Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (61916)	1/25/2001 10:17:41 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Did the BLS cook today's ECI report? Enquiring minds want to know! The report stated there was a 0.8% increase overall in employment costs. bls.gov The ECI includes estimates of pay and benefits. What cannot be resolved in my mind is this: we are currenty in the midst of an explosion in health care benefit costs (estimated average increase is 11% y-o-y): ama-assn.org That would represent a 2.5% increase per quarter, even if you make a slight adjustment for shifting more of the burden to employees. Yet according to the BLS figures, the increase in benefit costs was only 0.7%! In "drilling down" to the details, some really strange stuff appears: bls.gov Not that the BLS indicates that benefit costs actually DECLINED 6.1% for blue collar workers, and declined 0.1% in the manufacturing sector overall. Given that health benefits constitute the lion's share of any employers benefit costs, the only way this is possible is: 1) More employers declining to offer insurance (definitely occurring but on what scale?) 2) Employers cutting other benefits, such as 401K contributions (unlikely to compensate for the known rise in healthcare premiums) 3) Lower insurance premiums (which is not the case per the above article) 4) Fudged figures. If the figures are not fudged, than the inflationary effects of rising health care are even greater than current estimates, since fewer people are benefitting from employment sponsered coverage (and therefore paying "full-freight for health costs, unless they have a covered spouse or are on Medicaid/Medicare). The ECI would be less relevant overall as a gauge of inflation if this is the case. Frankly, I SERIOUSLY doubt the veracity of these figures, given the information provided in the amednews article. Another BLS book-cooking job it would appear....