4 ms·
> But the general answer to that question is "Yes, it is very profitable to upend employment law for the profit of the few, on the backs of the many." Demand i
by zeveb 11y ago
> But the general answer to that question is "Yes, it is very profitable to upend employment law for the profit of the few, on the backs of the many."
Demand is not constant, but adjusts in response to price. Would a low-income worker rather be a zero-income worker, because no-one is willing to have him work for the wages your regulations demand?
- kefka 11y agoAll jobs have lulls and busy times. But what this comes down to is that employment law costs money. How much? Between $7000-$10000 per employee. It's a no-brainer to cut out employment law and make the choice between "work crappy consultant job or don't work at all", that is, if you can sustain it. Homejoy couldn't, because of gross mismanagement and eventual reclassification by the IRS. The ultimate goal is to remove all human labor from the market. UBER already came out with that statement: they want to automate their fleet as soon as possible. It's also the trend of every company to reduce labor, increase automated work, lower wages, and increase profits. Damned be the employees/consultants/1099's/hoi polloi. Why am I against "Sharing economy"? I'm not. What I'm against is "What are we going to do with 50% unemployment?" Republicans can't even contemplate science, and are busy bickering about climate change. Democrats have only a basic view of 'workers good, companies bad', except when they are being funded. But still, the question remains is "How do we transition to an economy that can handle massive unemployment with a great deal of goods and profit being made?" (Source: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The%20Impact%20of%20Regulatory%20Costs%20on%20Small%20Firms%20%28Full%29.pdf https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The%20Impact%20of%20... PDF page 13, paper page 7)