2 ms·

I'm not sure exactly what the data shows but total compensation would seem to be the more reasonable thing to look at. In particular the value associated with h

I'm not sure exactly what the data shows but total compensation would seem to be the more reasonable thing to look at. In particular the value associated with health insurance and other non-cash compensation has gone up.

pmiller2 6y ago
No, "total compensation" includes things like health insurance benefits that simultaneously have gotten more expensive in real terms over time, and don't put money in my pocket. If I could go to my landlord and trade them a months' worth of health insurance benefits for rent, then you'd be on to something. If you could find a way to separate out the part of "total compensation" that actually contributes to income, such as stock grants & such, then we could talk. But, just "total compensation" doesn't cut it. If you really want to get a true picture of how screwed the American worker is, take a look at housing and education costs over time, as well. Both have increased faster than inflation, and vastly outpaced wage growth; yet everyone needs a home, and a college degree is practically a requirement for any vaguely middle-class career.
- gwright 6y ago
  Those benefits are income to you. Not taxable income, but they have a non-zero value. They certainly appear on the balance sheet of your employer and represent an increase in their total payroll costs.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    I don't care if they appear on my employer's balance sheet. They don't pay my rent, literally. You can say "screw insurance; we're offering all employees this super expensive concierge medical plan," and that literally has no effect on my balance sheet, which is the problem if you want me to be a good consumer in the economy and buy stuff. Or, if you don't think we need more homeless people in this country. If you want to look at the "value" of, say, an employer's group health insurance plan to me, what you really need to look at is the difference between buying the exact same coverage as an individual versus participating in the group plan. This is not an analysis that can typically be performed, because insurance companies don't want you to be able to compare on price like that. But, assuming you could, if I got, say, a $100 discount per month, and I was going to buy that coverage anyway, then, sure, you'd have a good case for calling that +$100 on my balance sheet.
    - gwright 6y ago
      I think you are discounting that the two things are directly related. Your take home pay is affected by the choice of your employer to spend money on the benefits. Over time, which is what we are talking about here, the choice of the employer to put money into benefits in order to create an attractive compensation package means they are not putting money into wages (assuming for simplicity that those are the only two buckets to consider). So wages can stagnate while total compensation goes up. Yes you can conclude from this that your take home pay is stagnant, what you can't conclude is that there hasn't been an increase in compensation. And if you are trying to determine if compensation is correlated with productivity gains (i.e. the original article) then you can't just pretend those benefits aren't part of the compensation equation.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        I never said there was not an increase in compensation (vs. wages). I am saying that's not relevant to the economic picture of the American worker today vs 50 years ago. To be perfectly clear: I don't care if "total compensation" has increased with productivity; what I care about is "Is the American worker better off today, in dollar terms, than they were in the 70s?" Again, I literally don't care what my employer spends its money on in this calculation, other than my paycheck, and discounts on things I would use anyway such as health insurance they pass along from bulk buying. So, you can't say, "well, if they didn't offer insurance, and instead passed along savings in your paycheck, then your income would increase." Yes, I still need to buy insurance, so only the discount I get from obtaining it via my employer is relevant -- my literal bottom line does not change. (Actually, my bottom line is worse in this scenario because I don't get the tax break, but let's just ignore that). And, if a benefit isn't something I would use (let's say a childcare allowance, if I don't have children), that also goes on the company balance sheet and could potentially increase my "total compensation," but literally does nothing for me, hence its value to me is $0. You seem to be talking past my point, which is that the American worker is getting screwed from all sides by stagnating wages and skyrocketing healthcare, housing, and education costs. In America, for most employees, those expenses come out of wages, so wages are what we ought to be concerned with.

pmiller2 6y ago

No, "total compensation" includes things like health insurance benefits that simultaneously have gotten more expensive in real terms over time, and don't put money in my pocket. If I could go to my landlord and trade them a months' worth of health insurance benefits for rent, then you'd be on to something. If you could find a way to separate out the part of "total compensation" that actually contributes to income, such as stock grants & such, then we could talk. But, just "total compensation" doesn't cut it. If you really want to get a true picture of how screwed the American worker is, take a look at housing and education costs over time, as well. Both have increased faster than inflation, and vastly outpaced wage growth; yet everyone needs a home, and a college degree is practically a requirement for any vaguely middle-class career.

gwright 6y ago
Those benefits are income to you. Not taxable income, but they have a non-zero value. They certainly appear on the balance sheet of your employer and represent an increase in their total payroll costs.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I don't care if they appear on my employer's balance sheet. They don't pay my rent, literally. You can say "screw insurance; we're offering all employees this super expensive concierge medical plan," and that literally has no effect on my balance sheet, which is the problem if you want me to be a good consumer in the economy and buy stuff. Or, if you don't think we need more homeless people in this country. If you want to look at the "value" of, say, an employer's group health insurance plan to me, what you really need to look at is the difference between buying the exact same coverage as an individual versus participating in the group plan. This is not an analysis that can typically be performed, because insurance companies don't want you to be able to compare on price like that. But, assuming you could, if I got, say, a $100 discount per month, and I was going to buy that coverage anyway, then, sure, you'd have a good case for calling that +$100 on my balance sheet.
  - gwright 6y ago
    I think you are discounting that the two things are directly related. Your take home pay is affected by the choice of your employer to spend money on the benefits. Over time, which is what we are talking about here, the choice of the employer to put money into benefits in order to create an attractive compensation package means they are not putting money into wages (assuming for simplicity that those are the only two buckets to consider). So wages can stagnate while total compensation goes up. Yes you can conclude from this that your take home pay is stagnant, what you can't conclude is that there hasn't been an increase in compensation. And if you are trying to determine if compensation is correlated with productivity gains (i.e. the original article) then you can't just pretend those benefits aren't part of the compensation equation.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      I never said there was not an increase in compensation (vs. wages). I am saying that's not relevant to the economic picture of the American worker today vs 50 years ago. To be perfectly clear: I don't care if "total compensation" has increased with productivity; what I care about is "Is the American worker better off today, in dollar terms, than they were in the 70s?" Again, I literally don't care what my employer spends its money on in this calculation, other than my paycheck, and discounts on things I would use anyway such as health insurance they pass along from bulk buying. So, you can't say, "well, if they didn't offer insurance, and instead passed along savings in your paycheck, then your income would increase." Yes, I still need to buy insurance, so only the discount I get from obtaining it via my employer is relevant -- my literal bottom line does not change. (Actually, my bottom line is worse in this scenario because I don't get the tax break, but let's just ignore that). And, if a benefit isn't something I would use (let's say a childcare allowance, if I don't have children), that also goes on the company balance sheet and could potentially increase my "total compensation," but literally does nothing for me, hence its value to me is $0. You seem to be talking past my point, which is that the American worker is getting screwed from all sides by stagnating wages and skyrocketing healthcare, housing, and education costs. In America, for most employees, those expenses come out of wages, so wages are what we ought to be concerned with.