Many managers are influenced by dangerous myths about pay that lead to counterproductive decisions about how their companies compensate employees. One such myth is that labour rates, the rate per hour paid to workers, are identical with labor costs, the money spent on labour in relation to the productivity of the labor force. This myth leads to the assumption that a company can simply lower its labor costs by cutting wages. But labor costs and labor rates are not in fact the same: one company could pay its workers considerably more than another and yet have lower labor costs if that company's productivity were higher due to the talent of its workforce, the efficiency of its work processes, or other factors. The confusion of costs with rates persists partly because labor rates are a convenient target for managers who want to make an impact on their company's budgets. Because labor rates are highly visible, managers can easily compare their company's rates with those of competitors. Furthermore, labour rates often appear to be a company's most malleable financial variable: cutting wages appears an easier way to control costs than such options as reconfiguring work processes or altering product design.
The myth that labor rates and labor costs are equivalent is supported by business journalists, who frequently confound the two. For example, prominent business journals often remark on the “high" cost of German labor, citing as evidence the average amount paid to German workers. The myth is also perpetuated by the compensation consulting industry, which has its own incentive to keep such myths alive. First, although some of these consulting firms have recently broadened their practices beyond the area of compensation, their mainstay continues to be advising companies on changing their compensation practices. Suggesting that a company's performance can be improved in some other way than by altering its pay system may be empirically correct but contrary to the consultants’ interests. Furthermore, changes to the compensation system may appear to be simpler to implement than changes to other aspects of an organization, so managers are more likely to find such advice from consultants palatable. Finally, to the extent that changes in compensation create new problems, the consultants will continue to have work solving the problems that result from their advice.
我有更好的解析 
暂无雷哥网文字解析
文章首先提出一个现状：many managers are influenced by dangerous myths ,这些myths是关于pay的，这些myths lead to counterproductive decisions about how their companies compensate employees.
然后举出了其中一个myth： labour rates= labour cost实际上并不是这样的。
然后提出这个误解存在的部分原因：关于公司本身的：1. 对于manager来说， labor rates直观 are a convenient target for managers who want to make an impact on their company's budgets. 2.labor rate is most malleable financial variable:cut wages 更简单
第二部分原因：business journals的 support
第三部分原因：compensation company
选项A 描述被managers用来控制labor costs的common practice 排除
选项B examine labor cost 和other costs的关系 其他cost未提及
选项C 解释为什么labour rates 比labour cost more significant 排除，是解释为什么误解持续存在，这个误解内容是错把abour rates= labour cost
选项D 正确
选项E 区分开公司容易控制的一个factor和其他factor ，文章主要不是根据控制难易区分factors
科目：
阅读RC
来源：
精选题库
1m53s
平均耗时
82.5%
平均正确率
该题由网友H2q7QtW提供 上传GMAT题
分享
周末、晚班滚动开班 
24+35+35+6课时 
