4 ms·

Because I'm not convinced of the reliability of benfit-to-dollar conversions, especially given their history as a way to distract from falling real wages. I per

by blix 5y ago

Because I'm not convinced of the reliability of benfit-to-dollar conversions, especially given their history as a way to distract from falling real wages. I personally value real salary much higher than benefit equivalent. Maybe the police department is overpaying for dental insurance from an agency run by the chief's cousin's wife. You raise a valid point but it makes the analysis more complicated. Even given the way you run the numbers, however, I think you are still overestimating the hourly rate for the average cop. If you judge the wealth of the world by the top 10%, poverty has been eliminated.

haroldp 5y ago
That is a valid point but let me highlight three counter arguments: First, a large fraction of those benefits come from "overtime pay" or "other pay", and are dispersed as cash. Second, benefits typically come out of pay before taxes, so even if they aren't necessarily the best value, they are a better value than you could buy yourself. Third, most public employees in my state, as with many others, who's retirement benefits are paid into the PERS retirement system, are exempt from paying Social Security taxes.
- blix 5y ago
  If I were to talk to a fulltime hourly worker, I feel like they wouldn't include benefits when they tell me their hourly rate (I didn't when I was one). You make a good argument; perhaps they should. Even if the conversions are somewhat sketchy, I think this would actually be quite illuminating, especially when considering things like minimum wages. A discussion for another day.
- newbie789 5y ago
  In my first full-time job at a call center I was given a packet that described total compensation including 401k contributions, insurance etc. There was a bigger number that included all the benefits and perks, and a smaller number that represented actual weekly take-home pay. I was able to divide the bigger number by 40 just as easily as I was able to divide the smaller number by 40. I guess I’m the only one to do that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

by blix 5y ago

haroldp 5y ago

That is a valid point but let me highlight three counter arguments: First, a large fraction of those benefits come from "overtime pay" or "other pay", and are dispersed as cash. Second, benefits typically come out of pay before taxes, so even if they aren't necessarily the best value, they are a better value than you could buy yourself. Third, most public employees in my state, as with many others, who's retirement benefits are paid into the PERS retirement system, are exempt from paying Social Security taxes.

blix 5y ago
If I were to talk to a fulltime hourly worker, I feel like they wouldn't include benefits when they tell me their hourly rate (I didn't when I was one). You make a good argument; perhaps they should. Even if the conversions are somewhat sketchy, I think this would actually be quite illuminating, especially when considering things like minimum wages. A discussion for another day.
newbie789 5y ago
In my first full-time job at a call center I was given a packet that described total compensation including 401k contributions, insurance etc. There was a bigger number that included all the benefits and perks, and a smaller number that represented actual weekly take-home pay. I was able to divide the bigger number by 40 just as easily as I was able to divide the smaller number by 40. I guess I’m the only one to do that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯