It’s both—the job AND the employees’ role in filling that position.
Not really. Which is why unions allow pay scales... and nearly every public sector job does as well. Which are the most labor first environments you will have out there.
I understand your argument, I’m saying the inverse is true: if an employer wants the same productivity than the job was originally deemed worth paying, they’ll eventually either need to renegotiate with the employee or commit to the expenses of finding and training a replacement.
I imagine you don't actually have a say in any real company business in this regard because nothing you keep preaching about matches actual business at scale for the kind of roles we are talking about.
Yes, turnover is expensive, but know what's more expensive? Over paying wages in perpetuity. Which is why a company will accept a reasonable rate of turnover rather than trying to bribe every employee to stay.
Huh? What gives you this idea?
MATH. If a position sells $30/hr of goods.. I can't afford to pay someone $20/hr to staff that position.
Positions that are pure overhead are an expense that if it destroys my net margin, I have no purpose and no ability to sustain my business. So what will I do? I will reduce expenses.
Job pay is not independent of your business' revenue and expense model. It's very much part of it... and why your payroll is structured around the ROLES you have and you determine what you can afford independently of WHO you hire.
No, I’m mixing things together because employment isn’t as simple as you seem to make it out to be.
It is - especially in the low skill labor market being addressed here. It's how employers in both the public and private sector work. It's why there is such a thing as 'pay bands', and specific job titles and descriptions. These are not made up - it's how the world works for vast swaths of the job market. Even in white collar jobs... just there, there tends to be more leaway to rank and employee because the pay bands tend to be wider.
Employers make tough decisions all the time about employees because unlike your view of the world... there are actual constraints they face, and they can't hide from them. Sometimes you just gotta tell someone "I wish you the best..." as you let them walk out the door because you made the business decision you can't meet their demands. It's not because you're a robber baron, it can be because the role simply can't support that cost.
Sometimes it increases (try to find a licensed and competent plumber these days), sometimes it decreases (as your next paragraph explains, using the case of technology/automation).
Your plumber example is due to shrinking demand affecting market values - not that the plumber is somehow more valuable to the company. You are again, mixing different things.
If an employee shows up on time, works hard, requires little oversight, and it easy to manage, and yet does not take on any additional responsibility, her value will eventually exceed the top of the pay band that was originally negotiated. You’re saying she should then look for a different job if she wants more money. I’m saying the employer should sweeten the pot if they want to keep her.
'should' -- because you're going on emotions.
Eventually the employee will ask for things you can't meet, or you will decide they are replaceable. Then that employee will learn that "we love what you do here, but we can't meet your new demands".
This is part of being an employer. I honestly think many of you have never held a position of any actual authority or fiscal responsibility in your life.
I’m speaking from experience here: a company that thinks it’s pay schedule is fixed and shouldn’t be subject to renegotiation according to changes in the market, economy, and an individual’s performance is a company that (whether they realize it or not,) has a difficult time attracting and keeping reliable, motivated, and loyal workers who provide a consistent productivity and service.
Experience from the bottom looking up I assume.
