[moomin]

My prediction is that this strategy will work out better for the companies than the article expects. Why? Because firms are actually often absolutely lousy at recognising which of their employees are high performers in the first place.

[3eb7988a1663]

It is a tough job market. Minus the very top echelon of talent, switching jobs today is a lot more challenging than in the past. Management knows this and can shave a few pennies off the books by capitalizing on this moment.

[bdangubic]

it is management that is successfully convincing people that it is a tough job market - it is not - it is same as before. I am a contractor, have more work offered than I can take (same as before, maybe even slightly more). four friends/former colleagues got new jobs since the beginning of December, each had multiple offers and got decent to significant pay increases compared to previous positions.

[cyanydeez]

The risk-reward of over paying employees who are risk adverse is why this works for most employers.

[notnullorvoid]

Yup, it's a bad feeling hearing that lower performers are getting payed more than you.

[catsquirrel28]

Maybe that's because most jobs are Graberesque bullshit jobs where "high performance" is meaningless.

Most jobs shouldn't exist at all. The value captured by "firms" should instead be captured by the state and distributed peanut butter style to everyone.

[pc86]

How exactly should the state "capture" value generated by these firms? Would it pay the employees more? What would the competitive advantage be? If the jobs are bullshit, why wouldn't some other firm capture the same value without those jobs, making even more profit with less overhead?

[craftwerk]

I also found his thesis compelling, but it’s built on bad social science: https://open.substack.com/pub/gilpignol/p/bullshit-jobs-was-...