Being a small company with 6 employees, we were priced out of medical benefits due to our size. The cost to us escalated to $1,000 per employee from Regence Blue Shield. So we just reimburse our employees for the cost of their insurance which ranges from $187 to $450 a month.
One of the great errors of our economy was employers taking on the responsibility to insure their work force? This started in the early 50s as a way to attract workers. The goverment should have taken control of this in the late 40s after WW II. Think of what our employers could do with the money they spend on benefits (roughly $10,000 for a full time insurance professional at an insurance company for example). The cost is not going down. Never in my career have I seen a reduction in the cost of my benefits. The expectation that employers must bare the cost does not quite gel with capitalism. But, it’s been going on so long, nobody notices.
Well D…it is like you said. It started as a way to attract workers. Isn’t that like your salary? Employers offer a wage that is deemed appropriate for the work and that will attract qualified individuals. Are you saying that employers shouldn’t bare the cost of your salary as well? An employee’s salary tends to go up over time as well. Just think what a company could do with all that money they now have to pay those pesky employees!!!
Ok. But, I don’t think you are being serious. An employee’s salary is controllable. Benefits, on the other hand are not a controllable cost. You don’t know how much the costs will be in 5 years from now compared with salaries, which usually increase at a set (set by the company) percentage each year.
If I am not mistaken the practice of providing benefits like healthcare came about after WWII. Companies did not have the money to pay employees wage increases and providing health insurance was, at the time, less expensive. For those companies that had size, the could leverage their size and obtain a better cost. When unions grew and more employees becam unionized, benefits became a standard negotiating benefit tool and generally they were always improved. Now between benefit costs and legacy pension benefits, many companies are finding it hard to compete, especially with Chinese and Korean companies who pay 75% less wages (or less) and provide no benefits,
It is a fine balancing act. Do you want Americans to have the standard of living people have in many of those countries? Many Chinese work in conditions similar to those during the American Industrial Revolution. Chinese employees often work extremely long work hours in horrid conditions for little pay. Is that what you want for America? Hey, it would make our companies more competitive. Why not? I am sure the executives and shareholders would be happier. While some in China have an increasing standard of living, it is pretty much due to the same processes that have led America to where it is today. It is a direction China, and any other developing country, must take if they wish to truly make life better for their people (and not just for their corporations and those who own them).
D, you are correct that pay is a controllable benefit and healthcare and many other benefits are not. However, I contend that benefits provided by businesses do “gel” with capitalism. Just as a business must provide a product or service people want at a price they are willing to pay, they must offer prospective workers benefits that will attract the kind of skilled workers they want. If they can’t do this, the best workers will go work for a business that is willing to offer more. This is part of the balance of which I spoke in my opening sentence. How do you attract and retain top skilled workers and remain competitive? It is a fine balancing act. In the bigger economic picture, workers are also customers. You lower their pay or remove benefits on a large scale and soon the economy will feel the crunch as people perceive they can no longer afford the products or services businesses offer.
Being a small company with 6 employees, we were priced out of medical benefits due to our size. The cost to us escalated to $1,000 per employee from Regence Blue Shield. So we just reimburse our employees for the cost of their insurance which ranges from $187 to $450 a month.
One of the great errors of our economy was employers taking on the responsibility to insure their work force? This started in the early 50s as a way to attract workers. The goverment should have taken control of this in the late 40s after WW II. Think of what our employers could do with the money they spend on benefits (roughly $10,000 for a full time insurance professional at an insurance company for example). The cost is not going down. Never in my career have I seen a reduction in the cost of my benefits. The expectation that employers must bare the cost does not quite gel with capitalism. But, it’s been going on so long, nobody notices.
Well D…it is like you said. It started as a way to attract workers. Isn’t that like your salary? Employers offer a wage that is deemed appropriate for the work and that will attract qualified individuals. Are you saying that employers shouldn’t bare the cost of your salary as well? An employee’s salary tends to go up over time as well. Just think what a company could do with all that money they now have to pay those pesky employees!!!
Ok. But, I don’t think you are being serious. An employee’s salary is controllable. Benefits, on the other hand are not a controllable cost. You don’t know how much the costs will be in 5 years from now compared with salaries, which usually increase at a set (set by the company) percentage each year.
If I am not mistaken the practice of providing benefits like healthcare came about after WWII. Companies did not have the money to pay employees wage increases and providing health insurance was, at the time, less expensive. For those companies that had size, the could leverage their size and obtain a better cost. When unions grew and more employees becam unionized, benefits became a standard negotiating benefit tool and generally they were always improved. Now between benefit costs and legacy pension benefits, many companies are finding it hard to compete, especially with Chinese and Korean companies who pay 75% less wages (or less) and provide no benefits,
Like I said, it has become one of the great errors of our society. See where we are now..?
It is a fine balancing act. Do you want Americans to have the standard of living people have in many of those countries? Many Chinese work in conditions similar to those during the American Industrial Revolution. Chinese employees often work extremely long work hours in horrid conditions for little pay. Is that what you want for America? Hey, it would make our companies more competitive. Why not? I am sure the executives and shareholders would be happier. While some in China have an increasing standard of living, it is pretty much due to the same processes that have led America to where it is today. It is a direction China, and any other developing country, must take if they wish to truly make life better for their people (and not just for their corporations and those who own them).
D, you are correct that pay is a controllable benefit and healthcare and many other benefits are not. However, I contend that benefits provided by businesses do “gel” with capitalism. Just as a business must provide a product or service people want at a price they are willing to pay, they must offer prospective workers benefits that will attract the kind of skilled workers they want. If they can’t do this, the best workers will go work for a business that is willing to offer more. This is part of the balance of which I spoke in my opening sentence. How do you attract and retain top skilled workers and remain competitive? It is a fine balancing act. In the bigger economic picture, workers are also customers. You lower their pay or remove benefits on a large scale and soon the economy will feel the crunch as people perceive they can no longer afford the products or services businesses offer.
Well put