OT - Required Listing of Salary Ranges on Job Postings

[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.