vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Big problem in general, employers don't give a shit about you. It's almost like they're pissed at you they have to pay you what they do. Then when you've worked really hard and hoped you proved yourself you get a 15 cent raise. Gee, this whole new 5-10 extra dollars a check? Whatever will I do with that. If you have a problem with the job or the pay there's the door. Hardworking people get cut out because in a free market it's all who you know. You could work a job a year and be up for a promotion, but the boss has this buddy who's looking for a job. Less qualified than you but he takes your promotion and starts the job making more than you all because of who he knows. So basically stop working hard and just try and make friends. It's more worth your effort. Which is why Millenials nowadays are so entitled. They're looking for the first connection to give them a handout so they can be on top. Because they all think it's just a matter of who you know. So maybe stop being that asshole who makes hiring discussions based purely on friendship. It technically has no place in business.
Once a bad one is in there, they don't care because they know it will be tough to get them out, so they run roughshod over the company's purse. Only the board can take action on major funding such as the CEO's operating budget, board compensation, financing, investment, etc, some with shareholder approval, some without. The corporation itself owns all of those assets, but the board controls them. In this example, they scheme with most likely the top executive, but a rubber stamp top executive could allow a lower rung to scheme with the board, but the board is always constant until the law is changed. Because there's no honor amongst thieves, the board votes which can require some combination of executive and shareholder approval are taken very close together: sell shares, increase salaries to key executive schemers, increase board compensation. The trusting shareholders believe this is in the best interests of the company at large so go along. So the money flows from existing & new shareholders to the corporation now controlled by a malicious board and then finally to the necessary malicious executive and the vital malicious board."
You have to be careful.  For example if you disliked a company you could go get a job there and then deliberately commit a relevant crime.  Get three people to do this and they are out of business.  Walmart is an obvious target, but I'm sure you could find people who dislike almost every business even Costco or Starbucks.  (And the airlines would stand no chance.)
The idea is that paying your employees more confers benefits that are worth the cost. Paying employees more than they produce for you is (almost) always not a good idea. However, if paying higher wages has advantages, those advantages persist or are enhanced by other companies not paying higher wages.
"These services and other employee perks are referred to as fringe benefits. An employee ""fringe benefit"" is a form of pay other than money for the   performance of services by employees. Any fringe benefit provided to   an employee is taxable income for that person unless the tax law   specifically excludes it from taxation. One example of taxable fringe benefit is award/prize money (to prevent someone from ""winning"" most of their salary tax-free.) Cash awards are taxable unless given to charity.   Non-cash awards are taxable unless nominal in value or given to   charity. A less intuitive example is clothing. Clothing given to employees that is suitable for street wear   is a taxable fringe benefit. Your example possibly fits under de minims (low-cost) fringe benefits such as low-value birthday or holiday    gifts, event tickets, traditional awards (such as a retirement gift),   other special occasion gifts, and coffee and soft drinks working condition fringe benefits--that is, property and services   provided to an employee so that the employee can perform his or her   job. Note that ""cafeteria plans"" in the source don't refer to cafeteria but allow employee choice between benefit options available."
To answer your question directly, this is a taxable benefit that they are providing for you in lieu of higher wages. It is taxable to the employee as income and through payroll taxes. It is taxable to the employer for their half of the payroll taxes.
Stated plainly... it's a benefit. Companies are not required to offer you any compensation above paying you minimum wage. But benefits attract higher quality employees.  I think a big part of it is that it is the norm. Employees want it because of the tax benefits. Employees expect it because almost all reputable companies of any significant size offer it. You could run a great company, but if you don't offer a 401k plan, you can scare away good potential employees. It would give a bad impression the same way that not offering health insurance would.
"I am not sure if I would get any benefit besides the hourly payment as   an intern. What are the benefits I can expect while working for this   company (or any other software company) Probably none. Changes from company to company but usually only full-time employees are entitled for benefits. For example, could I ask them to reimburse my bus fare or fuel costs   in addition to the hourly pay? You can always ask:-) If it's not in the offer - better ask now, you'll get paid what is written in the offer you accepted. Highly unlikely though. What kind of an ""employee"" is an intern? (Read about exempt and   non-exempt employee, but that's all very confusing) As intern you're non-exempt. As a professional (i.e.: Not part of internship) you would be exempt. Since this is the second time, since my interview, that I have   requested, and been offered a higher rate, should I continue to ask   them for a value near a $35/hr rate Have you asked them for $35? Or just for more? Anyway, I don't think that if they raised the offer from $17 to $21.75 that there's a chance for you to get $35 from them."
Hahaha 'grand speech.' Good one.  I'm saying if I, an outsider, see a company paying people less than what I think the job is worth, but somehow the company retains employees, yes, I say nothing. Because it's none of my fucking business what a company pays it's employees. If they don't like it, they can walk. If they stay, (as they must do in order for you to complain about it) then clearly the wage is worth more than the alternative.  Or maybe you think the world owes you something?
I work as a state employee and I can look at my coworkers' salaries and their title online. At first my coworkers were shocked that I would do such a thing, but they quickly realized it was of benefit to them when I told them that from my analysis, no one at my department ever gets raises. Prior to this, they were led to believe that there actually were opportunities for advancement here.  Knowing typical salaries can also help when looking at going into a new industry in which you are unfamiliar, otherwise, you have no idea if a job offer you get is in line with others' compensation.  So yes, I believe that knowing others' salaries can be helpful to the average employee and keeping it secret is par for the course because it's detrimental to the company.
The benefits Apple offers are pretty amazing. 15% discount on stock (you can allocate up to 10% of your paycheck to stock purchases). 25% 401K matching (apple matches 25%. You can allocate up to 25% of your paycheck to the company 401k). Excellent health/vision/dental/etc benefits to anyone working 30 hours a week or more. Employees are usually given an iPhone or iPod to have, so that they are seen by customers using Apple products.  Best Buy and Staples probably don't do all of these things for their salespeople.
"It's a tough question, because there is society and individual to consider, and the society's effects on the individual.  Currently, employers don't have to provide insurance, they do it to compete in the employee marketplace. Employers have an advantage over employees in that regard, because they can procure insurance at a lower cost that employees can, and they get tax breaks for doing so. Employers providing health insurance get a more stable relationship with their employees, because employees always hold great value in having an employee who provides good benefits.  The company I work for provides good benefits, but suppose tomorrow they told me ""Hey Mutatron, we're not providing benefits anymore, but we'll bump your salary to what your benefits are worth, plus enough to compensate for the tax break we get."" So now, everything is equal to what it was before, but I have to go out and find my own insurance, which is a hassle, but presumably because of the PPACA I can get a good value and carry this insurance with me wherever I go, and never have to mess with changing every time I change jobs.  But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance.  This is the way it works now with the minimum wage. A recent report found that WalMart employees rely on welfare to the tune of [$2.66 billion a year](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net), while the company makes $15 billion in profit. So 18% of Walmart's profits are an indirect subsidy from the US taxpayer, which comes to about $48 per US citizen, or about $208 a year for the top 50% of wage earners.  Even so, I think I'd prefer to get my whole compensation package in one shot, all else being equal. That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance."
Okay i see where we might be confusing each other. In absolute dollar terms the employee might make more working for themselves, but money is not the only factor that goes into choosing a job. If the worker can make $600/week working for themselves and $500 doing the same job a company. They may value the benefits of not worrying about running their own business, or the extra free time like you said, as being worth more than that $100. They are still choosing the option that they value highest to themselves, whichever it may be. I didnt insinuate that the company is giving the employee some sort of gift in hiring them. They are just offering the employee the best possible option of the employee's other choices. If it wasnt the best option for the worker then they logically should not select that option.
Let's not make this about me, it's simply an anecdote from personal experience about how this kind of thing affects employees. I'd rather work for a company where I know the pay is fair and equitable than one where HR just shoots from the hip.
An alternate take on it might be that an employee who enjoys their work, their environment, and their co-workers has less incentive to look around, and may not even leave if they were offered 50% more. Perhaps efficiency measured in dollars isn't always a good measure.
Maybe the disconnect is in how different people view work and money. In the standard view, work is something negative you do, in order to get something positive - money, or at least the act of spending money gets you something positive.  If the work is particularly unpleasant, one would expect employees to demand more money to cancel out the negative things they have to put up with.  On the other hand, if the work itself is a net positive even before pay, then when combined with pay, the combined positive may be worth more than the raise they're offered at another company - especially if the new conditions would be poor, and would cancel out the raise, leaving them unhappier, despite having more pay.  Of course, we're not a bunch of robots weighing out positive and negative units, much of which are near impossible to measure anyway. I assume a lot of it is just going with gut reactions, using approximations and fuzzy predictions in decisions that sometimes appear rational, but when looking at the underlying data points, may be built on rather irrational hand waving...
"I just don't know how else an employee gains any bargaining power without one? It seems to me in companies in my industry that those without unions bargain their own wage in secret. Then the company wins because its me vs you all the time. A union makes wages and benefits more transparent. You can pick up a copy of my collective bargaining agreement and see what everyone makes. Also you gain the backing legally with resources not available to most persons on their own. I just don't know another way employees can have any ""advantage"" in a common workplace."
ESPP shares, once purchased, are just normal shares that you got at a discount. They're just as much a part of your current net wealth as any other shares of stock. What you can't do is claim that discount increases your salary, even if it does result in your effectively taking home more money. It's a benefit like the company contribution to your health plan, not a bonus.
"your question is based on a false premise.  there is no ""standard"" for raises.  some jobs in some years see huge raises. other years those same jobs may see average pay rates drop. if you want a benchmark, you would be better off looking at typical pay rates for people in your job, in your city with your experience. sites like glassdoor can provide that type of information. if you are at the low end of that range, you can probably push for a raise. if you are at the high end, you may find it more difficult. typically your employer will pay you just enough to keep you from leaving. so they will offer you as little as they think you will accept.  you can either accept it or find another job that pays more. if you work in software, then you can probably make more by switching jobs. if you work in food service, you might have more trouble finding higher pay elsewhere. if you do find another employer, you might be able to elicit a counter-offer from your current employer. in fact, even suggesting that you will look for another employer may prompt your current employer to be more generous.  that said, if your employer thinks you are on your way out, they might cut your bonus or lay you off."
It looks like the resource to deciding these is here  Concerning the meals, the law seems a bit vague to me. You can exclude the value of meals you furnish to an employee from the   employee's wages if they meet the following tests. This exclusion does not apply if you allow your employee to choose to   receive additional pay instead of meals. If the whole point of google providing meals is to benefit Google as such people will not leave the googleplex when to obtain meals elsewhere causing increased productivity for Google, then this is covered as a business expense.  (Even if it wasn't, Google would have to notify you that it was providing you a non-expensable benefit, i.e. compensation, by giving you a 1099 at the end of the year). Concerning the other benefits, the only way I could see those items not being taxable benefits is if one of the two applies.
"Essentially, yes.  Any and all decisions a business make are for one reason: $$$      Your paid vacation?  That's an incentive to get better, more productive workers.  Your company has done a cost/benefit analysis and they've figured out that it's worth their money to pay you to do nothing for a week because that paid vacation is a perk of the job that will get them better job applicants.  OR they want you taking a vacation because you'll come back rested and refreshed. And that makes them money. (See also: every other job benefit.)    ""Oh, well my company is a great civic member who does good work for the community.""  And I bet they never pass up an opportunity to tell people about it.  Because they don't care about feeding the homeless kittens.  They care about customers KNOWING they feed the homeless kittens.  Because it makes them money.      The point of a business is to make money, not employ people."
"Yep. As an ""early"" employee, you tend to end up putting in a ton of extra work as well, and needing a lot more flex than most really established companies. You're also usually tempted by flexibility, or the (increasingly wrong) myth that if you work harder, you'll reap a bigger reward. What tends to happen is that you give up huge chunks of your private life, and all too often end up getting replaced by someone cheaper down the line."
"While the other answers try to quantify the value of health care the question you ask is about employee vs contractor. The delta between those regarding benefits goes way beyond health care. In fact because almost every full time employee must have health care offered by their employer the option of  ""you can have X with healthcare, or Y with no healthcare"" is no longer an option. I have seen situations in the last few years where employees who had no need for healthcare coverage (retired military) were offered additional vacation days to compensate for their lower cost to the employer. For employee vs contractor what is different isn't just healthcare. It also includes holidays, vacation days, sick days, employer portion of social security, education benefits, and 401k. Insurance benefits include not just healthcare but also dental, vision, short term and long term disability, and life insurance. The rule of thumb to cover all these benefits that are lost when you are a contractor is an amount equal to your income. Of course some of these benefits  depend on single vs married and kids or not. But unless the rate they are paying the contractors is approaching twice the rate they are paying employees the contractor will be hard pressed to cover the missing benefits."
The answer is simple. If your employer is offering you a discount, that is free money. You always take free money, always.
Two of the main ways that investors benefit financially from a stock are dividends and increases in the price of the stock.  In the example as described, the benefits came primarily from dividends, leaving less benefits to be realized in terms of an increase in the value of the company. Another way to put that is that the company paid its profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend, instead of accumulating that as an increase in the value of the company.  The company could have chosen to take those profits and reinvest them in growing the business, which would lead to lower dividends but (hopefully) an increase in the valuation of the stock, but they chose to pay dividends instead.  This still rewards the investors, but  share prices stay low.
In many countries, giving something free to the employee is considered a taxable income equivalent, and taxes have to be paid on it. As it cannot be assigned to specific employees, the company pays a flat tax on it, so it actually costs the company more. Also, not all employees value it equally, or consider it as a part of their income, so reducing the salary accordingly would not be considered ok by many employees. As a result, the company can only do it as an additional offer, which is too expensive for small businesses.
Things like tuition reimbursement programs based on maintaining good performance in classes are solid benefits to offer. Or even job training to those who show aptitude for different classes of work. Maybe some merit based bonus structure - people who come up with good ideas for cutting costs, improving efficiency, etc and work to see them implemented qualify for some sort of bonus based on a percentage of the value of that change. The bigger problem with those types of programs is that collective bargaining agreements tend to forbid any sort of merit based pay. They also make jumping line in seniority impossible - i.e. the union agreement would say that the person most qualified for the extra training is the one who's been in the job the longest. Some of these rules make sense if your goal is that everybody is equal and your idea of fairness is based on avoiding inequality. To justify it, they'll throw up things like the boss's cousin's brother-in-law's ex-wife's son could get preferential treatment if the contract doesn't prevent it.
Company X located outside a military base offer discounts to military as a form of marketing. They want to encourage a group of potential customers to use their store/service. In some cases they are competing with subsidized store on the base. In other cases their only competition is other stores outside the base. The smart ones also understand the pay structure of military pay to make it easier for enlisted to stretch their money for the entire month. The government doesn't offer compensation to the business near bases. The businesses see their offer and discount as advertising expenses, and are figured into the prices they have to charge all customers. You will also see these types of discounts offered by some businesses in college towns. They are competing with the services on the campus and with other off-campus businesses. Some also allow the use of campus dollars to make it easier for the student to spend money.
There's a lot more cost in wages than just the hourly wage itself.  As you got taxes that is split between the employer and employee.  You also have general overhead costs (ie paperwork).  If they are full time employees you then have the costs of benefits as well in there.
"Taxable fringe benefits are included in taxable wages for the purpose of FLSA. So when those executives get to use company cars or company jets that value is ""wage"" even if it isn't salary."
The article addresses market wages. Also, as others have pointed out, under the regular pay scheme jumping companies every couple of years so that you can get a salary that reflects your current skill set and responsibilities is the norm.
"I agree with the other answers that it is a benefit, but wanted to add another explanation for this: Also, why a company would prefer matching someone's contributions (and   given him or her additional free money) instead of just offering a   simple raise? In addition to a match being a benefit that is part of your total compensation, 401ks have special rules for Highly Compensated Employees.  If the lower paid employees do not contribute, the ""Highly Compensated Employees"" do not get to take full advantage of the 401k.   By offering a match, more lower paid employees will take advantage of a 401k program allowing more Highly Compensated Employees to also take advantage of the program."
"Ok, would  ""a form supply -side economics"" make you feel better about the term? Because you responded to zero points?  Company's force workers to stay: they can't work or move to a job in the same industry. That benefits firms. Firms knowing this can deny raises, promotions, stock options.  They can spend less on recruiting/training and pay employees less because they know the employee has little incentive to leave. This limits firms expenses the same way a tax break could. It's done under the guise of keeping Idahos tech workers in Idaho because the idahos tech bubble is good for the ""common man"", while allowing CEOs and Boards to spend less and reap benefits and bonuses for staying under budget."