3 ms·
When you look at wages + benefits, the increase is more or less proportional.
by voldacar 4y ago
When you look at wages + benefits, the increase is more or less proportional.
- Supermancho 4y agoCan you point to something that convinced you of this?
- WalterBright 4y agoI don't have a cite, but I saw a graph in the WSJ decades ago that laid "productivity" and "total worker compensation" on the same graph, and they neatly overlaid each other. In any case, neglecting the value of employee benefits makes comparing salary to productivity a completely worthless statistic. What needs to be included are the values of: 1. health insurance 2. retirement benefits 3. stock options 4. so-called employer contributions 5. all payroll taxes 6. 401k employer contributions 7. stock purchase plans 8. sick leave 9. vacation 10. severance pay 11. bonuses 12. profit sharing These can add up to 50% more than the salary.
- trieste92 4y agoWSJ is also a very "pro business" paper, they aren't likely to publish anything that supports a pro labor pov
- WalterBright 4y agoYou'll know what you're reading is propaganda if they're comparing salary increases to productivity increases. Don't overlook that the primary customer of the WSJ is not conservatives, but businessmen who are looking for accurate business information that will help them make money. If the WSJ just delivered pro-business propaganda, that would not serve their customers' needs. I subscribed to the NYT for a while, and finally gave it up. Their business news was all propaganda, and of little use for things like picking a good company to buy stock in.
- vinimk 4y ago> I don't have a cite I wonder why