2 ms·

I've seen other comments mention this, but it's really hard to make the case for paying a wage laborer to not show up. Even if he's sick. Can't do janitorial

by mises 8y ago

I've seen other comments mention this, but it's really hard to make the case for paying a wage laborer to not show up. Even if he's sick. Can't do janitorial work from home. And such labor is highly fungible: very high turnover, easy replacement, little training, lots of firing/hiring. If you don't show up, you get replaced, mostly because your company now has to hire someone else to do the job and has no reason to keep paying you. Let's not forget that every time we pass stronger "labor laws" (e.g. higher minimum wage), we do see job loss, decreased hours, second jobs. A paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that the costs to low-income workers outweighed the benefits by about three to one. Telling McDonalds it must pay people to stay home will almost certainly just accelerate the pace of automation.

davidgay 8y ago
> I've seen other comments mention this, but it's really hard to make the case for paying a wage laborer to not show up. Even if he's sick. The concept you're looking for is "insurance". It solves the problem here (for the employer, for the employee, for the other employees, for society as a whole).
- mises 8y ago
  Insurance in this case is silly. The premise of insurance is to protect against financial catastrophe, which is why it is carried for things like a possible half-million dollar medical bill, house burning down, etc. Another core tenet of insurance is that the event against which it protects is not certain (or even likely, typically) to occur. Though this has been somewhat perverted with medical these days ("I want coverage for my $200/mo prescription"), it's still the basic idea. American workers take about 5 sick days per year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/682924/sick-leave-days-among-adults-us-by-age/); https://www.statista.com/statistics/682924/sick-leave-days-a... that's not an uncertainty. And because sick days are limited, insurance doesn't make sense: businesses offer as many sick days as they are able and willing to fund; any more they just don't cover. In summary, there's no "catastrophic situation" here, it's just a serious expense many can't or wont cover.

by mises 8y ago

davidgay 8y ago

> I've seen other comments mention this, but it's really hard to make the case for paying a wage laborer to not show up. Even if he's sick. The concept you're looking for is "insurance". It solves the problem here (for the employer, for the employee, for the other employees, for society as a whole).

mises 8y ago
Insurance in this case is silly. The premise of insurance is to protect against financial catastrophe, which is why it is carried for things like a possible half-million dollar medical bill, house burning down, etc. Another core tenet of insurance is that the event against which it protects is not certain (or even likely, typically) to occur. Though this has been somewhat perverted with medical these days ("I want coverage for my $200/mo prescription"), it's still the basic idea. American workers take about 5 sick days per year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/682924/sick-leave-days-among-adults-us-by-age/); https://www.statista.com/statistics/682924/sick-leave-days-a... that's not an uncertainty. And because sick days are limited, insurance doesn't make sense: businesses offer as many sick days as they are able and willing to fund; any more they just don't cover. In summary, there's no "catastrophic situation" here, it's just a serious expense many can't or wont cover.