Why I'm not hiring.

[Skull Pilot]

I found this WSJ piece to be very interesting. Most people who have never had to meet a payroll have absolutely no idea how expensive it can be to employ people.

Michael P. Fleischer: Why I'm Not Hiring - WSJ.com

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

With tax hikes looming, increasing health care costs and reporting obligations for employers, inevitable energy taxes and the soon to be coming VAT, is it any wonder that businesses aren't hiring?

And let's not forget that there are many businesses out there that are hiring and offering training but people would rather stay on unemployment because the benefits are either more than that of a salary or close enough that people don't care to work for the same amount that they can collect while not working.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-companies-cant-find-enough-skilled-workers-right-now-2010-8

Michael Hatchell, a 52-year-old mechanic in Lumberton, N.C., says he turned down more than a dozen offers during the 59 weeks he was unemployed, because they didn't pay more than the $450 a week he was collecting in benefits.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-c...killed-workers-right-now-2010-8#ixzz0wCJcILIF

So next time you argue for extending unemployment benefits think about this.

 

[Ravi]

So basically employers think that because there are a lot of unemployed people they can offer slave wages and people will take their offerings?

Uh huh.

I thought this was going to be about your own personal business and not a regurgitation from right wing talking points.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So basically employers think that because there are a lot of unemployed people they can offer slave wages and people will take their offerings?

Uh huh.

I thought this was going to be about your own personal business and not a regurgitation from right wing talking points.

So you call 44,000 a year net pay slave wages?

And business owners who tell the truth about the costs government lays on employers are neither left nor right. They just are

And tell me would anyone work for the same amount of money they can collect for sitting on their asses.

If you want to know about my business, I'll tell you. We're doing well and are considering letting go several part time people so as to hire some full timers. Circumstances in our employee pool have evolved so we find ourselves with more part time than full time people because we tried to keep everyone that told us they had scheduling problems or who after maternity leave didn't want to come back full time but it's just not working out.

We have a bunch of people who can't work this day or that and offer absolutely no flexibility. We see a lack of continuity in customer service and care. People might think that having more part than full time people is a good thing but in realty it's not unless you're running a MacDonalds or a retail store where day to day continuity and follow up concerns are minimal.

We offer benefits to part timers (retirement, vacation etc) so really as expensive as it is to hire, the end cost should be a wash for us but that is not the case for all businesses.

 

[xotoxi]

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

How much more does your company make with Sally working then without her working?

Does her presence bring in more than $74,000 per year?

 

[Skull Pilot]

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

How much more does your company make with Sally working then without her working?

Does her presence bring in more than $74,000 per year?

If it brought in 74,001 it would not be worth hiring her.

 

[mudwhistle]

So basically employers think that because there are a lot of unemployed people they can offer slave wages and people will take their offerings?

Uh huh.

I thought this was going to be about your own personal business and not a regurgitation from right wing talking points.

A contractor in this country finds that he makes less then his employees after all of his taxes and government mandates are paid....and top it off Obama is adding another one next January. After paying Workmen's Comp and paying for health coverage on each and every one of his workers most home-builders don't have much left to pay themselves. So many of them cut workers out completely and just work for themselves doing odd jobs and only hire laborers that make maybe $10 an hour part-time.

Why is contruction so expensive on government contracts? Because to meet the requirements imposed by Congress everyone who works for contractors has to by law have full health coverage. A job that normally would cost $30,000 eventually ends up costing $80,000 because the contractor has to charge that much to pay his overhead. Government health insurance requirements is gonna force the price of everything up and their's no ceiling to the costs.

 

[editec]

People aren't hiring because they don't see opportunity to make money, simple as that.

While I don't doubt taxes are too high, that is not the primary problem.

The problem is that the economy is in the crapper because we have followed a course of economic policies which stripped workers of their ability to make enough money to keep this economy in balance.

We gave every advantage to the capital class and screwed our own consumer classes in the process.

 

[Ravi]

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

How much more does your company make with Sally working then without her working?

Does her presence bring in more than $74,000 per year?

That's the only question that matters.

 

[Dr Grump]

How much more does your company make with Sally working then without her working?

Does her presence bring in more than $74,000 per year?

If it brought in 74,001 it would not be worth hiring her.

Then don't hire her...

 

[xotoxi]

How much more does your company make with Sally working then without her working?

Does her presence bring in more than $74,000 per year?

If it brought in 74,001 it would not be worth hiring her.

What if she brought in $740,001?

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm not sure I understand the way this man views his employees' compensation.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Benefits add to the total cost of employing Sally because that cost is what she makes. Those are part of her compensation package (as are her wages), not some perk on top of her compensation. He writes checks for $74,000 because that's what he--or the market--deems someone with 15 years experience and "some specialized training" should be compensated for that position. The fact that some compensation is allocated as wages, some as health benefits, and some as life insurance benefits is irrelevant to the fact that he deems this employee is worth $74,000.

Despite his claim that he's being "drafted" to provide health coverage under reform, those provisions don't start until 2014. He provides it now, and he provided it last year and the years before that, because he chose to, not because he faces a penalty. The alternative would be to just pay Sally wages and not worry about health benefits. Of course, since he's valued her work at $74,000, that would imply raising her wages from $59,000 to somewhere much closer to $74,000 (as her total compensation package shifts from a mix of wages and health benefits to purely wages). That would increase her take-home pay, though it also means a larger part of her total compensation package is taxed (health benefits from an employer aren't taxed).

In other words, the way he's writing this ("When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.") makes it sound as if he values Sally's labor at $44,000 and all the rest are some burden society and government have placed on him to the tune of an extra $30,000. Of course, that's exactly backwards. He values her labor at $74,000. Wages and benefits all fall under that total compensation amount and taxes come out of that, which is why Sally doesn't take home her full allotment of wages.

We're supposed to feel that he's been "punished" because he--or the market for her labor--values Sally's work at $74,000 per year?

 

[Skull Pilot]

How much more does your company make with Sally working then without her working?

Does her presence bring in more than $74,000 per year?

If it brought in 74,001 it would not be worth hiring her.

What if she brought in $740,001?

if she brought in that much don't you think she'd be paid a hell of a lot more than the 44k she now takes home?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

His basic point is that Sally gets 44,000 and he has to pay 74,000. Sally wonders why he isn't hiring more folks when there is a lot more jobs that would pay over 44,000.

Right now, he is looking at a huge spike in costs for each new hire. And his profits are going to get hit by higher taxes.

What he is also pointing out is we are seeing the first step in major wage deflation. In order for more folks to get hired, they are going to have to take substantially smaller paychecks. That will take a while to get that message across. People have an expectation of a certain income level, and a certain spending level. 10% unemployment for more than a year is the way the economy re educates folks into eating less steak and more beans.

 

[xotoxi]

If it brought in 74,001 it would not be worth hiring her.

What if she brought in $740,001?

if she brought in that much don't you think she'd be paid a hell of a lot more than the 44k she now takes home?

Not necessarily. Maybe she's in collections.

 

[Mr Natural]

Labor overhead?

Must be something new.

 

[xotoxi]

I'm not sure I understand the way this man views his employees' compensation.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Benefits add to the total cost of employing Sally because that cost is what she makes. Those are part of her compensation package (as are her wages), not some perk on top of her compensation. He writes checks for $74,000 because that's what he--or the market--deems someone with 15 years experience and "some specialized training" should be compensated for that position. The fact that some compensation is allocated as wages, some as health benefits, and some as life insurance benefits is irrelevant to the fact that he deems this employee is worth $74,000.

Despite his claim that he's being "drafted" to provide health coverage under reform, those provisions don't start until 2014. He provides it now, and he provided it last year and the years before that, because he chose to, not because he faces a penalty. The alternative would be to just pay Sally wages and not worry about health benefits. Of course, since he's valued her work at $74,000, that would imply raising her wages from $59,000 to somewhere much closer to $74,000 (as her total compensation package shifts from a mix of wages and health benefits to purely wages). That would increase her take-home pay, though it also means a larger part of her total compensation package is taxed (health benefits from an employer aren't taxed).

In other words, the way he's writing this ("When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.") makes it sound as if he values Sally's labor at $44,000 and all the rest of some burden society and government have placed on him to the tune of an extra $30,000. Of course, that's exactly backwards. He values her labor at $74,000. Wages and benefits all fall under that total compensation amount and taxes come out of that, which is why Sally doesn't take home her full allotment of wages.

We're supposed to feel that he's been "punished" because he--or the market for her labor--values Sally's work at $74,000 per year?

Or, he could be less pessimistic and say that she's worth $100,000, but he's getting her at a bargain basement price.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not sure I understand the way this man views his employees' compensation.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Benefits add to the total cost of employing Sally because that cost is what she makes. Those are part of her compensation package (as are her wages), not some perk on top of her compensation. He writes checks for $74,000 because that's what he--or the market--deems someone with 15 years experience and "some specialized training" should be compensated for that position. The fact that some compensation is allocated as wages, some as health benefits, and some as life insurance benefits is irrelevant to the fact that he deems this employee is worth $74,000.

Despite his claim that he's being "drafted" to provide health coverage under reform, those provisions don't start until 2014. He provides it now, and he provided it last year and the years before that, because he chose to, not because he faces a penalty. The alternative would be to just pay Sally wages and not worry about health benefits. Of course, since he's valued her work at $74,000, that would imply raising her wages from $59,000 to somewhere much closer to $74,000 (as her total compensation package shifts from a mix of wages and health benefits to purely wages). That would increase her take-home pay, though it also means a larger part of her total compensation package is taxed (health benefits from an employer aren't taxed).

In other words, the way he's writing this ("When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.") makes it sound as if he values Sally's labor at $44,000 and all the rest of some burden society and government have placed on him to the tune of an extra $30,000. Of course, that's exactly backwards. He values her labor at $74,000. Wages and benefits all fall under that total compensation amount and taxes come out of that, which is why Sally doesn't take home her full allotment of wages.

We're supposed to feel that he's been "punished" because he--or the market for her labor--values Sally's work at $74,000 per year?

Or, he could be less pessimistic and say that she's worth $100,000, but he's getting her at a bargain basement price.

You have no idea what she's worth to the company.

She might barely be justifiable

 

[xotoxi]

I'm not sure I understand the way this man views his employees' compensation.

Benefits add to the total cost of employing Sally because that cost is what she makes. Those are part of her compensation package (as are her wages), not some perk on top of her compensation. He writes checks for $74,000 because that's what he--or the market--deems someone with 15 years experience and "some specialized training" should be compensated for that position. The fact that some compensation is allocated as wages, some as health benefits, and some as life insurance benefits is irrelevant to the fact that he deems this employee is worth $74,000.

Despite his claim that he's being "drafted" to provide health coverage under reform, those provisions don't start until 2014. He provides it now, and he provided it last year and the years before that, because he chose to, not because he faces a penalty. The alternative would be to just pay Sally wages and not worry about health benefits. Of course, since he's valued her work at $74,000, that would imply raising her wages from $59,000 to somewhere much closer to $74,000 (as her total compensation package shifts from a mix of wages and health benefits to purely wages). That would increase her take-home pay, though it also means a larger part of her total compensation package is taxed (health benefits from an employer aren't taxed).

In other words, the way he's writing this ("When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.") makes it sound as if he values Sally's labor at $44,000 and all the rest of some burden society and government have placed on him to the tune of an extra $30,000. Of course, that's exactly backwards. He values her labor at $74,000. Wages and benefits all fall under that total compensation amount and taxes come out of that, which is why Sally doesn't take home her full allotment of wages.

We're supposed to feel that he's been "punished" because he--or the market for her labor--values Sally's work at $74,000 per year?

Or, he could be less pessimistic and say that she's worth $100,000, but he's getting her at a bargain basement price.

You have no idea what she's worth to the company.

She might barely be justifiable

Then fire her.

Or, if she is bringing in $740,001 into the company each year, then the $74,000 that you pay her is great.

It is more of a function of what your company does.

If your company screws caps onto toothpaste tubes, then you will never be pleased with how much you have to pay people to do the task.

 

[Care4all]

If it brought in 74,001 it would not be worth hiring her.

What if she brought in $740,001?

if she brought in that much don't you think she'd be paid a hell of a lot more than the 44k she now takes home?

no. producing 740,000 (gross sales), for your 74k in her compensation, is about right....a 10% selling cost/productivity.

 

[Madeline]

So basically employers think that because there are a lot of unemployed people they can offer slave wages and people will take their offerings?

Uh huh.

I thought this was going to be about your own personal business and not a regurgitation from right wing talking points.

A contractor in this country finds that he makes less then his employees after all of his taxes and government mandates are paid....and top it off Obama is adding another one next January. After paying Workmen's Comp and paying for health coverage on each and every one of his workers most home-builders don't have much left to pay themselves. So many of them cut workers out completely and just work for themselves doing odd jobs and only hire laborers that make maybe $10 an hour part-time.

Why is contruction so expensive on government contracts? Because to meet the requirements imposed by Congress everyone who works for contractors has to by law have full health coverage. A job that normally would cost $30,000 eventually ends up costing $80,000 because the contractor has to charge that much to pay his overhead. Government health insurance requirements is gonna force the price of everything up and their's no ceiling to the costs.

Respectfully, mudwhistle this is utter bullshit. The contractor with a bad safety record might have very high workers' comp premiums but unless he is hiring high-risk, pre-existing individuals, no one's health insurance costs this much.