|
|
|
|
|
|
by bsagdiyev
1774 days ago
|
|
|
So I’ll be a little blunt about this: why does the employer care if the employee is good or bad at finances? I understand some places are expensive and that can’t be helped but living within your means and being financially smart are totally possible as much as people love to harp about the cost of living. I somehow manage to pay a mortgage, day care and still put $xxxx in savings every month. What’s keeping these people who move to cheaper locales from doing the same? They got used to an expensive lifestyle? That isn’t the fault of the employer. |
|
|
That, among other reasons, like wanting more or nicer things, across many possible dimensions of meaning for 'nice'. Same reasons at play for why when people get a raise, or take a job with higher pay, the surplus is rarely converted fully into savings. Another though also not the only reason left is a simple "keeping up with the Jones'" mentality, though this problem may affect Americans more.
It's useful to be aware that the median American household has $1000/mo in surplus funds after all 'ordinary expenses', which notably are greater than 'necessary expenses' the 'living wage' people tend to focus on. But that $12k/yr typically gets spent rather than saved or invested.
> That isn’t the fault of the employer.
Nope, nor is it really their business, so they shouldn't try, and people should fight, these underhanded "adjustment" tactics of "oh, you moved to an area where the average rent is $1000/mo less, these common foods are a bit cheaper, etc., so clearly you can get by on less now, and so we'll cut your salary by x%." (Typically being a percentage cut rather than global absolute amount cut is another indicator of its badness.) Even the hypothetical reverse case of moving back and getting an increase is false generosity; if moving back raises my cost floor, I'm not going to do it unless I can afford to, automatic adjustment or not, and it's very possible the divined adjusted increase might not be high enough.