|
|
|
|
|
|
by JamesBarney
1528 days ago
|
|
|
This argument relies on a really weird assumption that companies aren't already compensating employees as little as they can get away with. That companies could compensate employees less by not offering benefits but choose not to out of the goodness of their heart. If employers are already compensating employees as little as they can get away with then if they stopped compensating via insurance, they'd be required to compensate via salary. |
|
|
Of course. And the employee negotiates for as much as he can extract from the company. That's how markets work.