Some say that money does not buy happiness, but it shows the data that can barely pay the monthly bills, you can certainly, at least in terms of happiness at work.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), poverty in the United States in 2006 was $ 20,444 for a household of four, and the average household of two adults with at least one child under six years, using 63,412 $ . (The only categories of spending less than $ 40,000 a year are those with one adult.) As a benchmark, a full-time employee making $ 9.00 an hour, get home around $ 15,000 per year after tax. The current minimum wage is U.S. $ 5.85 per hour.

For the production, storage or office earns less than $ 40,000 years income is positively related to employee commitment and intention to stay with the organization. Although the relationship is modest, it is indeed significant. But the increase in income for the professional and technical staff and management, the ratio decreases. In other words, income matters more for those earning less, and for those in management, there is no correlation. While production workers, storage and office space, income and intend to live modestly related, is a belief in the possibilities of career development closely linked to the decision to stay with an organization. Whether in management, professional, clerical or production if the person can see a future for him in the company, they are more likely to become.

These results are not surprising. However, considering the amount of money spent on retention bonuses and performance, golden parachutes and pay increases for the group that sees money as much less relevant when they decide to leave a job. Certainly, individual circumstances vary, but generally offer higher raises and bonuses for groups with higher incomes are likely to increase the apostasy of the group.

This result is logical when one thinks of the theory of employee motivation. For years, theorists and academics deemed to pay a “hygiene factor” in motivating employees, a concept referring to the two factor theory of motivation Hertzberg, published in 1959 in his book, “The motivation work. “According to the theory of two factors, the hygiene factors do not add to the motivation, they can only affect the satisfaction, if they do not reach a certain threshold. In the case of bar workers ‘income’ it is likely that this threshold is the point where the individual lives comfortably. Employees can set the threshold higher at a higher cost of living, or conceptions of justice, which they compare with their peers.

Regardless of the level of income, when income reaches this limit, can only be de-motivation, if your income is taken away, or are perceived as unfair, inefficient workers are the top scale, which reflects the behavior, nor achieve the objectives, taking more sick days or work.

For many industries, it is the less educated and low-income people, there is bread and butter of well-being and actually make up t huge chunk of a human resources outsourcing company of company. In 2007, 33.8 percent of the secretariat, service, warehouse and production workers are considering leaving their jobs in the next year, while another 22.2 percent on the fence; over half of this work is not committed to stay. Common sense tells us that it costs money to train employees.

A higher turnover in our core production and service centers in the largest segment of workers-can cost an organization hundreds of thousands of dollars. The loss of frontline workers in volume is an expensive proposition.

Just because a worker is more skilled and educated does not mean he or she is more precious to the bottom line of the organization. Although it may take less time to train frontline workers who perform all the same, and the rookie mistakes from the front lines in an organization to take a toll customer satisfaction. Ultimately, money is not the alpha and omega of human resource management. Engage your employees through employee surveys and 360 feedbacks.

Consider the problem turned upside down. Instead of using money as an incentive to stay for those who are not motivated by such incentives, which may be responsible for investing in what it takes to raise the retention rate of workers basic processes, and so both to maintain quality and service standards