| 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. |
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?