隨著美國(guó)通脹一路飆升、再創(chuàng)歷史新高,,民眾的生活壓力日益增大,,加之勞動(dòng)力長(zhǎng)期短缺,美國(guó)雇主一直在糾結(jié)是否應(yīng)當(dāng)啟動(dòng)加薪,。
艾倫·約翰遜供職于Johnson Associates,,這是一家位于紐約市,、為大公司提供薪酬方面建議的咨詢公司,他說(shuō):“過(guò)去三個(gè)月,,我就該問(wèn)題開(kāi)過(guò)的會(huì)比前20年都多,。”
美國(guó)于2月10日公布的1月消費(fèi)者價(jià)格指數(shù)(CPI)同比上漲7.5%,,創(chuàng)40年以來(lái)新高,,讓美國(guó)人的錢(qián)包嚴(yán)重縮水。不過(guò),,在決定是否加薪時(shí),,管理層需要考慮諸多因素,有時(shí)最終決定甚至?xí)c我們的直覺(jué)相反,,加之受到新冠疫情的影響,,相關(guān)決策變得更為復(fù)雜。由于現(xiàn)今掌舵各家企業(yè)的高管很少有人在1982年(上一次出現(xiàn)高通脹的時(shí)間)便已經(jīng)進(jìn)入管理層,,所以在處理相關(guān)問(wèn)題時(shí)自然會(huì)感到更為棘手,。以下是他們最關(guān)心的基本問(wèn)題:
為保持公司在就業(yè)市場(chǎng)上的吸引力,我是否必須根據(jù)通脹情況來(lái)調(diào)整員工的工資,?
一般情況下并非如此,。薪酬(包括工資、帶薪假期,、病假,、育兒假和其他福利)通常由就業(yè)市場(chǎng)決定,而與所有市場(chǎng)一樣,,就業(yè)市場(chǎng)直接反映的是供求關(guān)系,,而非通脹水平,也不需要直接反映通脹水平,。換個(gè)角度思考這一問(wèn)題或許更容易理解:在過(guò)去十年的大部分時(shí)間里,,美國(guó)的通脹水平都遠(yuǎn)低于3%,但美國(guó)公司的預(yù)算薪資平均每年仍然增加3%左右,,并且“沒(méi)人討論是否應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)通脹水平降低加薪幅度?!蔽挥谥ゼ痈绲捻f萊韜悅(Willis Towers Watson)的薪酬顧問(wèn)洛麗·懷斯珀如是說(shuō)道,。同樣,通脹上升也不必然意味著薪資上漲,,不過(guò)美國(guó)許多大公司的確打算在今年提高員工的薪資水平,。
就這么簡(jiǎn)單?
當(dāng)然不是,,不過(guò)這里需要記住一個(gè)基本原則,,即:薪資水平與勞動(dòng)力供需緊密相關(guān),。因此,我們需要回答的主要問(wèn)題就變成了:通脹對(duì)(勞動(dòng)力)供需會(huì)產(chǎn)生何種影響,?其影響方式多種多樣,,包括:
通脹或許會(huì)促使那些在“大辭職”浪潮中離職的人群重返就業(yè)市場(chǎng)。畢竟,,在新冠疫情初期大幅下降的勞動(dòng)參與率現(xiàn)在才剛剛恢復(fù)了一半,。分析師預(yù)測(cè),剩下的一半人最終也將重返工作崗位,,而高通脹或許會(huì)加快這一進(jìn)程,。具有諷刺意味的是,通脹導(dǎo)致的勞動(dòng)力供給增加將給薪資帶來(lái)下行壓力,。
同樣的道理,,高通脹或許還會(huì)嚇到那些已經(jīng)退休或計(jì)劃退休的人員,在通脹從往年的2%一路飆升至7.5%之后,,他們的那點(diǎn)儲(chǔ)蓄(相較于實(shí)際需求)似乎變成了“杯水車(chē)薪”。約翰遜說(shuō):“眼見(jiàn)著醫(yī)藥費(fèi),、房租,、食品價(jià)格不斷上漲,你不禁會(huì)問(wèn)自己的另一半:‘現(xiàn)在我們真能退休么,?’”如果原本打算離開(kāi)就業(yè)市場(chǎng)的人員最終選擇繼續(xù)留任,,那么薪資水平自然就會(huì)進(jìn)一步承受下行壓力。
理論上講,,通脹高企會(huì)促使勞工要求雇主提高工資,,導(dǎo)致以當(dāng)前薪資水平出售勞動(dòng)力的人員出現(xiàn)實(shí)質(zhì)性減少。但在實(shí)踐中,,由于潛在員工互相競(jìng)爭(zhēng)工作機(jī)會(huì),,個(gè)人很難提出更高的薪資要求。例如,,可能有求職者會(huì)認(rèn)為,,要想跟上通脹水平,時(shí)薪必須達(dá)到40美元,,但其他人為了能有活干,,可能寧愿接受39美元的時(shí)薪,如此一來(lái),,他也只能接受更低的工資水平,。工會(huì)成員由于大多在合同中包含與生活成本增加相關(guān)的條款,情況有所不同,。但根據(jù)美國(guó)勞工統(tǒng)計(jì)局(Bureau of Labor Statistics)的數(shù)據(jù),,2021年美國(guó)只有約10%的工薪工作者加入了工會(huì),,幾十年來(lái),這一數(shù)字一直不斷下降,。
新冠疫情對(duì)工作樣態(tài)產(chǎn)生了深刻的影響,,傳統(tǒng)的薪資體系是否也需要進(jìn)行一定的調(diào)整?
是的,。實(shí)際上,,遠(yuǎn)程工作轉(zhuǎn)型正好給了我們“管中窺豹”的機(jī)會(huì),從中可以看出雇主將會(huì)如何根據(jù)生活成本對(duì)薪資進(jìn)行調(diào)整,。2020年,,F(xiàn)acebook(現(xiàn)名Meta Platforms)和谷歌(Google)宣布計(jì)劃讓部分員工轉(zhuǎn)為遠(yuǎn)程工作,并會(huì)在制訂薪資時(shí)考慮地域因素,。2020年5月,,F(xiàn)acebook的首席執(zhí)行官馬克·扎克伯格對(duì)員工表示:“我們會(huì)根據(jù)你所在的地區(qū)對(duì)薪資進(jìn)行調(diào)整?!辈⒀a(bǔ)充說(shuō):“如有說(shuō)謊,,將會(huì)面臨嚴(yán)重后果?!?/p>
這種模式并未在許多行業(yè)流行開(kāi)來(lái),。新冠疫情爆發(fā)前也有很多公司在不同地區(qū)執(zhí)行不同的薪資標(biāo)準(zhǔn),但原因大多并非出于生活成本的考慮,,而是因?yàn)榇蠹艺J(rèn)為就業(yè)市場(chǎng)具有本地化或者說(shuō)區(qū)域化的特點(diǎn),。自遠(yuǎn)程工作出現(xiàn)爆炸式增長(zhǎng)以來(lái),許多大型企業(yè)開(kāi)始意識(shí)到,,一些崗位能夠從全國(guó)乃至全球招募人才,,比如軟件工程。懷斯珀說(shuō):“在某些崗位上,,這些企業(yè)將會(huì)更多考慮全國(guó)平均薪資,,而非區(qū)域薪資水平?!?/p>
無(wú)論何種情況,,將薪資與通脹直接掛鉤都會(huì)造成很大麻煩。目前的通脹率為全國(guó)平均數(shù)字,,但各地區(qū)差異極大:坦帕-圣彼得堡-克利爾沃特地區(qū)為9.6%,。紐約市-紐瓦克-澤西城地區(qū)則為5.1%。后者的通脹雖然相對(duì)較低,,但生活成本卻高出許多,。試想一下,當(dāng)紐約的員工發(fā)現(xiàn)坦帕市的同事的加薪幅度幾乎是他們的兩倍時(shí),會(huì)做出何種反應(yīng),。
企業(yè)能否通過(guò)承諾根據(jù)通脹調(diào)整薪資成為員工心中的理想雇主,?
雖然看起來(lái)頗為誘人,但也有人認(rèn)為此種做法可能并不明智,。雇主應(yīng)該保證向員工提供相對(duì)于市場(chǎng)和員工技能具有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的薪資,,但應(yīng)該避免承諾根據(jù)通脹調(diào)整員工薪資。約翰遜說(shuō):“通脹飆升是遲早的事情,,經(jīng)濟(jì)也不會(huì)一直欣欣向榮,,屆時(shí)你將無(wú)法繼續(xù)履行自己的諾言,不就等同于在撒謊么,?”(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
隨著美國(guó)通脹一路飆升,、再創(chuàng)歷史新高,民眾的生活壓力日益增大,,加之勞動(dòng)力長(zhǎng)期短缺,,美國(guó)雇主一直在糾結(jié)是否應(yīng)當(dāng)啟動(dòng)加薪。
艾倫·約翰遜供職于Johnson Associates,,這是一家位于紐約市,、為大公司提供薪酬方面建議的咨詢公司,他說(shuō):“過(guò)去三個(gè)月,,我就該問(wèn)題開(kāi)過(guò)的會(huì)比前20年都多,。”
美國(guó)于2月10日公布的1月消費(fèi)者價(jià)格指數(shù)(CPI)同比上漲7.5%,,創(chuàng)40年以來(lái)新高,讓美國(guó)人的錢(qián)包嚴(yán)重縮水,。不過(guò),,在決定是否加薪時(shí),管理層需要考慮諸多因素,,有時(shí)最終決定甚至?xí)c我們的直覺(jué)相反,,加之受到新冠疫情的影響,相關(guān)決策變得更為復(fù)雜,。由于現(xiàn)今掌舵各家企業(yè)的高管很少有人在1982年(上一次出現(xiàn)高通脹的時(shí)間)便已經(jīng)進(jìn)入管理層,,所以在處理相關(guān)問(wèn)題時(shí)自然會(huì)感到更為棘手。以下是他們最關(guān)心的基本問(wèn)題:
為保持公司在就業(yè)市場(chǎng)上的吸引力,,我是否必須根據(jù)通脹情況來(lái)調(diào)整員工的工資,?
一般情況下并非如此。薪酬(包括工資,、帶薪假期,、病假、育兒假和其他福利)通常由就業(yè)市場(chǎng)決定,,而與所有市場(chǎng)一樣,,就業(yè)市場(chǎng)直接反映的是供求關(guān)系,,而非通脹水平,也不需要直接反映通脹水平,。換個(gè)角度思考這一問(wèn)題或許更容易理解:在過(guò)去十年的大部分時(shí)間里,,美國(guó)的通脹水平都遠(yuǎn)低于3%,但美國(guó)公司的預(yù)算薪資平均每年仍然增加3%左右,,并且“沒(méi)人討論是否應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)通脹水平降低加薪幅度,。”位于芝加哥的韋萊韜悅(Willis Towers Watson)的薪酬顧問(wèn)洛麗·懷斯珀如是說(shuō)道,。同樣,,通脹上升也不必然意味著薪資上漲,不過(guò)美國(guó)許多大公司的確打算在今年提高員工的薪資水平,。
就這么簡(jiǎn)單,?
當(dāng)然不是,不過(guò)這里需要記住一個(gè)基本原則,,即:薪資水平與勞動(dòng)力供需緊密相關(guān),。因此,我們需要回答的主要問(wèn)題就變成了:通脹對(duì)(勞動(dòng)力)供需會(huì)產(chǎn)生何種影響,?其影響方式多種多樣,,包括:
通脹或許會(huì)促使那些在“大辭職”浪潮中離職的人群重返就業(yè)市場(chǎng)。畢竟,,在新冠疫情初期大幅下降的勞動(dòng)參與率現(xiàn)在才剛剛恢復(fù)了一半,。分析師預(yù)測(cè),剩下的一半人最終也將重返工作崗位,,而高通脹或許會(huì)加快這一進(jìn)程,。具有諷刺意味的是,通脹導(dǎo)致的勞動(dòng)力供給增加將給薪資帶來(lái)下行壓力,。
同樣的道理,,高通脹或許還會(huì)嚇到那些已經(jīng)退休或計(jì)劃退休的人員,在通脹從往年的2%一路飆升至7.5%之后,,他們的那點(diǎn)儲(chǔ)蓄(相較于實(shí)際需求)似乎變成了“杯水車(chē)薪”,。約翰遜說(shuō):“眼見(jiàn)著醫(yī)藥費(fèi)、房租,、食品價(jià)格不斷上漲,,你不禁會(huì)問(wèn)自己的另一半:‘現(xiàn)在我們真能退休么?’”如果原本打算離開(kāi)就業(yè)市場(chǎng)的人員最終選擇繼續(xù)留任,,那么薪資水平自然就會(huì)進(jìn)一步承受下行壓力,。
理論上講,通脹高企會(huì)促使勞工要求雇主提高工資,導(dǎo)致以當(dāng)前薪資水平出售勞動(dòng)力的人員出現(xiàn)實(shí)質(zhì)性減少,。但在實(shí)踐中,,由于潛在員工互相競(jìng)爭(zhēng)工作機(jī)會(huì),個(gè)人很難提出更高的薪資要求,。例如,,可能有求職者會(huì)認(rèn)為,要想跟上通脹水平,,時(shí)薪必須達(dá)到40美元,,但其他人為了能有活干,可能寧愿接受39美元的時(shí)薪,,如此一來(lái),,他也只能接受更低的工資水平。工會(huì)成員由于大多在合同中包含與生活成本增加相關(guān)的條款,,情況有所不同,。但根據(jù)美國(guó)勞工統(tǒng)計(jì)局(Bureau of Labor Statistics)的數(shù)據(jù),2021年美國(guó)只有約10%的工薪工作者加入了工會(huì),,幾十年來(lái),,這一數(shù)字一直不斷下降。
新冠疫情對(duì)工作樣態(tài)產(chǎn)生了深刻的影響,,傳統(tǒng)的薪資體系是否也需要進(jìn)行一定的調(diào)整,?
是的。實(shí)際上,,遠(yuǎn)程工作轉(zhuǎn)型正好給了我們“管中窺豹”的機(jī)會(huì),,從中可以看出雇主將會(huì)如何根據(jù)生活成本對(duì)薪資進(jìn)行調(diào)整。2020年,,F(xiàn)acebook(現(xiàn)名Meta Platforms)和谷歌(Google)宣布計(jì)劃讓部分員工轉(zhuǎn)為遠(yuǎn)程工作,,并會(huì)在制訂薪資時(shí)考慮地域因素。2020年5月,,F(xiàn)acebook的首席執(zhí)行官馬克·扎克伯格對(duì)員工表示:“我們會(huì)根據(jù)你所在的地區(qū)對(duì)薪資進(jìn)行調(diào)整?!辈⒀a(bǔ)充說(shuō):“如有說(shuō)謊,,將會(huì)面臨嚴(yán)重后果?!?/p>
這種模式并未在許多行業(yè)流行開(kāi)來(lái),。新冠疫情爆發(fā)前也有很多公司在不同地區(qū)執(zhí)行不同的薪資標(biāo)準(zhǔn),但原因大多并非出于生活成本的考慮,,而是因?yàn)榇蠹艺J(rèn)為就業(yè)市場(chǎng)具有本地化或者說(shuō)區(qū)域化的特點(diǎn),。自遠(yuǎn)程工作出現(xiàn)爆炸式增長(zhǎng)以來(lái),許多大型企業(yè)開(kāi)始意識(shí)到,一些崗位能夠從全國(guó)乃至全球招募人才,,比如軟件工程,。懷斯珀說(shuō):“在某些崗位上,這些企業(yè)將會(huì)更多考慮全國(guó)平均薪資,,而非區(qū)域薪資水平,。”
無(wú)論何種情況,,將薪資與通脹直接掛鉤都會(huì)造成很大麻煩,。目前的通脹率為全國(guó)平均數(shù)字,但各地區(qū)差異極大:坦帕-圣彼得堡-克利爾沃特地區(qū)為9.6%,。紐約市-紐瓦克-澤西城地區(qū)則為5.1%,。后者的通脹雖然相對(duì)較低,但生活成本卻高出許多,。試想一下,,當(dāng)紐約的員工發(fā)現(xiàn)坦帕市的同事的加薪幅度幾乎是他們的兩倍時(shí),會(huì)做出何種反應(yīng),。
企業(yè)能否通過(guò)承諾根據(jù)通脹調(diào)整薪資成為員工心中的理想雇主,?
雖然看起來(lái)頗為誘人,但也有人認(rèn)為此種做法可能并不明智,。雇主應(yīng)該保證向員工提供相對(duì)于市場(chǎng)和員工技能具有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的薪資,,但應(yīng)該避免承諾根據(jù)通脹調(diào)整員工薪資。約翰遜說(shuō):“通脹飆升是遲早的事情,,經(jīng)濟(jì)也不會(huì)一直欣欣向榮,,屆時(shí)你將無(wú)法繼續(xù)履行自己的諾言,不就等同于在撒謊么,?”(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
With U.S. inflation surging to new heights, and a long-running labor shortage, employers are grappling with the decision to increase wages as workers struggle to keep pace with the rising cost of living.
“I’ve had more discussions about this in the last three months than in 20 years,” says Alan Johnson, whose New York City consulting firm Johnson Associates advises major companies on pay.
Consumer price index data released on February 10 showed that inflation in January accelerated to a 40-year high of 7.5% and is hitting Americans’ wallets hard. But determining whether to hike pay is multipronged, sometimes counterintuitive, and complicated by its own pandemic twist. It’s especially vexing for today’s corporate leaders, few of whom were running a business in 1982, the last time inflation was this high. Their concerns center on a few basic queries:
Do I have to adjust wages for inflation to be competitive in the labor market?
Generally speaking, no. Compensation—encompassing salary, paid time off, sick leave, parental leave, and other benefits—is often determined by the labor market, which, like all markets, reflects supply and demand. It doesn’t directly reflect inflation, nor does it need to. Think of it this way: For most of the past decade, U.S. companies have budgeted annual salary increases of about 3% on average. Inflation rates have been well below 3% for most of that time, yet “there was no talk about lowering salary budgets to meet them,” says Lori Wisper, a compensation consultant at Willis Towers Watson in Chicago. Similarly, pay doesn’t necessarily have to rise just because inflation goes up—but many large employers do plan to raise salaries this year.
Is it really that simple?
Of course not, but it’s worth remembering the bedrock principle that compensation is inextricably linked to the supply of and demand for workers. For that reason, the main question to answer is how inflation might affect supply and demand. It could happen in various ways:
Inflation could prompt those who took part in the Great Resignation to return to work. After all, labor force participation, which plunged in the pandemic’s early days, has only made a halfway comeback. Analysts predict the remaining half will eventually return to work, but higher inflation could incentivize them to act sooner. Ironically, an inflation-induced increase in labor supply would put downward pressure on pay.
In the same way, high inflation may frighten retirees, or those planning to retire, whose nest eggs look alarmingly inadequate at 7.5% inflation versus the 2% inflation of years past. “If you’re hearing medical bills are going up, rent’s going up, food’s going up, you look at your significant other and say, ‘Is this really the time we want to walk away from our jobs?’” Johnson says. If workers who would otherwise leave the job market stay, the effect will again be downward pressure on pay.
In theory, inflation prompts workers to demand higher wages, effectively reducing labor supply at current wage rates. But in practice, prospective employees compete with one another for jobs, making it difficult for individuals to make higher pay demands stick. For example, a job candidate who determines that keeping up with inflation requires an hourly wage of $40 might be undercut by others willing to accept $39 rather than be jobless. Union members are another matter, since most have cost-of-living increases in their contracts. But only about 10% of U.S. wage and salary workers belonged to unions last year, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a percentage that has been on the decline for decades.
The pandemic changed work dramatically. Doesn’t that mean traditional rules of pay also need to change?
Yes. In fact, the shift to remote work offers a preview of how employers are adjusting pay to reflect cost of living. Facebook (now Meta Platforms) and Google announced plans in 2020 to let some employees work remotely, with pay partly based on geography. “We’ll adjust salary to your location,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told employees in May 2020, adding that there would be “severe ramifications for people who are not honest about this.”
The model has not caught on across industries. Pre-pandemic, most employers paid workers in different locations varying salaries not because of living costs, but because labor markets were presumed to be local or regional. Since the explosion of remote work, major employers have come to realize that for some jobs, such as software engineering, the labor market is national or even global. “Companies will start using more national-average-type pay rates versus geographically driven pay rates for some jobs,” Wisper says.
Explicitly tying pay to inflation would be painfully troublesome in any case. The current inflation rate is a national average of widely divergent localities: 9.6% in the Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater area and 5.1% in the New York City–Newark–Jersey City area. Yet living costs are far higher in the latter area. Imagine the response when employees in New York find out Tampa-based colleagues are getting a raise that almost doubles theirs.
Can a company become an employer of choice by promising to keep wages inflation-adjusted?
While tempting, some say the decision may not be wise. Employers should pledge to offer salaries that are competitive in relation to the marketplace and employees’ skills. But they should refrain from promising to keep wages inflation-adjusted, Johnson says. “Sooner or later inflation will spike, the economy will tank, and then you can’t afford it. Now you’ve lied to people.”