9 ms·
> “We find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category,” said Krueger. “And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of indepen
by csours 9y ago
> “We find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category,” said Krueger. “And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.”
So, not exactly temp workers, but contract workers who require less overhead and are easy to fire.
- jstanley 9y agoPeople talk like this is a bad thing, but I don't get it. If working for your employer became a negative ROI, you'd quit your job. If employing somebody becomes a negative ROI, I don't see why it shouldn't be equally easy to stop employing them. As long as the relationship is mutually beneficial, neither party will terminate it.
- Danihan 9y agoIt's a bad thing that the demographics of the US are now such that this has happened... that most employee / employer relationships are no longer mutually beneficial.
- lmm 9y agoMost employers can adapt to the loss of a single worker much more easily than a worker can adapt to losing their job. And much of our social safety net currently operates via employers - things like pensions, maternity leave, healthcare, and even unemployment are tightly coupled to the single-long-term-employer model. Maybe they shouldn't be, but fixing that will take time and in the meantime people will slip through the cracks.
- killjoywashere 9y agoWe're stuffing people into cracks and making new cracks to stuff them in.
- pjc50 9y agoThe employee is usually in a much more precarious situation, and usually more concerned with cashflow than ROI.
- arebop 9y agoIt's bad because the overwhelming majority of people don't enjoy the process of finding a new job and cannot afford to spend time finding new work. I think a lot of the talk is also due to unhappiness with the economic trend that is drawing the median and minimum incomes closer together, which is a reversal of a trend that gave widespread optimism and contentment.
- kmm 9y agoBecause of the massive imbalance of power between employer and employee. Which is why employment protection is a lot stronger in every other developed country than the US.
- dvdhnt 9y agoMost people can’t just quit their job, they have monthly recurring bills that must be paid. Those of us that work in tech are quite fortunate to have realistic alternatives. However, even many of us are restricted due to location, and before it’s mentioned, yeah we could move but we have families with children in school and spouses who have non tech careers. Moving is expensive. The employment system in the US, especially in states like mine, ensure that employers have persistent power over employees under the guise of “right to work”.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago>The employment system in the US, especially in states like mine, ensure that employers have persistent power over employees under the guise of “right to work”. I think you mean "at-will employment". All American states have that. "Right to work" laws refer to laws banning union contracts from creating "closed shops".
- dvdhnt 9y agoYep, I did mean "at-will". Thank you!
- jeffdavis 9y agoWorkers are usually more efficient when they concentrate on one job full time. But that leaves them exposed to any disruption of that one job. Also, many employers expect contractors to be always available, or available full time for long stretches, but that makes it impossible to diversify their income. So it can become very one-sided. A possible answer would be to make it normal for employees to have contracts with several employers at once, but that can create conflicts of interest in a lot of professions, and would make things like IP very messy.
- s73ver_ 9y agoBecause we don't like looking at people as purely numbers. Especially when those people are dependent upon their job to be able to pay rent and buy food.
- notsohugedeal22 9y agoExactly why we need universal healthcare in the US It’s something every worker should be fighting tooth and nail for It would go a long way to breaking up the neoliberal corporate hegemony Sadly, and regardless of education and political leanings, Americans seem in love with a fictional account of the countries history. That it was all great 50 yrs ago without universal healthcare (when they were kids and not really paying attention) so of course it’s just fine to keep it that way. I encounter people of all ages and backgrounds with that notion kicking about, every day. Having lived and traveled the world, Americans are unique in their ignorance that the world was just as corrupt a generation ago. Now let’s go watch some TVLand and chill
- Crontab 9y ago> Exactly why we need universal healthcare in the US I agree but the political will to do it is just not there. Not yet, anyway.
- leggomylibro 9y agoWe need more than universal healthcare; we need straight-up universal care. The idea should be that periods of unemployment or uncertainty are not terrifying gray areas for an average person. If people felt comfortable that they would have support for finding better pastures from a shitty job, they'd be more likely to seek them. If they felt more confident that they had prospects after a layoff, they'd be more likely to look for alternate employment instead of sitting around in an abandoned factory town as it rots to the ground around them. I think it comes down to the fact that risk-taking cannot be a luxury, if we want the United States to remain a competitive and dynamic society. "Party of jobs?" How about a party for workers? After all, as many conservatives will happily tell you, true value comes from the heads, the hearts, and the hands of individuals. Why are we giving so much free stuff to Big Jobernment?
- Aloha 9y agoWe need guaranteed minimum income, its the most freedom enhancing way of solving these problems. Give people cash, give them financial literacy training, the rest ought to work out okay.
- goodoldboys 9y agoPretty much. I fit into this category and my anecdotal experience tells me that hiring managers favor contractors for that reason as well as the fact that the money to pay them sometimes is listed as a different line-item on the budget. I think the combination of the two helps as well - when looking at a large contractor line-item, knowing that it can be scaled back with less headache than a Full Time Employee (FTE) makes it easier to stomach I think. If you're comfortable with hustling for work when the time comes, then contracting can be a much better arrangement. I work from home, basically whenever I want, and I make more money than I would as a FTE (even when factoring in the outrageous cost of health insurance these days). The biggest thing I think is the mental shift. As a FTE, there's a stronger sense of job security. But really, layoffs happen all the time and as a FTE I feel like I'd be less prepared to find another job, whereas being a contractor means I have to constantly be thinking about the future. Pick your poison I guess.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- walshemj 9y agoIts not well paid IT contractors its all the minimum wage disguised employment "gig" jobs that is where the growth is.
- armenarmen 9y agoYeah, and these gigs aren't the best thing around for sure. But I wonder where people would be without them, you know? Would it be huge unemployment? Or would conventional employees be the result?
- anonymous5133 9y agoReally depends. If you think about uber then without uber or similar services then people would use taxis. The taxi drivers would get paid more due to having monopolies in most cities and fares would be outrageous. Most of the gig type companies are able to offer lower prices to consumers at the expense of workers. Also important to note is that uber and lyft sell their gigs as just side income, not a full time job so I think people have been fair warned that uber is not sufficient to support yourself.
- bryan11 9y agoHas the increasing cost of health insurance motivated employers to start using more contract workers?
- thaumaturgy 9y agoEmployers have been operating without any sense of social responsibility since long before health care became a part of the national conversation. You could entirely remove any obligation of providing health insurance from all employers, and they'd still replace payrolled employees with contract workers if it saved them a buck.
- downrightmike 9y agoIf it saved them a cent.
- lazerpants 9y agoProbably. Do employers pay payroll tax on independent contractors? Those two items together make FTEs really expensive.
- anonymous5133 9y agoThere is no requirement to withhold taxes on independent contractors. The independent contractor is fully liable for all payroll obligations. If you are a direct employee then the employer will pay half of your payroll tax (7.5%). If you are an independent contractor then you pay the full tax of 15%. However, independent contractors are not without risk because the independent contractor is suppose to operate fully independent without your supervision. If you violate certain guidelines then you have to classify the worker as an employee which entitles them to certain rights.
- prklmn 9y agoPotentially. But now more than ever, companies with little to no revenue growth don't know how to boost earnings aside from cutting costs.
- 9y ago
- Crontab 9y agoThat is why the US government itself likes contractors - it allows them to avoid dealing with the Civil Service.
- ThomPete 9y agoYup. I have been saying this for a couple of years now and which is why I am a firm believer that automation and digitalization are some of the biggest challenges for society although I am a proponent of both.