Posted by MikeT23 on 10/27/2014 9:23:00 PM (view original):
So, if you offer $17 the people who were going to apply at $10 won't?   

You get a larger group of applicants, I'm not so sure it's all that different.

You get people to apply at 17 that would at 10. Larger group of applicants allows you to be more selective.

Why not just offer $35?  Imagine the size of the pool you'd be able to choose your $11 worker from.

Why stop there?   Offer $50 or $75.   Then negotiate down to $11.

Here's the thing that no one has every fully addressed:

If the bottom 20% get 33% raises, doesn't it stand to reason that the cost of living for everyone will go up?  The guy picking berries or flipping burgers will go from $8 to $10.50.   Do we expect Bob's Berries and Burgers to eat that cost?   Maids cleaning hotel rooms will make another $25 per day.   Wouldn't Holiday Inn go from $139 to $145 to cover the new expense?

I've said that very thing many many times.

It is the #1 reason why national minimum wage laws are absurd.

The minimum wage worker ends up no better off because now everything they purchase costs more, but what DOES happen is that the lower-middle and middle class people are basically kicked DOWN the ladder towards poverty, because while all of their goods now cost more, they didn't get any increase in pay...

I assume BL's counter would be that less people would be on gov't assistance(which I doubt because these new $10 an hour workers CoL just went up too) and that the LMC and MC would see lower taxes.    And I'm sure that won't be true.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/28/2014 6:41:00 AM (view original):
Why not just offer $35?  Imagine the size of the pool you'd be able to choose your $11 worker from.

The point isn't to just pay more. The point is to attract workers who do a better job. You stop at whatever number gets you the workers who do a good enough job.

If you have an $11 job, and you're only willing to pay $11, you're not going to advertise a higher wage such as $35 to attract more interest.  Your just going to be wasting your time and the time of the guy expecting $17 or $35 if and when you offer him $11 and he turns it down.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/28/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
If you have an $11 job, and you're only willing to pay $11, you're not going to advertise a higher wage such as $35 to attract more interest.  Your just going to be wasting your time and the time of the guy expecting $17 or $35 if and when you offer him $11 and he turns it down.

No ****. You'd pay him whatever you advertise.

I've seen "up to...." advertisements.   You know that you're going to offer $11 with "we'll review in 90 days" but the applicant doesn't.    A guy who wants to work with take the $11 and review but move on when he doesn't get $15 in 90 days.    I've done the exact same thing.   So basically the employer is playing a game and I'm not sure there's a winner.  Sure they get a better employee but it's for a short time period.    The employee does get to work, and pay some bills, but he's not happy and is constantly looking from the day he accepted the offer.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/28/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
If you have an $11 job, and you're only willing to pay $11, you're not going to advertise a higher wage such as $35 to attract more interest.  Your just going to be wasting your time and the time of the guy expecting $17 or $35 if and when you offer him $11 and he turns it down.

Agree. Also it's not like I put up the help wanted sign in the window and I have to hire the first person that walks in the door. I can take my time with the applicants I get at $11 and eventually I'll find somebody for ~$11 an hour that will adequately fulfill the role. No sense in rushing to pay someone $17/hr for an $11/hr job.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/28/2014 9:52:00 AM (view original):
I've seen "up to...." advertisements.   You know that you're going to offer $11 with "we'll review in 90 days" but the applicant doesn't.    A guy who wants to work with take the $11 and review but move on when he doesn't get $15 in 90 days.    I've done the exact same thing.   So basically the employer is playing a game and I'm not sure there's a winner.  Sure they get a better employee but it's for a short time period.    The employee does get to work, and pay some bills, but he's not happy and is constantly looking from the day he accepted the offer.

Goes back to money not being the major factor for job change. People want to work for Apple despite paying lower than Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. Why is that?

Money usually peaks the interest in the role but plays a smaller part in the actual decision. If an interview candidate appears to be looking for more money as a primary driver I'm not hiring them cause like Mike said they are looking for a new paycheck from day 1.

Posted by moy23 on 10/28/2014 10:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/28/2014 9:52:00 AM (view original):
I've seen "up to...." advertisements.   You know that you're going to offer $11 with "we'll review in 90 days" but the applicant doesn't.    A guy who wants to work with take the $11 and review but move on when he doesn't get $15 in 90 days.    I've done the exact same thing.   So basically the employer is playing a game and I'm not sure there's a winner.  Sure they get a better employee but it's for a short time period.    The employee does get to work, and pay some bills, but he's not happy and is constantly looking from the day he accepted the offer.

Goes back to money not being the major factor for job change. People want to work for Apple despite paying lower than Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. Why is that?

Money usually peaks the interest in the role but plays a smaller part in the actual decision. If an interview candidate appears to be looking for more money as a primary driver I'm not hiring them cause like Mike said they are looking for a new paycheck from day 1.

Did you get a raise when you got your promotion?

I'm not so sure about that.   Maybe you've been in a certain tax bracket too long to recall what it's like to say "Damn, I gotta make more money" but, as a small business owner, I'm only about 6 years removed from a "WTF am I gonna do?" moment.

Everyone knows they need x-amount to pay bills.    If I need $200 a week, any job offering less than $200 a week doesn't work.   Now, of course, if I have 3 offers between $300-$350, I'd start weighing other factors.   But, until I pass that magic number, money is the primary interest.   And it should be.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/28/2014 10:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/28/2014 10:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/28/2014 9:52:00 AM (view original):
I've seen "up to...." advertisements.   You know that you're going to offer $11 with "we'll review in 90 days" but the applicant doesn't.    A guy who wants to work with take the $11 and review but move on when he doesn't get $15 in 90 days.    I've done the exact same thing.   So basically the employer is playing a game and I'm not sure there's a winner.  Sure they get a better employee but it's for a short time period.    The employee does get to work, and pay some bills, but he's not happy and is constantly looking from the day he accepted the offer.

Goes back to money not being the major factor for job change. People want to work for Apple despite paying lower than Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. Why is that?

Money usually peaks the interest in the role but plays a smaller part in the actual decision. If an interview candidate appears to be looking for more money as a primary driver I'm not hiring them cause like Mike said they are looking for a new paycheck from day 1.

Did you get a raise when you got your promotion?

It was not THE deciding factor - I could have made more money at my prior employer with a promotion (which would have happened within the next 3-6 months) than I'm making at my new company. Infact my old company offered me a lot more money to stay when I gave them my 2 week notice. Sr leadership called as well to try and keep me. In the end things like culture, who I'd be working for, the challenge, and locality were FAR more important to me. I told you earlier the biggest mistake I've ever made was thinking that I could work anywhere for more money, even if it was a miserable job. I'll never make that mistake again .