Catering expenses are different. They touch everyone’s life. Everyone has experience, a viewpoint, and an opinion. The smaller and more familiar the issue, the easier it becomes to speak up. Housel captures this dynamic in a single line: “The amount of attention a problem gets is the inverse of its importance.” In other words, the more something is debated, the less important it often is. We apply the same psychology in company budgets. Small, visible expenses that everyone personally experiences are immediately put under the microscope. They are easy to talk about and offer a low-risk way of signalling fiscal responsibility. Larger, more complex decisions whose consequences unfold over time attract far less scrutiny. The more those decisions are discussed, the greater the responsibility becomes.
becomes existential in a high-inflation environment. From the employer’s perspective, the picture is no less complex. Economic contraction, growing uncertainty, and the productivity pressure created by artificial intelligence push human capital into a peculiar dilemma. On one side are employees described as “our most valuable asset.” On the other, they remain the fastest and most visible lever for balancing the budget. This contradiction makes the reflex to manage costs downward almost automatic in year-end planning. The outcome is familiar. Minimum wage and employee salaries are debated at length, repeatedly, and in granular detail. Meanwhile, C-level compensation, senior executive benefits, and strategic cost items often pass by more quietly, more briefly, and with far less scrutiny.
It is as if the larger the number, the harder it becomes to talk about it. This is where Morgan Housel’s observation becomes particularly illuminating. In The Art of Spending , approves a ten-million- dollar nuclear reactor investment with almost no discussion. There are few objections, minimum questions, and little hesitation. But when the conversation shifts to a twenty-dollar- per-employee catering expense, everything changes. The meeting stretches on. Opinions multiply. Everyone suddenly has something to say. Housel describes a committee that The reason is simple, and uncomfortably familiar. Nuclear energy is not something most people experience directly in their daily lives. Remaining quiet feels safe. No one risks being wrong, and no one takes real responsibility.
04:05 I 13
ISSUE 19 GLOBAL PAYROLL MAGAZINE
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online