> when in reality it is more nuanced than that.
More money = happy workers, unless of course, you don't give them money, but also other economic benefits that are equivalent to money. I'm not seeing the nuance.
More money = happy workers, unless of course, you don't give them money, but also other economic benefits that are equivalent to money. I'm not seeing the nuance.
In another way, if you present a worker with the option between two jobs with the same hourly rate, one having flexible working hours and the other not, which would expect to be more likely choice? You can then measure the value of this choice by changing the hourly rates between the two until you see changes in outcome and you would be able to estimate exactly how much "more money" it appears to be "worth."
Being forced to commute at peak time costs more - on a retail salary the difference between a peak and off-peak ticket can mean that the first hour or two of working is essentially pointless, as you're just paying back the cost of getting there in the first place.
Having to pay an extra surcharge to visit the dentist, because you can only go on a Saturday because you need to be at work other days. Flexible working would allow you to just take the Tuesday off no problem and go when it's cheaper.
I'm sure there are lots of other examples that apply to different lifestyles.
Generally though higher paid employees tend to have more sway within a company structure and likely don't need to miss these important events, the win here is that something that was generally true for mid management up for most companies now extends down through all the ranks.