3 ms·
You raise an interesting point - in fact, one hypothesis for burgeoning benefits offered to employees is that they hide your compensation in various tax-shielde
by ejstronge 9y ago
You raise an interesting point - in fact, one hypothesis for burgeoning benefits offered to employees is that they hide your compensation in various tax-shielded pots of money. From this perspective, the overhead costs of an employee and the tuition/facilities fees of PhD students are not so different from what happens in the working world.
One large exception is the teaching function of PhD programs, which is often underwritten by outside funders (or by scholarships that students, themselves pursue). I'm not aware of a situation in which an employee would herself need to secure money to pay her overhead outside of academia.
Thus, the comparison is a poor one - companies 'pay' you more by covering your overhead, but universities assess a tuition that is either paid by the student (e.g., in humanities) or by a funding organization (e.g., in the sciences).
- SilasX 9y agoYep. It gets to be pretty distortive. A highly paid employee might have an effective marginal income tax rate of 40-50%, so any untaxed benefit that the employer can expense is effectively being purchased at a ~45% discount (when you compare to what the employee would have to earn in order to buy it). That's the hole in the Amazon/Netflix HR philosophy of "lol why give you free stuff? we can just pay you more and you buy it yourself". When I eat the free food at an employer-paid conference I think, "wow, I am cheating the tax man" (because, under a proper accounting, that would be an after-tax expense but I'd being expensed by the employer and not treated as income).