Should some services take a serious pay cut in order to ensure progress?

experiMental

I don't entirely understand how the economy works, so feel free to correct me on this.

However, what I see is this : insurance, legal (solicitors and patent clerks), telecommunications, property administration and banking services are a bit overpriced. Also, different kinds of middlemen and distributors charge a heavy price. For example, re-sellers of items, or those who re-badge them, etc.

The services that I'm mentioning are relying purely on peoples' wealth and products and they are just administration and security. They depend on other things being created. If people didn't have any wealth, money or buildings, there would be no need for those services at all.

So if these were cheaper, then people would have more disposable income and would be able to participate in the economy better. Perhaps they could buy more stuff and create even more business opportunities for those administrative services.

So the question is : should the areas that I have mentioned above be made or re-structured to be cheaper? Or is it not feasible for them to be cheaper?

Count Dooku

experiMental wrote: »

I don't entirely understand how the economy works, so feel free to correct me on this.

However, what I see is this : insurance, legal (solicitors and patent clerks), telecommunications, property administration and banking services are a bit overpriced. Also, different kinds of middlemen and distributors charge a heavy price. For example, re-sellers of items, or those who re-badge them, etc.

The services that I'm mentioning are relying purely on peoples' wealth and products and they are just administration and security. They depend on other things being created. If people didn't have any wealth, money or buildings, there would be no need for those services at all.

So if these were cheaper, then people would have more disposable income and would be able to participate in the economy better. Perhaps they could buy more stuff and create even more business opportunities for those administrative services.

So the question is : should the areas that I have mentioned above be made or re-structured to be cheaper? Or is it not feasible for them to be cheaper?

The only way to make them cheaper is to bring more competition and only way to prevent competition is to regulate them
Trade unions and professional unions simply wont allow it, because it will mean reduced incomes for their members
So forget about it

experiMental

I perfectly understand this now.

However, another question is, are those activities making life more expensive in Ireland? Also, how much real value are they adding, compared to the effort and sacrifice that people have to put in order to pay for those services?

A lot of people are complaining about the price of these services, so I wonder if there is a way to strike a fairer balance.

Cookie_Monster

experiMental wrote: »

A lot of people are complaining about the price of these services, so I wonder if there is a way to strike a fairer balance.

the cost of those services include all the overheads inherent to such a business, everything from cleaning to rent to salaries and wages to printer ink etc.
much of these in turn are driven by supplier or landlord costs. make these cheaper and end services get cheaper as well. Not that that is easy because each of those suppliers also has all their own cost structures as well.

chopper6

Solicitors.

One tried to charge a friend of mine 300 euro for a family home declaration...it's a piece of paper you can easily download and he thought his signature was worth 300 euro.

On the same subject I noticed a 800 euro difference between various firms for a simple conveyancing procedure....they're not living in the real world at all.

Sleepy

The regulation of the legal profession should certainly be taken out of the hands of the Kings Inns and the Law Society imo. The absolute nonsense they get away with is scandalous and the Troika certainly indicated that there needs to be reform in this area.

GP Fees seem very high for the level of work involved though I understand insurance plays a large part in this.

Some regulation of the estate agency and insolvency industries would certainly be welcome too, both are currently unregulated and full of cowboys.

Muahahaha

Sleepy wrote: »

The regulation of the legal profession should certainly be taken out of the hands of the Kings Inns and the Law Society imo. The absolute nonsense they get away with is scandalous and the Troika certainly indicated that there needs to be reform in this area.

GP Fees seem very high for the level of work involved though I understand insurance plays a large part in this.

Some regulation of the estate agency and insolvency industries would certainly be welcome too, both are currently unregulated and full of cowboys.

As far as I know Alan Shatter has a forthcoming legal services bill that is supposed to appoint an independent regulator and take it out of the hands of the law society. How far it will actually go remains to be seen.

Estate Agents are now regulated by the newly formed PRSA who says that they have their gloves off and are prosecuting 30 different estate agents who were operating without a license. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057076035
Not before time either, a decent grip on the cowboys in that industry is long over due.

Sleepy

I knew about Shatter's bill but he's coming up against a lot of opposition on it from what I gather... hardly surprising when so many TD's (including Minister Shatter) come from legal backgrounds... I haven't read the detail of it but would welcome it in principle even if I'd be skeptical as to the degree of "teeth" such a regulator will be armed with.

experiMental

Count Dooku wrote: »

The only way to make them cheaper is to bring more competition and only way to prevent competition is to regulate them
Trade unions and professional unions simply wont allow it, because it will mean reduced incomes for their members
So forget about it

Don't trade and professional unions have a moral obligation to admit inefficiencies and mistakes in their practise? It is unlikely that businesses that I'm talking about are operating at 100% efficiency.

Manach

My understanding from reading the law society (BTW not a member) bulletins on this, that they are casting the law bill as a rights issues. In that it would give too much interference by the state into a private matter between two parties and also it breaches some (their quotes) international norms.
In general, the theory of markets (based on Richard Posner's work ) from my own understanding is that inefficient private firms do not prosper as a rival will overtake them. The cavaet being that such firms can lobby and seek to impose barriers, via types of legislation, to prevent newer firms emerging.

johnnyskeleton

experiMental wrote: »

I don't entirely understand how the economy works, so feel free to correct me on this.

Basically, political economics is the study of how we as a society distribute wealth. In early human history, people most likely were self sufficient, engaged in small amounts of barter, and occasionally fought wars as the main ways in which wealth was created, stored and exchanged. In the modern world, where we are dealing with a greater amount of goods and services over a much wider population, there are two main systems - the free market and central control.

If the government says that it is illegal to be a doctor unless you work for the State, and they make everyone pay health taxes and the central or local government decides how many doctors there are, where they are located and what they do or do not treat, together with paying all the wages and related costs, this is an example of a centrally planned system. Where the entire country is run this way, it is often called communism or, if we haven't evolved to that higher plane and are still trying to foist this system on people, it is called socialism.

If on the other hand there are no health taxes and no government hospitals, and you must either heal yourself or ask a private doctor to treat you in exchange for some service that you provide, that is an example of the free market. Again, usually called capitalism although again these words mean different things to different people.

In the vast majority of functioning governments, we have aspects of both central control and free market. The more centralised of these are called mixed economies (typically European with state health, education and welfare but with a reasonable amount of free market enterprise). Some countries have very little government involvement in the economy (although they may have strict moral or religious government) e.g. Dubai. Others have significant government control but with certain areas operating as a free market e.g. China.

When you impose any form of government control such as regulation (telling private people how to do their business), collectivisation (government taking ownership of those businesses, often by force) or taxation (letting them run their own business, provided the state gets a cut), you move towards the controlled end of the specturm.

When you remove any form of government control such as deregulation, privatisation or reduce taxes, you move towards the free market end of the specturm.

That, essentially, is how economies are run.

However, what I see is this : insurance, legal (solicitors and patent clerks), telecommunications, property administration and banking services are a bit overpriced. Also, different kinds of middlemen and distributors charge a heavy price. For example, re-sellers of items, or those who re-badge them, etc.

In a free market, there is no such thing as something being objectively over priced. If someone will pay that price, then it is priced according to the market. If someone won't pay that price, it is not, as such a price, more of an expectation. In a controlled economy, the state dictates the price regardless of what people would objectively pay, and as such you can have shelves full of things people won't pay for, and an absence of things that they will.

In terms of insurance, people will pay for insurance if they can afford it and want it. Basically, if my house burns down, I would like to think that I won't be left homeless. I thus receive two benefits from having insurance - 1) peace of mind that I will be covered, and 2) actual cover if the worst does happen. I thus place a value on the insurance which I will pay for by making X number of items in my factory (or whatever). If the asking price for insurance is too great, I will look for someone else to offer it or choose not to have insurance. If my house doesn't burn down then everything is fine. If it does, I have to pay to rebuild it myself. These are rational choices that everyone has to make in a free market. In a controlled economy, the state provides my housing so there is no need for insurance.

In terms of legal, people will occasionally fall foul of the law, will get into disputes or will need the legal certainty that what they are doing is correct. They can achieve this in one of two ways - learning the law themselves, or hiring a lawyer to represent them. If their desired lawyer is asking too much money, they can go to a different lawyer who may ask for less. Again, rational choices in a free market dictates the prices that will be paid. In communism you don't get a lawyer, the government decides when you will be put up against a wall and shot or have your property taken off you for the greater good.

Telecoms, property, banking, restaurants, entertainment etc etc all follow the same principles. I can't say that Wayne Rooney is overpriced because he charges £250k per hour to play football. If someone is prepared to pay that, then he is worth it. If not, he can drop his price or he won't play.

The services that I'm mentioning are relying purely on peoples' wealth and products and they are just administration and security. They depend on other things being created. If people didn't have any wealth, money or buildings, there would be no need for those services at all.

Everything depends on other things being created. If I didn't have land, seeds and a shovel I wouldn't be able to grow food. If I didn't have wool and scissors I couldn't make clothes. If I don't have bricks and mortar I can't make a house. An insurance company spending billions each year paying for claims, loss adjusters, lawyers, offices etc is no different to this, it is just more sophisticated. A modern economy has millions of different parts - just think about how many different things had to be done for your computer to be sold to you, from the manufacture of the chips right down to the molding of the plastic.

So if these were cheaper, then people would have more disposable income and would be able to participate in the economy better. Perhaps they could buy more stuff and create even more business opportunities for those administrative services.

If everything was cheaper, then people would still have the same quality of life, all other things being equal. But targeting these particular services is a bit meaningless.

Who gets to decide that the lawyer's services are less valuable than say the bootmakers? In capitalism, the consumer dictates the price. In capitalism, the price of these services will only go down if demand goes down or supply goes up. In communism, the government dictates the price, but this just means that it works if they fix the price correctly. If they fix the price too low, they will either have to physically coerce people into supplying the services at that price or else the number of people providing that service will dwindle.

So either way, you can't just arbitrarily drop those prices.

So the question is : should the areas that I have mentioned above be made or re-structured to be cheaper? Or is it not feasible for them to be cheaper?

Basically, your question is if those services which you subjectively don't value particularly highly are forced to be reduced in price, will the economy be better? Overall, I have to say no. The services you refer to are mostly free market services. The price is dictated by supply and demand, not centrally fixed. If there is a perception of any restriction of supply then that can be addressed, but in reality there are very few examples of a lack of supply in those industries. In reality, what is happening is that some of the suppliers are very successful, others are unsuccessful. That's capitalism, baby.

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

My understanding from reading the law society (BTW not a member) bulletins on this, that they are casting the law bill as a rights issues. In that it would give too much interference by the state into a private matter between two parties and also it breaches some (their quotes) international norms.
In general, the theory of markets (based on Richard Posner's work ) from my own understanding is that inefficient private firms do not prosper as a rival will overtake them. The cavaet being that such firms can lobby and seek to impose barriers, via types of legislation, to prevent newer firms emerging.

Or that a firm that, for example, is constantly criticizing the state by standing up for prisoners, asylum seekers etc can be regulated out of existence if it is politically expedient for the government to do so.

johnnyskeleton

experiMental wrote: »

Don't trade and professional unions have a moral obligation to admit inefficiencies and mistakes in their practise? It is unlikely that businesses that I'm talking about are operating at 100% efficiency.

Do you walk into a shop and say "I see that pair of runners is €10 but I like them so much I am prepared to pay up to €20"? Of course not. So too, suppliers of services are not obliged to say "well, I could do it for you cheaper if you really insist".

You have to look after yourself in this world.

Rightwing

experiMental wrote: »

I perfectly understand this now.

However, another question is, are those activities making life more expensive in Ireland? Also, how much real value are they adding, compared to the effort and sacrifice that people have to put in order to pay for those services?

A lot of people are complaining about the price of these services, so I wonder if there is a way to strike a fairer balance.

I can't understand your points. Do you want likes of doctors working for €20 an hour?

spank_inferno

Part of the Troikas job in Ireland was the wholesale reform of the "professionals" industries.

For nearly 3 years the government blanked them completely..... They werent interested in any reforms.

Several troika reports mentioned it.

The media wouldnt pick up on it.

johnnyskeleton

spank_inferno wrote: »

Part of the Troikas job in Ireland was the wholesale reform of the "professionals" industries.

For nearly 3 years the government blanked them completely..... They werent interested in any reforms.

Several troika reports mentioned it.

The media wouldnt pick up on it.

I don't think it is as simple as that. When the troika came in, the "we are not the social partners" met and decided what they were going to do. The public sector were in croake park and so couldn't be touched. Instead, it was suggested that the professions could be a good scapegoat.

The competition authority on the legal professions anyway introduced a series of recommendations. Some of these were factually incorrect, others had been implemented before, at the time of or just after the report. The changes that did not take place didn't come in because opinion was divided on whether they would increase competition.

The troika came in and lazily said "implement the competition authority and that will sort out the professions" but implementing the report means different things to different people.

Hence, the whole thing is stalled and we have this bizzare situation where the conversation usually goes as follows:

Joe: Damn lawyers/accountants/doctors with their anti competitive prices.
Billy: Why do you say that?
Joe: Because the troika says they haven't introduced the competition authority recommendations, therefore they must be anti-competitive.
Billy: Can you give me an example of this anti-competitive behaviour?
Joe: Not implementing the competition authority report is anti-competitive
Billy: But how exactly will the recommendations increase competitition?
Joe: Because they are the competition authority, stupid.

ad nausem.

Bottom line, if you don't like the price a lawyer/accountant/doctor charges you have two choices - go to a different lawyer/accountant/doctor or figure it out yourself. As an aside, the majority of people who complain about professionals complain that the individuals make too much money, not that what they are doing is in itself anti-competitive or that their individual prices are not competitive. It's typical Irish begrudery only on a state level

Rightwing

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think it is as simple as that. When the troika came in, the "we are not the social partners" met and decided what they were going to do. The public sector were in croake park and so couldn't be touched. Instead, it was suggested that the professions could be a good scapegoat.

The competition authority on the legal professions anyway introduced a series of recommendations. Some of these were factually incorrect, others had been implemented before, at the time of or just after the report. The changes that did not take place didn't come in because opinion was divided on whether they would increase competition.

The troika came in and lazily said "implement the competition authority and that will sort out the professions" but implementing the report means different things to different people.

Hence, the whole thing is stalled and we have this bizzare situation where the conversation usually goes as follows:

Joe: Damn lawyers/accountants/doctors with their anti competitive prices.
Billy: Why do you say that?
Joe: Because the troika says they haven't introduced the competition authority recommendations, therefore they must be anti-competitive.
Billy: Can you give me an example of this anti-competitive behaviour?
Joe: Not implementing the competition authority report is anti-competitive
Billy: But how exactly will the recommendations increase competitition?
Joe: Because they are the competition authority, stupid.

ad nausem.

Bottom line, if you don't like the price a lawyer/accountant/doctor charges you have two choices - go to a different lawyer/accountant/doctor or figure it out yourself. As an aside, the majority of people who complain about professionals complain that the individuals make too much money, not that what they are doing is in itself anti-competitive or that their individual prices are not competitive. It's typical Irish begrudery only on a state level

This is a very knowledgeable post apart from the last line.

The troika are correct in determining that a doctor's fees here are more expensive here than in Germany, but they also know, or should know, that insurance protection schemes ,rents etc are a lot more expensive too.

The real problem in the country is the massive waste in the civil service. Jobs that provide little to no value to society. Half of them could probably be let go, and the only difference we'd notice is less traffic on the road. Unfortunately, the only way to solve the problem is not replace them when they retire on massive pensions.

johnnyskeleton

Rightwing wrote: »

This is a very knowledgeable post apart from the last line.

The troika are correct in determining that a doctor's fees here are more expensive here than in Germany, but they also know, or should know, that insurance protection schemes ,rents etc are a lot more expensive too.

The real problem in the country is the massive waste in the civil service. Jobs that provide little to no value to society. Half of them could probably be let go, and the only difference we'd notice is less traffic on the road. Unfortunately, the only way to solve the problem is not replace them when they retire on massive pensions.

Sorry, to be clear, pointing out how services could be delivered more cheaply is normal discussion on increasing competition. What we have is people saying doctors/lawyers/accounts make too much money and we should pass laws so that they make less, regardless of whether it reduces or increases the price. The latter is more prevalent at the moment but that is begrudgery. If a doctor makes a million euro a year by providing gp services at half the price of other doctors I salute that man. But most irish people when they talk about the professions would complain about that doctor but not the one who charges twice as much but doesn't earn as much.

Rightwing

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Sorry, to be clear, pointing out how services could be delivered more cheaply is normal discussion on increasing competition. What we have is people saying doctors/lawyers/accounts make too much money and we should pass laws so that they make less, regardless of whether it reduces or increases the price. The latter is more prevalent at the moment but that is begrudgery. If a doctor makes a million euro a year by providing gp services at half the price of other doctors I salute that man. But most irish people when they talk about the professions would complain about that doctor but not the one who charges twice as much but doesn't earn as much.

I'm not sure it's begrudgery, a lot of punters posting don't seem to understand that concept. The services we should be concerned about are the services we receive from Government. That's what I thought this thread was about until I had to wade through it. So maybe we should be looking at are the government paying the doctors too much via medical cards etc. Should a consultant be private or public, not both.

You Suck!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Bottom line, if you don't like the price a lawyer/accountant/doctor charges you have two choices - go to a different lawyer/accountant/doctor or figure it out yourself.

Free market, fair enough if that exists. But in this case, you have to buy the services of a fully functional Solicitor, i.e. You can't go for a cheaper rate with a conveyance specialist or other smaller operators who rather than practice full general expertise offer smaller more cost effective specialist services.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As an aside, the majority of people who complain about professionals complain that the individuals make too much money, not that what they are doing is in itself anti-competitive or that their individual prices are not competitive. It's typical Irish begrudery only on a state level

Or you get hung on the costs of a service that is overpriced comparable to other countries. There are valid reasons for this price as peculiar to Ireland unfortunately, but in some ways it is unnecessary. A high part of a solicitors cost is now in part of the success of liability cases which in turn is owed to the skill with which the legal profession has capitalized on this part of the law. It is a fair point that the legal profession doesn't legislate, but in this case, it is the customer who is bearing the brunt of the costs placing legal representation out of reach of many for cases that don't qualify for free legal aid(feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that).

I'm not so sure open market models apply to the Irish context with regard to Law.

creedp

Rightwing wrote: »

The services we should be concerned about are the services we receive from Government. That's what I thought this thread was about until I had to wade through it.

I know its a real sickner isn't it .. a thread that doesn't critisize public services

Rightwing

creedp wrote: »

I know its a real sickner isn't it .. a thread that doesn't critisize public services

Not criticize them, but question the value for money.

Geuze

Excessively high commercial rents are another business cost that must fall, but can't due to UORR laws.

Example: Quinn's pub in Drumcondra, Dublin, renting for 30,000 pm, when it should more likely be 3,000 pm.

Sleepy

I really can't see how an industry that's controlled by an institution which can reject an application to sit their examinations without explanation or refund of application fee, can be in any way described as a "free market" when those examinations are a requirement to operating in that industry.

I have no problem with Kings Inns or the Law Society acting as a lobbying body for their respective members but all education and certification of legal professionals should be taken out of their hands and handled by the state whether by direct provision or via out-sourcing to private sector educational institutions.

Scortho

Sleepy wrote: »

I really can't see how an industry that's controlled by an institution which can reject an application to sit their examinations without explanation or refund of application fee, can be in any way described as a "free market" when those examinations are a requirement to operating in that industry.

I have no problem with Kings Inns or the Law Society acting as a lobbying body for their respective members but all education and certification of legal professionals should be taken out of their hands and handled by the state whether by direct provision or via out-sourcing to private sector educational institutions.

I agree. The same should be done with the law society as was done with the PSI. At least that way, you should have transparency.

chopper6

creedp wrote: »

I know its a real sickner isn't it .. a thread that doesn't critisize public services

No...he does his best:

The real problem in the country is the massive waste in the civil service. Jobs that provide little to no value to society. Half of them could probably be let go, and the only difference we'd notice is less traffic on the road. Unfortunately, the only way to solve the problem is not replace them when they retire on massive pensions.

experiMental

Rightwing wrote: »

I can't understand your points. Do you want likes of doctors working for €20 an hour?

Not at all, but I'm making a point that if no single person could afford the cost of a doctor or a lawyer, those professionals would go out of business, right?

I didn't really target doctors, because medicine is a separate category. It is expensive because we are very complex and it's difficult to repair people. It's much easier to repair problems with the legal system, especially with over 3000 years of accumulated human knowledge and computing power.

Excessively high commercial rents are another business cost that must fall, but can't due to UORR laws.

Post update Property rents have an inflated price because the government needs a way to make money from somewhere!

Scortho

experiMental wrote: »

Not at all, but I'm making a point that if no single person could afford the cost of a doctor or a lawyer, those professionals would go out of business, right?

If no one at the current price could afford a solicitor the price would fall to a level where the solicitor gets work.
That's the way it works.
Also depends on the solicitor. A newly registered solicitor isn't going to be able to charge the same amount as a high profile one.

johnnyskeleton

You Suck! wrote: »

Free market, fair enough if that exists. But in this case, you have to buy the services of a fully functional Solicitor, i.e. You can't go for a cheaper rate with a conveyance specialist or other smaller operators who rather than practice full general expertise offer smaller more cost effective specialist services.

I'm not convinced that a specialised conveyancer who, presumably, has done a law degree, an apprenticeship and professional qualification much like a solicitor, and who has office, staff and insurance costs much like a solicitor (conveyancing is the big problem with solicitors insurance) will be able to offer the same service at a cheaper rate. If it were possible, why aren't more cut price conveyancing only solicitors setting up? Instead we have a lot of unemployed solicitors, and little conveyancing work. Also, cheaper conveyancing has often proved to be a false economy.

Or you get hung on the costs of a service that is overpriced comparable to other countries. There are valid reasons for this price as peculiar to Ireland unfortunately, but in some ways it is unnecessary.

Are legal fees more expensive than in the us or uk?

it is the customer who is bearing the brunt of the costs placing legal representation out of reach of many for cases that don't qualify for free legal aid(feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that).

Most people who can't afford a solicitor up front will usually get someone to act for then, provided they have a reasonably good case. Legal fees being too high is usually the reason why we don't have people suing mcdonalds for making them fat (yet!). I have yet to see a convincing argument that anyone can't afford representation who has a good case. The closest to it is the small company that has to employ lawyers to defend a spurious case brought by an impecunious litigant in person.

I'm not so sure open market models apply to the Irish context with regard to Law.

I think it's the least worst option to be honest.

johnnyskeleton

Sleepy wrote: »

I really can't see how an industry that's controlled by an institution which can reject an application to sit their examinations without explanation or refund of application fee, can be in any way described as a "free market" when those examinations are a requirement to operating in that industry.

I have no problem with Kings Inns or the Law Society acting as a lobbying body for their respective members but all education and certification of legal professionals should be taken out of their hands and handled by the state whether by direct provision or via out-sourcing to private sector educational institutions.

Again, are there specific examples of this? Can you cite a situation where either of those bodies refused to allow someone to sit their exams because of an unfair barrier to entry? Even if it was done by the state, there is no reason to believe that the state wouldn't look after it's own, weeding out , for example, liberal potential lawyers who would challenge the government?

It's amazing that people who normally wouldn't trust the state to provide them with free cheese at Christmas want the state to control entry and regulation of the legal industries out of a vague fear of lawyers.

Think about this, it's not lawyers bodies who are one of the biggest litigants before the courts - it is the state. And you would rather, god forbid you got in trouble of some kind, trust the state to decide who can or can't represent you over bodies that have existed, mostly independently, for hundreds of years?

You Suck!

Legal fees being too high is usually the reason why we don't have people suing mcdonalds for making them fat (yet!).

You're not serious? That's hardly a rational reason on any level and you know it. This completely undermines the free market arguments you were just making.

). I have yet to see a convincing argument that anyone can't afford representation who has a good case. The closest to it is the small company that has to employ lawyers to defend a spurious case brought by an impecunious litigant in person.

And that would be what I'm getting at, small companies are taking the brunt, even small solicitors. On one hand you talk about competitiveness of the free market, and on the other we have the costs of liability disabling competitiveness in the market.

I'm not really in to arguing this for the sake of arguing it rather I'd like to see any proactive solutions that help reduce the cost of opening a businesses doors in the morning including solicitors. If we're to use free market mantra, then we really need to ask why costs are so high in our supposedly competitive market.

Going back to your McDonalds example....we could just make it so the litigant is covered by state insurance and can't sue McDonalds on a personal liability basis in the first place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation