4 ms·

It doesn't really matter. It's a pretty simple equation: the WSJ is describing a model where benefits are being reduced while at the same time employees are bei

by markbnj 12y ago

It doesn't really matter. It's a pretty simple equation: the WSJ is describing a model where benefits are being reduced while at the same time employees are being "paid in full" as an alternative. I don't think I am reading between the lines there. To follow your analogy, I think it's clear to most people that if a retailer does away with free shipping and does not reduce the price of the product, no mutually beneficial exchange of value is taking place. The cost is going up. So the WSJ is being dishonest in attempting to characterize this as a trade-off.

jasode 12y ago
>the WSJ is describing a model where benefits are being reduced while at the same time employees are being "paid in full" as an alternative. I don't think I am reading between the lines there. I think you're misinterpreting what WSJ wrote. The "paid in full" in this context means wages are adjusted up. (I'm not saying that in real life, the businesses will do this. I'm just emphasizing what "paid in full" means mathematically as WSJ wrote it.) If you read the later paragraph[1], you'll see that they mean for the total monetary compensation to be adjusted up (via the dollar contribution.) This is in contrast to the current situation we have. If we use WSJ's phrasing, ever since WW2 wage controls, we've been "paid partially" in dollars. today: compensation "paid partially in dollars" + employer insurance possible future: compensation "paid in full as dollars" (DIY insurance) Again, the above is just the interpretation of the text. As to whether or not things will play out that way, that's more of speculation about economics and politics. The journalist and we readers can't predict the future and know for sure if businesses will use it as an opportunity to "trick" employees by never adjusting wages or actually readjust wages to stay competitive in recruiting. In my opinion, a possible future includes ABC Inc offering $50k-with-employer-insurance and XYZ Inc offering $60k-with-DIY-insurance. [1]from the article: ... employers consider whether the “best” option is simply to give employees a certain “defined contribution” dollar amount toward their monthly health insurance, ...

by markbnj 12y ago

jasode 12y ago

>the WSJ is describing a model where benefits are being reduced while at the same time employees are being "paid in full" as an alternative. I don't think I am reading between the lines there. I think you're misinterpreting what WSJ wrote. The "paid in full" in this context means wages are adjusted up. (I'm not saying that in real life, the businesses will do this. I'm just emphasizing what "paid in full" means mathematically as WSJ wrote it.) If you read the later paragraph[1], you'll see that they mean for the total monetary compensation to be adjusted up (via the dollar contribution.) This is in contrast to the current situation we have. If we use WSJ's phrasing, ever since WW2 wage controls, we've been "paid partially" in dollars. today: compensation "paid partially in dollars" + employer insurance possible future: compensation "paid in full as dollars" (DIY insurance) Again, the above is just the interpretation of the text. As to whether or not things will play out that way, that's more of speculation about economics and politics. The journalist and we readers can't predict the future and know for sure if businesses will use it as an opportunity to "trick" employees by never adjusting wages or actually readjust wages to stay competitive in recruiting. In my opinion, a possible future includes ABC Inc offering $50k-with-employer-insurance and XYZ Inc offering $60k-with-DIY-insurance. [1]from the article: ... employers consider whether the “best” option is simply to give employees a certain “defined contribution” dollar amount toward their monthly health insurance, ...