4 ms·
Employers need employees. They won't go out of business rather than just hiring some full time people, unless the numbers say they have to. > The fundamental p
by aanm1988 10y ago
Employers need employees. They won't go out of business rather than just hiring some full time people, unless the numbers say they have to.
> The fundamental problem is that employment law tries to treat the employer as a nasty exploiter
Because they are, almost inevitably, if left unchecked.
- gozur88 10y agoEmployers do need employees, but anything that raises the cost of employing someone is going to result in more outsourcing and more automation.
- ptaipale 10y agoOr simply deadweight loss: the work is not done, the business does not exist, the social welfare function is lost.
- candiodari 10y agoSure but what would this actually apply to ? I get that deliveroo and maybe uber would be out of business, but for instance supermarkets wouldn't be. Is slightly more convenience for the rich (if you use uber and deliveroo, that means you) worth allowing exploitation of the poor ? If so, how much ?
- sokoloff 10y agoWay more people use Uber than just "the rich". Do only "the rich" use taxicabs? Uber is generally cheaper than a cab, so if middle class uses cabs (and overwhelmingly has smart phones), why wouldn't they also use Uber?
- gozur88 10y agoSometimes it's about bringing comfort and convenience to people who aren't rich. Rich people don't need Uber. Also, poor people generally would rather be "exploited" and employed than on the dole.
- literallycancer 10y agoBut maybe they like being employed with favorable regulations even better?
- ptaipale 10y agoSure, but perfect is the enemy of good.