4 ms·
There's no market need for these absurd legal employment classifications. Let people contract with other, and stop creating elaborate arbitrary categorizations
by alex_m 11y ago
There's no market need for these absurd legal employment classifications. Let people contract with other, and stop creating elaborate arbitrary categorizations as a means of applying complex taxes and regulations.
- hmahncke 11y agoIn all of these situations, one of the "people" is an abstract legal entity already operating under the protection of a set of legal codes that provide advantages to the actual (human) people who set it up. It seems reasonable that as part of those codes, they work with/employ actual "people" (humans :-) in specific ways.
- untog 11y agoThat's a lovely, idealistic premise. But one half of this negotiation has considerably more power than the other, and many would argue the less powerful side needs to have certain rights protected.
- ryandvm 11y agoNo, that's the beauty of dissolving these long term employment relationships. You don't need protections from your abusive employer because you can very easily find a better employer.
- untog 11y agoSo these changed employment relationships guarantee employment for every citizen in the US? Interesting concept.
- ryandvm 11y agoNope. A fluid labor market means just means that contracts and labor have a much easier time finding each other. I'm not particularly interested in guaranteeing employment for anyone, let alone everyone.
- untog 11y agoA fluid labor market means just means that contracts and labor have a much easier time finding each other. But why is that preferable for labor, compared to having a reliable job? People have bills, mortgages, etc - a "fluid labor market" is not in their favor.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> You don't need protections from your abusive employer because you can very easily find a better employer. You are assuming that employment in a given industry is not a monopsony (or an oligopsony of similarly-abusive employers.) But every company wants to be a monopsony just as much as it wants to be a monopoly, for largely the same reasons, and the same forces that are behind the changed employment relations are also driving the formation of large, single market players that are forcing out large networks of smaller employers.
- littletimmy 11y agoYes, but only if we can tax corporations heavily and use that to provide a floor on living standards for workers. If we don't do that, we will have to provide a floor some other way, which for a lot of people is regulation.