3 ms·
I agree with you I think there's too much idealism in here and not enough reality. For example this: > The way forward is to get rid of the concept of 'benefit
by ikt 11y ago
I agree with you I think there's too much idealism in here and not enough reality.
For example this:
> The way forward is to get rid of the concept of 'benefits' packages and just let people work for a gross pay and let themselves choose their own benefits from that.
is the quickest way to lose all your benefits and gain nothing... why does he think corporations are really nice caring people who will give you a little extra pay for losing the mandated benefits, and not simply cut the benefits and keep the pay the same? Anything not mandated is optional, and if it's optional the employer doesn't have to pay it and more than likely won't.
From another comment in here, I think this is the result of his flexibility:
Most "associates" (your average workers) get 30 hours/week and zero benefits, except when mandated otherwise by law.
- danieltillett 11y agoEven if companies wanted to do the right thing and keep the overall pay constant (history would suggest otherwise), because of the way benefits like healthcare are treated by the tax system, getting rid of benefits would make all employees worse off - basically more of your income would go in tax. I don’t think this is an ideal outcome.
- seanflyon 11y ago> Even if companies wanted to do the right thing and keep the overall pay constant It has nothing to do with what companies want. They don't pay an employee $X because they like to get rid of money, they pay $X because if they offered less that employee would go elsewhere and they would have to settle for a less productive employee, or none at all.
- danieltillett 11y agoActually it is a bit more complex than this. There is a lot of stickiness in wages, but ultimately all wages are set at the margin. Assuming an efficient market then any change from tax efficient benefits to straight salary will result in an effective cut to the employee.