how much they pay their (retail) employees, whereas Walmart doesn't even try to compete with Costco wrt (retail) employee happiness and satisfaction.

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#439
post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually WalMart is very concerned about employee happiness. The things they do about it are very different from other industries, but they results are employees that are generally happy. Of course outsiders look at it and wonder how their employees can be happy.

From what I've read, Costco is extremely generous with how much they pay their (retail) employees, whereas Walmart doesn't even try to compete with Costco wrt (retail) employee happiness and satisfaction.

Whoa, you are trying to compare WalMart to Costco. They are different companies with different concerns.

WalMart is concerned about employee happiness and satisfaction. The actions they take are not the actions that other companies take. Their employees are happy enough with the results for WalMart to be satisfied with them. That others do different things (which may or may not achieve different results) is not important to WalMart. What is important is their return on investment, they have determined that more investment wouldn't be worth it.

Of course as outsiders we can look on WalMart and make value judgements. I wouldn't want to work there. I wouldn't want to work for Costcot either. YMMV.

Re: Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more

#440
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was pretty tough on immigration side of things?

Depends of the country. If you are french, it's quite easy to work there. If you are Estonian, probably less. There are not part of europe, so they do whatever they want.

Estonia is part of the EU since 2004.
Post reply on HN