Resolved: the need of a worker is not relevant when calculating the wage to be paid to that worker.
It’s unwise policy to plan to pay Jim more than Lee just because Jim is supporting a family and Lee is single.
And it’s likewise foolish policy to plan to pay Greg more than I otherwise would be based on some third party’s determination of Greg’s need.
Unless you’re the only game in town you must factor in the needs of the worker, otherwise the worker leaves for a better job and you’re stuck with a shortage of workers.
Depends on how badly you want the “worker”.
Note: It’s very common to consider the “needs” of highly paid executives when putting their pay packages together.
Doesn’t the US military do something like this? I never quite got why that was policy, you’d think the single guys/gals would be upset at the inequality.
You make it sound like workers have no say in their compensation. If Jim refuses to work for less than X, then the employer has a choice to make – replace Jim, or pay him X. Even if X is substantially more than equally productive employee Lee.
I won’t begrudge this hypothetical company for letting Jim go if they can’t afford to pay X. However, they’d be foolish to do so unless they can find another Lee.
However, that’s a somewhat different thing from what Bricker is saying. You’re arguing slightly at cross purposes.
What Bricker is saying is that assesisng the value of Jim’s labor should not, from the employer’s perspective, involve Jim’s personal need for money. What you’re saying is that this might result in them losing Jim as an employee.
Well, yeah. Jim’s reasons for wanting Wage X, and Employer’s reasons for paying Wage Y, are NEVER going to be the same. It’s not relevant to Employer why Jim needs his wage, what matters is that they need his labor. Naturally, this means the two may not be able to come to a mutually agreeable arrangement.
To use an extreme example, suppose an employer inCalifornia decides they need someone like me, and somehow they are put onto me by an acquaintance. They call me and offer me a wage suitable to my skills in their place of business. I would respond to them by saying “Guys, I’m flattered, but maybe you didn’t know this, I live near Toronto. Oh, and I have a little daughter I won’t leave unless I can pay her mother off enough to let me bring her. So your offer is regrettably not enough for me. I’d need three times that much, and a big signing bonus.” What makes sense for them to do?
A) Find someone else, or
B) Pay me a crazy amount of money?
The fact is that A) is the logical choice if the two sides are too far apart. My personal needs don’t do them a lick of good if they’re paying too much; conversely, fiscal reality means I might not want the job at the rate they’re willing to pay.
Sort of. It only applies to the housing allowance, and then only for people who choose not to live in government quarters.
People do complain about the inequality, but honestly, the military is full of inequality. Is it right that the E-4 handing out towels at the gym is making the exact same amount of money as the E-4 sitting in the back of a KC-135 refueling F-16s for a living?
So long as the wage is freely negotiated, all parties’ needs are relevant and up for consideration.
Not in this economy. Last time I did any hiring was 2010, I think, when I was still working for a non-profit. We needed a secretary, and could pay barely above minimum wage. We ran an ad exactly once, in a small rural newspaper. Less than a week later, I had over 100 applicants. This is very much a buyers market for labor.
That’s not correct. The E-4 in the tanker is getting flight pay that the gym attendant does not. It ain’t much…think it was something like $100/month when I was getting it. The aircrew guy is probably also getting extra money for food, known as “separate rats”, since aircrew schedules sometimes interfere with chow hall schedules.
Usually, doesn’t the “resolved” come with some sort of argument in support of the resolution?
It seems obvious to me that in an ideal world, the needs of the worker would be taken into consideration. That way, everyone gets what they need, and that’s ideal. Sure, there are some logistical problems there, but I think that’s your job, to point out why the ideal situation is untenable.
Of course a buyer’s market can put the ball in the owner’s court in the short run. Unfortunately, markets change, and unless worker attitude and loyalty means nothing when it comes to the job you still want your workers to feel good about the company they work for lest they jump ship for greener pastures when such opportunities present themselves.
If the needs of the worker affect the work, the needs are important. This can have to do with productivity of that worker, general productivity of the workforce, local economic factors, and many other reasons. I’d go deeper into the complexities of determining the impact of needs on worker pay, except that it’s easier to point out that most pay rates are not really based on worker productivity anyway. If you want to pay based on productivity, use a flat rate piece meal system. Otherwise, enter the maze of competing factors that the majority of employees and employers have to deal with.
I won’t grant you the BAS, since that then precludes the aicrew member from getting free meals. Also, the services guy might be living off base and also be collecting BAS.
I’ll grant you the flight pay, which is currently $165 a month. Or an extra dollar an hour. Equality! If it makes you happier, we can compare the gym rat to a med tech.
It depends on the job and the city. I’ve had at least one instance in 2011 where I was offered a 60% increase in pay to move to a job in the same town. I’ve had many other situations where I tuned down the offer before it got that far, but I was going to ask for more than that in those instances. Fortunately for my employer, I’ve remembered how they have considered my needs in the past, and profess to consider them in the future. Combined with a good work environment and a relatively flexible, exciting job; that means they can still get me well below market value.
Depends on the industry. You’re right when talking about skilled workers that can be expensive to train and harder to replace. With unskilled workers, that’s not the case. For any current worker that leaves, there are a dozen more standing in line to get his spot.
Loking for, processing and retraining workers isn’t cheap(unless the job consists of drooling onto an assembly line), so you’ve got to factor in that cost versus the cost of keeping your workers happy, bearing in mind the fact that if they don’t have benefits for incentive will be further demoralized(and thus, less loyal) if they see co-wokers replaced on a regular basis. I can’t think of too many businesses where worker morale isn’t a factor in productivity.
Aircrew don’t get free meals, but they still get to eat on base if they choose, and the prices are well below the civilian market. I usually got lunch from the flight kitchen, which came is two sizes…a “snack” and a “meal”. I think they were $1 and $2 respectively. The “meal” was a lot of food…even for a relatively active young man.
I could also go to one of the regular chow halls and eat for some nominal charge.
Without modifications, though, doesn’t this justify sweatshops and slave labor? I know everyone is filtering this through the lens of the US’s job market, but taken as a philosophy, the is basically saying that it’s fine for, say, and American business to set up shop in the Congo and pay the locals slave wages because A. There isn’t another choice for the workers and B. they’re not responsible for their workers needs/happiness/etc.
Yes, it’s fine for any company to offer any wage, so long as the workers are free to accept it or decline it (that is, not slavery).
ETA: In accordance with all prevailing laws, of course, such as a minimum wage.