But since benefits is estimated to be 25% of the compensation package, I suspect it won't be going away soon.
Oh yes, I certainly don't expect the benefits to go away, they have become too ingrained into the comp package. But I still think we would be better off w/o.
an expectation of a decent retirement after a career of dedicated service to one's company is not an 'unrealistic sense of entitlement'.
Just an add-on to Milton's comments:
I always thought it was an interesting view that someone was entitled to anything "after a career of dedicated service to one's company". If you look at it as the owner of the company, you might say - " The wages I paid that employee put food on their table, bought their home, put their kid's through school, etc. I appreciate the work they did, and they were paid for it. Why should they expect anything past that agreement?".
Sure, if promises are made, they become part of the compensation package and we expect the promises to be lived up to. But that's all it is, part of a compensation package, it isn't an "entitlement".
the american worker is putting in longer hours for lower pay and fewer benefits (adjusted for inflation), while execs are seeing obscene increases in salaries and other bonuses. very few businesses pay above market rates in salaries for the jobs most americans have.
Global competition has a lot to do with that. Would you deny some poor person in a third world country a wage that would greatly improve their standard of living, just so us (relatively speaking) fat cats can maintain our standard of living (A/C, central heat, color TVs with sat/cable DVR, more food choices than is good for us, etc, etc)?
Are executives seeing (overall) obscenely higher compensation? Maybe so, but I was wondering if that was a verifiable fact, or just an attack. References please, I'm curious myself.
-ERD50