I doubt you’d get too many employees to work for you if by doing so they would starve.
It’s not as little as possible for them to get the desired result. 50,000 gets turn that result.
How is greed a benefit?Of course I gave you a benefit to overpaying them!!! It's called GREED.
Sheesh!
THINK! (Or do you honestly believe there are no people who will enrich themselves at the expense of others if given a chance?)
No, it doesn't. It might get them that result. There's is no point at which you can guarantee that you will retain an employee long enough, or that they will innovate enough, or that they will be productive enough to make the higher pay worthwhile. It's possible to achieve equal or better results for less money - just less likely. At any given salary, an individual might be overpaid or underpaid depending on what they contribute.It’s not as little as possible for them to get the desired result. 50,000 gets turn that result.
I agreed with the above.But the employee asking for $50,000 is more likely to stay longer, will probably be happier, and may have some additional skills that aren't necessary to the job, but still provide value.
And, of course, Rocks explained that it was the idea of retention which you apparently took to be a guarantee of retention. No one (except a fool or a toddler) would assume that giving an employee $10K would "guarantee" a given retention term under the circumstances Rocks explained. That's just basic grown-up real world stuff!
So, indeed, you are still in the wrong unless you can show using an NPV analysis that the $10K wouldn't have more value given a certain span of retention.
But to them, it’s worth the gamble. So it’s still not overpaying them.No, it doesn't. It might get them that result. There's is no point at which you can guarantee that you will retain an employee long enough, or that they will innovate enough, or that they will be productive enough to make the higher pay worthwhile. It's possible to achieve equal or better results for less money - just less likely. At any given salary, an individual might be overpaid or underpaid depending on what they contribute.
Typo. “gets them that result”.
Then stop saying that they are.
Do you understand that I wasn’t advocating paying an extra $10,000 to make sure an employee stayed?Ahh, thanks.
What result are you talking about?
You do realize that even as Rocks explained it, there is NO GUARANTEE that the extra $10K will get improved retention. It is a POSSIBILITY, not a guarantee.
As such you cannot know if the $50K is by definition the most efficient use of the money. If you were to do a time-value of money estimate based on average length of employment and somehow show that taking that extra $10K and investing it in a mutual fund would net me LESS than if I got a specific level of retention then you might have a position. Otherwise you are simply assuming a fact not in evidence.
Where did I say the corporation benefits?
What is the benefit to a company to overpay someone?
Have you never heard of CEO's?
Do you understand that I wasn’t advocating paying an extra $10,000 to make sure an employee stayed?
I don’t think you know what my point is.So then do you think that $50,000 < $40,000???
Your point doesn't make sense otherwise.
Nobody knows what your point is. Why don't you enlighten us?I don’t think you know what my point is.
I don’t think you know what my point is.
I’ve already explained it. Over and over. And over.Nobody knows what your point is. Why don't you enlighten us?
Not my point.Then explain it again. Because it seemed to me that you were saying that if the company paid the $50K it would be the minimum wage they could pay even when it was made clear that they could pay $40K instead.
40<50.
And there is literally NO REAL KNOWN VALUE for paying the extra $10k. There is a possibility of value, but no real value. As such the minimum pay is still $40K.
Well, apparently you didn't explain it well enough, because I seriously have no idea.I’ve already explained it. Over and over. And over.
I’m not going back and stringing it all together. I just don’t care that much.Can you at least point to one of the many posts where you "explained" it? (I mean because I've never seen you type anything more than maybe 3 sentences in any given post. Well, maybe once somewhere. But for the most part your posts are 1 or 2 sentences so it's hard to imagine you "explaining" anything.
Frankly I just assumed you either don't have any actual ideas of your own or you were just trolling to see how long it took for someone to get fed up with you always knocking people down but never actually putting anything out on the line yourself.
You seem like that kinda guy.
That’s possible.Well, apparently you didn't explain it well enough, because I seriously have no idea.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?