Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Worst Perk at Google

coveragecat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#41

Post by aabhay »

remotecar wrote: post #39
aabhay wrote: post #32

This is a complete misunderstanding of probability, payoff, and return on investment. The value of a life insurance policy isn’t in its amortized yearly returns. This policy is not an investment. The policy allows you to pay a negligible amount of money to avoid a devastating situation — family pain and debt that might arise from your death. Anybody who uses this article as justification to end their life insurance p…

Why doesn’t “buy it yourself” solve the problem?

I could just as easily alter the variables for various mortalities to make $150/month seem expensive by that logic. Paying $150 vs $300 per month for life insurance doesn’t suddenly make it “worth it”

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#42

Post by GavinB »

Having this be a universal policy has a big clear benefit--when someone at the company dies, their family's immediate needs and expenses are taken care of. It avoids the awkward "passing the hat" to the company or fellow employees for support. There's no need to make special exceptions, determine how much to help out in a crisis, etc--it's taken care of automatically, to a pre-determined extent. No one can complain that an employee died and big rich Google did nothing for their family. It saves a lot of potential handwringing, bad PR, and employee dissatisfaction, etc.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#43

Post by TMWNN »

uptown wrote: post #27
carabiner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would give up my freedom of speech and right to vote in exchange for free, high-quality heath care for life.

But how would you speak-out when they took it all away a year later?

Reminds me of how, for Cuba-loving leftists, the first thing they cite is how under the Castro regime the literacy rate hit 99%. Hey, that's great. But if there's no freedom of speech, what are people going to read besides state propaganda?

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#44

Post by pfranz »

gretch wrote: post #21

I work at Google I like that this is taken care of for me and that I don't have to spend my personal time trying to research a bunch of life insurance options and figure out what works and what doesn't. I also love that there is some amount of collective bargaining being applied here instead of me making the purchase as an individual. I'll gladly pay a $300/yr premium for that, and the ease of mind that my loves ones…

I get what you're saying, but at 29 what would I have done with life insurance? I had no spouse or children. It seemed like all they were asking is a way to opt out.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#45

Post by maxerickson »

latchkey wrote: post #28
maxerickson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's (very likely) cheaper for the company to offer a fixed benefit than it is to pay that amount directly as compensation. I certainly don't mind that people I work with and their families are getting dental care instead of me getting a modest annual raise.

A lot of small business dental plans cost the company nothing extra to offer to employees because the cost is passed onto the employee directly. It is an optional 'perk' that is offered by the insurance company, but it is almost worthless in value. A lot of employees don't do the math and just tack on the extra monthly fee. But, if you do the math on them, it often doesn't work out to opt into that perk, even in an e…

Okay, but for example, dental isn't an option at my small company, you just get it.

Probably because there is a large group of union employees.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#47

Post by hervature »

aabhay wrote: post #41
remotecar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn’t “buy it yourself” solve the problem?

I could just as easily alter the variables for various mortalities to make $150/month seem expensive by that logic. Paying $150 vs $300 per month for life insurance doesn’t suddenly make it “worth it”

What? Of course there is a dollar amount where people switch from "worth it" to "not worth it". Here is a thought exercise. Would you buy the same insurance plan for $0. Of course, it is free. Would you buy the same insurance plan for $500,000. No of course not, that's the payout. Everyone has a different dollar amount in between based on the risk aversion, their own valuation of "peace of mind", and their perceived likelihood of using it.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#48

Post by tfehring »

I think it's pretty unlikely that Google is getting a bad deal on its group life insurance relative to the expected value of benefits. Yeah, younger people are cross-subsidizing premiums for older coworkers - it's arguably a dumb standard, but it is a standard, and ultimately the impact isn't that significant.

The bigger issue with employer-sponsored life insurance is that it leaves you vulnerable to losing your coverage right when you actually need it. Lots of fatal medical conditions make it impossible to work in your last months or years of life. And that's if you want to spend your last months or years of life at work, which many people understandably don't.

In the best case, you can take your insurance with you when you lose or quit your job. You just have to remember to fill out the forms to port your policy out and pay the premiums within ~30 days, which sounds trivial but probably isn't exactly top-of-mind if you're dying. The insurer will be unsympathetic if it takes you 31 days instead of 30, of course. In worse cases, you might not be able to port out your policy at all if you have an immediately-life-threatening medical condition, or your premiums may be unaffordable, or there may be limits on how much you can convert.

So yeah, I generally recommend that people ignore their employer-sponsored life insurance and buy their own if they need it. All of this also goes for long-term disability insurance.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#49

Post by ydnaclementine »

The ideal time to buy life insurance is at 30 (it's not much cheaper before that, and quickly gets more expensive after). I went with a 30 year, $2mill plan for $120 a month. My thought is that who knows if/what my family looks like in the next 30 years, $2mill is a decent chunk of money for any dependents, and by the time the insurance runs out, my investments will hopefully be worth more than the insurance. I did policy genius (not affiliated), and it was really easy. Plus it's not tied to my employer.
Post reply on HN