4 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. The concept you're
by 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 agoInsurance 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.