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.
Regulation in this country is so counterproductive. On one hand we say that we shouldn't discriminate by age (which is how it should be)... on another hand, we make hiring older people unnecessarily expensive.
Why is a 60yo employee any more expensive - in any regulated/legislated sense - than a 25yo?
Why is a 60yo employee any more expensive - in any regulated/legislated sense - than a 25yo?
A 60 year old has more medical needs and we have silly laws that require employers to provide health insurance to employees. Even worse, in most states, employers can't attach risk to the premiums or control who they provide health insurance to. Regulation throws actuarial science out the window.
A 60 year old has more medical needs and we have silly laws that require employers to provide health insurance to employees. Even worse, in most states, employers can't attach risk to the premiums or control who they provide health insurance to. Regulation throws actuarial science out the window.
The vast number of employees end up not qualifying for health insurance - usually through insufficient hours scheduled or insufficient tenure, both of which a warm-body shift-driven company like McD's can play like a violin.
There's nothing inherently more expensive about older employees, then. Just the usual health coverage boggle.
The vast number of employees end up not qualifying for health insurance - usually through insufficient hours scheduled or insufficient tenure, both of which a warm-body shift-driven company like McD's can play like a violin.
There's nothing inherently more expensive about older employees, then. Just the usual health coverage boggle.
I read that jobs "where I work with educated adults, deal with well-defined issues, and can see them resolved through our efforts" as traditional full time jobs. Not jobs where you would have insufficient hours scheduled or shifts in general. These jobs don't require tenure to obtain insurance. In fact, regulation prevents requiring reasonable amounts of tenure for health insurance.
Older employees generally have higher medical needs. That's simply a fact.
What you want is a situation where you can have the best qualified candidate chosen to do the job. But, when one candidate costs more because of his/her age (as a result of regulation), companies must choose what they can afford.
I read that jobs "where I work with educated adults, deal with well-defined issues, and can see them resolved through our efforts" as traditional full time jobs. Not jobs where you would have insufficient hours scheduled or shifts in general. These jobs don't require tenure to obtain insurance. In fact, regulation prevents requiring reasonable amounts of tenure for health insurance.
Have you read the thread title?
Quote:
Older employees generally have higher medical needs. That's simply a fact.
Not arguing that at all, but it's not an integral employment cost. It's not even an employer cost unless (1) the employee qualifies for coverage and (2) the employer pays all or part of the premium, which is a widely variable situation.
It's not that you're incorrect, it's just that you've conflated two or three things to point to a conclusion that isn't universally true.
McD's insures only a tiny portion of their staff. The same way, most low skilled are uninsured-insufficient hours, plus the same premium an educated office professional would gladly pay, is half the check of a man/woman/or teen at a McJob. So the employee declines coverage. ACA simply mandates coverage is offered, not accepted.
Regulation in this country is so counterproductive. On one hand we say that we shouldn't discriminate by age (which is how it should be)... on another hand, we make hiring older people unnecessarily expensive. It's a shame, really.
We should position employers to hire the best person for the job. Often, that's the older, wiser, more experienced individual. Other times, it's the younger, stronger, more energetic person. None of these traits are exclusive, of course, but are generally aligned.
Not hiring older adults is often about their health insurance carrier and disability fears, etc much more so than regulation. An employers share of a 22 year olds health policy is much less than a 60 year old.
Yes, I read the title. Apparently you failed to read the post I was responding to. Perhaps actually reading the thread you are participating in will allow you to follow it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
Not arguing that at all, but it's not an integral employment cost. It's not even an employer cost unless (1) the employee qualifies for coverage and (2) the employer pays all or part of the premium, which is a widely variable situation.
Employers, more often than not, contribute to the cost of health insurance. This holds true for small, medium, and large employers. With large employers, where the employer is self-insured, the employer cost is directly tied to the healthcare cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
It's not that you're incorrect, it's just that you've conflated two or three things to point to a conclusion that isn't universally true.
Hardly. In the context of the post I quoted, it's quite accurate and true. He/she wants to, as an older person, work at a job that is most likely an office job rather than McDonalds.
I'm simply pointing out that there's a reason why these (fast food) jobs are better suited for older people.
Not hiring older adults is often about their health insurance carrier and disability fears, etc much more so than regulation. An employers share of a 22 year olds health policy is much less than a 60 year old.
I think you made my point. Ideally, you would want employers to hire whoever is best fit for the job. So if it's an older person, great. Hire the older person.
Regulation requires that employers provide health insurance of similar kind to all employees. Remove this regulation, then it's more reasonable for employers to hire older people.
I think you made my point. Ideally, you would want employers to hire whoever is best fit for the job. So if it's an older person, great. Hire the older person.
Regulation requires that employers provide health insurance of similar kind to all employees. Remove this regulation, then it's more reasonable for employers to hire older people.
Do you have any idea how much it costs a 60 year old to buy health insurance? If we changed things to allow a buy in to Medicare early or had otherwise tenable insurance options that idea would be great, but you can’t take away employer sponsored insurance without a replacement option people can afford. It would take probably 2 full 40 hour weeks at $12 an hour to pay for a 60 year old to pay an insurance monthly premium on the open market.
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.
