quote Originally posted by aceman: But, that is not how it happens. Your logic is very flawed and has failed a simple test of said logic.

of course, because you are trying to compare 2 different things again. when you apply the insurance format to the milage you see how silly what you are saying is.

quote Originally posted by jstricker:

John, just being in your presence would be enough compensation for me.

No, I once worked as a pizza delivery driver.

Let's say this was my pay and benefits package (COMPENSATION)

My pay/compensation was: $5/hr (PAY) plus .15/mile (COMPENSATION) plus Little Caesars paid 80% of my health insurance or $800/year.(BENEFIT) Gas was $1/year

The following year I got $5/hr plus .25/mile plus little Casars paid 80% of my health insurance or now they paid $1000/year. Gas was $2/year.

Just answer the questions with a yes or no:

Did my pay go up?

Did my mileage compensation go up?

Did my insurance compensation go up?

I got a RAISE in COMPENSATION

I didn't get a pay raise or cut in pay.

I didn't get a raise in benefits, either.

But, I did get a raise.

And I ended up shelling out more money to put in my gas tank, but no ifs ands or buts, I got a raise from my employer.

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 11-25-2008).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: No, I once worked as a pizza delivery driver. Let's say this was my pay and benefits package (COMPENSATION) My pay/compensation was: $5/hr (PAY) plus .15/mile (COMPENSATION) plus Little Caesars paid 80% of my health insurance or $800/year.(BENEFIT) Gas was $1/year The following year I got $5/hr plus .25/mile plus little Casars paid 80% of my health insurance or now they paid $1000/year. Gas was $2/year. Just answer the questions with a yes or no: Did my pay go up? Did my mileage compensation go up? Did my insurance compensation go up? I got a RAISE in COMPENSATION I didn't get a pay raise or cut in pay. I didn't get a raise in benefits, either. But, I did get a raise. And I ended up shelling out more money to put in my gas tank, but no ifs ands or buts, I got a raise from my employer.

lol - nice raise, dude.
if that is what you call a raise, I cant stop you. I can just say it is foolish to think that was a raise.

So with your illogic, Pyrthian...

I moved from Minneapolis to Omaha with the Army. I use to get $19,000/year for my housing allowance. In Omaha, I only get $14,000/year. But, housing down here costs $500/month less ($6000/year).

Did I get a compensation cut of $5000 or did I get a compensation raise of $1000?????

quote Originally posted by aceman: So with your illogic, Pyrthian... I moved from Minneapolis to Omaha with the Army. I use to get $19,000/year for my housing allowance. In Omaha, I only get $14,000/year. But, housing down here costs $500/month less ($6000/year). Did I get a compensation cut of $5000 or did I get a compensation raise of $1000?????

lol - you'll try anything, eh? so - how much do you co-pay for the housing allowance? zero? so - how does that compare?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - you'll try anything, eh? so - how much do you co-pay for the housing allowance? zero? so - how does that compare?

That is dependant on ME. I can choose to live in a house that costs $1200/month or I can choose to live in a house that costs $2000/month. Or, I can live in a house that costs me $800/month and pocket the rest.

OR.......

Here's a monkey wrench in the system....

I left my family up in Minneapolis and rented an apartment down here. I took a hit of $5000/year in housing allowance and I rented an apartment that costs about $400/month to rent. Did I get a raise or a cut or is it just me because I decided to leave my family in the home I bought and just I moved down to the lower cost living area?

quote Originally posted by aceman: That is dependant on ME. I can choose to live in a house that costs $1200/month or I can choose to live in a house that costs $2000/month. Or, I can live in a house that costs me $800/month and pocket the rest. OR....... Here's a monkey wrench in the system.... I left my family up in Minneapolis and rented an apartment down here. I took a hit of $5000/year in housing allowance and I rented an apartment that costs about $400/month to rent. Did I get a raise or a cut or is it just me because I decided to leave my family in the home I bought and just I moved down to the lower cost living area?

so, how much do they take out of your checks for the housing allowance?
uh huh - thats what I thought. keep dancing.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so, how much do they take out of your checks for the housing allowance? uh huh - thats what I thought. keep dancing.

It's ambiguos...

My housing allowance is supposed to cover 80% of my housing plus utilities. So, let say that I rent a house for $800/month and I pay $200/month in utilities. I get $800/month in housing alowance. Next year, my housing allowance went up 10% (That is what is determined as an average in my location of the cost of living increase) to $880/month but my rent and utilities went up 15% to $1150/month. I got a 10% RAISE in my housing allowance, but I'm shelling out $40 more a month for the same house and the same heat and the same amount of electricty.

I GOT A RAISE, but I'm still paying more and it's not my employer's fault.

Your turn to dance, Bubba

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 11-25-2008).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: It's ambiguos... My housing allowance is supposed to cover 80% of my housing plus utilities. So, let say that I rent a house for $800/month and I pay $200/month in utilities. I get $800/month in housing alowance. Next year, my housing allowance went up 10% to $880/month but my rent and utilities went up 15% to $1150/month. I got a 10% RAISE in my housing allowance, but I'm shelling out $40 more amonth for the same house and the same heat and the same amount of electricty. I GOT A RAISE, but I'm still paying more and it's not my employer's fault.

well, good for you. I got some ideas on getting a raise which dont compare either:

I think I am gonna get my raise by setting fire to my employers building. being that all it takes is to cost my employer more moeny for having me, this should be a biggy, eh? it is amazing all the new ways to get a raise, and yet not have anything more. such a wonderful thing to know. maybe just breaking windows on company vehicles. start my raise slowly.

maybe - I can get them involved on the losing side of a lawsuit. that should be more than a rasie - that should be a full on promotion, eh?

so - all it takes for a raise is to cost your employer money. whether or not you get anything more is irrelavant. all makes sense now.

quote Originally posted by aceman: My housing allowance is supposed to cover 80% of my housing plus utilities. So, let say that I rent a house for $800/month and I pay $200/month in utilities. I get $800/month in housing alowance. Next year, my housing allowance went up 10% (That is what is determined as an average in my location of the cost of living increase) to $880/month but my rent and utilities went up 15% to $1150/month. I got a 10% RAISE in my housing allowance, but I'm shelling out $40 more a month for the same house and the same heat and the same amount of electricty.

Now, please tell me how this example is not alike to Mr Bitter II complaining about how he took a paycut of $40/month because the insurance went up and he has to pay $40 more for a benefit.

Let's change my example to me owning the house on a 30 year mortgage and the taxes went up $500/year

I have to pay $40 more a month for those taxes. I can't do anything else but pay those taxes. Just like Mr Bitter II can't do anything about paying the extra $40/month for insurance. Both of our benefit values went up.

quote Originally posted by aceman: Now, please tell me how this example is not alike to Mr Bitter II complaining about how he took a paycut of $40/month because the insurance went up and he has to pay $40 more for a benefit. Let's change my example to me owning the house on a 30 year mortgage and the taxes went up $500/year I have to pay $40 more a month for those taxes. I can't do anything else but pay those taxes. Just like Mr Bitter II can't do anything about paying the extra $40/month for insurance. Both of our benefit values went up.

how often does you paycheck get the housing allowance deducted from it?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: how often does you paycheck get the housing allowance deducted from it?

My checking account gets deducted in this example by $40/month. If I don't pay into the escrow every month by deducting an extra $40 from my checking account that the balance is comprised of MY PAYCHECK, I have a tax lein placed against the house.

so - your example is completely different, eh?
getting the same benifit, and getting less cash is not a raise.

but, I fully see how this gets twisted by converting the benifit to a dollar amount. the employer provides the benifit - NOT the cost of the benifit. as in your example, housing allowance, an equivalant here would be health care allowance.

maybe it would be much clearer if this was put out as a health care allowance. that way the employer could step aside, and not provide a benifit, just the $$$ for the employee to find his own health care.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: maybe it would be much clearer if this was put out as a health care allowance. that way the employer could step aside, and not provide a benifit, just the $$$ for the employee to find his own health care.

And we would come full circle because the reality of that suggestion is that:

50% of the people would buy beer with that extra money.

40% would under-insure themselves because their independent coverage cost more than a company's group policy.

10% would be much better off with this route.

Of course, we could go the socialistic approach and have the government provide us all with crappy health care coverage and they'll raise everyone's taxes and we'd get shitty health care.

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 11-25-2008).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: And we would come full circle because the reality of that suggestion is that: 50% of the people would buy beer with that extra money. 40% would under-insure themselves because their independent coverage cost more than a company's group policy. 10% would be much better off with this route. Of course, we could go the socialistic approach and have the government provide us all with crappy health care coverage and they'll raise everyone's taxes and we'd get shitty health care.

which shows that the value of the benifit & the cost of the benifit are two seperate things.
and - even more so - it would also show if people truly get a raise when insurance premiums go up.
if their allowance goes up - yeah they do - if not - no they dont. simple. clear.
because there is ALOT more to this than the raw numbers.

but - I will say - if we go back, and use any example, and convert it over to health care allowance - at this point - it would show people got raises. but - also as you mentioned - it would also show that most would be uninsured, due to lack of group buying, and those who beleive themselves impervious, and those who think they can handle it themselves.

yes, I also see health insuarnce taking the auto insurance approach, and trying to force it upon all involved. it works for auto insurance, dont it?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: ok - I suppose doing it in the same format would be the way to do this: you get coupons for gallons of gas. as gas prices increase, now you get coupons for 70% of a gallon of gas, and you need to cover the rest overall - more money is being put out for gas, both from you, and your employer.

Say what, ?
You said that I get coupons for a gallon of gas. I will assume you mean one coupon for one gallon.
Then you say that, because gasoline prices increased, my new coupon is only worth 70% of a gallon. That is not what happened. Is it ?
Did I agree to terms which said I would pay a certain percentage ? No, I did not. I accepted an allowance. I looked at the dollar figure on the paycheck.
"How much does the job pay?"
"So much an hour plus benefits"
"I'll take the job".
His job included health benefits and he is getting them. Yes, he is paying more for those benefits and so is his company. His company picked up more of the burden.

Automakers' Jobs Bank Program Pays Laid-Off Workers to Do Nothing
If Congress goes ahead with an auto industry bailout, American taxpayers may have to pay for thousands of laid off auto workers to literally do nothing all year.

Thousands of laid-off auto workers get paid $31 an hour to sit around and do nothing all year under a controversial program that could continue even if American taxpayers bail out the American auto industry.

http://www.foxnews.com/poli...-paying-workers-sit/

I guess this link sums it up,
Yes, he got a raise.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Automakers' Jobs Bank Program Pays Laid-Off Workers to Do Nothing If Congress goes ahead with an auto industry bailout, American taxpayers may have to pay for thousands of laid off auto workers to literally do nothing all year. Thousands of laid-off auto workers get paid $31 an hour to sit around and do nothing all year under a controversial program that could continue even if American taxpayers bail out the American auto industry. http://www.foxnews.com/poli...-paying-workers-sit/

The Jobs Bank is an abomination.

But it's an earned abomination. A signature on a piece of paper was all it took to make it earned.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Automakers' Jobs Bank Program Pays Laid-Off Workers to Do Nothing If Congress goes ahead with an auto industry bailout, American taxpayers may have to pay for thousands of laid off auto workers to literally do nothing all year. Thousands of laid-off auto workers get paid $31 an hour to sit around and do nothing all year under a controversial program that could continue even if American taxpayers bail out the American auto industry. http://www.foxnews.com/poli...-paying-workers-sit/

I really wish the news would quit calling it the "Auto Industry" bailout. This is a Auto Workers Union bailout. The auto industry doesn't need a bailout; the success of the South Carolina NON UNIONIZED car companies show this. Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Kia are all doing very well, and I tend to agree with Governor Mark Sanford that bailing out these unionized misfits would only serve to punish these other innovative companies for their efforts. Let the Big 3 and the unions fall. We don't need them, and any money given to them will only be pissed away on useless programs like the job bank and other outrageous union demands.

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 11-25-2008).]

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: I really wish the news would quit calling it the "Auto Industry" bailout. This is a Auto Workers Union bailout. The auto industry doesn't need a bailout; the success of the South Carolina NON UNIONIZED car companies show this. Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Kia are all doing very well, and I tend to agree with Governor Mark Sanford that bailing out these unionized misfits would only serve to punish these other innovative companies for their efforts. Let the Big 3 and the unions fall. We don't need them, and any money given to them will only be pissed away on useless programs like the job bank and other union demands.

It sucks but it is even worse than that. The American Taxpayers will be paying for the pensions of the Union workers from now until way after the last worker is done in the dirt. As their pension allows it to be transferred to their spouse. So not only does the Big 3 get socialized and the UAW become Federal Employees, but we will also pay for their pensions.

GM dumped their pension liabilities to the UAW, and everybody knows the UAW has phuck that up (they have already squandered pretty much half of the $10 billion dollar payment that GM gave them). So here is the Imperial Democratic Controlled Government to pay for their pensions.

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: So, the next time someone tells you that you got a pay "raise" when your paycheck gets smaller, just nod and smile and move on because you're clearly dealing with someone who can only hear what they want regardless of what you try to tell them. Trying to get them to understand anything is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. JazzMan

OR you're dealing with someone who has actually had to WRITE a payroll check, and all the other checks involved for that person to have a job, instead of someone that thinks the employer owes them something for nothing.

Now I have to go to work after having come in to warm up for a few minutes, so that I can afford to meet my payroll........

John Stricker

Well good for you, Mr Bitter II. I'm glad that you can justify more bitterness in your little world.

Please post next about your measley 5% pay raise being a pay cut because the cost of living went up 6%.

Once again, I suppose you could have had a boss state, "Folks, the good news is that the cost of insurance won't be going up this year and you will have $40 more in your paycheck. The bad news is, that in order to stabilize rates, we had to cut the amount of coverages you have on your insurance. Have a nice day!"

quote Originally posted by jstricker: OR you're dealing with someone who has actually had to WRITE a payroll check, and all the other checks involved for that person to have a job, instead of someone that thinks the employer owes them something for nothing. Now I have to go to work after having come in to warm up for a few minutes, so that I can afford to meet my payroll........ John Stricker

yes - this is highly accurate.
if you cost the "check writer" more - you got a raise. bringing me back around to the outragous post about vandalism against the company being equivalant to a raise. you cost the "check writer" more money. doesnt matter if you actually receive more - it is if they put out more. just like many other words in the english language - it is all in who is speaking the word as to the meaning of the word.

again - to avoid confusion - dont offer health care, offer health care allowance. this way you dont have to take anything away, when it gets to expensive. this is what the "check writers" dont seem to understand. the benifit is health care. and, since "check writers" cant actually offer that, they must buy it. so - to them - the health care is equated in dollars, not the actual benifit. this is why there is so much confusion here. us actual productive people are promised so much cash & health care. not so much cash, and so much more cash.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: ................., that's effectively a pay cut not a pay raise. So, the next time someone tells you that you got a pay "raise" when your paycheck gets smaller, just nod and smile and move on because you're clearly dealing with someone who can only hear what they want regardless of what you try to tell them. Trying to get them to understand anything is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. JazzMan

Quite true---regarding everyone with strongly held beliefs on either side of the coin.