The $35/Hour Myth: When 'Paying Well' Means Nothing

A small business owner posts to Reddit with a familiar lament: "I'm struggling to find reliable employees. I pay well and treat my employees with respect and kindness, but it seems like I just can't get them to consistently communicate with me and show up to work on time."[^1]

The post reads like a script. Competitive wages. Benefits. Positive work environment. Listening to needs and concerns. Every box checked, every management book consulted.

So why can't anyone find workers?

The comments didn't buy it.

The Vanishing Details

The top comment asked the obvious questions. What's the industry? What's the actual wage? How big is the team? Full-time or part-time? Are employees under constant supervision?[^1]

The poster's response: "Let me work on this reply. Can I DM you?"[^1]

That request got downvoted to -54.

One commenter captured the mood: "Weird to ask for advice and then go private. Others have the same questions, why not post them publicly?"[^1]

Another went further: "This answer tells us all we need to know. If you're ashamed to talk about it to strangers on the internet, it is probably an embarrassing job you are offering. This reeks of a pity party for a business who would rather say they treat their employees well rather than actually doing it."[^1]

The "I Pay Well" Illusion

Eventually, details emerged. The business was cleaning. The wage was around $20 per hour. The poster offered bonuses for positive reviews, repeat customer requests, and referrals.[^1]

One commenter cut through it: "'I pay well' (proceeds to pay about what McDonalds does)."[^1]

That comment earned 55 upvotes.

The $20/hour cleaning wage sits in a strange zone. In 2023, fast food in many areas started at $18-22/hour. Target paid $18. In-N-Out paid $21. The work is indoor, air-conditioned, with consistent hours and often benefits.[^1]

Cleaning work is different. It's physical. It's isolated. Workers drive between locations in their own vehicles. The schedule is fragmented. Every home is a different environment with different expectations and different levels of, well, mess.

At $20/hour with no guaranteed hours, the cleaning job might actually pay less than fast food once you factor in gas, vehicle wear, and unpaid travel time.

One commenter put it bluntly: "If he's doing anything manual labor, $20 an hour is like average. Most people are delusional. $15-$20 is fine... but people at Outback Steakhouse clock in for $18/h. So he pays $20? But what is the demand of work like? Can I make $18 an hour for washing dishes at Outback, or hauling concrete, setting up fencing, painting, detailing? All are much more demanding and technical than slinging plates."[^1]

The bonuses sound good on paper. A $50 bonus for a five-star review. Extra for getting the same client to request you back. But these bonuses are performance-based, uncertain, and don't change the base economics of the position.

The Self-Assessment Gap

Here's the pattern that emerges in these threads, over and over:

Employer: "I do everything right. I pay well, I treat people with respect, I offer flexibility."

Commenters: "What specifically do you pay? What specifically are the hours? What specifically makes the job attractive?"

Employer: goes quiet or pivots to DMs

The commenters in this thread articulated a deeper truth. One noted: "First step back and ask, am I the problem? What is creating these points of failure?"[^1]

Another offered a diagnostic: "The first question I would ask is 'how many of your new employees are referred by current employees?' That question will answer so much. When current employees are knocking on your door asking if you are hiring because they have a friend looking for a new job and they want to get them in, you know you are hitting the mark."[^1]

The referral question is devastating. Employees who are genuinely well-treated recruit their friends. They protect their employer's reputation. They don't ghost.

If your employees aren't referring their friends, they're telling you something with their silence.

The Management Blind Spot

"It's great to treat your employees with respect and kindness, but do they respect you?" one commenter asked. "Doesn't matter what they make if they feel like you are sitting on your ass and making money. I have learned over the years that the harder my employees see me work, the harder they will work."[^1]

This cuts to a common small business dynamic. The owner thinks the job is about the wage. The employees think the job is about the relationship.

An owner who hides in the office while employees scrub toilets is not an owner who "treats employees with respect" regardless of what they pay. An owner who micro-manages without getting their hands dirty doesn't inspire loyalty.

The commenter continued: "I don't make them do anything they haven't seen me do. I set the example and they want to be better than me."[^1]

What Exit Interviews Don't Capture

Several commenters debated the value of exit interviews. One made the essential point: "Exit interviews are stupid. If employees are bringing issues to employers attention while working there and nothing changes, employees leave. So bringing it up in exit interviews are meaningless."[^1]

This is the crux. If people are leaving without explanation, it's likely because they already tried to explain and nothing happened.

Another commenter expanded: "Maybe your employees are like that, but not what every employee would complain about. Short staffing, lack of raises, lack of competitive pay, lack of vacation availability despite having time accrued, lack of promotions despite being qualified. All those things are mentioned on a daily basis. The moment the employee quits, the manager asks why? What can I do to keep you? Might be late for that."[^1]

The exit interview is already a failure state. The time to listen was before the resignation letter.

The Uncomfortable Truth

One commenter offered the simplest test: "Almost everything boils down to money. Ask yourself, would they stay long term for $40 an hour? If the answer is yes, then the wage you need to pay is higher than $20 and somewhere below $40."[^1]

The logic is uncomfortable but clear. If doubling the wage would solve the retention problem, then the current wage is the problem. The "culture" and "respect" are nice, but they're decorations on an inadequate foundation.

Another pushed back: "I'm going to have to disagree with you on 'almost everything boils down to money.' We have slung raises at everyone with a pulse to aid in retention. While money is the primer for people to come to work, it seems it doesn't make people happy per se. What I have seen is having more influence on your day to day, having more skin in the game when it comes to planning and execution, and seeing the bigger picture."[^1]

Both perspectives are true. Money is necessary but insufficient. Autonomy, purpose, and growth matter. But autonomy at $12/hour isn't much of an offer.

The Common Thread

The cleaning business owner who "pays well" at $20/hour.

The restaurant owner who "respects employees" but schedules them for three-hour shifts.

The contractor who "offers flexibility" but can't guarantee hours.

The pattern is the same. The self-assessment doesn't match the market reality. The owner believes their offer is generous because it feels generous relative to their margins. But employees don't compare the offer to the owner's margins. They compare it to their alternatives.

If the alternative is Target at $18/hour with consistent scheduling, climate control, and benefits, then $20/hour cleaning houses with fragmented schedules and wear on your personal vehicle isn't obviously better.

The Question Worth Asking

One commenter posed it directly: "Do employees have clear set expectations? How do you hold employees accountable? Do you hold yourself accountable?"[^1]

The question isn't "Why won't workers be reliable?"

The question is "What is reliability worth to you, and have you priced it accordingly?"

If reliability is essential to your business, then you pay for reliability. You pay enough that reliable people want the job and stay in it. You create conditions where reliability is possible, with consistent schedules, reasonable workloads, and predictable income.

If you're paying the minimum you can get away with and hoping for maximum performance, you've already answered your own question about why the turnover won't stop.

The market always tells the truth. If you can't find reliable workers at your price, your price is wrong.

Sources

[^1]: Reddit r/smallbusiness, "Struggling to find reliable employees despite paying well and treating them right"