Vision Circle

B. More entry level jobs

Of the three, this is the most difficult to achieve because the supply/demand dynamic is at work. But jobs at the entry level allow new worker to pick up hard and soft work skills that lead to better jobs and possible attainment of the other two.

If retirement benefits == higher 401K contribution, then (a) wins. The reason is I will save 12% of my income towards 401(K) retirement. The matching contribution REALLY adds up QUICKLY.

If retirement benefits == old fashioned company sponsered retirement plans, then (c). With the higher overall wages, I can put more into my 401(K).

I didn't chose (b) because the number of jobs available comes from company performance. In my field, entry level jobs for geeks is not what we want. We want experience so that we can bill higher rates.

I would choose higher wages. With more money I can invest as I please without being limited by what my company happens to offer. Most of the time the Companies with 401k plans switch investment firms like people change underwear. I'd rather maintain control of my money and invest it where and how I please, knowing my rate of return, being able to pull money out without penalty, etc. I really don't think companies ought to be required to pay benefits to it's employees, it should be their option rather than a perceived requirement.

P.S. nice blog Darkstar!

I ask this question in reflection over what I've heard recently about a CEO talking straight about age wars. He said that as the American economy tightens, people ought to be very aware of how cash flow through corporations benefit the old at the expense of the young, especially when that corporation supports pensions, certain disability benefits, matching contributions, etc.

The image I have in my head is that of an old woman who parks her new Mercedes in the handicapped zone. A privileged weakness. Not good for the strength of the nation.

I think I'd have to pick B. I think that wage inflation is a bad idea, and I'd rather see larger teams of employees made and entry level mobility increased in the US.

Companies are not required to provide benefits, but they do to attract and retain talent. Some years, I would prefer to be a 1099 contractor so I could play around with my expenses at tax time, but basic health insurance is a good thing.

This is kind of a micro v. macro question. Thinking of myself only (Micro) A or C are the obvious choices. Thinking of the world around me (macro), B is the only choice.

P.S. I thing the hurricanes have truly reacquainted Cobb with his liberal side. ;-)

Jerry, this is Cobb's house. He was nice enough to rent me a room. :-)

I ask this question in reflection over what I've heard recently about a CEO talking straight about age wars. He said that as the American economy tightens, people ought to be very aware of how cash flow through corporations benefit the old at the expense of the young, especially when that corporation supports pensions, certain disability benefits, matching contributions, etc.

It's already happening.

At the blue collar level, more jobs are using dual payscales and benefits packages; one for older employees, one for new hires. A friend who is a fireman, and another friend who is a prision guard have both commented that the unions are protecting the older workers and leaving the younger workers to fend for themselves.

I pick 'C' for higher wages can be used as a recruiting mechanism to attract higher quality workers, thereby benefiting the corporation (in terms of productivity) and consumers (in the form of better products and/or services).