SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Wharf Rat who wrote (886198)9/8/2015 9:33:55 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1576944
 
Yes; preserving income is the whole point.

You don't preserve income when you get paid for some non-working time but then get a smaller base (less increase in the base over time) then you would have.

That's a nice theory. Too bad life doesn't work that way.

Exactly my point (although it often works out closer to that way then you might think). Since people aren't so perfect at calculating and negotiating the ideal solution for them, there is a good chance they give up more then the equal amount of income in dollars to get the paid time off.

There might be some benefit to always get $1k a week compared to getting $53k a year but having it be slightly less steady with only 2/5s or 3/5s of the normal pay on a couple of weeks. A lot of people prefer a more predictable and steady costs and pay, even if it means slightly higher costs or lower pay. But not everyone would prefer the former to the later, and I don't see a good reason for government to mandate it.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News