隨著美國通脹一路飆升、再創歷史新高,民眾的生活壓力日益增大,加之勞動力長期短缺,美國雇主一直在糾結是否應當啟動加薪。
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:“過去三個月,我就該問題開過的會比前20年都多?!?/p>
美國于2月10日公布的1月消費者價格指數(CPI)同比上漲7.5%,創40年以來新高,讓美國人的錢包嚴重縮水。不過,在決定是否加薪時,管理層需要考慮諸多因素,有時最終決定甚至會與我們的直覺相反,加之受到新冠疫情的影響,相關決策變得更為復雜。由于現今掌舵各家企業的高管很少有人在1982年(上一次出現高通脹的時間)便已經進入管理層,所以在處理相關問題時自然會感到更為棘手。以下是他們最關心的基本問題:
為保持公司在就業市場上的吸引力,我是否必須根據通脹情況來調整員工的工資?
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)通常由就業市場決定,而與所有市場一樣,就業市場直接反映的是供求關系,而非通脹水平,也不需要直接反映通脹水平。換個角度思考這一問題或許更容易理解:在過去十年的大部分時間里,美國的通脹水平都遠低于3%,但美國公司的預算薪資平均每年仍然增加3%左右,并且“沒人討論是否應當根據通脹水平降低加薪幅度。”位于芝加哥的韋萊韜悅(Willis Towers Watson)的薪酬顧問洛麗·懷斯珀如是說道。同樣,通脹上升也不必然意味著薪資上漲,不過美國許多大公司的確打算在今年提高員工的薪資水平。
就這么簡單?
當然不是,不過這里需要記住一個基本原則,即:薪資水平與勞動力供需緊密相關。因此,我們需要回答的主要問題就變成了:通脹對(勞動力)供需會產生何種影響?其影響方式多種多樣,包括:
通脹或許會促使那些在“大辭職”浪潮中離職的人群重返就業市場。畢竟,在新冠疫情初期大幅下降的勞動參與率現在才剛剛恢復了一半。分析師預測,剩下的一半人最終也將重返工作崗位,而高通脹或許會加快這一進程。具有諷刺意味的是,通脹導致的勞動力供給增加將給薪資帶來下行壓力。
同樣的道理,高通脹或許還會嚇到那些已經退休或計劃退休的人員,在通脹從往年的2%一路飆升至7.5%之后,他們的那點儲蓄(相較于實際需求)似乎變成了“杯水車薪”。約翰遜說:“眼見著醫藥費、房租、食品價格不斷上漲,你不禁會問自己的另一半:‘現在我們真能退休么?’”如果原本打算離開就業市場的人員最終選擇繼續留任,那么薪資水平自然就會進一步承受下行壓力。
理論上講,通脹高企會促使勞工要求雇主提高工資,導致以當前薪資水平出售勞動力的人員出現實質性減少。但在實踐中,由于潛在員工互相競爭工作機會,個人很難提出更高的薪資要求。例如,可能有求職者會認為,要想跟上通脹水平,時薪必須達到40美元,但其他人為了能有活干,可能寧愿接受39美元的時薪,如此一來,他也只能接受更低的工資水平。工會成員由于大多在合同中包含與生活成本增加相關的條款,情況有所不同。但根據美國勞工統計局(Bureau of Labor Statistics)的數據,2021年美國只有約10%的工薪工作者加入了工會,幾十年來,這一數字一直不斷下降。
新冠疫情對工作樣態產生了深刻的影響,傳統的薪資體系是否也需要進行一定的調整?
是的。實際上,遠程工作轉型正好給了我們“管中窺豹”的機會,從中可以看出雇主將會如何根據生活成本對薪資進行調整。2020年,Facebook(現名Meta Platforms)和谷歌(Google)宣布計劃讓部分員工轉為遠程工作,并會在制訂薪資時考慮地域因素。2020年5月,Facebook的首席執行官馬克·扎克伯格對員工表示:“我們會根據你所在的地區對薪資進行調整?!辈⒀a充說:“如有說謊,將會面臨嚴重后果。”
這種模式并未在許多行業流行開來。新冠疫情爆發前也有很多公司在不同地區執行不同的薪資標準,但原因大多并非出于生活成本的考慮,而是因為大家認為就業市場具有本地化或者說區域化的特點。自遠程工作出現爆炸式增長以來,許多大型企業開始意識到,一些崗位能夠從全國乃至全球招募人才,比如軟件工程。懷斯珀說:“在某些崗位上,這些企業將會更多考慮全國平均薪資,而非區域薪資水平?!?/p>
無論何種情況,將薪資與通脹直接掛鉤都會造成很大麻煩。目前的通脹率為全國平均數字,但各地區差異極大:坦帕-圣彼得堡-克利爾沃特地區為9.6%。紐約市-紐瓦克-澤西城地區則為5.1%。后者的通脹雖然相對較低,但生活成本卻高出許多。試想一下,當紐約的員工發現坦帕市的同事的加薪幅度幾乎是他們的兩倍時,會做出何種反應。
企業能否通過承諾根據通脹調整薪資成為員工心中的理想雇主?
雖然看起來頗為誘人,但也有人認為此種做法可能并不明智。雇主應該保證向員工提供相對于市場和員工技能具有競爭力的薪資,但應該避免承諾根據通脹調整員工薪資。約翰遜說:“通脹飆升是遲早的事情,經濟也不會一直欣欣向榮,屆時你將無法繼續履行自己的諾言,不就等同于在撒謊么?”(財富中文網)
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
隨著美國通脹一路飆升、再創歷史新高,民眾的生活壓力日益增大,加之勞動力長期短缺,美國雇主一直在糾結是否應當啟動加薪。
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:“過去三個月,我就該問題開過的會比前20年都多?!?/p>
美國于2月10日公布的1月消費者價格指數(CPI)同比上漲7.5%,創40年以來新高,讓美國人的錢包嚴重縮水。不過,在決定是否加薪時,管理層需要考慮諸多因素,有時最終決定甚至會與我們的直覺相反,加之受到新冠疫情的影響,相關決策變得更為復雜。由于現今掌舵各家企業的高管很少有人在1982年(上一次出現高通脹的時間)便已經進入管理層,所以在處理相關問題時自然會感到更為棘手。以下是他們最關心的基本問題:
為保持公司在就業市場上的吸引力,我是否必須根據通脹情況來調整員工的工資?
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)通常由就業市場決定,而與所有市場一樣,就業市場直接反映的是供求關系,而非通脹水平,也不需要直接反映通脹水平。換個角度思考這一問題或許更容易理解:在過去十年的大部分時間里,美國的通脹水平都遠低于3%,但美國公司的預算薪資平均每年仍然增加3%左右,并且“沒人討論是否應當根據通脹水平降低加薪幅度?!蔽挥谥ゼ痈绲捻f萊韜悅(Willis Towers Watson)的薪酬顧問洛麗·懷斯珀如是說道。同樣,通脹上升也不必然意味著薪資上漲,不過美國許多大公司的確打算在今年提高員工的薪資水平。
就這么簡單?
當然不是,不過這里需要記住一個基本原則,即:薪資水平與勞動力供需緊密相關。因此,我們需要回答的主要問題就變成了:通脹對(勞動力)供需會產生何種影響?其影響方式多種多樣,包括:
通脹或許會促使那些在“大辭職”浪潮中離職的人群重返就業市場。畢竟,在新冠疫情初期大幅下降的勞動參與率現在才剛剛恢復了一半。分析師預測,剩下的一半人最終也將重返工作崗位,而高通脹或許會加快這一進程。具有諷刺意味的是,通脹導致的勞動力供給增加將給薪資帶來下行壓力。
同樣的道理,高通脹或許還會嚇到那些已經退休或計劃退休的人員,在通脹從往年的2%一路飆升至7.5%之后,他們的那點儲蓄(相較于實際需求)似乎變成了“杯水車薪”。約翰遜說:“眼見著醫藥費、房租、食品價格不斷上漲,你不禁會問自己的另一半:‘現在我們真能退休么?’”如果原本打算離開就業市場的人員最終選擇繼續留任,那么薪資水平自然就會進一步承受下行壓力。
理論上講,通脹高企會促使勞工要求雇主提高工資,導致以當前薪資水平出售勞動力的人員出現實質性減少。但在實踐中,由于潛在員工互相競爭工作機會,個人很難提出更高的薪資要求。例如,可能有求職者會認為,要想跟上通脹水平,時薪必須達到40美元,但其他人為了能有活干,可能寧愿接受39美元的時薪,如此一來,他也只能接受更低的工資水平。工會成員由于大多在合同中包含與生活成本增加相關的條款,情況有所不同。但根據美國勞工統計局(Bureau of Labor Statistics)的數據,2021年美國只有約10%的工薪工作者加入了工會,幾十年來,這一數字一直不斷下降。
新冠疫情對工作樣態產生了深刻的影響,傳統的薪資體系是否也需要進行一定的調整?
是的。實際上,遠程工作轉型正好給了我們“管中窺豹”的機會,從中可以看出雇主將會如何根據生活成本對薪資進行調整。2020年,Facebook(現名Meta Platforms)和谷歌(Google)宣布計劃讓部分員工轉為遠程工作,并會在制訂薪資時考慮地域因素。2020年5月,Facebook的首席執行官馬克·扎克伯格對員工表示:“我們會根據你所在的地區對薪資進行調整。”并補充說:“如有說謊,將會面臨嚴重后果?!?/p>
這種模式并未在許多行業流行開來。新冠疫情爆發前也有很多公司在不同地區執行不同的薪資標準,但原因大多并非出于生活成本的考慮,而是因為大家認為就業市場具有本地化或者說區域化的特點。自遠程工作出現爆炸式增長以來,許多大型企業開始意識到,一些崗位能夠從全國乃至全球招募人才,比如軟件工程。懷斯珀說:“在某些崗位上,這些企業將會更多考慮全國平均薪資,而非區域薪資水平?!?/p>
無論何種情況,將薪資與通脹直接掛鉤都會造成很大麻煩。目前的通脹率為全國平均數字,但各地區差異極大:坦帕-圣彼得堡-克利爾沃特地區為9.6%。紐約市-紐瓦克-澤西城地區則為5.1%。后者的通脹雖然相對較低,但生活成本卻高出許多。試想一下,當紐約的員工發現坦帕市的同事的加薪幅度幾乎是他們的兩倍時,會做出何種反應。
企業能否通過承諾根據通脹調整薪資成為員工心中的理想雇主?
雖然看起來頗為誘人,但也有人認為此種做法可能并不明智。雇主應該保證向員工提供相對于市場和員工技能具有競爭力的薪資,但應該避免承諾根據通脹調整員工薪資。約翰遜說:“通脹飆升是遲早的事情,經濟也不會一直欣欣向榮,屆時你將無法繼續履行自己的諾言,不就等同于在撒謊么?”(財富中文網)
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.”