OT - Required Listing of Salary Ranges on Job Postings

[Lord McBuckethead]

This is a dang interesting topic that I have came across the last couple of days. In NY, employers that have a job posting are required to list a salary range for the specific job they are hiring for. This seems to be an obvious requirement that should be done on all jobs, but since this is a new requirement some interesting issues have developed along side the requirement. Jobs are being listed as higher salaries than they are currently paying similar workers and the workers are seeing it.

Now generally, I am 100% in the camp, you get what you negotiate. But as a younger professional, knowing whether you are getting a fair wage versus your coworkers would have placed some aspects of being new to a job in perspective. I have always been open about my salary level to anyone that asked, before becoming a business owner. As a grunt.... I would openly talk about salary level, bonuses, etc unless my employer directly discussed that I was getting more of a bonus than other people and to keep morale high, don't advertise it. Now, even with that, grunts know the production value of other grunts in the office. If someone is on par with you, you would expect that they would be compensated similarly to you and in that case I would openly discuss it with those people.

Now, most people are not this realistic. Most grunts always see themselves as the TOP Grunt and believe they should make more than everyone else. Those people are going to have a hard time at listed salary ranges.

As a business owner, I can see the issues with posting potential job salary levels. First, salaries do not tell the entire story. Bonuses in my field may double if not triple your salary level in good years. Second, experience, production value, and market connections trump everything else in the office. We may pay someone 2X salary level for their position if they have specific experience needed or can add to the marketing aspect of our office.

All in all, I believe knowing what your co-workers make have both positives and negatives. Transparency helps to equalize the pay gap, but it can be a source of issue if the worker feels like they are being slighted. My mom has worked for the same company for 20 years. Hourly. Just now getting to 22-24 dollars per hour. People getting hired in at 19 because people refuse to do the work for any less with Amazon and other companies starting out at that rate. My mom continuously talks about how it is unfair that 20 years experience is worth only 3 dollars an hour. And I agree with her disappointment. She started at 9/hr and now makes 22/hr. Gaining only 3 per hour over the starting rate. What she doesn't realize, in her position, her experience doesn't pay off that much for the company. It is the hard truth, and her value at 22/hr is barely the minimum to keep her there.

So, transparency in job pay is going to shake some stuff up, and there will definitely be people pissed when they find out their co-workers may get more pay for the same work. I will be interested in how it unfolds.

[BoomBoom]

Workers are going to take a greater share of the pie for a generation or two, eating into profits. Gonna be a big fight over how much. ]

I've only begun to realize how much of this played into the housing boom. When you get an offer for 30, 40, even 50 grand more per year, it makes perfect sense to buy a house as part of the move, even if you're overpaying by $100k. Lots of corporate low-pay strategies got blown up in the last year. They'll fight tooth and nail to go back to the old way.

[BrunswickDawg]

I think it should be required, but should be listed as a "range" depending upon experience. It's up to the potential employee and the employer to determine where they believe they fit in that range.

I've made it personal policy to never pursue a job that I do not know where the starting salary begins. To me, posting the salary range is about transparency and expectations. As a department head in local govt., I laugh when I have a job posted at $45k and get applications with "salary expectation" of $90k. You just wasted an email and 5 minutes of my time. Delete.

[Lord McBuckethead]

I believe it is allowed under the requirement to be a range. Also, and this cannot be stated enough, the potential employee still has the right to negotiate whatever they want. That is a win/win in my book.

Also, the only salaries the employees could see are the new employees. They may still have an issue with that, but it isn't like bubba who has been there for 20 years has his posted for all to see. Again, this initial transparency will help with the right to work situation and overall not wasting time interviewing someone only for them to turn you down once you name the salary that is too low for the market.

[memsu06]

Lower wage workers have been given a 25-50% pay raise since COVID and upper level people have been lucky to get 10-20%.

Something has to give.

[Johnson85]

This is a dang interesting topic that I have came across the last couple of days. In NY, employers that have a job posting are required to list a salary range for the specific job they are hiring for. This seems to be an obvious requirement that should be done on all jobs, but since this is a new requirement some interesting issues have developed along side the requirement. Jobs are being listed as higher salaries than they are currently paying similar workers and the workers are seeing it.

Now generally, I am 100% in the camp, you get what you negotiate. But as a younger professional, knowing whether you are getting a fair wage versus your coworkers would have placed some aspects of being new to a job in perspective. I have always been open about my salary level to anyone that asked, before becoming a business owner. As a grunt.... I would openly talk about salary level, bonuses, etc unless my employer directly discussed that I was getting more of a bonus than other people and to keep morale high, don't advertise it. Now, even with that, grunts know the production value of other grunts in the office. If someone is on par with you, you would expect that they would be compensated similarly to you and in that case I would openly discuss it with those people.

Now, most people are not this realistic. Most grunts always see themselves as the TOP Grunt and believe they should make more than everyone else. Those people are going to have a hard time at listed salary ranges.

As a business owner, I can see the issues with posting potential job salary levels. First, salaries do not tell the entire story. Bonuses in my field may double if not triple your salary level in good years. Second, experience, production value, and market connections trump everything else in the office. We may pay someone 2X salary level for their position if they have specific experience needed or can add to the marketing aspect of our office.

All in all, I believe knowing what your co-workers make have both positives and negatives. Transparency helps to equalize the pay gap, but it can be a source of issue if the worker feels like they are being slighted. My mom has worked for the same company for 20 years. Hourly. Just now getting to 22-24 dollars per hour. People getting hired in at 19 because people refuse to do the work for any less with Amazon and other companies starting out at that rate. My mom continuously talks about how it is unfair that 20 years experience is worth only 3 dollars an hour. And I agree with her disappointment. She started at 9/hr and now makes 22/hr. Gaining only 3 per hour over the starting rate. What she doesn't realize, in her position, her experience doesn't pay off that much for the company. It is the hard truth, and her value at 22/hr is barely the minimum to keep her there.

So, transparency in job pay is going to shake some stuff up, and there will definitely be people pissed when they find out their co-workers may get more pay for the same work. I will be interested in how it unfolds.

So they're having to post like the top of the range, all the way down to the woman range???***

Stole that from SNL of all places to find something funnyish.

I would be all for it if they didn't make the legal system so friendly to baseless lawsuits.

Most of the problems from this will arise from companies not being direct and not providing honest feedback about where people stand. But there will be a lot of problems with baseless litigation also.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

I don’t like it. Because ranges change drastically depending on the person. Let’s say Dan Mullen left for Florida and we were looking for a head coach. We post a range of $2 million - $5 million. Nick Saban calls and says he wants the job if we can pay $6 million. Are we going to turn him down? Or we offer Moorhead, Napier, etc, and they all turn us down. Our last resort is the special teams coach from Millsaps. I’m not going to pay him $2 million.

Business is the same way. I hired a CFO. If you asked me my range it would have been extremely broad. Because some applicants were worth $40K and some were worth $120K. So the range is ALWAYS “pay depending on what you can do and what you can produce”. I despise the government way of “this job pays this salary”. If I produce twice as much I expect to get paid twice as much. It’s why I left government after 2 years.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

A lot of this comes form the union method of collective bargaining and the feeling that all welders on the shipyard do the same job and work the same hours, and therefore should get the same pay.

Just because Andy Dalton, Patrick Mahomes, Baker Mayfield, and Josh Allen all do the same job doesn’t mean they should get the same pay. And when it comes to common workers, you have superstars and nonperformers just like in sports. Not all welders in the shipyard are equal. Not even close.

[BoomBoom]

I don?t like it. Because ranges change drastically depending on the person. Let?s say Dan Mullen left for Florida and we were looking for a head coach. We post a range of $2 million - $5 million. Nick Saban calls and says he wants the job if we can pay $6 million. Are we going to turn him down? Or we offer Moorhead, Napier, etc, and they all turn us down. Our last resort is the special teams coach from Millsaps. I?m not going to pay him $2 million.

Business is the same way. I hired a CFO. If you asked me my range it would have been extremely broad. Because some applicants were worth $40K and some were worth $120K. So the range is ALWAYS ?pay depending on what you can do and what you can produce?. I despise the government way of ?this job pays this salary?. If I produce twice as much I expect to get paid twice as much. It?s why I left government after 2 years.

In your examples, the company could just pull the listing and repost it with a changed range. Except not, because as far as I'm aware it doesn't really matter, there's no "Salary Range Police" to come knocking over an outlier scenario.

For almost all jobs, companies already have ranges. They pay money to other companies for this knowledge,and use it to set pay, raises, etc.

And LMFAO at "produce twice as much and get paid twice as much". Corporate America does not believe in that AT ALL.

[BoomBoom]

A lot of this comes form the union method of collective bargaining and the feeling that all welders on the shipyard do the same job and work the same hours, and therefore should get the same pay.

Just because Andy Dalton, Patrick Mahomes, Baker Mayfield, and Josh Allen all do the same job doesn?t mean they should get the same pay. And when it comes to common workers, you have superstars and nonperformers just like in sports. Not all welders in the shipyard are equal. Not even close.

Pretty terrible analogy, as sports stars were paid crap until they UNIONIZED.

[CaptainObvious]

Pretty terrible analogy, as sports stars were paid crap until they UNIONIZED.
Well I was about to say he needs to check the NBA. That 13th guy in the bench is probably making more than 50% of NFL players.

[PMDawg]

And LMFAO at "produce twice as much and get paid twice as much". Corporate America does not believe in that AT ALL.

The problem with this is that 90% of employees think they?re the ones producing ?twice as much?. The reality is that about 75% of employees pretty much suck. If someone ever says they would work harder if they got paid what they were worth, the truth is that they?re already overpaid.

[BoomBoom]

The problem with this is that 90% of employees think they?re the ones producing ?twice as much?. The reality is that about 75% of employees pretty much suck. If someone ever says they would work harder if they got paid what they were worth, the truth is that they?re already overpaid.

Nah, the truth is that 90%+ of workers are vastly underpaid. That's where corporate profits come from.

It's always amazing (not at all amazing) how companies with competition for employees suddenly find their employees are worth so much more.

[Todd4State]

I think a range is fine but I never disclose my actual salary to my co-workers. I don't ask about their salary either.

Of course, mine is a bit higher because I work a lot of overtime on top of my regular hours but I do that by choice.

The thing is by perception we all think we work harder than everyone else for the same job. But that's not always reality and if you approach your supervisors asking for a raise because you do more based on your perception- just be prepared to prove it because if you really don't you're going to come across as entitled. People that take that approach and can't prove their worth may end up hurting themselves when going for promotions and things like that.

[Todd4State]

Nah, the truth is that 90%+ of workers are vastly underpaid. That's where corporate profits come from.

It's always amazing (not at all amazing) how companies with competition for employees suddenly find their employees are worth so much more.

In the hospital industry with COVID it was VERY eye opening in this regard because of suddenly how much they were paying travel nurses. Well over 100 dollars an hour in some cases. Basically it showed us that they could be paying us a LOT more. Really hurt relations with all employees who had been loyal to the company for years and years. A lot of health care professionals went into travel positions for that reason and no one could blame them.

I'm not a nurse but if I had the opportunity to work my ass of for a year or two and make 300K+ for a couple of year it would absolutely be worth it because I could easily take a year off.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

Pretty terrible analogy, as sports stars were paid crap until they UNIONIZED.

The union doesn’t bargain the wages in sports. The athletes dont want that. Because Mahomes and Tom Brady and Peyton Manning don’t want to be paid the same as PJ Walker and Andy Dalton. When the union negotiates wages, Patrick Mahomes the welder makes the same as Andy Dalton the welder.

[Pancho]

I know some who quit over the shot mandate and were then hired as travel nurses and still live 20 mins away and doubled their pay and do the same job at the same facility.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

Here will be my pay range when I hire: Mechanical engineer wanted. Salary range $18,000 - $320,000 annually.

[BoomBoom]

Here will be my pay range when I hire: Mechanical engineer wanted. Salary range $18,000 - $320,000 annually.

As a ME, I would take that as a huge red flag. Good luck.

[BoomBoom]

The union doesn?t bargain the wages in sports. The athletes dont want that. Because Mahomes and Tom Brady and Peyton Manning don?t want to be paid the same as PJ Walker and Andy Dalton. When the union negotiates wages, Patrick Mahomes the welder makes the same as Andy Dalton the welder.

Because the union members decided its better that way. If athletes were treated as employees the way shipyards treat their employees, you better believe they'd trade some top end pay for protection from bullshite too.

More players don't get to FA than those that do, and those that don't have their wages negotiated by the union (minimum, etc). So you're still wrong.

[Johnson85]

In the hospital industry with COVID it was VERY eye opening in this regard because of suddenly how much they were paying travel nurses. Well over 100 dollars an hour in some cases. Basically it showed us that they could be paying us a LOT more. Really hurt relations with all employees who had been loyal to the company for years and years. A lot of health care professionals went into travel positions for that reason and no one could blame them.

I'm not a nurse but if I had the opportunity to work my ass of for a year or two and make 300K+ for a couple of year it would absolutely be worth it because I could easily take a year off.

That's not correct. Most hospitals were losing money on travel nurses and/or having MEMA (or whoever in other states) pay for them.

That said, travel nurses were a thing before COVID and outside of places with huge seasonal swings because they are a touristy spot or whatever other reason, it does indicate some inefficiency. Even if the differential is not that much once you account for benefits, you're still having to pay enough to cover the more expensive costs of temporary lodging, so something doesn't make sense.

[Johnson85]

The problem with this is that 90% of employees think they?re the ones producing ?twice as much?. The reality is that about 75% of employees pretty much suck. If someone ever says they would work harder if they got paid what they were worth, the truth is that they?re already overpaid.

If everybody has to comply with this, then it would just force companies to give more direct and honest feedback. Companies are generally scared to death of employees finding out that they are paid less because they are shitty employees. A lot of that is reasonable fear of litigation, but some of it is just not wanting to have difficult conversations. I have lost count of the number of times I've had to deal with a "problem" employee and it comes to me and their performance reviews don't adequately explain what they need to do to improve. Tons of times it's just "meets expectations" when the supervisor clearly things they are slightly below expectations and the employee thinks that "meets expectations" is a really good rating. Yes, the employees usually could benefit from some more self awareness, but there's no excuse for not just telling them where they stand.

[Lord McBuckethead]

I like it because of that exact reason. Let's say you want a manager that would be responsible for managing 12 other employee's efforts. You want to spend 75k a year on this position. There are other more bad ass managers out there, and they want 120k, which is above your range you are willing to go for. Without a listed salary level, that 120k guy may apply. If you list 50-75k for the position, you are telling the workforce pool of potential employees that is the range you want to pay and you will receive applications to people understanding that is the pay range to start. It saves everyone time.

Now, that doesn't mean someone can't come in and still apply and try to negotiate higher than your listed range. That is up to them. At that point, you can clearly state, nope the range is 50-75k. No hard feelings because you told them that from the get go.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Well that is capitalism at its finest. Free to not take the shot mandate. Lose your job. Know you have the hospital over the barrel, earn twice as much (kind of) as the original position, doing the same job.

I say kind of because that isn't reality. They have to now pay their own payroll taxes and that cuts deep.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Nah, the truth is that 90%+ of workers are vastly underpaid. That's where corporate profits come from.

It's always amazing (not at all amazing) how companies with competition for employees suddenly find their employees are worth so much more.

That is not where corporate profits come from. Corporate profits come from this equation, Cost of Labor + Cost of Materials + Overhead + Desired Profit = Price // (Price - Cost) X number of units sold = total profit.

Underpaid workers keeps the overall price down, which in turn sells more units, which makes more overall total profit. Price of labor does nothing, excepts changes the Price for the widget produced.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

I like it because of that exact reason. Let's say you want a manager that would be responsible for managing 12 other employee's efforts. You want to spend 75k a year on this position. There are other more bad ass managers out there, and they want 120k, which is above your range you are willing to go for. Without a listed salary level, that 120k guy may apply. If you list 50-75k for the position, you are telling the workforce pool of potential employees that is the range you want to pay and you will receive applications to people understanding that is the pay range to start. It saves everyone time.

Now, that doesn't mean someone can't come in and still apply and try to negotiate higher than your listed range. That is up to them. At that point, you can clearly state, nope the range is 50-75k. No hard feelings because you told them that from the get go.

That is the problem though. I want the 120K guy to apply. Because even though I had 50-75 in mind, once I see the 120K guy I might choose him because he's worth it. Like MSU looking for a head coach. If I list 3-5 million, I don't want to exclude Nick Saban from applying. Because if Nick sends me a resume wanting 10 million I might pay it. But if Sly Croom sends in a resume, I might only pay $150,000

[BoomBoom]

That is not where corporate profits come from. Corporate profits come from this equation, Cost of Labor + Cost of Materials + Overhead + Desired Profit = Price // (Price - Cost) X number of units sold = total profit.

Underpaid workers keeps the overall price down, which in turn sells more units, which makes more overall total profit. Price of labor does nothing, excepts changes the Price for the widget produced.

Great, now tell how much each of those variables a company has control over.

And you're kinda arguing with yourself there, btw.

[BoomBoom]

That is the problem though. I want the 120K guy to apply. Because even though I had 50-75 in mind, once I see the 120K guy I might choose him because he's worth it. Like MSU looking for a head coach. If I list 3-5 million, I don't want to exclude Nick Saban from applying. Because if Nick sends me a resume wanting 10 million I might pay it. But if Sly Croom sends in a resume, I might only pay $150,000

Then list it at two levels, with higher pay available for the higher level. That's what companies are already doing. I don't know why you're so crotchety about it.

[Lord McBuckethead]

That would be two separate job listings. That is the problem. Right now, vague job descriptions with zero salary range. Wasting everyone's time.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Company has control over 3 of the 4. Labor Cost, Overhead, and Desired Profit/unit.
They also control the cost, to a point. The market ultimately controls the cost, but it doesn't absolutely control it.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Why do you get to go fishing with job prospects?

[PMDawg]

Nah, the truth is that 90%+ of workers are vastly underpaid. That's where corporate profits come from.

It's always amazing (not at all amazing) how companies with competition for employees suddenly find their employees are worth so much more.

LOL. No, that's not true at all. Generally speaking, about 20% of the workers do around 80% of the work. It's the 80/20 rule. So, maybe I overstated when I said 90%. Maybe it's more like 80% of workers suck. But, that 80% is usually the loudest about wanting more pay. It's pretty easy to recognize your 20% and take care of them. And of course supply and demand will always play a role. If you can get the same worker for $80k or $120k, why would you pay $120k? Oh, the worker will be happier? No, they won't. They'll be happy for about 6 months, and then they'll want more. Everyone wants the system to be broken, because they want to scrap the system and replace it with something "more fair". The system isn't really broken though.

I'm off topic. I don't really care about the job listings thing. I've never interviewed for a job where I didn't feel like I had a good grasp on what the position might pay. If I ever felt underpaid, I worked to remedy it. I don't know, it's never felt really complicated to me. Not when I was a grunt, not when I was middle management, and not now.

[BoomBoom]

That would be two separate job listings. That is the problem. Right now, vague job descriptions with zero salary range. Wasting everyone's time.

I see job listings all the time recently for multiple levels, with respective typical salary ranges.

[BoomBoom]

Company has control over 3 of the 4. Labor Cost, Overhead, and Desired Profit/unit.
They also control the cost, to a point. The market ultimately controls the cost, but it doesn't absolutely control it.

Kinda hard to control overhead. I mean, yeah they can cut benefits I guess (and have been,but that's kinda labor cost), but taxes are taxes, beauracracy is beauracracy, etc. Not like you can just not tell the state they're owed more and save 10-50% on your overhead. Probably easier to control real estate costs etc I guess. But overhead is typically a much smaller portion of costs than labor, so much harder to drive profit from it.

Desired profit isn't really a thing, at least as relevant to this discussion. It's a part of price, yeah, but it's basically the same thing as profit.

[BoomBoom]

LOL. No, that's not true at all. Generally speaking, about 20% of the workers do around 80% of the work. It's the 80/20 rule. So, maybe I overstated when I said 90%. Maybe it's more like 80% of workers suck. But, that 80% is usually the loudest about wanting more pay. It's pretty easy to recognize your 20% and take care of them. And of course supply and demand will always play a role. If you can get the same worker for $80k or $120k, why would you pay $120k? Oh, the worker will be happier? No, they won't. They'll be happy for about 6 months, and then they'll want more. Everyone wants the system to be broken, because they want to scrap the system and replace it with something "more fair". The system isn't really broken though.

I'm off topic. I don't really care about the job listings thing. I've never interviewed for a job where I didn't feel like I had a good grasp on what the position might pay. If I ever felt underpaid, I worked to remedy it. I don't know, it's never felt really complicated to me. Not when I was a grunt, not when I was middle management, and not now.

80/20 rule definitely. But that 80 is still doing that 20. 20%ers are hard to find, and harder to hold. Which means the 80%ers still have value. And they're typically underpaid for it. You're basically arguing that the Aaron Judges of the world were underpaid back in the day, but the 80%ers of MLB weren't.

You don't see so many people suddenly changing jobs like we have if the system isn't broken.

[Lord McBuckethead]

The point of the entire thread was to discuss the ramifications for job seekers and the impact it has on workers with time already under their belt.

This policy is good that people can have more tangible idea of what the company is looking for and it goes a ways to not waste someone?s time.

The negative impact is when market forces businesses to hire folks in above the pay rate of existing equal positions. Which then leads people to job hop.

[Todd4State]

That's not correct. Most hospitals were losing money on travel nurses and/or having MEMA (or whoever in other states) pay for them.

That said, travel nurses were a thing before COVID and outside of places with huge seasonal swings because they are a touristy spot or whatever other reason, it does indicate some inefficiency. Even if the differential is not that much once you account for benefits, you're still having to pay enough to cover the more expensive costs of temporary lodging, so something doesn't make sense.

That may be true but as an employee if you're paying someone 300K and you're paying me 100K then that gives me the perception that I'm worth 300K and that you're willing to and have the ability to pay it.

[Johnson85]

That may be true but as an employee if you're paying someone 300K and you're paying me 100K then that gives me the perception that I'm worth 300K and that you're willing to and have the ability to pay it.

No doubt it's a huge morale issue. And some of it is based in reality. Again, if you're not seasonal and you are regularly using travel nurses, that means you are basically using travel nurses for price discrimination to fill out that last 5% or whatever of your nursing staff that you can't fill with your regular wages. The "market clearing price" or whatever you want to call it would be 15% higher, but you can use the fact that most nurses don't want to work on short term contracts and have to live in temporary housing and relocate every so many months to keep everybody from trying to do it.

But some of it is not based in reality. Pre-Covid when the differentials weren't as crazy, a big chunk of the differential would be explained by the fact that the hospital wasn't paying the employer side of FICA, unemployment, etc. and also didn't have to provide benefits. What was left was still a nice differential, but when you look at paying exhorbitant short term rent prices or living in a travel trailer and either way, not living in a place that is as nice as a home and away from family, the differential wasn't such a sweet deal.

[BoomBoom]

The point of the entire thread was to discuss the ramifications for job seekers and the impact it has on workers with time already under their belt.

This policy is good that people can have more tangible idea of what the company is looking for and it goes a ways to not waste someone?s time.

The negative impact is when market forces businesses to hire folks in above the pay rate of existing equal positions. Which then leads people to job hop.

Why would that be a negative?

[BoomBoom]

No doubt it's a huge morale issue. And some of it is based in reality. Again, if you're not seasonal and you are regularly using travel nurses, that means you are basically using travel nurses for price discrimination to fill out that last 5% or whatever of your nursing staff that you can't fill with your regular wages. The "market clearing price" or whatever you want to call it would be 15% higher, but you can use the fact that most nurses don't want to work on short term contracts and have to live in temporary housing and relocate every so many months to keep everybody from trying to do it.

But some of it is not based in reality. Pre-Covid when the differentials weren't as crazy, a big chunk of the differential would be explained by the fact that the hospital wasn't paying the employer side of FICA, unemployment, etc. and also didn't have to provide benefits. What was left was still a nice differential, but when you look at paying exhorbitant short term rent prices or living in a travel trailer and either way, not living in a place that is as nice as a home and away from family, the differential wasn't such a sweet deal.

I mean, you can cast chicken bones around to try to gleam a reason.....or accept that they underpay as much as they can get away with, for profit. But cons don't want to admit that, case then it's harder to justify tax breaks for the capital underpaying its workers. So we get bad faith arguments that reality isn't reality. Ivermectin.

[Johnson85]

I mean, you can cast chicken bones around to try to gleam a reason.....or accept that they underpay as much as they can get away with, for profit. But cons don't want to admit that, case then it's harder to justify tax breaks for the capital underpaying its workers. So we get bad faith arguments that reality isn't reality. Ivermectin.

Well, most of the hospitals doing that are non-profit and often government owned.

But regardless, I wasn't casting chicken bones, I was explaining exactly why it happens based on supply and demand. Can't really put graphs on here but in simple terms, let's say the market clearing price for 100 nurses in an area is $100k annually. Lots of those nurses in fact are willing to work for $85k or even less, but there are 10 spots they won't be able to fill for less than $100k. It's not that those hypotehtical ten nurses are worth more or better skilled; they're just not willing to work for $85k, either because they can stay at home or live somewhere else. Trying to pay 10 nurses $100k and the other 90 nurses $85k is hard to manage, particularly when it's not skills or experience based.
Hell, it's even legally risky if the nurses that hold out for $100k are white affluent housewives. So the hospital will end up paying closer to $100k for all nurses if they try that, which will cost them roughly an extra $1.3M annually. Or, they can hire travel nurses, put enough restrictions on them that it's not viable for existing nurses to just quit and sign up with a travel nurse group (e.g., month to month contracts, no extensions past 6 months, prohibition against hiring anybody that has worked with the system in the past 12 or 24 months and a preference against anybody living within an hour, etc), and they pay ten travel nurses the equivalent of $125k per year (after equalizing for employer side of FICA, benefits, etc.). It may cost the hospital $400k "extra" compared to hiring ten more nurses at $85k, but it saves them $950k compared to the scenario where all of their nurses end up making $15k more to fill out there nursing staff. They essentially create a second nursing position that is less desirable on every metric except money, and use that to tap into those nurses that won't work for $85k but are willing to put up with a lot for what is the equivalent of $125k.

It's just a specialized form of price discrimination. Being willing to put up with the uncertainty and inconvenience of being a travel nurse is essentially a supercharged version of coupon clipping, but in reverse since it's the seller going through the hassle instead of the buyer.

ETA: We have employees that are constantly looking for jobs that will jump for $0.25 an hour increase. We have employees that would stay for $2 an hour less than what they make now. Those two sets of employees aren't generally better or worse employees than the other (ignoring that longer tenure is better). We're not overpaying the ones that would stay for $2 an hour less or underpaying the ones that want $0.25 more an hour. There's a range of reasonableness for jobs. Some people are willing to do more (e.g., move cities/states, job hop, ask for raises, change industries, etc) to push their wage to the higher end of the spectrum (which often works out and sometimes fails spectacularly) and others are less willing to do those things (which risks letting their wages lag significantly). Maybe people should be more comfortable with uncertainty or structure their lives so they can take more risk, but it's hard to blame people for the choices they make on those issues or tell them they're underpaid and should go elsewhere like there are no risks/challenges associated with that.

[BoomBoom]

Well, most of the hospitals doing that are non-profit and often government owned.

But regardless, I wasn't casting chicken bones, I was explaining exactly why it happens based on supply and demand. Can't really put graphs on here but in simple terms, let's say the market clearing price for 100 nurses in an area is $100k annually. Lots of those nurses in fact are willing to work for $85k or even less, but there are 10 spots they won't be able to fill for less than $100k. It's not that those hypotehtical ten nurses are worth more or better skilled; they're just not willing to work for $85k, either because they can stay at home or live somewhere else. Trying to pay 10 nurses $100k and the other 90 nurses $85k is hard to manage, particularly when it's not skills or experience based.
Hell, it's even legally risky if the nurses that hold out for $100k are white affluent housewives. So the hospital will end up paying closer to $100k for all nurses if they try that, which will cost them roughly an extra $1.3M annually. Or, they can hire travel nurses, put enough restrictions on them that it's not viable for existing nurses to just quit and sign up with a travel nurse group (e.g., month to month contracts, no extensions past 6 months, prohibition against hiring anybody that has worked with the system in the past 12 or 24 months and a preference against anybody living within an hour, etc), and they pay ten travel nurses the equivalent of $125k per year (after equalizing for employer side of FICA, benefits, etc.). It may cost the hospital $400k "extra" compared to hiring ten more nurses at $85k, but it saves them $950k compared to the scenario where all of their nurses end up making $15k more to fill out there nursing staff. They essentially create a second nursing position that is less desirable on every metric except money, and use that to tap into those nurses that won't work for $85k but are willing to put up with a lot for what is the equivalent of $125k.

It's just a specialized form of price discrimination. Being willing to put up with the uncertainty and inconvenience of being a travel nurse is essentially a supercharged version of coupon clipping, but in reverse since it's the seller going through the hassle instead of the buyer.

ETA: We have employees that are constantly looking for jobs that will jump for $0.25 an hour increase. We have employees that would stay for $2 an hour less than what they make now. Those two sets of employees aren't generally better or worse employees than the other (ignoring that longer tenure is better). We're not overpaying the ones that would stay for $2 an hour less or underpaying the ones that want $0.25 more an hour. There's a range of reasonableness for jobs. Some people are willing to do more (e.g., move cities/states, job hop, ask for raises, change industries, etc) to push their wage to the higher end of the spectrum (which often works out and sometimes fails spectacularly) and others are less willing to do those things (which risks letting their wages lag significantly). Maybe people should be more comfortable with uncertainty or structure their lives so they can take more risk, but it's hard to blame people for the choices they make on those issues or tell them they're underpaid and should go elsewhere like there are no risks/challenges associated with that.

You're not helping your case. The common thought, expressed often in this thread, is that the higher performers can make what they are worth, and the poor performers are making what they are worth and are not underpaid. What you are making clear is that a hospital (and all employers) doesn't pay based on performance, but whether on availability. If they can't find another worker that meets the minimum requirements that will work for low pay, then and only then will they consider paying market worth for the position. That hospitals could easily fill their open positions by paying more, but they raise profits by using these schemes to pay less.

In a sense, good for them. That's capitalism. What grinds my gears though is when peeps like you can't look at that chart of pay vs productivity over the last few decades and accept and admit that it's due to the creation and proliferation of schemes like this. That we didn't outcompete anyone (other than in ruthlessness), it wasn't tax changes, that all our corporate profit and associated gains came from innovations in screwing workers.

[Johnson85]

You're not helping your case. The common thought, expressed often in this thread, is that the higher performers can make what they are worth, and the poor performers are making what they are worth and are not underpaid. What you are making clear is that a hospital (and all employers) doesn't pay based on performance, but whether on availability. That's somebody else's case. My case would be that markets are messy and they are good not because they are always right, but because the worst results tend to get competed away and on average, they get it closer to right, more often, than any other system we have available. In some fields, like sales, high performers get paid more. In other fields, like nursing or teaching, where there is relatively muted feedback from the consumer, there is less penalty for trading quality for lower cost, which means quality in some sense gets "penalized" in how it is paid compered to the value created.


If they can't find another worker that meets the minimum requirements that will work for low pay, then and only then will they consider paying market worth for the position. That hospitals could easily fill their open positions by paying more, but they raise profits by using these schemes to pay less. If they can find somebody that meets the minimum requirements and will work for low pay, that is the market worth for the position. If they find it's a better value to pay more for a higher value employee, that's the market worth for that position. There is no set amount at which someone is paid correctly or intrinsic value as to what their labor is worth or whatever. In areas where there are big distortions by government intervention, then it makes more sense to say they aren't being paid their market rate, b/c it's implicitly saying they aren't geting what they would be paid if the government stopped distorting the market. But there are so many markets grossly distorted by the government it's hard to even say waht the market rate is, other than it's the amount needed to keep employers from decamping for other fields. Teachers would fall in this category. I assume nurses would too.


In a sense, good for them. That's capitalism. What grinds my gears though is when peeps like you can't look at that chart of pay vs productivity over the last few decades and accept and admit that it's due to the creation and proliferation of schemes like this. That we didn't outcompete anyone (other than in ruthlessness), it wasn't tax changes, that all our corporate profit and associated gains came from innovations in screwing workers. Almost every chart of pay v. productivity I see is comparing hourly workers or at best non-supervisory workers to productivity. Those are garbage charts designed to reach a pre-determined opinion.

Labor compensation as a share of GDP fluctuates over time but does appear to generally be on a downward trend since 1970, although it had a pretty high peak around 2000. That doesn't seem obviously crazy to me or a sign of something nefarious going on in a time frame where we have automated more and more stuff, although opening up trade probably also hurt as well as liberal illegal immigration.

[BoomBoom]

That's somebody else's case. My case would be that markets are messy and they are good not because they are always right, but because the worst results tend to get competed away and on average, they get it closer to right, more often, than any other system we have available. In some fields, like sales, high performers get paid more. In other fields, like nursing or teaching, where there is relatively muted feedback from the consumer, there is less penalty for trading quality for lower cost, which means quality in some sense gets "penalized" in how it is paid compered to the value created.

If they can find somebody that meets the minimum requirements and will work for low pay, that is the market worth for the position. If they find it's a better value to pay more for a higher value employee, that's the market worth for that position. There is no set amount at which someone is paid correctly or intrinsic value as to what their labor is worth or whatever. In areas where there are big distortions by government intervention, then it makes more sense to say they aren't being paid their market rate, b/c it's implicitly saying they aren't geting what they would be paid if the government stopped distorting the market. But there are so many markets grossly distorted by the government it's hard to even say waht the market rate is, other than it's the amount needed to keep employers from decamping for other fields. Teachers would fall in this category. I assume nurses would too.

Almost every chart of pay v. productivity I see is comparing hourly workers or at best non-supervisory workers to productivity. Those are garbage charts designed to reach a pre-determined opinion.

Labor compensation as a share of GDP fluctuates over time but does appear to generally be on a downward trend since 1970, although it had a pretty high peak around 2000. That doesn't seem obviously crazy to me or a sign of something nefarious going on in a time frame where we have automated more and more stuff, although opening up trade probably also hurt as well as liberal illegal immigration.

On the first paragraph, good enough.

On the 2nd, I should have clarified high performing/trained workers vs schlubs that meet the minimum requirements that have no experience/training with that employer.

I should also add, they are taking advantage of relocation costs (especially social ones) to pay less for specific workers than competitors are willing to pay. Thus, paying less than market worth.

We also see that companies are willing to pay more to new employees than existing ones, daring the existing ones to leave. Because they know a certain percent of them won't, due to those relocation and social costs. That's a particular problem when policy has driven housing costs through the roof. In effect, we are suppressing pay in general while rewarding workers who don't set down roots. And then we look around and wonder why we have community problems.

I find it funny that you think only the govt can cause market distortions. That's classic hippie con thinking there. Ivermectin all the way down.

"Garbage charts"? Hoo boy. I mean, sure you can quibble with it. But the results are so stark that the conclusion is obvious, and only a hippie con would have the takeaway of "garbage charts" other than, hey, workers are making much less for the same value of work. Pay is suppressed. Reality is calling, deal with it.

[Johnson85]

On the first paragraph, good enough.

On the 2nd, I should have clarified high performing/trained workers vs schlubs that meet the minimum requirements that have no experience/training with that employer. well, again, they may make bad tradeoffs here, and there may be bias in the sense that companies are relatively consistently erring on the wrong side of the higher skill, higher pay v. lower skill, lower pay tradeoff, but there is a limit to how much they can err provided they don't have some government protections against competitors.


I should also add, they are taking advantage of relocation costs (especially social ones) to pay less for specific workers than competitors are willing to pay. Thus, paying less than market worth.

We also see that companies are willing to pay more to new employees than existing ones, daring the existing ones to leave. Because they know a certain percent of them won't, due to those relocation and social costs. That's a particular problem when policy has driven housing costs through the roof. In effect, we are suppressing pay in general while rewarding workers who don't set down roots. And then we look around and wonder why we have community problems. This is true, except I'm not sure how much housing costs play into people not wanting to change jobs. I think it's primarily justu the hassle of moving and not wanting to relocate, although NIMBYISM causing insane house prices certainly stops people from living in places they'd otherwise like to. This is the primary thing that I think publishing wage ranges would help. Not only making companies hesitate to pay more for people coming from outside the company, but also giving people better information about what market wages are. There is so much disparity between companies, I think publishing wages would stop inefficient companies from being able to use worker ignorance to keep their costs down.


I find it funny that you think only the govt can cause market distortions. That's classic hippie con thinking there. Ivermectin all the way down. Outside of collusion, I'm not sure what really would be thinking about here. I suspect you think of private actors being wrong as distortions.


"Garbage charts"? Hoo boy. I mean, sure you can quibble with it. But the results are so stark that the conclusion is obvious, and only a hippie con would have the takeaway of "garbage charts" other than, hey, workers are making much less for the same value of work. Pay is suppressed. Reality is calling, deal with it. The charts I am talking about you literally cannot support the claim people are usually making, which is that worker pay isn't keeping up with productivity. They look at non-supervisory workers and include productivity of all workers. You have to include all workers to see if pay isn't keeping up with productivity or if increases from productivity are being captured by mid and upper level employees. I don't know what the answer is, but it doesn't seem shocking to me that as equipment and technology has become more important, the people better equipped to take advantage of that capture a disproportionate share of the gains. If you have a chart that includes all employees v. productivity, I'd be interested in seeing it. I'm not entirely sure how the charts of productivity v. wages is different from the charts showing labor compensation as a share of GDP. I'd have to think about that and look into what they are claiming as productivity (is it just production divided by man hours?).

[somebodyshotmypaw]

I have a question for BoomBoom. Apparently Ole Miss is prepared to offer Kiffen big money in the range of 8-10 million annually. Let's assume Kiffen turns it down and heads on to Auburn. Are you saying that Ole Miss should now advertise the position as a salary range of 8-10 million (they will have proven that they can pay it, and are willing to pay it, since they offered it to Kiffen)? And if they can't find a good candidate and are stuck hiring the offensive line coach from St. Andrews High School in Ridgeland, MS, they are obligated to pay him that type of money, even though that guy has not proven he is anywhere close to the coach that Kiffen is? Because that's what you have been saying in this thread.

My stance is: I might pay Kiffen $8 million, but I ain't paying the O-line coach from St. Andrews High School $8 million. And if Saban wants to come, I might pay $12 million.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

I have a question for BoomBoom. Apparently Ole Miss is prepared to offer Kiffen big money in the range of 8-10 million annually. Let's assume Kiffen turns it down and heads on to Auburn. Are you saying that Ole Miss should now advertise the position as a salary range of 8-10 million (they will have proven that they can pay it, and are willing to pay it, since they offered it to Kiffen)? And if they can't find a good candidate and are stuck hiring the offensive line coach from St. Andrews High School in Ridgeland, MS, they are obligated to pay him that type of money, even though that guy has not proven he is anywhere close to the coach that Kiffen is? Because that's what you have been saying in this thread.

My stance is: I might pay Kiffen $8 million, but I ain't paying the O-line coach from St. Andrews High School $8 million. And if Saban wants to come, I might pay $12 million.

Well in that ridiculous hypothetical, they'd post multiple job positions. "Entry level SEC head coach" on up with different salary ranges. If they hire a OL coach from UGA (example being Sam Pittman) they would be entry level and command 3-4.5m a year. If they enticed say, Sonny Dikes from TCU, that would be in a higher range as he's already a P5 HC.

But this isn't needed for sports, because all potential Ole Miss coaches are in 2 categories: 1) little fish, and 2) big fish. The little fish (unknown P5OC, mediocre G5 HC) are desperate for the opportunity. The big fish are already in good jobs and Ole Miss reaches out to them... these coaches tell theri agents "hang up if they aren't willing to offer $12M to me, $8M for assistant, and $4M a year for NIL". they are not "wasting time" applying to jobs who's salary is lower than they'd consider, like 99% of employees do every time they go job searching

[The Federalist Engineer]

Required in Colorado- makes things better and let's people avoid bullshit jobs.