Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
darn unions giving people living wages and benefits, healthy work conditions etc.......we really should look to places like china and our immigrant farm workers for better examples
Yeah! Who cares that they harm the long term US economy at the expense of giving a few people a few extra bucks! Who cares that the country as a whole will not economically grow as quickly, as long as me and my family get more money right now!
Yeah! Who cares that they harm the long term US economy at the expense of giving a few people a few extra bucks! Who cares that the country as a whole will not economically grow as quickly, as long as me and my family get more money right now!
Oh wait...that sounds pretty stupid...
yes it would be a much much smarter way to handle things by giving people poor paying jobs with no overtime pay or sick time. no retirement or health benefits and ask them to work 70 hrs a week in hazardous conditions. Sounds like prosperity to me
So what you're saying is basically there is no good reason why this is so.
While paying for their employees healthcare inflicts a huge competitive disadvantage on US businesses, it also means that their best employees are far less likly to leave and start their own business.
Actually, it goes back to WWII, when a number of emergency wartime restrictions were in place, such as rationing of many commodities needed by our military, such as gasoline.
This fringe benefit is deductible to the employer and tax-free to the employee, and became a preferred way to compensate employees during the war. I believe there was some sort of wage-price controls during the war, which promoted this fringe benefit which was exempt. (i.e. if you can't put an extra $50/wk in your employees' paychecks, give that $50 to your employees in the form of good health insurance)
These employers retained this benefit after the war ended and the war-related restrictions were lifted, and it became regarded as a standard part of a middle class job.
You are correct. There was a wage freeze in place during the 1940s and early 1950s. As a result, employers could get around that wage freeze by offering benefits such as medial insurance. Every business was competing for the work force returning from WW II, and the additional benefits were all they could offer as an incentive since wages were fixed.
According to this article, the number of people getting their health insurance from their employers has dropped to 56%. At unemployment rates anywhere between 9% and 20% depending on who you ask and who is counted, there is still a large number of people working who don't have health insurance.
That begs the question, why is our health insurance system in any way tied to employers? These are two seemingly unrelated aspects of peoples' lives.
I realize that employers that offer health plans (not all do) contribute 50% and it's pre-tax. But this is not an answer for the above question because this can be done regardless of with whom the group is associated.
While paying for their employees healthcare inflicts a huge competitive disadvantage on US businesses, it also means that their best employees are far less likly to leave and start their own business.
Compensation is a large part of what keeps people from leaving, but it can come in many forms other than health care.
I still don't see a good reason why employers are the only groups that have group health insurance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.