politicartoons | Silly woman.

as always, you refuse to consider the larger context of the change.

I don't see what I'm not considering here. She's not entitled to any specific benefits in this scenario, her actual pay doesn't change, and you're still insisting it's essentially a dock in pay because she may choose to spend some of her actual pay on something previously covered by her insurance.

I don't see what I'm not considering here.

Yeah, I know. You never do.

She's not entitled to any specific benefits in this scenario, her actual pay doesn't change

you are fully aware that, when considering employment, people look at the benefits package as part of the determination of the job paying sufficiently, right?

In other words, if a job pays $40k but they also have an insurance plan the company covers for $10k, that person may find more value in that than a job that pays $45k with a company that only covers for $2k in a plan.

And, if the company goes "Actually we're only going to pay less on our end for insurance this time, so you in turn pay more," people see that as a reduction of their overall income from the company.

This is pretty much how every normal employed human being views benefits.

I've turned down jobs that would have paid me 50% more than I make now, because the health insurance programs were so terrible, my "extra" pay would have been nullified in a single quarter.

Absolutely. But if those normal human beings are assuming those benefits will remain static, they're not being very smart about it.

and, of course, the company bears no responsibility to the employee.

I've never seen anyone throw themselves into the role of wage-slave so devotedly before.

The company's responsibility is to exchange the agreed-upon wage for the labor offered. That's it. They don't owe me anything else - if they want to offer it, great, if I want more, I can ask for it or find employment elsewhere.

If my benefits aren't part of the wage, why can my contribution towards those benefits be tax-free?

You have a unique definition. As usual.

If my benefits aren't part of the wage, why can my contribution towards those benefits be tax-free?

Because the government has decided that you shouldn't be taxed on certain things you yourself fund with your wages.

but I don't fund it all myself. My company pays for part of it. That part is included in my total compensation costs.

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-03-23 18:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dwer.livejournal.com - 2012-03-23 18:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-03-23 18:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dwer.livejournal.com - 2012-03-23 18:38 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-03-23 18:47 (UTC) - Expand

I may have missed a step in the conversation here, but no one is surprised that salaries and benefits change, sometimes positive sometimes negative, but they're more surprised that you're claiming someone shouldn't regard a reduction of benefits as a cut to what they're paid by their employer.

They're surprised because they see benefits as equal to wages.

That's probably because they're part of the entire salary package.

Salary and benefit package, you mean.

Whatever makes you sleep in delirium each night.

no, they see benefits as PART of wages. Rightly so.

Wrongly so, because they're independent of wages. It's a misunderstanding you yourself are engaging in as well. A wage is something you will get at any job - not so with benefits.

Jeff,

Basic health care isn't something one can choose or choose not to buy. Reproductive care is basic health care. No different to screening for male only cancers or treating male only disorders.

Nobody is trying to argue that employers should be allowed to deny men basic health care as part of insurance, but seemingly you think it's okay to discriminate against women and to deny them basic healthcare as part of their insurance.

Basic health care has a huge impact on people's lives. It extends them, makes them healthier, improves productivity and generally is GOOD for a company, companies make more money with a healthy productive workforce. The objection to providing basic healthcare to women has fuck all to do with logic or reasonable business behaviour and everything to do with bigotry and discrimination.

If you truly believe the crap you're spouting, kindly lobby (and prove you have lobbied) your representatives to have MALE basic healthcare fall under the same rules. If women can be expected to "choose" to pay for basic healthcare despite having insurance already, so can men.

I'd love to see male AND female care under the same rules, yes - no mandates to purchase from the government. You'll get no inconsistency from me here.

Then put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate it by lobbying for men to be treated the same as you think women should be treated.

I'm too busy putting my money toward issues of free speech and property rights. This is a very low issue on the totem pole.

Yet apparently not so low that we couldn't go without your opinion on something that will never ever affect you ever.

Good on you jeff, not only do you support misogyny but you don't even have the balls to back up your claims to not be misogynistic.

The hell?

If you have to have it explained to you, the conversation is beyond you.