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.
Which in turn gives them the (distorted) advantage in hiring top talent.
Companies have to decide which is better. Retention of skilled workers and minimizing training cost...
Or... just pay them all better to begin with...
so that the employee can get those benefits they want on their own hook.
Even "paid vacation" is a farce when you get down to the math.
Put aside $40 per week of that increased income and you can have two $1000 weeks of "paid vacation".
The paternalistic company teat is just another name for guv nannyism. Both are wrong.
Quote:
How many corporate recruiters want to go out especially to college campuses
and say to candidates in high demand fields sorry we don't offer benefits...
...but we will pay you VERY well instead. (Try it... it'll work great)
Quote:
Offer no benefits and another manufacturer does?
Nope. NONE of them should offering such "benefits".
Like the pre-existing medical condition that keeps people there because of the group medical plan...
all these other benefit costs that are far easier to slush round with a big/bigger company are the #1
factor that keeps the new company with the better idea from being able to even open let alone compete.
You know... that whole "most new jobs come from small business thing"?
---
These aren't old arguments but it sure gets tiresome having to repeat them yet again.
No mattert what ;in cash ro benefits some positions are goig to be better paid. In the new healthcare bill people with company are not allowed by the law to offer cash eqaul for employees to shop the pools because unions wanted it rejected.They were protecting their pools;basically by not offering choice as it would lower their pool numbers. Also cross state shopping in pools was rejectedby denocrat altho amendment was offered by oregon dempocrat. he wasn't even allowed a vote on this.
Or... just pay them all better to begin with...
so that the employee can get those benefits they want on their own hook.
Even "paid vacation" is a farce when you get down to the math.
Put aside $40 per week of that increased income and you can have two $1000 weeks of "paid vacation".
The paternalistic company teat is just another name for guv nannyism. Both are wrong.
...but we will pay you VERY well instead. (Try it... it'll work great)
Nope. NONE of them should offering such "benefits".
Like the pre-existing medical condition that keeps people there because of the group medical plan...
all these other benefit costs that are far easier to slush round with a big/bigger company are the #1
factor that keeps the new company with the better idea from being able to even open let alone compete.
You know... that whole "most new jobs come from small business thing"?
---
These aren't old arguments but it sure gets tiresome having to repeat them yet again.
Are these points consistant with free and open markets and the right of companies to operate in them. Clearly many people are electing to go with companies that offer benefits and group insurance especially in this era of people being denied because of pre existing conditions. Individuals now can choose to go with a company that offers no benefits and perhaps higher compensation but they don't. Isn't the cost of group insurance usually cheaper than individual? Don't companies negotiate rates for group insurance knowing that they have their full data base of employees to work with? What would rates be if the healthiest employees opted not to have insurance and those most at risk comprised most of the pool? Isn't it about choice for employers and employees finding a match in the market place of what the company offers and the individual wants?
Or... just pay them all better to begin with...
so that the employee can get those benefits they want on their own hook.
Even "paid vacation" is a farce when you get down to the math.
Put aside $40 per week of that increased income and you can have two $1000 weeks of "paid vacation".
The paternalistic company teat is just another name for guv nannyism. Both are wrong.
...but we will pay you VERY well instead. (Try it... it'll work great)
Nope. NONE of them should offering such "benefits".
Like the pre-existing medical condition that keeps people there because of the group medical plan...
all these other benefit costs that are far easier to slush round with a big/bigger company are the #1
factor that keeps the new company with the better idea from being able to even open let alone compete.
You know... that whole "most new jobs come from small business thing"?
---
These aren't old arguments but it sure gets tiresome having to repeat them yet again.
In addition to TuborgP's points, remember that an employee buying benefits on their own is doing so out of post tax money. So for every $1000 premium that would have been paid by employer, employee will have to earn $1250, $1333, or whatever their tax bracket adds on. (I do believe that insurance-tied-to-job is responsible for much of the woe in health care today, but it will remain popular with workers for several reasons, even if premiums were equal.)
In addition to TuborgP's points, remember that an employee buying benefits on their own is doing so out of post tax money. So for every $1000 premium that would have been paid by employer, employee will have to earn $1250, $1333, or whatever their tax bracket adds on. (I do believe that insurance-tied-to-job is responsible for much of the woe in health care today, but it will remain popular with workers for several reasons, even if premiums were equal.)
Great points about it not being post tax dollars which would just up the cost of it.
Of course that is to promte it being done by employers has we see what leaving it upto employees results in.its no difference than allowing tax deferred other savings plan ;really.
Of course. But if so, why is it that over the years you have never once responded to my detailed and specific critiques of your posts? I have asked for more specific information from you to support your bitter rants and complaints and never received a reply. I sense the pot calling the kettle black here. You may want to go back to a re-reading of your own post to see what provoked Hamish Forbes's essentially accurate response. If I had responded the same thing to you, it would have saved me a lot of time; Hamish Forbes at least got a response (above) from you, whereas I did not despite the specificity of my requests to you.
1. Everyone can't get a government job and its harder to do it today than it was when most of you succeeded. I went down that road both in college and after law school. I think I was ten years out of law school with a budding law practice before I realized that I didn't really want a government job and was able to get that chip off my shoulder. It took a lot to do it though. It took listening to my father's endless complaints about office politics, the incompetent people he was surrounded by, and the endless paperwork and administrative tasks that one would not have expected from a public official that had his high standing.
2. In the end, what I concluded is not so much that "we have choices" its that we all try to make the best with what we have. Private legal practice worked for me in the sense its lead to a good income and gave me lots of time to do things I want to do such as raise my kids. That "trade-off" worked, but I admit that even with a wife who is a government employee I'm still jealous (probably resentful) of the high pensions and Cadillac health insurance plans public employees get.
3. New government employees are paying the price for the "swinging deal" that past government employees got with respect to pensions. Here in Utah, pensions have pretty much been abolished for new hires in state and local government. What the new employee gets is a 401K plan with a matching contribution. Knowing that, I wouldn't touch a government job today with a ten-foot-pole. Eventually, as hiring picks up and this recession ends, the state and county will realize they are getting far from the best employees out there. Of course, I personally believe that government shouldn't be sucking up the best employees. The best employees ought to be working in the private sector where they can/will do more for society.
4. Fair or not, its virtually impossible to touch the pensions of government employees who have vested pensions. A clause in the US Constitution prohibits "states from impairing the obligations of a contract". Legally speaking, if you had a crooked mayor and a crooked city council that decided the Chief of Police needed a pension of 250K a year, the taxpayers are forever on the hook once the chief's pension vests. Bankruptcy of the municipality may be the only way to get out of these "sweet heart deals".
5. A large percentage of taxes is going to fund pensions and healthcare plans for government employees and their families. In some places, its so large a percentage that it interferes with the ability to pay for basic municipal services.
Even my father was honest enough to admit to me that he didn't think he deserved all the benefits he got when he retired. Could he have given some of them back? Sure. But it wouldn't have changed a system that is basically wrong.
What I fear the most is that the envy and jealousy being aroused by these pension and health insurance plans is going to result in an attitude where the general public is going to be unwilling to pay taxes to support a respectable government. The implications of that are horrendous.
Last edited by markg91359; 11-03-2012 at 08:16 AM..
Mark your point three says it all. If you want quality and retention of then benefits are your best stabilizer. One of the major reasons pensions will stay around are as follows:
Supply/demand in the market place when the economy is booming and private sector jobs are plentiful
Largest Public pensions have over 2 trillion in assets which is the result of previous contributions and ROI on those contributions. That is money being put to work now for positive results in the economy that would for the most part have been spent previously. Pensions and rainy day funds are one of the very few ways government can save now for use later to inject in the economy.
Pensions are one of the largest funders of Federal, State and Local government as much of the money is invested in government bonds
Pensions funds are one of the few entities that have large sums of money and are able to meet their current obligations. The issue about them is future obligations as only a handful have had current distribution problems and they are local governments. Even the FDIC is kissing has been kissing at the feet of public pension funds to help save the country.
March 8 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is trying to encourage public retirement funds that control more than $2 trillion to buy all or part of failed lenders, taking a more direct role in propping up the banking system, said people briefed on the matter
.
Quote:
The FDIC shuttered 140 lenders last year and expects the tally may be higher in 2010. Regulators have avoided signing up private-equity firms as rescuers on concern that they might take too much risk. Pension funds, whose 100 largest members manage $2.4 trillion, could provide capital to acquire deposits and outstanding loans from collapsed banks, according to the people.
Last edited by TuborgP; 11-03-2012 at 08:20 AM..
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.
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.
