Show me the money: Employees not only want better pay, they want status
Scott Schieman,
Earning enough to make ends meet
Given what Americans say about their earnings, you’d think many would be bellowing like Tidwell. From Jan. 19 to Feb. 2, 2022, my research assistant and I partnered with Angus Reid Global to field a national survey of 2,000 working Americans. We asked: Do you feel that the income from your job alone is enough to meet your family’s usual monthly expenses and bills?
An astonishing 54.8 percent said “no.”
Considering the ominous news about inflation lately, we figured that this unfavourable perception has spiked from previous years. But looking back through two decades of U.S. data from the General Social Survey (GSS) — a highly reputable national survey of Americans — we were surprised by how prevalent and stable the “no” responses have been.
In 2018, the last time the GSS asked this question, 50.8 percent of American workers reported that the income from their job was not enough to make ends meet. And the percentage was even higher in previous years: 52.9 in 2014; 53.4 in 2006 and 55.9 in 2002. The highest on record — 58.2 per cent — occurred in 2010 at the tail end of the Great Recession.
How fair is what you earn?
But “show me the money” isn’t only about having enough for life’s necessities. It’s also about the sense of fairness — what scholars refer to as distributive justice. In our survey, we asked: How fair is what you earn on your job in comparison to others doing the same type of work you do?
While 37.9 per cent feel they are paid appropriately, 52.7 per cent feel they are paid less than they deserve. On this indicator, the shift is substantial. Between 2002 and 2018, 40.6 per cent on average have described their pay as being somewhat less or much less than they deserve, with 2010 again being the outlier at 46.2 percent.
We need to earn enough to live, and the amount should be just. But there’s another element of pay that reflects something deeper. A fundamental human motive: status. Justifying his “show me the money” plea, Tidwell roars: “I’m a role model, Jerry,” adding “it’s a very personal … very important thing.”
Status matters. Not only in the eyes of others, but in our own self-evaluations too. Sociologists refer to this as subjective social status. To measure it, we told respondents to think of a ladder. At the top (10) are the people who are the best off. At the bottom (1) are the people who are the worst off. And, we asked: “Where would you put yourself at the present time?”
On average, American workers report a 6 on the status ladder. But those who report insufficient earnings and feel severely underpaid score significantly lower (4.9), compared to those who have sufficient earnings and feel their pay is appropriate (6.6). That difference holds regardless of education, occupation, income and job authority.
Can money buy happiness?
Some say money can’t buy happiness, but it goes a long way to providing status. And status often translates into happiness.
In our survey, Americans who don’t earn enough to make ends meet and feel underpaid are less happy and hopeful about the future. Life, for them, is less enjoyable. Inadequate earnings and feeling underpaid also erode happiness more strongly than the objective indicators of low socio-economic standing do. And one’s position on the status ladder eclipses all other socio-economic indicators in predicting happiness.
Our sample doesn’t include any professional football stars. But it does contain a broad cross-section of American workers — doggie daycare assistants, accountants, truck drivers, software engineers, sous chefs, electricians, candle-makers and on and on. All have a few things in common: They want to earn enough money to make ends meet, they want to be paid fairly for the work they do and they all share the fundamental human motive for status.
As dated as Jerry Maguire feels, “show me the money” still resonates. Maybe it always will. Given how consistent these indicators of income dissatisfaction have been for the past few decades, perhaps the Great Re-evaluation of work should focus first and foremost on compensation. Channel your inner Rod Tidwell!
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.
Read more:
Income inequality and COVID-19: We are in the same storm, but not in the same boat
The right to disconnect: Why legislation doesn’t address the real problems with work
Scott Schieman receives funding from Social Science and Humanities Research Council.
Scott Schieman,
Professor of Sociology and Canada Research Chair, University of Toronto
There has been endless chatter about the Great [insert pandemic-related work trend here]. Resignation. Renegotiation. Reshuffle.
Regardless of the descriptor used, employees in the United States are purportedly re-evaluating the role of work in their lives. While some of this is related to deeper existential questions — like “What am I doing with my life?” or “Is this really how I want to be spending most of my waking hours?” — there might be a much simpler and more practical explanation for the take-this-job-and-reinvent-it wave.
A classic quote from the 1996 film Jerry Maguire captures it well. Sports agent Jerry Maguire (played by Tom Cruise) has been fired and as he embarks to become an independent agent he desperately tries to retain one of his clients, football star Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.).
Tidwell shouts his demands: “Show me the money!” He adds: “I have a family to support, Jerry!”
There has been endless chatter about the Great [insert pandemic-related work trend here]. Resignation. Renegotiation. Reshuffle.
Regardless of the descriptor used, employees in the United States are purportedly re-evaluating the role of work in their lives. While some of this is related to deeper existential questions — like “What am I doing with my life?” or “Is this really how I want to be spending most of my waking hours?” — there might be a much simpler and more practical explanation for the take-this-job-and-reinvent-it wave.
A classic quote from the 1996 film Jerry Maguire captures it well. Sports agent Jerry Maguire (played by Tom Cruise) has been fired and as he embarks to become an independent agent he desperately tries to retain one of his clients, football star Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.).
Tidwell shouts his demands: “Show me the money!” He adds: “I have a family to support, Jerry!”
Earning enough to make ends meet
Given what Americans say about their earnings, you’d think many would be bellowing like Tidwell. From Jan. 19 to Feb. 2, 2022, my research assistant and I partnered with Angus Reid Global to field a national survey of 2,000 working Americans. We asked: Do you feel that the income from your job alone is enough to meet your family’s usual monthly expenses and bills?
An astonishing 54.8 percent said “no.”
Considering the ominous news about inflation lately, we figured that this unfavourable perception has spiked from previous years. But looking back through two decades of U.S. data from the General Social Survey (GSS) — a highly reputable national survey of Americans — we were surprised by how prevalent and stable the “no” responses have been.
In 2018, the last time the GSS asked this question, 50.8 percent of American workers reported that the income from their job was not enough to make ends meet. And the percentage was even higher in previous years: 52.9 in 2014; 53.4 in 2006 and 55.9 in 2002. The highest on record — 58.2 per cent — occurred in 2010 at the tail end of the Great Recession.
How fair is what you earn?
But “show me the money” isn’t only about having enough for life’s necessities. It’s also about the sense of fairness — what scholars refer to as distributive justice. In our survey, we asked: How fair is what you earn on your job in comparison to others doing the same type of work you do?
While 37.9 per cent feel they are paid appropriately, 52.7 per cent feel they are paid less than they deserve. On this indicator, the shift is substantial. Between 2002 and 2018, 40.6 per cent on average have described their pay as being somewhat less or much less than they deserve, with 2010 again being the outlier at 46.2 percent.
We need to earn enough to live, and the amount should be just. But there’s another element of pay that reflects something deeper. A fundamental human motive: status. Justifying his “show me the money” plea, Tidwell roars: “I’m a role model, Jerry,” adding “it’s a very personal … very important thing.”
Status matters. Not only in the eyes of others, but in our own self-evaluations too. Sociologists refer to this as subjective social status. To measure it, we told respondents to think of a ladder. At the top (10) are the people who are the best off. At the bottom (1) are the people who are the worst off. And, we asked: “Where would you put yourself at the present time?”
On average, American workers report a 6 on the status ladder. But those who report insufficient earnings and feel severely underpaid score significantly lower (4.9), compared to those who have sufficient earnings and feel their pay is appropriate (6.6). That difference holds regardless of education, occupation, income and job authority.
Can money buy happiness?
Some say money can’t buy happiness, but it goes a long way to providing status. And status often translates into happiness.
In our survey, Americans who don’t earn enough to make ends meet and feel underpaid are less happy and hopeful about the future. Life, for them, is less enjoyable. Inadequate earnings and feeling underpaid also erode happiness more strongly than the objective indicators of low socio-economic standing do. And one’s position on the status ladder eclipses all other socio-economic indicators in predicting happiness.
Our sample doesn’t include any professional football stars. But it does contain a broad cross-section of American workers — doggie daycare assistants, accountants, truck drivers, software engineers, sous chefs, electricians, candle-makers and on and on. All have a few things in common: They want to earn enough money to make ends meet, they want to be paid fairly for the work they do and they all share the fundamental human motive for status.
As dated as Jerry Maguire feels, “show me the money” still resonates. Maybe it always will. Given how consistent these indicators of income dissatisfaction have been for the past few decades, perhaps the Great Re-evaluation of work should focus first and foremost on compensation. Channel your inner Rod Tidwell!
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.
Read more:
Income inequality and COVID-19: We are in the same storm, but not in the same boat
The right to disconnect: Why legislation doesn’t address the real problems with work
Scott Schieman receives funding from Social Science and Humanities Research Council.
Xin Ming Matthew Zhou, an undergraduate research assistant in the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto, co-authored this article
insider@insider.com (Madison Hoff)
Provided by Business Insider RichLegg/Getty Images
Some businesses are finding it tough to find the workers they need.
A new analysis from Indeed sees whether occupational mismatch is the reason behind this struggle.
The labor shortage isn't being driven by workers and employers wanting different things.
Millions of Americans have quit their jobs and moved on to new positions. In the tight labor market and about two years since the start of the pandemic, some employers are still struggling to find talent.
Americans month after month are joining the Great Resignation. Workers might not be leaving the labor force completely, but they are searching for better jobs. Some have even thought about leaving simply because of conversations and news about this phenomenon.
But despite record-high quits, there are millions of job openings waiting to be filled each month. Employers are struggling to attract and keep employees around as Americans leave for other jobs where they could make more money, be less stressed, have more flexibility, or not be part of a toxic office.
As employees leave their jobs, businesses are saying they have few or no qualified candidates. While companies are competing to find talent, some businesses are having trouble getting applicants to even show up for interviews. One common explanation is that workers aren't looking for the types of jobs employers have on offer and potential employees lack the skills for the positions that are open.
But a new study from Indeed Hiring Lab suggests that the mismatch between potential employers and employees is overblown.
"I hear a lot of people say, 'oh, well, job seekers just don't want the kinds of jobs that are on offer. They want other kinds of jobs.' I hear that anecdote quite a lot," Tara Sinclair, a senior fellow at the Indeed Hiring Lab and author of the report, told Insider. "And I really feel like this report says that although there are persistent problems in terms of matching what job seekers want and what employers want, that's not explaining what's happening right now."
The report analyzes this idea of occupational mismatch. "So this isn't about how many job seekers are available for a particular job," Sinclair said. "It's rather, is the mix correct — do we have the same shares of job seekers and the same shares of jobs?"
The struggle of finding workers during the pandemic isn't due to a spike in mismatches between the kinds of jobs people are looking to apply to and the kinds of positions employers have advertised as they seek out new workers.
Mismatches between employees and employers actually had a smaller response to the pandemic than other wildly-swinging labor-market indicators, Sinclair said.
"Any sense that mismatch has gotten worse lately, I think is a perception that's deviating from what we're seeing in the data," she said.
Indeed's mismatch metric, Sinclair said, compares the "distribution of job seekers that are out there and what they're looking for with the types of job opportunities that are out there." The new research highlights that occupational mismatch hasn't become a bigger problem during the pandemic.
The following chart using Indeed data shared with Insider shows just what occupational mismatch has looked like — even before the pandemic:
Sinclair wrote in the report that "workers and employers got more in sync in 2021." As seen in the chart, Indeed's measure of occupational mismatch was 20.6% in January 2022. This means, Sinclair said, we would need to reallocate about a fifth of job-seekers' clicks "to balance the market so that the job seekers' interests and employers' interests aligned."
She said pay could be one reason that "mismatch isn't worse than it is" and has been declining, as businesses have boosted wages to attract and keep workers during the tight labor market.
Sinclair, who's also an economics professor at the George Washington University, told Insider that these results are "quite different than the common narrative" of employers not being able to find the right types of workers and job seekers not being able to find the right types of positions.
"A lot of people have said that there's been increasing mismatch, particularly in the last couple of years," Sinclair said. "And that's actually not what we've seen. In fact, as the labor market has tightened, generally, we've actually seen mismatch decline somewhat."
"It might still be perceived as more of a problem because the labor market is tighter and it's just harder for employers to hire in general, but from the perspective of the contribution of job seekers' interests shifting dramatically, we're not seeing that," she added.
No comments:
Post a Comment