3 ms·

I've always thought this was really obvious. Benefits tied to employment will stifle entrepreneurs who aren't already well off. This tips the scales towards th

I've always thought this was really obvious. Benefits tied to employment will stifle entrepreneurs who aren't already well off. This tips the scales towards the largest employers for labor, how many low paid internships could be replaced by high risk startups? Before anyone has had a chance to accumulate to many obligations, that is the perfect time to grow by taking a risk and going after something disruptive. That also would be the time in which many have the energy and optimism to do good rather than for greed or meeting obligations such as feeding/housing a family of four.

Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Wasn't it the labor movement that tied many of these benefits to employers? Pretty sure at least employer paid (and now, semi-paid) health insurance was won due to organized labor demanding it. At the time it was likely the right thing to do but now it does seem to create an extra entanglement.
- pravda 7y ago
  >Wasn't it the labor movement that tied many of these benefits to employers? No, it was WWII that did it.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    It started during WWII due to government restrictions on what could be paid, but was extended to be an obligation under full-time employment via organized labor movement.
    - heymijo 7y ago
      Not just organized labor. > This didn’t stop President Truman from considering and promoting a national health care system in 1945. This idea had a fair amount of public support, but business, in the form of the Chamber of Commerce, opposed it. So did the American Hospital Association and American Medical Association. Even many unions did, having spent so much political capital fighting for insurance benefits for their members. Confronted by such opposition from all sides, national health insurance failed — for not the first or last time. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-the-us-has-employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-th...
- astura 7y ago
  Probably because group plans are/were strictly better and cheaper than individual plans (especially pre-ACA).
Data_Junkie 7y ago
That's why the healthcare system is what it is. You cannot do it your way without their doctors.

Mountain_Skies 7y ago

Wasn't it the labor movement that tied many of these benefits to employers? Pretty sure at least employer paid (and now, semi-paid) health insurance was won due to organized labor demanding it. At the time it was likely the right thing to do but now it does seem to create an extra entanglement.

pravda 7y ago
>Wasn't it the labor movement that tied many of these benefits to employers? No, it was WWII that did it.
- malandrew 7y ago
  It started during WWII due to government restrictions on what could be paid, but was extended to be an obligation under full-time employment via organized labor movement.
  - heymijo 7y ago
    Not just organized labor. > This didn’t stop President Truman from considering and promoting a national health care system in 1945. This idea had a fair amount of public support, but business, in the form of the Chamber of Commerce, opposed it. So did the American Hospital Association and American Medical Association. Even many unions did, having spent so much political capital fighting for insurance benefits for their members. Confronted by such opposition from all sides, national health insurance failed — for not the first or last time. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-the-us-has-employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-th...
astura 7y ago
Probably because group plans are/were strictly better and cheaper than individual plans (especially pre-ACA).

Data_Junkie 7y ago

That's why the healthcare system is what it is. You cannot do it your way without their doctors.