21–30 of 50 posts
This example shows that the services he names have some finite value (perhaps zero or negative) which can be added to the salary value. A person considering a change in employment just needs to figure out what that value is, so you can put competing offers from different companies on the same scale.
If he was offered a salary of $100 million per year, I'm sure the author wouldn't refuse it on the basis of a gym membership being part of the package. This example shows that the services he names have some finite value (perhaps zero or negative) which can be added to the salary value. A person considering a change in employment just needs to figure out what that value is, so you can put competing offers from differ…
I included the Ayn Rand quote because it's simply the most straight-forward and succinct summary of what my blog post was all about. I hazard a guess that those who detest Rand's thought will probably equally detest mine. :)
If you want to use the life as software analogy, here's one.
Life is about making choices, and choices involve tradeoffs. If life was like software, to remain free to move around in any circle and jobs, besides employment benefits, one would also only program in the most popular programming languages (Java,C#), speak the most commonly spoken languages (Chinese and English), eat the most commonly available food stuff (McD's), dress the most commonly worn clothes (T-shirt and Jeans from age 3 - the day you die), do the most commonly done things (Watch TV) so you can have things to talk about when you hang out with your common friends. Some people like those lives, and that's fine. But some others like to have the finer things in life, and that involves going off the mainstream and be elitist as you would probably say. Instead of programming Java, some would program in Python. Instead of watching TV, some would like to read a book or go to museums. Instead of working for 50k a year with minimum benefits like everyone else, some would work for a company that gives them PTO, health insurance, gym membership etc etc etc. People work hard so they can get hired by a company to have those things. They want it. That's their freedom. Their freedom to choose the life best suit them. It's not that they can't leave, they don't want to leave, because they feel they've earned the benefits in the first place. If some would like to leave, that's when they are making choices that value something else over employment benefits. That's also freedom.
The author is a consultant so I find this article biased. A friend of mine works as insurance manager and he has dealt with some startups and many medium-size companies. Group purchase is relatively cheaper and more convenient to manage. So why people love universal health package from your boss? The most obvious reason is it cost a few thousand dollars per year to cover your own premium. http://news.ehealthinsurance…
Additionally, I think the average listed there is a misleadingly low self-selector in that most anyone who has a pre-existing condition is likely to get quotes so expensive that getting an individual or family plan outside of the workplace is simply not a financially viable option.
There are many, many Americans for whom health insurance outside of a workplace group policy simply isn't an option, and that is sad, but the last thing needed to fix this problem is an application of Randian principles.
"This is why I don’t accept the usual “benefits” package. I go for the jobs that offer minimal benefits and high pay. I go for the jobs that challenge and improve me, not the jobs I’d settle down in and feel like I can’t get out of."
Why not go for the jobs that offer great benefits, (at least) good pay, and challenge you? And, if you find you can't leave such a job because it is just too good, then maybe the job is worth sticking around for?
I work in an at-will state which means that I can leave my employer at any time for any reason and they can let me go under the same constraints.
If ever there was a phrase that deserves the derisive phrase "first world problem" it is "the benefits are too good for me to leave."
Finally,
"A less obvious reason [for great benefits] is that they increase the employee’s dependency on the employer and create barriers to the employee leaving the company for a higher paying and/or more challenging job."
this isn't a less obvious reason at all. At my current employer, the company explicitly provides strong incentives to keep employees. People still leave when they find another challenge more to their liking, benefits and all. And that's exactly the way it should be.
What is with all the Rand hate? I myself don't know that much about her beyond the big picture (books she authored, something called Objectivism, etc.) There seems to be a large group that detests her. Where is that coming from? (Honest question looking for facts, not to start a pointless debate).
The author implies a false dichotomy in the following paragraph. "This is why I don’t accept the usual “benefits” package. I go for the jobs that offer minimal benefits and high pay. I go for the jobs that challenge and improve me, not the jobs I’d settle down in and feel like I can’t get out of." Why not go for the jobs that offer great benefits, (at least) good pay, and challenge you? And, if you find you can't lea…
At my last job, I got subsidized gym at a fancy place with a pool, but it was as bit out of my way. At my new job, I get free gym, no pool, but right next to my office, so I can go in my lunch break. Which is the more valuable benefit?
I'm in the UK, so I have universal healthcare. But my last employer had a private add-on that was really good and not too expensive (benefit-in-kind, ie. company pays, but I pay income tax on the cost) which I took. My new one has an even better, but more expensive one, so I probably won't take it. Which is the more valuable benefit?
What is with all the Rand hate? I myself don't know that much about her beyond the big picture (books she authored, something called Objectivism, etc.) There seems to be a large group that detests her. Where is that coming from? (Honest question looking for facts, not to start a pointless debate).
In general, from the standpoint of someone against it, Objectivists seem to think that poor people and welfare programs are preventing the wealthy from "saving the world", totally disregarding the fact that poor people do all of the labor and numerous examples of wealthy people encouraging legislation to prevent competitors and innovation.
What is with all the Rand hate? I myself don't know that much about her beyond the big picture (books she authored, something called Objectivism, etc.) There seems to be a large group that detests her. Where is that coming from? (Honest question looking for facts, not to start a pointless debate).
A lot of people do dislike her as a semi-famous figure (i.e., not having known her personally) because she has said and done some things that are fairly disagreeable. (The easiest potshot to take is that her ideal human is a sociopath.) But by and large, it's because she's had what is often perceived to be a very negative impact on society.
Here's a biased, first-person, but vitriol-free perspective: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/05/my_father_the_objectivist/