Jetblue Counts Profit Sharing TWICE in Pay Review

[Smarta$$]

This is nothing but anti-pilot semantics. We are arguing "input" vs. "results". The 401k "input" is 3 points low. The "result" is my 401k has 30% less $ on an annual basis.

The "result" is all that matters.

Period.

No its not. You can't simply replace 3% with 30% without changing the formula, math operation and the context.

They are both correct.

If jetblue increased your company funded match from 10% of your salary to 20% of your salary, would you complain that it should have been an additional 30%? Or am I confusing the different mathematical contextual ways of representing numbers?

 

[B6Busdriver]

And how many more Lollies would rob need to equal Dave's?

Stick to flying airplanes, obviously you slept through the most basic finance classes. Did they have those at riddle or just aircraft recon courses?

 

[J32driver]

No its not. You can't simply replace 3% with 30% without changing the formula, math operation and the context.

They are both correct.

If jetblue increased your company funded match from 10% of your salary to 20% of your salary, would you complain that it should have been an additional 30%? Or am I confusing the different mathematical contextual ways of representing numbers?

I just simply don't understand why this is such a challenge.

If the company gave us a 20% match:
$100,000 of salary puts $20,000 into my 401k.

20,000-13,000 (industry average) = 7,000 over average.
7,000/13,000 = 53.8%.

A 20% 401k contribution would make us 53.8% above industry average. If they gave us that, I would happily say thank you and understand that our 401k would then be above industry average.

 

[Smarta$$]

3% and 30% are not interchangeable. They are used in 2 different calculations. Both are 100% valid, and get the same end result. How can you honestly not understand the math?

 

[J32driver]

3% and 30% are not interchangeable. They are used in 2 different calculations. Both are 100% valid, and get the same end result. How can you honestly not understand the math?

The same end result is we are 30% behind in our retirement. Any misunderstanding with that?

What about my 20% contribution? Any math issues there?

 

[Smarta$$]

I have said many times that I agree. The 20% question was to prove a point. I am not confused or asking for help.

 

[curtaindriver]

I think you two nim-rods are arguing the same point!!

Just playing, either way we are behind our peers

CD

 

[Lake Alice]

I think you two nim-rods are arguing the same point!!

Just playing, either way we are behind our peers

CD

Ding ding ding

 

[1678]

3% and 30% are not interchangeable. They are used in 2 different calculations. Both are 100% valid, and get the same end result. How can you honestly not understand the math?

You guys are arguing the same Sh$%.

It is 3% difference based on what the $ amount of is taken from

• $100,000 + ($100,000 * 10%) = $110,000
• $100,000 + ($100,000 * 13%) = $113,000
• so a 3% difference contribution is correct

However;

• $13,000 is 30 % More than $10,000
• So 30% is correct based on $10,000 as a base.

and

• $10,000 is 23.1% Less than $13,000
• so 23.1% is correct based on $13,000 as a base.

Why do you guys thinks accountants and CFO always come up with favorably numbers....


Bottom line is:
WE ARE BEING PLAYED AND IT'S GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY.

 

[BeachBummer]

Dude! ...what's mine say? Sweet! Duuude....


No way.

You guys are arguing the same Sh$%.

It is 3% difference based on what the $ amount of is taken from

• $100,000 + ($100,000 * 10%) = $110,000
• $100,000 + ($100,000 * 13%) = $113,000
• so a 3% difference contribution is correct

However;

• $13,000 is 30 % More than $10,000
• So 30% is correct based on $10,000 as a base.

and

• $10,000 is 23.1% Less than $13,000
• so 23.1% is correct based on $13,000 as a base.

Why do you guys thinks accountants and CFO always come up with favorably numbers....


Bottom line is:
WE ARE BEING PLAYED AND IT'S GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY.