This is the old “youth” argument for hiring teachers.     Older teachers get 
more pay because they have more experience and therefore you have to hire the 
young and talk up their “youth” and good looks because you can’t afford 
maturity, wisdom and experience.    Damn the students and their needs!    This 
person should move elsewhere and start her own country.    Russia’s nice I 
hear.     Responsibility to community rather than to the simple bottom line.   
Responsibility or” rent” to the culture that births and burps you is a part of 
common humanity.     Was Marx correct about capitalism? 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:21 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: [Futurework] FW: Why I'm Not Hiring - Wall Street Journal; August 9, 
2010

 

One reason why companies are slow to hire more full time employees.

 

>From Steve Kurtz.

 

 

 

From: Steve Kurtz [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:54 AM
To: Arthur Cordell
Subject: Why I'm Not Hiring - Wall Street Journal; August 9, 2010

 








Why I'm Not Hiring - Wall Street Journal; August 9, 2010 
  
By Michael P. Fleischer 
  
With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would 
think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be 
later—much later. Here's why. 
  
Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a 
terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay 
among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio 
systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been 
with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized 
training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 
a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and 
taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay. 
  
Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her 
share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then 
the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, 
$149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. 
New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for 
Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly 
$13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of 
her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in 
New York City, where the toll would be even higher. 
  
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. 
  
Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take 
$56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for 
workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make 
me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security. 
  
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. 
  
Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve 
as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. 
Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability 
insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our 
financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as 
they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and 
even for Sally too. 
  
Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. 
In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for 
themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding 
to the insanity, there is ObamaCare. 
  
Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our 
provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part 
a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to 
collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of 
the last two years, the increase was under 10%. 
  
To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my 
company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this 
"summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, 
because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise 
prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences. 
  
And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is 
always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new 
salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be 
increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, 
to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties 
of this economic environment. 
  
A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that 
every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. >From where I 
sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a 
punishing price. 


Todd Fry
ProBenefits USA, LLC
800.585.5802 toll-free
816.741.9307 desk
816.741.9418 fax
[email protected]
www.probenefitsusa.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may 
contain confidential information, be protected by applicable laws and 
copyrights, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed 
only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient you 
must not copy, distribute, or use this e-mail or the information contained in 
it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message 
in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this e-mail from 
your system.

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to