4 ms·
>Your distinctions between [...] a contractor and an employee, are arbitrary legal definitions. They aren't economic ones. I would argue that not only are thes
by EthanHeilman 9y ago
>Your distinctions between [...] a contractor and an employee, are arbitrary legal definitions. They aren't economic ones.
I would argue that not only are these definitions not arbitrary but they meaningfully reflect the differences in the relationship across legal, ethical and economic spheres based on the length and type of the business relationship. For instance there are very meaningful legal, economic and ethical differences in responsibilities for the seller and the buyer when leasing a house (long term) vs booking of a hotel room (short term).
- skookumchuck 9y agoIsn't it tautological to claim that legal definitions are not arbitrary because of legal spheres? As to ethics, people often invent ethics that coincidentally benefit themselves. I'm talking about economic definitions.
- skookumchuck 9y agoI thought a bit more about your ethics argument. If you agree to provide X labor for Y $, and later say you are "ethically" entitled to Y*2, how is that ethical? Ethically, you should stick to what you agreed upon.
- EthanHeilman 9y agoThe ethics are about how you construct laws around employment based on the sorts of employment relationships the society considers just or ethical. For instance in many states there are regulations around workplace safety. Given the power differential between the employer and employed and general human stupidity it is understood that there are certain limitations that must be placed on an employer to protect the employed. This similar to how society recognizes certain obvious limitations to transactions such as purchasing food, medicine or the construction of Opera houses.
- skookumchuck 9y agoHow does that fit in with a worker not keeping his word about what he is to be paid?