I would rather have a job that pays $X but offers flexible work hours and vacation time that allows me to be a better parent, than a job that pays $1.5X but won't let me take a day or afternoon off to (e.g.) take my kid to the doctor, etc.
Granted, that probably applies more to WFH desk jobs than front-line nurses.
Money can't buy happiness, but not being able to take care of your basic bodily needs can absolutely buy unhappiness.
No but not having enough will make you unhappy, and keep you trapped there.
Usually when someone says this to me, I respond with "then you're spending your money poorly". What I mean to say is that more money buys more flexibility and options, which should lead to more opportunities to leave unhappy situations or at least add more happy situations. Note that this is a generalization so there are plenty of edge cases to counter this.
My guess is that there is a very strong diminishing returns effect to the utility of money, and that, at some point, other effects start to dominate. Perhaps what's happening with health care workers is a case study for what's going on there.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom...
I should have qualified in my parent post that it assumes all else being equal.
Last, 28 / hour is fairly low for an RN. While indeed shows a median salary of 28.30 in New Orleans, it seems like most companies in the area are hiring at 54-64 dollars per hour setting the median for the pandemic at 46.52 per hour.
If she can nearly double her pay, who cares about 10k... I've never seen a company try to enforce these.
The comment you reply to is giving really bad advice to ignore it. That sort of clause is valid and the company may or may not action it. You don't know.
What your friend should do is interview for other companies and mentions to the HR interview that she has to refund 10k if she leaves now, and ask whether they would be able to cover it. It's routine for companies to offer a sign-on bonus to cover this sort of things and you can expect the same claw back clause attached for one year.
Alternatively, if she has the money AND can get a job that pays significantly more, she can switch anyway, the worst that can happen is that she has to pay some money if the company asks.
Don't start me on EMTs working 24 or 48 hour shifts for $11/hr.
Interesting case. I'm not a lawyer and have only given this a quick read, but it seems that the amount she could owe back was essentially unbounded, the longer she was there the more she could owe back. That was a major factor in the decision against Buc-ee's. See pages 8 and 9, in particular. I don't think this would work against bonus claw backs in general, only if they were similarly considered unreasonable and also only in TX, whose laws were violated in this case. (EDIT: Or states with similar laws, obviously.)
A $10k signing bonus that has a bounded and shorter obligation period could be considered reasonable.
> As noted above, an enforceable covenant must contain limitations as to time, geographic area, and scope of activity to be restrained that are reasonable and do not impose a greater restraint than necessary to protect the employer’s business interest.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.15.htm
Sections 15.50 and 15.51 are the relevant parts.
But both cost money.
Generally Speaking in all but the biggest cities that is probably around the 60K-70K annual mark anything over that a person might put other things ahead of salary
However if you are working for $60K you bet you ass MONEY is how a company should be showing their love...
But it doesn't work if you're struggling to make ends meet. There are hospital workers who don't have health care because they can't afford it for example.
I believe the GP was referring to the other "stuff" companies try to do to get you to feel like they care about you, but that don't impact your ability to make your own choices about your life the way more time or money do.
e.g., "free" swag, company-wide retreats/outings
I'd suspect that it's less of an absolute "magic number" and more like a ratio compared to the alternative. Like a 2X or 3X salary increase, maybe more.
If I was making $30K a year (slightly less than the national individual median income) and had kids, I'd have to strongly consider a $150K job that could open up a completely different set of opportunities for the kids. In a lot of places in America that's a leap from "borderline poor nutrition and you better hope you're smart enough to earn a full college scholarship... and try not to get shot in the meantime" to "safety, healthy food, and we're able to invest in your future."
If I was already making $125K a year that $150K wouldn't be so persuasive. Not upending my life for that.
Although, I suppose, once we start talking nannies and tutors we're probably looking at closer to $250-$500K anyway. A full-time nanny is... well, a full-time employee.