> That's part of the Under-employed crisis in the US. Let's imagine, again, the wishes of the progressive forces came true and the part-time jobs are banned fo

> That's part of the Under-employed crisis in the US. Let's imagine, again, the wishes of the progressive forces came true and the part-time jobs are banned forever, together with gigs and side jobs and contracting and interning and whatever it is that is not 100% full-time fixed steady job - all other ways to get employment is verboten. Would you think people that are now working part-time jobs would be better or worse off? If, say, someone is a mother working part-time because she needs time to take care of the kid (and she doesn't mind giving up vacation time for being able to actually spend time with the kid when she needs it) - would she better off losing the part-time job or being required to work full-time and hire a full-time (remember, no part-time jobs anymore!) nanny or give the child to the mass-warehousing facility for kids while she is working? Would the person who has a side gig because his main job does not provide enough income be better off losing that gig? Would we be better off is we solve the crisis by destroying the part-time employment?