

Decoupling your employment - jonathanconway
http://jonathanconway.net/opinion/decoupling-your-employment

======
tomasien
I've long thought that the single most underrated aspect of universal
healthcare would be the increase in job-churn, an extremely beneficial
economic phenomenon, would be much higher with people not afraid to leave
their jobs and therefore lose their healthcare.

I, however, would feel extremely remiss if I didn't mention that it's likely
unwise to consider Ayn Rand a hero of any sort. Besides being a wonderful
writer of pulp fiction, she is a worthless thinker and an absolute unabashed
crazy person.

~~~
cperciva
I can see the theoretical argument for universal healthcare making people more
willing to leave their jobs in search of better opportunities, but I'm having
trouble squaring the theory with the reality I see today: I can't think of any
country where job-hopping is more commonplace or more accepted than the USA.

The only explanation I can think of right now is that people in the USA tend
to be more self-centered and this is responsible for both the job-hopping and
the lack of universal health care; but I'm not sure I'm convinced by it. Any
ideas?

~~~
rogerbinns
I don't know what the job mobility statistics are, but remember that the US
workforce is about one hundred and fifty million people and the European one
is a similar order of magnitude. You need to scale comparisons accordingly (eg
comparing the US to Canada where the latter has a workforce under 20 million).

Additionally it is far easier to move in the US. There are no immigration
requirements, language barriers, major cultural differences, different
education systems, certifications (sometimes states differ) or similar
impediments. Many states are "at will" meaning that employment is not
protected to the degree it is in many other countries. This means that
mobility can happen from both employee and employer sides.

I don't think job hopping is due to being self centred (in the pejorative
sense). The US tends to be very productive which means employment and
employees are more able to move around to meet needs. That they do so is not a
bad thing.

I've known couples where one works a big boring established company in order
to bring in the healthcare while the other works at startups. They would both
prefer to work at startups but by the time people approach 40 there is likely
to be some health issues forecast if not already happening. (Even the fittest
people wear out body parts!)

And if anything economic policies have been discouraging mobility. Higher
house/ing prices makes people sticky and diverts income into unproductive use,
but seems to be a goal. (We'd all be better off with a lot cheaper housing
costs.) The lack of competition in communications (largely due to regulatory
capture) means that remote participation is a lot less effective than it could
be. And of course health care is dysfunctional and expensive, although the
care received by some of the people some of the time is world leading.

~~~
cperciva
_I don't think job hopping is due to being self centred (in the pejorative
sense)._

I didn't mean it in the pejorative sense -- just that in Canada I hear people
say they're staying in jobs they don't like because they don't want to "let
down" their friends who are working at the same company... and I don't think
I've ever heard that from people working in the US (startup co-founders
excepted).

~~~
rogerbinns
I worked for several years for a company just outside Silicon Valley where
people said they stayed because they liked their colleagues so much, but
otherwise would have left. Two anecdotes don't make data :-)

------
jonathanwallace
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 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.

~~~
mseebach
I think an important factor is that benefits muddles the value of your total
compensation. It gets really tricky to compare an offer for another job with
your current package.

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?

------
SqMafia
The post is narrowly focused. Unless the author plans to make no friends with
anyone at a place where most people spend more than half of his awake hours,
his plan is insufficient to make it easier to leave a job. At this point, I
would say letting down my peers and friends at work is a strong motivation for
me. Perhaps in the eyes of some people, perhaps the author, caring about what
others think of me makes me somehow weaker or less "rational". As a matter of
preference, I would rather trade off some independence for the benefits of
friendship and camaraderie.

Furthermore, his argument is unrealistic. Most of us don't compare one job
with no benefits vs. another with benefits. The situation in the Bay Area at
least means that we are often comparing jobs with very similar benefits. Thus,
the benefits offered by my current employer is nullified by the equally good
benefits of the competing offer, just as companies offering the benefits hope
they would do. In the end, most jobs in the Bay Area are fairly comparable in
terms of benefits and pay. What matters are the less tangible things: culture,
opportunity, challenge, etc. The biggest factor that's keeping me at my
company right now are the friends I've made there over the years and I have no
regrets about having tied myself down with friendship.

------
charlieflowers
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).

~~~
jonathanconway
I agree with you that there are a lot of people who simply refuse to engage
with Rand's ideas.

No matter how much one dislikes an idea, I think one should be willing to
understand and engage with it, especially if it's an important idea that has
had influence (as some of Rand's ideas have, for example, her concept of
"force").

I personally agree with most of Rand's philosophy, but that doesn't prevent me
from being willing to listen to and engage in discourse with Marxists,
Keynsians, and other schools of thought which differ strongly from
Objectivism.

If someone really thinks their ideas are true and right, then they should have
the confidence to see those ideas tried and tested in the real world, against
all the alternatives.

They should count it as a privilege to discuss/debate their ideas with
opposing schools (as long as everyone respects basic manners/decency), because
doing so will deepen their knowledge and improve their ability to convince
others of their ideas.

Anyway enough ranting. :)

~~~
ucee054
"If someone really thinks their ideas are true and right, then they should
have the confidence to see those ideas tried and tested in the real world,
against all the alternatives."

 _My idea_ is that dropping a bomb on _you_ would immeasurably improve the
world. Care for me to try that, or are you ready to admit that some ideas
_shouldn't be tested_?

------
cllns
This raises a very good point, but the Rand quote is sure to polarize people's
responses and I personally don't think it's necessary.

------
peteretep
> Ayn Rand, a long-time favourite thinker of mine

I think disclaimers are generally best put near the top.

------
jawngee
Looking at your linkedin you do mostly contract work, so I'm not sure what you
know exactly about what you are talking about?

People churn through employment based on ambition, boredom and opportunity. In
20+ years I've never met someone who stayed at a company strictly for the
benefits. I'm sure those people exist, but my guess is that it's not the
benefits thats keeping them there, it's their personal need for security and
stability regardless of the offerings. These people are likely not ambitious
nor risk takers by nature.

And then the Ayn Rand being your "favorite thinker" made me throw the whole of
your argument into the rubbish bin on the merit of that alone.

------
nicholassmith
A lot of the time the benefits are there to 'sweeten the deal', their monetary
value to a business is low. Turning them down won't net you their perceived
value on top of your wages, they're also not a lock in to a single employer as
for the most part most employers offer the same benefits, more often than not
sold from the same group.

Plus I can't imagine anything more soulless than going to work every day and
thinking that I'm there til I'm gone. Almost like getting into a relationship
and thinking its just for the moment. Our jobs shouldn't rule our lives but it
almost sounds like the author is just grinding it out, rather than throwing
yourself in and revelling in the joy of the work you get to do.

Maybe I'm weird though.

------
csense
I'm thinking of the perks he mentions in terms of a utility function. In other
words, how much salary would you trade for paid vacation, company gym
membership, company cafeteria, etc.?

Companies offer these things because they think, on average, employees will
say "More than they cost the company to provide."

This post essentially reminds people that they should factor in the switching
costs for all of these things. It also notes that those switching costs may
increase super-linearly if multiple service agreements expire at the same time
due to a change in employment.

------
csense
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 different companies on the same scale.

~~~
qq66
Since he's claiming to value benefits at near-zero, a better counterexample
might be a job paying below-market wage, but with free use of a private jet, a
personal chef and trainer, and other insane perks :)

~~~
jonathanconway
Now a job like that I would strongly consider. :)

------
meric
Could it be the tax on these 'benefits' is less than that for salary? So if
you were an employee that would've subscribed to these things anyway, both you
and your employer would benefit having the employer pay for the benefits and
incur less tax in the process.

------
jonathanconway
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. :)

~~~
eaurouge
_“A rational man never leaves his interests at the mercy of any one person or
single, specific concrete. He may need clients, but not any one particular
client — he may need a job, but not any one particular job.”_

 _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._

In the context of your blog post, the Ayn Rand quote is arguing for MULTIPLE
clients and MULTIPLE jobs to avoid dependence on any one client or employer.
Your post argues for choosing ONE single particular job, with ONE single,
specific employer, using criteria not based on employer benefits. I don't see
what one has to do with the other.

~~~
jonathanconway
I think you misunderstand my intentions. What I meant is that one SHOULD have
multiple clients/multiple jobs, and that doing so will be easier if one
doesn't become too dependent on any one employer due to benefits, etc.

~~~
mememememememe
SHOULD is still a strong word. I don't mean to say nasty things to a
consultant. But consultant work isn't for every single developer. In fact, I
don't like working with contractors. I want to work with the team that works
for my company. I don't want to go outside and speak someone who doesn't
understand our company's culture and how we work. Besides, consultant work
DEPENDS on the market. You are tied to the market. Your value is depending on
the market, not YOU as an individual. If your skill is no longer special
because there are tons of people doing the same thing, your value will be
lowered. It is a lot secure to work for a company. As a consultant, you need
to either find a client yourself because you are starting, or you need to work
your ass off just to make enough. I don't know about you, but most of us here
can't make enough these days. consultant is freelancer, if you really think
about it.

Moreover, I choose a job based on the role and the culture there. I can expect
$80k ~ $100k on average for a software engineer nowadays in the city. I can
keep myself comfortable with one single task, not multiple task.

------
mememememememe
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.com/pr/ehi/how-much-does-
health...](http://news.ehealthinsurance.com/pr/ehi/how-much-does-health-
insurance-218305.aspx) According to the source above, family is around $4000,
and individual is around $3000

Google and Facebook always competes for the best people in this industry.
Suppose both get rid of health insurance, but Facebook is willing increase
salary by $1000 - $2000 on average. WoW. So which one would you go now, Mr.
Author? Facebook? Yeah. Because that $2000 is used to cover premium. On the
other hands, Google doesn't raise my salary and I would have to take out $4000
total to cover my whole family.

The fact that your employer has someone to deal with the agent, does all
billing and contacts for you makes your life easier as a worker. You don't
have to scratch your heads trying to find the best agent out there. All the
basic health plan covers the same. Some big companies will purchase expensive
package because they want to attract more talent workers.

The amount your boss will save by canceling health package is a lot, but they
won't increase your salary by $5000 - $10k. They just won't. Maybe $1000. You
still have to pay for the rest yourself.

Getting breakfast, lunch and even dinner all by yourself is a lot of money.
Big tech companies are known to offer free meals because they want to make
sure their workers can get the most out of their work time AND at the same
time getting the most out of their salary. Which company would offer more than
20% of salary raise by getting rid of employee benefits?

Another problem is showing caring. Even in a small bakery shop, the #1 benefit
is they can purchase left over food at very low price. Some nice owners even
let workers to take them home (I used to work for a bakery). My boss didn't
pay me health insurance because it was a small shop, but I get to save my
breakfast for my parents by getting free food every night! Many Chinese
takeout hire workers from other states and they live in the same apartment.
That's their benefit. That kind of convenient makes both employer and
employees happy.

I hate to say but people should stop trying to make life as a software.
Seriously.

If you like software methodology, fine, here is one: stop re-inventing a
common wheel. Let your boss does the billing for you. You use that third-party
API. Now move on.

~~~
georgemcbay
"According to the source above, family is around $4000, and individual is
around $3000"

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.

~~~
tomjen3
As somebody who is not an american, why would it be cheaper to get a health
insurance through work if I had a preexisting condition - other than the
obvious tax savings?

~~~
locopati
Your individual pre-existing condition does not bubble up to the group.
However, when negotiating as an individual, then each pre-existing condition
does get considered and factored into the cost. There's power in groups.

~~~
tomjen3
Thank you.

So at the same time, if one has no health conditions, one could expect to get
a cheaper rate on an individual plan?

~~~
mememememememe
Well, in most situation yes. You as an individual. There other problem with
pre-condition, it's very broad. They can make up all kinds of BS and claim
your application must be filed different because of some "magical"
precondition.

