7 ms·

They probably would. I've had a lot of jobs that heavily emphasize how much is paid for benefits, and often it's used as justification for why raises weren't o

They probably would. I've had a lot of jobs that heavily emphasize how much is paid for benefits, and often it's used as justification for why raises weren't offered that year. These places would probably be happy to give everyone a raise and do away with the frustration with medical benefits, especially plans whose cost go up like 20% a year. There are a lot of jobs which do not offer benefits, or benefits are offered with no part paid by the employer. These places would not offer raises, but these people would end up with better choices of private plans. Benefits are a huge burden for companies, especially smaller ones. Coordinating benefits is a seasonal full-time job that someone has to do. I've known of a few smaller family businesses that gave everyone a raise, and told them to get their own health care coverage on healthcare.gov.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> They probably would. I've had a lot of jobs that heavily emphasize how much is paid for benefits, and often it's used as justification for why raises weren't offered that year. Sounds like an excuse to me, and if they're this bitter about paying for benefits, something tells me they'd be just as bitter towards giving substantial raises across the board for, essentially, no reason.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  It's not out of bitterness. People don't necessarily realize that benefits are as expensive as they are, or that they had been increasing in cost so dramatically. It's more like, "sorry we aren't giving raises this year, but we are covering an added $400/mo in insurance costs for everyone."
  - lowercased 5y ago
    A few years ago I sat in with a client on an 'employee meeting' where they discussed raises/insurance. No one had ANY clue what health insurance premiums were. The owner asked people what they thought it was per month. "$75? $99?" They went around the room. I said "$600". The whole room looked at me like I was nuts. The owner said "$560". Audible gasps around the room. People had literally no idea how much this stuff costs (this was... 5 years ago, IIRC).
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      I’m not really sure what that proves though. Each employee almost certainly saw the amount the employer was contributing when they selected their insurance plan. If they forgot that amount and later guessed a much lower amount, what does that demonstrate?
      - lowercased 5y ago
        > Each employee almost certainly saw the amount the employer was contributing when they selected their insurance plan I've never seen that happen, ever, in 25+ years of being in the working world in the US. Not saying it never happens, but I've not seen it, and after asking around, no one I know has seen that info.
        mrtranscendence 5y ago
        For what it's worth, my employer does make a bit of a production about how much they pay for our insurance. They make us all look at a document that gives a figure that includes our salary and benefits, plus a breakdown. I guess the point is to make us more appreciative in the face of rising costs? That said, I don't remember the amounts being clear at the time I chose a plan, though maybe they were.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I mean - that sucks and all... but cost of living is constantly going up. If a company can't afford to continue operating with the costs of wages that company should shutter its doors - that's brutal but it's also how markets are supposed to respond. In Australia minimum wage laws means that Starbucks locations rarely have more than two people on staff - that's just economic forces causing a rational business response.
    - bruce511 5y ago
      Yours is a common belief, and I don't think you should be down voted for it, but you are wrong. Firstly companies don't shutter, they downsize. The most vulnerable employees are the first to go, the higher paid ones are typically the most valuable, remain. Owners go last. Secondly, in my experience, all employees would rather forgoe a raise and keep everyone employed that insist on a raise. We saw this first-hand in 2020. Lockdown brought extreme uncertainty but employees agreed to 50% [1] pay instead of massive job cuts. Yes it helps that we pay staff well. Yes it helps that they get a bonus in the good years. Yes it helps that we have their interests at heart. Yes it helps that they are skilled and we don't want to lose them. Yes, over the years some people have become redundant, but there are swings between good times and bad times, and no we don't shutter just because there's a bad time. That's explicitly _not_ how it is supposed to work. [1] we had a min threshold for 50%, those under got 100%. Also thanks to govt assistance, and our ability to back-pay later, they all ended up "whole". [2] ps - I agree on the need for a minimum wage. In almost all cases it is too low by a lot. And I agree that if you can't pay minimum wage, then you can't afford an employee.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        The thing I specifically wanted to highlight (which I think most readers missed) was that not receiving a raise is equivalent to receiving a pay cut unless we're riding at 0% inflation. Every year costs go up for employees and keeping them pegged at the same salary prevents them from being able to cover those costs as efficiently. I've seen workers pidgeon-holed into low stagnant wages too often to accept it as a status quo when the companies employing them are posting profits - in the modern world we too quickly accept the fact that owners are supposed to take out lion's share salaries and profits need to continuously increase. A business can have a healthy existence just making the economic wheels spin and ensuring that employees are well compensated.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Benefit costs normally add 40-50% to the salary costs of an employee.
- brightball 5y ago
  Comments like this give the impression that there’s an assumption that business owners are all just swimming in money and not one or two bad months away from bankruptcy. Most businesses do not survive more than 5 years for a reason.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Businesses that cannot afford to retain talent and remain competitive deserve to not survive, in order to make room for more efficient organizations. This is a principle of the free market. Also as a principle, regulating said free markets for QoL improvements (e.g. min wage, HI, disability, comp, soc sec, etc.) affect all participants - both efficient and destined-to-die businesses alike. If you can't exist through playing by the rules that everyone has set, why are you still in business?
    - gruez 5y ago
      > Businesses that cannot afford to retain talent and remain competitive deserve to not survive, in order to make room for more efficient organizations. This is a principle of the free market. This assumes that such "more efficient organizations" can even exist. If they are possible, why aren't they already around? Are those "Businesses that cannot afford to retain talent and remain competitive" that you speak of somehow preventing them from existing?
      - bduerst 5y ago
        Markets are zero sum. Competition ensures that an inefficient business will lose out to efficient competitors. In most markets where efficiency is not achievable, then businesses are not entitled to exist. This is why things such as tax subsidies and other forms of funding are used to bootstrap new markets (e.g. green energy) that have a net social gain.
    - brightball 5y ago
      Should they? Every business doesn’t have millions of dollars in cash to burn trying to find product market fit. Most start from nothing or personal savings, perhaps partially from the salary of a spouse. When you start a business there’s an expectation that you’re probably not taking a paycheck from it for a few years while you try to attract customers to provide steady cash flow. While doing this, you somehow have to find a way to hire people to help you grow. If it doesn’t work out, the business owner loses everything most likely and will probably be on the hook for the space they were leasing. Now if you survive and make it past all that, hopefully everything stabilizes and you’re able to run a successful business that can return more to you than you put in…but it’s hard. Very very hard. This “should that business even exist” stuff comes from not having any idea how hard it really is and how much is really on the line or the ups and downs along the way (which are even harder when you’re trying to make payroll). If it was easy, everybody would do it.
Aeolun 5y ago
Problem with raises is that you pay taxes over them before getting around to paying for healthcare, right? If the company is paying it it’s just a business expense they can deduct from their income.
- benglish11 5y ago
  Presumably in the idealized scenario ( where individuals purchased health plans themselves and not through their employer) the individual would get a tax break for the cost of their health insurance.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Also, group insurance rates are often lower than the rates an individual could purchase themselves.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    Man, it's almost like we just need some sort of mandatory group that everyone falls into, and then has to pay into. But, we could also provide some tax break, refund, or otherwise just not collect the fee, from, those who couldn't afford it. If only someone had some sort of working template on how this could be done in a cost effective way. I'm sure everyone, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, would rally round such an obvious net good in that case. (I know that bit of sarcasm is a bit of a tangent, it just feels like this whole subthread is missing the obvious)
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      > it just feels like this whole subthread is missing the obvious I think we just skipped over the part that we already know is never going to happen, however much that might be the ideal solution.
RyanGoosling 5y ago
The purpose of a business is to generate profit. Giving out goodwill raises goes against this fundamental purpose unless you need to retain SF tech talent to maintain the business. Businesses would continue to minimize their expenses, the largest of which is generally Human Resources. I disagree with your perspective.
Redimo 5y ago
I'm sorry, but my experience in work in many different segments shows the exact opposite to be true. Theres barely any company that takes "You can rise quickly thorough pay bands if you put in the effort", or "we would pay you more without benefits" seriously and is even being truthfully with you. I've had one company, the one where I'm at now, where I earn good money, get bonus and that bonus is determined by the companies performance. We had bonus when CEO etc. didnt get any because they messed up. We have great benefits (2 additional paid weeks of paternal leave, i.e.), but it's the exception to the rule.
- siscia 5y ago
  What company is that?

heavyset_go 5y ago

> They probably would. I've had a lot of jobs that heavily emphasize how much is paid for benefits, and often it's used as justification for why raises weren't offered that year. Sounds like an excuse to me, and if they're this bitter about paying for benefits, something tells me they'd be just as bitter towards giving substantial raises across the board for, essentially, no reason.

mywittyname 5y ago
It's not out of bitterness. People don't necessarily realize that benefits are as expensive as they are, or that they had been increasing in cost so dramatically. It's more like, "sorry we aren't giving raises this year, but we are covering an added $400/mo in insurance costs for everyone."
- lowercased 5y ago
  A few years ago I sat in with a client on an 'employee meeting' where they discussed raises/insurance. No one had ANY clue what health insurance premiums were. The owner asked people what they thought it was per month. "$75? $99?" They went around the room. I said "$600". The whole room looked at me like I was nuts. The owner said "$560". Audible gasps around the room. People had literally no idea how much this stuff costs (this was... 5 years ago, IIRC).
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    I’m not really sure what that proves though. Each employee almost certainly saw the amount the employer was contributing when they selected their insurance plan. If they forgot that amount and later guessed a much lower amount, what does that demonstrate?
    - lowercased 5y ago
      > Each employee almost certainly saw the amount the employer was contributing when they selected their insurance plan I've never seen that happen, ever, in 25+ years of being in the working world in the US. Not saying it never happens, but I've not seen it, and after asking around, no one I know has seen that info.
      - mrtranscendence 5y ago
        For what it's worth, my employer does make a bit of a production about how much they pay for our insurance. They make us all look at a document that gives a figure that includes our salary and benefits, plus a breakdown. I guess the point is to make us more appreciative in the face of rising costs? That said, I don't remember the amounts being clear at the time I chose a plan, though maybe they were.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I mean - that sucks and all... but cost of living is constantly going up. If a company can't afford to continue operating with the costs of wages that company should shutter its doors - that's brutal but it's also how markets are supposed to respond. In Australia minimum wage laws means that Starbucks locations rarely have more than two people on staff - that's just economic forces causing a rational business response.
  - bruce511 5y ago
    Yours is a common belief, and I don't think you should be down voted for it, but you are wrong. Firstly companies don't shutter, they downsize. The most vulnerable employees are the first to go, the higher paid ones are typically the most valuable, remain. Owners go last. Secondly, in my experience, all employees would rather forgoe a raise and keep everyone employed that insist on a raise. We saw this first-hand in 2020. Lockdown brought extreme uncertainty but employees agreed to 50% [1] pay instead of massive job cuts. Yes it helps that we pay staff well. Yes it helps that they get a bonus in the good years. Yes it helps that we have their interests at heart. Yes it helps that they are skilled and we don't want to lose them. Yes, over the years some people have become redundant, but there are swings between good times and bad times, and no we don't shutter just because there's a bad time. That's explicitly _not_ how it is supposed to work. [1] we had a min threshold for 50%, those under got 100%. Also thanks to govt assistance, and our ability to back-pay later, they all ended up "whole". [2] ps - I agree on the need for a minimum wage. In almost all cases it is too low by a lot. And I agree that if you can't pay minimum wage, then you can't afford an employee.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      The thing I specifically wanted to highlight (which I think most readers missed) was that not receiving a raise is equivalent to receiving a pay cut unless we're riding at 0% inflation. Every year costs go up for employees and keeping them pegged at the same salary prevents them from being able to cover those costs as efficiently. I've seen workers pidgeon-holed into low stagnant wages too often to accept it as a status quo when the companies employing them are posting profits - in the modern world we too quickly accept the fact that owners are supposed to take out lion's share salaries and profits need to continuously increase. A business can have a healthy existence just making the economic wheels spin and ensuring that employees are well compensated.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Benefit costs normally add 40-50% to the salary costs of an employee.
brightball 5y ago
Comments like this give the impression that there’s an assumption that business owners are all just swimming in money and not one or two bad months away from bankruptcy. Most businesses do not survive more than 5 years for a reason.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Businesses that cannot afford to retain talent and remain competitive deserve to not survive, in order to make room for more efficient organizations. This is a principle of the free market. Also as a principle, regulating said free markets for QoL improvements (e.g. min wage, HI, disability, comp, soc sec, etc.) affect all participants - both efficient and destined-to-die businesses alike. If you can't exist through playing by the rules that everyone has set, why are you still in business?
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Businesses that cannot afford to retain talent and remain competitive deserve to not survive, in order to make room for more efficient organizations. This is a principle of the free market. This assumes that such "more efficient organizations" can even exist. If they are possible, why aren't they already around? Are those "Businesses that cannot afford to retain talent and remain competitive" that you speak of somehow preventing them from existing?
    - bduerst 5y ago
      Markets are zero sum. Competition ensures that an inefficient business will lose out to efficient competitors. In most markets where efficiency is not achievable, then businesses are not entitled to exist. This is why things such as tax subsidies and other forms of funding are used to bootstrap new markets (e.g. green energy) that have a net social gain.
  - brightball 5y ago
    Should they? Every business doesn’t have millions of dollars in cash to burn trying to find product market fit. Most start from nothing or personal savings, perhaps partially from the salary of a spouse. When you start a business there’s an expectation that you’re probably not taking a paycheck from it for a few years while you try to attract customers to provide steady cash flow. While doing this, you somehow have to find a way to hire people to help you grow. If it doesn’t work out, the business owner loses everything most likely and will probably be on the hook for the space they were leasing. Now if you survive and make it past all that, hopefully everything stabilizes and you’re able to run a successful business that can return more to you than you put in…but it’s hard. Very very hard. This “should that business even exist” stuff comes from not having any idea how hard it really is and how much is really on the line or the ups and downs along the way (which are even harder when you’re trying to make payroll). If it was easy, everybody would do it.

Aeolun 5y ago

Problem with raises is that you pay taxes over them before getting around to paying for healthcare, right? If the company is paying it it’s just a business expense they can deduct from their income.

benglish11 5y ago
Presumably in the idealized scenario ( where individuals purchased health plans themselves and not through their employer) the individual would get a tax break for the cost of their health insurance.
tshaddox 5y ago
Also, group insurance rates are often lower than the rates an individual could purchase themselves.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Man, it's almost like we just need some sort of mandatory group that everyone falls into, and then has to pay into. But, we could also provide some tax break, refund, or otherwise just not collect the fee, from, those who couldn't afford it. If only someone had some sort of working template on how this could be done in a cost effective way. I'm sure everyone, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, would rally round such an obvious net good in that case. (I know that bit of sarcasm is a bit of a tangent, it just feels like this whole subthread is missing the obvious)
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    > it just feels like this whole subthread is missing the obvious I think we just skipped over the part that we already know is never going to happen, however much that might be the ideal solution.

RyanGoosling 5y ago

The purpose of a business is to generate profit. Giving out goodwill raises goes against this fundamental purpose unless you need to retain SF tech talent to maintain the business. Businesses would continue to minimize their expenses, the largest of which is generally Human Resources. I disagree with your perspective.

Redimo 5y ago

I'm sorry, but my experience in work in many different segments shows the exact opposite to be true. Theres barely any company that takes "You can rise quickly thorough pay bands if you put in the effort", or "we would pay you more without benefits" seriously and is even being truthfully with you. I've had one company, the one where I'm at now, where I earn good money, get bonus and that bonus is determined by the companies performance. We had bonus when CEO etc. didnt get any because they messed up. We have great benefits (2 additional paid weeks of paternal leave, i.e.), but it's the exception to the rule.

siscia 5y ago
What company is that?