←back to thread

137 points pg_1234 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
unmole ◴[] No.37271099[source]
Did the survey ask if they wanted a pay cut to match European style wages?
replies(9): >>37271107 #>>37271111 #>>37271120 #>>37271132 #>>37271152 #>>37271153 #>>37271214 #>>37271227 #>>37271267 #
catboybotnet ◴[] No.37271267[source]
If pay is the only concern, why not just take up contract work and refuse benefits to get the most pay? Ignoring the other variables at play, such as cost of living and benefits, and only focusing on pay is foolish.
replies(2): >>37271434 #>>37271608 #
unmole ◴[] No.37271434[source]
Higher pay gives you options like being able to take unpaid time off and still coming out ahead. That's more appealing than nebulous benefits.

Contract work is a fundamentally different proposition and equating it to employment is foolish.

replies(1): >>37271652 #
1. maccard ◴[] No.37271652[source]
> That's more appealing than nebulous benefits.

Benefits aren't nebulous, they're concrete things. My employer offers a pension(401k) contribution, health insurance (which is a queue skip really here), income protection for long term sickness or death in service, and a "perks card" which is 95% crap but gives me a 25% discount on the largest gym chain in my area. That's just monetary.

On the "non-monetary" side, I'm guaranteed 33 days _paid_ time off (and promised 40 this year), have an option to take a month _unpaid_ with notice, I have employment rights and can't just find myself without a job with no notice or dismissed for no reason. There's also the "overhead"/admin work of managing a business and handling the tax affairs. Sure it's straightforward, until HMRC decide it's audit time.

> Contract work is a fundamentally different proposition and equating it to employment is foolish.

That, I agree with.