4 ms·
> Wasn't that the bill the encouraged employers to only hire people without dependents, because more dependents = more benefits, which the bill does not adjust
by csdreamer7 8y ago
> Wasn't that the bill the encouraged employers to only hire people without dependents, because more dependents = more benefits, which the bill does not adjust for at all?
Employers already have incentive to not hire people with dependents. The media criticizes tech companies for having a young male workforce all the time for this. They feel hungry young men without social attachment will work harder and longer for them and keep their health care costs low.
If an employer feels incentive to discriminate in favor of those without dependents because of this law, they likely already were.
Also this bill only applied to large employers, those with severe market power over labor and markets that really can afford to pay more and are in the best position to exploit welfare benefits.
- ars 8y agoSo since they already have incentive to not hire people with dependents you ... want to make it worse?? Am I missing something? > If an employer feels incentive to discriminate in favor of those without dependents because of this law, they likely already were. Except now the inventive is MUCH greater. Before it was some nebulous "they'll work harder", but with this bill it's cold hard cash, and potentially a lot of it. > Also this bill only applied to large employers, those with severe market power over labor and markets that really can afford to pay more That doesn't make it better, that makes it worse. That means that the largest portion of the labor force is now closed to people with a lot of kids. > and are in the best position to exploit welfare benefits. Meaning they are able to lobby lawmakers to reduce benefits, so that their taxes from this bill go down? I have a feeling you don't understand just how bad this bill is.