Employee Investment Payoff

Earlier today, I posted in a forum on the topic of employees using their own money to purchase equipment that they could then use at work.

An example was a second monitor, which has documented productivity improvements.

My contribution was to observe two things:

  1. Pre-Tax vs. Post-Tax: A company purchases equipment at a discount relative to the employee, since the company deducts the cost before taxes.
  2. It’s a tiny expense: As an example, I calculated that spending $600 on a dual-monitor setup for an office employee earning the average income for “Professional and Business Services” would be beneficial if the employee saved less than 2 minutes per day (over a 3 year time period).

It’s a pretty simply calculation:

  • The average hourly wage is $25.13. But that’s not the cost to the employer of having an employee there – benefits accounts for 27.8% of total compensation. The cost per hour is actually $34.83.
  • Dual monitors are unlikely to last only one year. Let’s assume a 3-year replacement period.
  • The breakeven point is the employee saving 5:45 each year.
  • If we assume 250 working days per year (50 weeks), that’s 00:01:22 (one minute 22 seconds) per day.

Of course, you could argue that (i) increases in employee productivity don’t map directly to profit, and (ii) that’s very difficult to measure.

But it’s interesting to note how fast some businesses are to waste time, and how slow to authorize relatively minor expenses (e.g. $600) to improve employee productivity.

That’s a failure of accounting, in my mind.

I’ve included a very basic spreadsheet below.

Post Revisions:

There are no revisions for this post.

  • There’s also the hidden cost of employee happiness – or better – the quantifiable amount of time they spend complaining to their colleagues that their request was denied (which might actually cost more than the monitor itself).

    One counter point though: you’re assuming employees are perfectly efficient and saving 1:22 per day would actually lead to 1:22 more work, and not a day that is 1:22 shorter.

    • > There’s also the hidden cost of employee happiness – or better – the quantifiable amount of time they spend complaining to their colleagues that their request was denied (which might actually cost more than the monitor itself).

      Oh, I agree. I just think the financial argument is easy to make as well, and some people discount the employee happiness argument.

      > saving 1:22 per day would actually lead to 1:22 more work, and not a day that is 1:22 shorter.

      Sure, to some extent. And if management is poor and there’s no additional work they may just sit idle.

      But it may make more sense to multiply it out to the year, e.g. it’s 5:45. If the employee saves 6 hours of work across the entire year, there’s a positive ROI.

      It’s not hard to consider that there may be crunch projects during the year that would justify that, even if 80% of the time it’s not used to any real effect.