Why automated salaries go beyond requested?

[Tha_Ape]

Hi,

sometimes I switch to manual for a few months, so I can set wages as I please and don't raise the overpaid ones, but why does it happen in the first place?
And same question for automated hiring, why do we sometimes have extra personnel when we didn't change/reduce fleet?

Thanks.

[Sami]

The staff automation is designed so that it costs you a tad more than using manual control, that's why sometimes the 101% staff etc. Just a design choice. Difference is not that great.

[knobbygb]

The OP has a point about the salaries though. I posted a while back that I reverted all my salaries to default values late in a game (after 40+ years of auto salary) and they were all 50% to 70% above what they aught to have been iirc. Maybe a slight tweak of the way automatic salaries are calculated would be in order. It could be as simple as a compounded rounding error over such a long period. It made a HUGE difference to my game. After the reset I had -45% salary and +150% profits (even more after the CI recovered). I hate to think how much money I'd lost unnecessarily over the years - my weekly salaries were over $100M so it had cost me literally tens of BILLIONS of $$$

[schro]

Isn't that the cost / benefit of it though? You risk strikes and take on more work in exchange for more profit...

[gazzz0x2z]

in the early 70s, after more than 20 years og GW2, I had to reduce the management's salaries by more than 10%. Curiously(or not), other branches were paid as expected. This rebalancing did cost me 6 month below 90 CI.

[wilian.souza2]

Isn't that the cost / benefit of it though? You risk strikes and take on more work in exchange for more profit...

The HR management adverts you on a message about any risk of strike. From my own experience, it's pretty safe to put off payraises by 6 game months... their morale will fall by roughly 20% if it was 100, and it will recover by more or less 10% after you give it.